Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel By MARK MAZZETTI <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html> and CARL HULSE <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html>
WASHINGTON — An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program. The report by the agency’s inspector general also found that C.I.A. officers read the emails of the Senate investigators and sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information, according to a summary of findings made public on Thursday. One official with knowledge of the report’s conclusions said the investigation also discovered that the officers created a false online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by the committee staff. Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-2> Related Coverage - Web Use to Be Unmonitored for CongressJULY 25, 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/us/politics/web-use-to-be-unmonitored-for-congress.html> - document Summary of Inspector General ReportJULY 31, 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/01/world/01cia-inspector-general-summary.html> - [image: A military base in Stare Kiejkuty, Poland, which was a suspected location for the C.I.A.’s detentions and interrogations.] Ex-Chief of C.I.A. Shapes Response to Detention ReportJULY 25, 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/world/george-tenet-ex-chief-of-cia-is-set-to-defend-actions-on-interrogation-program.html> - [image: Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee.] Conflict Erupts in Public Rebuke on C.I.A. InquiryMARCH 11, 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/cia-accused-of-illegally-searching-computers-used-by-senate-committee.html> - [image: Senator Dianne Feinstein with Leon E. Panetta in January 2009, before he became director of Central Intelligence.] Behind Clash Between C.I.A. and Congress, a Secret Report on InterrogationsMARCH 7, 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/politics/behind-clash-between-cia-and-congress-a-secret-report-on-interrogations.html> The inspector general’s account of how the C.I.A. secretly monitored a congressional committee charged with supervising its activities touched off angry criticism from members of the Senate and amounted to vindication for Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s Democratic chairwoman, who excoriated the C.I.A. in March when the agency’s monitoring of committee investigators became public. Photo John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, apologized to two senators in connection with the penetration of a computer network. Credit Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press A statement issued Thursday morning by a C.I.A. spokesman said that John O. Brennan, the agency’s director, had apologized to Ms. Feinstein and the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and would set up an internal accountability board to review the issue. The statement said that the board, which will be led by a former Democratic senator, Evan Bayh of Indiana, could recommend “potential disciplinary measures” and “steps to address systemic issues.” But anger among lawmakers grew throughout the day. Leaving a nearly three-hour briefing about the report in a Senate conference room, members of both parties called for the C.I.A. officers to be held accountable, and some said they had lost confidence in Mr. Brennan’s leadership. “This is a serious situation and there are serious violations,” said Mr. Chambliss, generally a staunch ally of the intelligence community. He called for the C.I.A. employees to be “dealt with very harshly.” Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado and another member of the Intelligence Committee, demanded Mr. Brennan’s resignation. “The C.I.A. unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into the Senate Intelligence Committee computers,” he said in a written statement. “This grave misconduct not only is illegal but it violates the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of separation of powers. “These offenses, along with other errors in judgment by some at the C.I.A., demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences,” he added. Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-4> Featured Comment Jim R. California The separation of powers implications behind this are staggering. I'm a big supporter of the intelligence community and its very difficult job, but this is u-g-l-y, and the punishments severe. - 691 Comments Committee Democrats have spent more than five years working on a report about the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program during the Bush administration, which employed brutal interrogation methods like waterboarding. Parts of that report, which concluded that the techniques yielded little valuable information and that C.I.A. officials consistently misled the White House and Congress about the efficacy of the techniques, are expected to be made public some time this month. Committee Republicans withdrew from the investigation, saying that it was a partisan smear and without credibility because it was based solely on documents and that there were no plans to interview C.I.A. officers who ran the program. Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-5> According to David B. Buckley, the C.I.A. inspector general, three of the agency’s information technology officers and two of its lawyers “improperly accessed or caused access” to a computer network designated for members of the committee’s staff working on the report to sift through millions of documents at a C.I.A. site in Northern Virginia. The names of those involved are unavailable because the full report has not yet been made public. The C.I.A. officials penetrated the computer network when they came to suspect that the committee’s staff had gained unauthorized access to an internal C.I.A. review of the detention program that the spy agency never intended to give to Congress. A C.I.A. lawyer then referred the agency’s suspicions to the Justice Department to determine whether the committee staff broke the law when it obtained that document. The inspector general report said that there was no “factual basis” for this referral, which the Justice Department has declined to investigate, because the lawyer had been provided inaccurate information. The report said that the three information technology officers “demonstrated a lack of candor about their activities” during interviews with the inspector general. The dispute brought relations between the spy agency and lawmakers to a new low, as the two sides traded a host of accusations — from computer hacking to violating constitutional principles of separation of powers. At a tense meeting earlier this week in which Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Chambliss were briefed by Mr. Brennan on the report, Ms. Feinstein confronted Mr. Brennan over his past public statements on the issue, in which he defended the agency’s actions, and his implicit criticism of her. When the C.I.A.’s monitoring of the committee became public in March, after months of private meetings and growing bitterness, Ms. Feinstein took to the Senate floor to deliver a blistering speech accusing the agency of infringing on the committee’s role as overseer. Calling it a “defining moment” in the committee’s history, Ms. Feinstein said that how the matter was resolved “will show whether the Intelligence Committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation’s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee.” Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-7> Recent Comments jdower 1 August 2014 Once again, the CIA points to 'fear' instead of 'freedom' as their motivating factor. Dave 1 August 2014 I find two amazing things in this story. One, that the CIA - which has no legal authority to spy within the US - decides to spy on a... Rob Polhemus 1 August 2014 It's important to use the right terms to highlight the despicable actions of the CIA. That Brennan is still there, that the CIA passed out... - See All Comments Hours later, Mr. Brennan was publicly questioned about the dispute and said that “when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.” Mr. Brennan said at the time that he had referred the matter to the agency’s inspector general “to make sure that he was able to look honestly and objectively at what the C.I.A. did.” The White House publicly defended Mr. Brennan on Thursday, saying he had taken “responsible steps” to address the behavior of C.I.A. employees, which he said included suggesting an investigation, accepting its results and appointing an accountability board. Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-8> Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-8> Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=2#story-continues-8> Asked whether the results of the investigation presented a credibility issue for Mr. Brennan, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said, “Not at all.” Crediting Mr. Brennan with playing an “instrumental role” in helping the United States government destroy Al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr. Earnest said, “He is somebody who has a very difficult job, who does that job extraordinarily well.” Ms. Feinstein called Mr. Brennan’s apology and decision to set up an accountability board “positive first steps,” and said the inspector general report “corrects the record.” A separate investigation, led by the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms, has yet to be completed. But others took a much harder line. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, called the C.I.A.’s actions “appalling.” Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent, said that the spy agency’s actions violated both the spirit and the letter of the constitutional separation of powers. As he put it: “How do we do our oversight if we can’t believe what is being represented to us in our committee?” On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 6:25:57 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/29/fbi-powers-hacking-computers-surveillance > > > FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance > > Agency requests rule change but civil liberties groups say ‘extremely > invasive’ technique amounts to unconstitutional power grab > > [image: A protest against government surveillance in Washington DC] > > A protest against government surveillance in Washington DC. Civil > liberties groups denounced the FBI’s move as ‘brazen and potentially > dangerous’. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov/Barcroft Media > > Ed Pilkington <http://www.theguardian.com/profile/edpilkington> in New > York > > Wednesday 29 October 2014 > > The FBI <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/fbi> is attempting to > persuade an obscure regulatory body in Washington to change its rules of > engagement in order to seize significant new powers to hack into and carry > out surveillance of computers throughout the US and around the world. > > Civil liberties groups warn that the proposed rule change amounts to a > power grab by the agency that would ride roughshod over strict limits to > searches and seizures laid out under the fourth amendment of the US > constitution, as well as violate first amendment privacy rights. They have > protested that the FBI is seeking to transform its cyber capabilities with > minimal public debate and with no congressional oversight. > > The regulatory body > <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1348429-fbi-committee-hearing.html> > to which the Department of Justice has applied to make the rule change, the > advisory committee on criminal rules, will meet for the first time on > November 5 to discuss the issue. The panel will be addressed by a slew of > technology experts and privacy advocates concerned about the possible > ramifications were the proposals allowed to go into effect next year. > > “This is a giant step forward for the FBI’s operational capabilities, > without any consideration of the policy implications. To be seeking these > powers at a time of heightened international concern about US surveillance > is an especially brazen and potentially dangerous move,” said Ahmed > Ghappour, an expert in computer law at University of California, Hastings > college of the law, who will be addressing next week’s hearing. > > The proposed operating changes related to rule 41 of the federal rules of > criminal procedure, the terms under which the FBI is allowed to conduct > searches under court-approved warrants. Under existing wording, warrants > have to be highly focused on specific locations where suspected criminal > activity is occurring and approved by judges located in that same district. > > But under the proposed amendment > <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1347875-fbi-proposed-amendment-rule-41-1.html>, > > a judge can issue a warrant that would allow the FBI to hack into any > computer, no matter where it is located. The change is designed > specifically to help federal investigators carry out surveillance on > computers that have been “anonymized” – that is, their location has been > hidden using tools such as Tor. > > The amendment inserts a clause that would allow a judge to issue warrants > to gain “remote access” to computers “located within or outside that > district” (emphasis added) in cases in which the “district where the media > or information is located has been concealed through technological means”. > The expanded powers to stray across district boundaries would apply to any > criminal investigation, not just to terrorist cases as at present. > > Were the amendment to be granted by the regulatory committee, the FBI > would have the green light to unleash its capabilities – known as “network > investigative techniques” – on computers across America and beyond. The > techniques involve clandestinely installing malicious software, or malware, > onto a computer that in turn allows federal agents effectively to control > the machine, downloading all its digital contents, switching its camera or > microphone on or off, and even taking over other computers in its network. > > “This is an extremely invasive technique,” said Chris Soghoian, principal > technologist of the American Civil Liberties Union, who will also be > addressing the hearing > <https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_comments_on_rule_41.pdf>. > > “We are talking here about giving the FBI the green light to hack into any > computer in the country or around the world.” > > A glimpse into the kinds of operations that could multiply under the new > powers was gained this week when Soghoian discovered from documents > obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that in 2007 the FBI had faked > an Associated Press story > <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/fbi-hacking-press-internet-users> > > as a ruse to insert malware into the computer of a US-based bomb plot > suspect. The revelation prompted angry responses from the AP and from the > Seattle Times > <http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024888170_fbinewspaper1xml.html>, > whose name was also invoked in the documents, though the FBI said it had > not in the end imitated the newspaper. > > Civil liberties and privacy groups are particularly alarmed that the FBI > is seeking such a huge step up in its capabilities through such an > apparently backdoor route. Soghoian said of next week’s meeting: “This > should not be the first public forum for discussion of an issue of this > magnitude.” > > Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at the Stanford center for > internet and society, said that “this is an investigative technique that we > haven’t seen before and we haven’t thrashed out the implications. It > absolutely should not be done through a rule change – it has to be fully > debated publicly, and Congress must be involved.” > > Ghappour has also highlighted > <http://justsecurity.org/15018/justice-department-proposal-massive-expand-fbi-extraterritorial-surveillance/> > > the potential fall-out internationally were the amendment to be approved. > Under current rules, there are no fourth amendment restrictions to US > government surveillance activities in other countries as the US > constitution only applies to domestic territory. > > However, the US government does accept that it should only carry out > clandestine searches abroad where the fourth amendment’s “basic requirement > of reasonableness” applies. In a letter > <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1347871-fbi-proposed-rule-change.html#document/p5/a184605> > > setting out its case for the rule 41 reform, the department of justice > states that new warrants issued to authorise FBI hacking into computers > whose location was unknown would “support the reasonableness of the search”. > > Ghappour fears that such a statement amounts to “possibly the broadest > expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI’s > inception”. He told the Guardian that “for the first time the courts will > be asked to issue warrants allowing searches outside the country”. > > He warned that the diplomatic consequences could be serious, with > short-term FBI investigations undermining the long-term international > relationship building of the US state department. “In the age of cyber > attacks, this sort of thing can scale up pretty quickly.” > > Another insight into the expansive thrust of US government thinking in > terms of its cyber ambitions was gleaned recently > <http://%20http/www.wired.com/2014/10/feds-silk-road-hack-legal/> in the > prosecution of Ross Ulbricht, the alleged founder of the billion-dollar > drug site the Silk Road. Experts suspect that the FBI hacked into the Silk > Road server, that was located in Reykjavik, Iceland, though the agency > denies that. > > In recent legal argument, US prosecutors claimed that even if they had > hacked into the server without a warrant, it would have been justified as > “a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which > a warrant was not necessary”. > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc2VqanZyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MTUwNTUzNDQ-> > > > - New Members > > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZnFtb3FyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDE1MDU1MzQ0> > > 1 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbWc5amloBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQxNTA1NTM0NA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
