'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower
RT,
4
November, 2012
The
FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members
of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an
interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this
information against anyone.
Binney,
one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of
the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no
longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the
Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive
surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'
This
year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that
recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American
values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.
RT:
In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused
on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real
scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the
surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of
his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence.
It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America.
Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as
privacy in a surveillance state?
William
Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite
some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is
basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the
FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the
surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes,
this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever
reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go
in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into
their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years,
and we analyze it all.
So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.
So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.
RT:
And it’s not just about those, who could be planning, who could be
a threat to national security, but also those, who could be just…
WB:
It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line,
so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process
the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot
the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does
it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they're building Buffdale [database
facility], because they have to have more storage, because they can’t
figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything
there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but
right now stored in different places around the country. But it is
being collected – and the FBI has access to it.
RT:
You mean it’s being collected in bulk without even requesting
providers?
WB:
Yes.
RT:
Then what about Google, you know, releasing this biannual
transparency report and saying that the government’s demands for
personal data is at an all-time high and for all of those requesting
the US, Google says they complied with the government’s demands 90
percent of the time. But they are still saying that they are making
the request, it’s not like it’s all being funneled into that
storage. What do you say to that?
WB:
I would assume that it’s just simply another source for the same
data they are already collecting. My line is in declarations in a
court about the 18-T facility in San Francisco, that documented the
NSA room inside that AST&T facility, where they had Naris devices
to collect data off the fiber optic lines inside the United States.
So, that’s kind of a powerful device, that would collect everything
it was being sent. It could collect on the order over of 100 billion
1,000-character emails a day. One device.
RT:
You say they sift through billions of e-mails. I wonder how do they
prioritize? How do they filter it?
WB:
I don’t think they are filtering it. They are just storing it. I
think it’s just a matter of selecting when they want it. So, if
they want to target you, they would take your attributes, go into
that database and pull out all your data.
RT:
Were you on the target list?
WB:
Oh, sure! I believe I’ve been on it for quite a few years. So I
keep telling them everything I think of them in my email. So that
when they want to read it they’ll understand what I think of them.
RT:
Do you think we all should leave messages for the NSA mail box?
WB:
Sure!
RT:
You blew the whistle on the agency when George W. Bush was the
president. With President Obama in office, in your opinion, has
anything changed at the agency, in the surveillance program? In what
direction is this administration moving?
WB:
The change is it’s getting worse. They are doing more. He is
supporting the building of the Buffdale facility, which is over two
billion dollars they are spending on storage room for data. That
means that they are collecting a lot more now and need more storage
for it. That facility by my calculations that I submitted to the
court for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation against NSA would hold
on the order of 5 zettabytes of data. Just that current storage
capacity is being advertised on the web that you can buy. And that’s
not talking about what they have in the near future.
RT:
What are they going to do with all of that? Ok, they are storing
something. Why should anybody be concerned?
WB:
If you ever get on the enemies list, like Petraeus did or… for
whatever reason, than you can be drained into that surveillance.
RT:
Do you think they would… General Petraeus, who was idolized by the
same administration? Or General Allen?
WB:
There are certainly some questions, that have to be asked, like why
would they target it to begin with? What law were they breaking?
RT:
In case of General Petraeus one would argue that there could have
been security breaches. Something like that. But with General Allen
– I don’t quite understand, because when they were looking into
his private emails to this woman.
WB:
That’s the whole point. I am not sure what the internal politics
is… That’s part of the program. This government doesn’t want
things in the public. It’s not a transparent government. Whatever
the reason or the motivation was, I don’t really know, but I
certainly think that there was something going on in the background
that made them target those fellows. Otherwise why would they be
doing it? There is no crime there.
RT:
It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the
government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and
those who say, 'I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What
do you say to those who think that it shouldnt concern them.
WB:
The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s
wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does,
the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or
not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if
they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on
something is against what the administration has, then they could
easily become a target.
RT:
Tell me about the most outrageous thing that you came across during
your work at the NSA.
WB:
The violations of the constitution and any number of laws that
existed at the time. That was the part that I could not be associated
with. That’s why I left. They were building social networks on who
is communicating and with whom inside this country. So that the
entire social network of everybody, of every US citizen was being
compiled overtime. So, they are taking from one company alone roughly
320 million records a day. That’s probably accumulated probably
close to 20 trillion over the years.
The
original program that we put together to handle this to be able to
identify terrorists anywhere in the world and alert anyone that they
were in jeopardy. We would have been able to do that by encrypting
everybody’s communications except those who were targets. So, in
essence you would protect their identities and the information about
them until you could develop probable cause, and once you showed your
probable cause, then you could do a decrypt and target them. And we
could do that and isolate those people all alone. It wasn’t a
problem at all. There was no difficulty in that.
RT:
It sounds very difficult and very complicated. Easier to take
everything in and…
WB:
No. It’s easier to use the graphing techniques, if you will, for
the relationships for the world to filter out data, so that you don’t
have to handle all that data. And it doesn’t burden you with a lot
more information to look at, than you really need to solve the
problem.
RT:
Do you think that the agency doesn’t have the filters now?
WB:
No.
RT:
You have received the Callaway award for civic courage.
Congratulations! On the website and in the press release it says: “It
is awarded to those, who stand out for constitutional rights and
American values at great risk to their personal or professional
lives.” Under the code of spy ethics – I don’t know if there is
such a thing – your former colleagues, they probably look upon you
as a traitor. How do you look back at them?
WB:
That’s pretty easy. They are violating the foundation of this
entire country. Why this entire government was formed? It’s founded
with the Constitution and the rights were given to the people in the
country under that Constitution. They are in violation of that. And
under executive order 13526, section 1.7 – you can not classify
information to just cover up a crime, which this is, and that was
signed by President Obama. Also President Bush signed it earlier as
an executive order, a very similar one. If any of this comes into
Supreme Court and they rule it unconstitutional, then the entire
house of cards of the government falls.
RT:
What are the chances of that? What are the odds?
WB:
The government is doing the best they can to try to keep it out of
court. And, of course, we are trying to do the best we can to get
into court. So, we decided it deserves a ruling from the Supreme
Court. Ultimately the court is supposed to protect the Constitution.
All these people in the government take an oath to defend the
Constitution. And they are not living up to the oath of office.
Britain's
so-called "snooper's charter" bill is heating up debates
among MPs as parliamentary reports on it are being prepared. The
bill's initiator has just released an emotional verbal offensive
against the opponents, equaling them to criminals
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.