Revealed: How Microsoft Handed The NSA Access To Encrypted Messages - GuardianUK

[WillyT]

Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
• Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism
• Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch
• Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls
• Company says it is legally compelled to comply
Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe - guardian.co.uk
Thursday 11 July 2013 13.53 EDT

<snip>

Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.

The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.

The documents show that:

• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;

• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;

• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;

• Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;

• Skype, which was bought by Microsoft in October 2011, worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video of conversations as well as audio;

• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport".

The latest NSA revelations further expose the tensions between Silicon Valley and the Obama administration. All the major tech firms are lobbying the government to allow them to disclose more fully the extent and nature of their co-operation with the NSA to meet their customers' privacy concerns. Privately, tech executives are at pains to distance themselves from claims of collaboration and teamwork given by the NSA documents, and insist the process is driven by legal compulsion.

In a statement, Microsoft said:

<snip>

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

[Catherina]

1. Your Privacy Is Our Concern lol! LMAO!

[snappyturtle]

2. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft had said

no to the government's request. ????

[cascadiance]

3. Perhaps former FISA court case chief justice Colleen Kollar-Kotelly would reverse her appeals ruling

... for them that she gave that overturned Microsoft's anti-trust ruling back in 2002 right before she was put on the FISA court, or find some other judge that would do so... I'm wondering if this "cooperation" was part of a "deal" then that got them off the hook for having to be split up then.

[snappyturtle]

5. My mouth is hanging open! I didn't know...well

there's a lot I don't know. Thank you for this tid-bit!

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. I read the whole article Twice and my mouth is still open...

esp. the part where Microsoft and NSA/FBI tested the spying functionality of new services BEFORE Microsoft made them publicly available.

I am SO glad I do not do Windows and other Mircorsoft products any more.

[KoKo]

7. +1

[reusrename]

10. +1 nt

[closeupready]

12. +1. First thought that crossed my mind.

[Catherina]

14. Ugh. All this transparency is making my head spin n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. I read where Twitter drags their feet more than any other provider.

I like that attitude, although considering the NSA's "persuasion techniques" I wouldn't rely on it.

[randome]

4. I'm sure we all agree that law enforcement should never try to unencrypt emails.

Missing from the story is when a warrant is required. It mentions when warrants are not required -when targeting foreign communicants.

But it doesn't ask the basic question of when a warrant is required. Which, from everything we've seen and heard, is when a communicant is in America.

Another one-sided article from the Guardian. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Because that's what they want.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

9. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess

LOL is better just for my over all well-being.

Do you think we'll ever know when a warrant *is* required from the rubber stamping secret FISA court? We'll never know the who, what, where, when or why of such a warrant which may be the reason the Guardian can't address it. There's no tranparency so I assume we just have to trust them.

[randome]

11. The Guardian should have asked NSA the question.

Then published that they did not respond. That's what all other responsible journalists do. The 'no comment' or 'did not respond before this article went to print' is standard fare and the reader can make up his or her own mind.

But you're right, there is little enough transparency in this entire process. That doesn't mean I'll let myself be led by the nose into a perspective that doesn't address all the facts.

Didn't Microsoft recently release -or request permission to release- the numbers of warrants they have been served?

They should be allowed to tell us if they haven't already. And we need more transparency.

And the FISA court is not a rubber-stamping court. As was testified to recently, many warrants are rejected, sent back for revisions and then resubmitted. That's why the bulk of them get approved.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

18. A bulk of them are approved because the Justice Department

isn't taking "No" as an answer. There's no oversight. Frankly, we know little about the process. Read this article printed yesterday from 'Mother Jones'....Feinstein et. al. tried to get some info but the Fisa court mumbo jumboed her that it's intertwined with too much classified stuff. She was asking for general info...less the classified...of course.

Here's four paragraphs of it...go to link for more. See what you think.

"The FISA system is broken," Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Journal. "At the point that a FISA judge can compel the disclosure of millions of phone records of US citizens engaged in only domestic communications, unrelated to the collection of foreign intelligence…there is no longer meaningful judicial review."

But according to Timothy Edgar, a top privacy lawyer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Council under Bush and Obama, it's not quite as simple as the FISC rubber stamping nearly every application the government puts in front of it.


The reason so many orders are approved, he said, is that the Justice Department office that manages the process vets the applications rigorously... [S]o getting the order approved by the Justice Department lawyers is perhaps the biggest hurdle to approval. "The culture of that office is very reluctant to get a denial," he [told the Journal].

Still, the entire process is closed. The FISC court hears evidence for surveillance applications presented solely by the Department of Justice. The court does not have to release its opinions or any information regarding such hearings.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request

[randome]

20. Fix the system. Throw it out. I'm fine with either scenario.

But for the Guardian to imply there is something nefarious going on with law enforcement agencies working to unencrypt emails -without giving us information to fill in the blanks about warrants- strikes me as dishonest journalism.

Of course law enforcement has the capability of unencrypting emails. That's how they catch the real bad guys. Now are they doing it to also spy on anyone that strikes their fancy? I don't see any evidence of that so far.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

21. I don't think they're coming after us but rather using us.

My fear is that all the collection of data can be used to destroy or manipulate our future political (elected) choices. There's the rub....to me anyway. Hey....thanks for your time and input. It's why I love DU.

[reusrename]

26. They don't get the content from Microsoft.

NSA is tapped into the backbone of the internet. They record everything digital. The metadata warrants are so they can match the calls/emails to people. To read the content they just look in their own NSA database. No need to get anything more from the telecoms.

I cannot believe the basics have not been explained to you yet. What are you all doing?

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. I'm wondering about the major firewall companies,

if they have given NSA back doors too. I'm guessing yes, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet.

I did see where TOR users have been specifically targeted for extra surveiling, which is really bullshit. I guess us DuckDuckGo searchers can expect to be viewed as suspicious characters as well. Anybody who doesn't want "the man" (as we used to say) watching their every moment of life is defined as a potential criminal now.

It's funny, I almost set up cloud storage but a vague thought about this kind of thing stopped me. Glad I didn't do it now. Not that I have anything worth looking at, but NSA doesn't seem to care about that, it's the principle. I'll bet awareness of this will be costing some companies a lot of money. I saw where a Swiss cloud company, which claims to be private, has had a big increase in customers (not that I'd trust that either, really).

Thanks for the great job you're doing on this subject, Willie T! K&R

[reusrename]

13. I know they use third party vendors.

They absolutely do have direct access. Sometimes they don't contract directly with the providers for it.

There are security contractors that provide the direct access.

http://www.subsentio.com/service-providers/electronic-surveillance-standards/


That way the telecoms still enjoy their not-so-plausible deniability.

In the industry it's referred to as "safe harbor" or "lawful compliance."

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. Thank you!

I remember now reading that, but I didn't connect it with my question before.

[reusrename]

28. The whole story is sort of like a connect-the-dots puzzle.

I've always been pretty good at puzzles so I'm actually getting a pretty firm grasp on the policy.

The whole direct access question is one thing that trips people up, and then there's the other question of individual warrants being required in order read individual emails or listen to individual phone conversations.

Remember that Snowden claims he could access this stuff immediately, on his own authority.




They are basically robosigners.

This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

[woo me with science]

16. Only metadata my ass.

Let's be clear. They have no fucking right to sweep up metadata en masse. Collecting just metadata is an unconscionable invasion of privacy and the actions of a nascent police state.

But they are sweeping up *everything.* They can access the content of your calls, your video, your chats. They are photographing your snail mail. And, no. Rubber stamped kangaroo court warrants to access it *after the fact* don't change the fact that they have no right to take it in the first place.

People need to go to prison for this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[temmer]

17. mmmh...this smells of class action lawsuits...

[Catherina]

24. LOTS of talk about that in Europe right now

I'll be joining one too.

[Luminous Animal]

19. Kick.

[WillyT]

23. Why Thank You !!!

[WillyT]

25. Kick !!!

:kick:

[littlewolf]

27. why do we get this from the UK and not US media

[chimpymustgo]

29. Heard a brief discussion on CBS This Morning. It was presented as legal, and matter of fact.

(Former) G-man John Miller calmly explained - nothing to see here, move along.