Blackphone: a privacy-oriented, high-end, unlocked phone

[hallam]

@bwv812

For someone whose profession is in cryptography, it might help to have a basic understanding of the tools the government is deploying against you, but it’s clear you don’t understand what National Security Letters (NSLs) are. NSLs are not things typically used by the NSA (which doesn’t actually need them to perform their foreign-intelligence mandate, since amendments to the Patriot Act have ostensibly given them independent authority to them), but by the FBI. NSLs are not a component of PRISM. NSLs are about the collection of metadata, and not the actual contents of communications. Indeed, even if public key encryption is performed, metadata collection on emails would be unaffected (even if the contents were inaccessible), thus having no effect on NSL data collection. Furthermore, NSL gag orders would still be in effect, preventing the service from disclosing any monitoring.

Your version of accounts is inaccurate in several respects. NSLs are not limited to metadata for a start. If you are going to attack others for being inaccurate you need to first actually read what they wrote and second get your own facts right.

Actually PRSIM was a Lawful Intercept program run by the NSA for the FBI. It is performed under court order. I didn’t even mention PRISM. That is only one program among many.

Oh and Lawful Intercept is a technical term not a judgement on whether the order is constitutional. They obviously aren’t.

I have not read any of the private Snowden documents but I have spoken with Bruce Schneier who is on record of having done so. His take is that the NSA use every tool imaginable and then some and the individual programs and code names are a sort of shell game. Saying ‘PRISM doesn’t do X.’ is falling into a trap because even if that is true there will be another program that does.

End to End security protects content (but not metadata) from all forms of intercept; Lawful Intercept under court order, unconstitutional police orders such as NSLs and covert intercept.

[bwv812]

@hallam

Your version of accounts is inaccurate in several respects. NSLs are not limited to metadata for a start. If you are going to attack others for being inaccurate you need to first actually read what they wrote and second get your own facts right.

I read what you wrote, and you made the leap from NSLs to the NSA, when it’s really the FBI that uses NSLs. Furthermore, NSLs are indeed for metadata, and not content:

National Security Letters.

Five federal statutes, in roughly the same terms, authorize federal intelligence investigators (generally the FBI) to request that communications providers, financial institutions and credit bureaus provide certain types of customer business records, including subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and telephone usage, credit reports, and financial records.37 Unlike a section 215 production order for tangible items, a national security letter (NSL) need not receive prior approval of a judge. However, NSLs are more limited in scope compared to a section 215 order, in terms of the types of information that can be obtained. For example, NSLs cannot be used to receive “content information” — the content of a telephone communication or e-mail message is unavailable through a NSL, but a NSL could request the phone number dialed or the e-mail addresses used.

@hallam

Actually PRSIM was a Lawful Intercept program run by the NSA for the FBI. It is performed under court order. I didn’t even mention PRISM. That is only one program among many.

The NSA doesn’t run things for the FBI, and it certainly wasn’t running PRISM for the FBI. If you would like to claim otherwise, please support your claim. And what does any of this have to do with NSLs?

And you did mention PRISM, and you mentioned it in the text I quoted (what was that about reading comments, again?). I’ll quote your reference again:

@hallam

Quite a few NSA insiders agree with me that the real national security problem the US faces is the threat of PRISM etc. level attack on US and NATO infrastructure,

I interpreted this as you implying that PRISM was used to compromise emails (given the NSL context, which to you apparently means the NSA context) and that because the NSA was worried about other countries taking similar actions that they would not oppose encryption. If you simply meant that the NSA is going to refrain from taking any action simply because they also have other interests, then that’s something else entirely (that I would also disagree with).

@hallam

Oh and Lawful Intercept is a technical term not a judgement on whether the order is constitutional. They obviously aren’t.

Not that the NSA and its practices are really the subject of discussion here, but I suppose that’s why almost every court to have examined NSA surveillance thus far has found they are constitutional. Granted, most challenges have been concerning section 215 and the mass collection of metadata of US persons, and not section 702, but that’s likely because section 702 is even more clearly constitutional given that most of the program focuses on international communication.

[hallam]

@bwv812

I read what you wrote, and you made the leap from NSLs to the NSA, when it’s really the FBI that uses NSLs. Furthermore, [NSLs are indeed for metadata, and not content][1]:

I was not aware that they had restricted themselves at all. But since they are secret and can’t be effectively challenged we have no idea what they are used to obtain.

The FBI and NSA are both intelligence services and they work together. I think that is a rotten corrupt system but that is the way they work. In the US the national police force is also in charge of counter intelligence.

I spoke about the NSA in the context of my proposal to fix the usability issues in PGP and S/MIME. That is primarily an NSA concern.

@bwv812

The NSA doesn’t run things for the FBI, and it certainly wasn’t running PRISM for the FBI. If you would like to claim otherwise, please support your claim. And what does any of this have to do with NSLs?

The reports on PRISM very specifically state that the warrants are issued to the FBI but permit the NSA to actually do the data collection. I think that arrangement is corrupt as well.

@bwv812

And you did mention PRISM, and you mentioned it in the text I quoted (what was that about reading comments, again?). I’ll quote your reference again:
“Quite a few NSA insiders agree with me that the real national security problem the US faces is the threat of PRISM etc. level attack on US and NATO infrastructure,”

No, it says ‘the threat of a PRISM etc. level attack ON THE US’. First off it is describing the type of capabilities that might be employed. Secondly the ‘etc.’ clearly indicates that I was referring to all PRISM-like programs, not just one. Thirdly I don’t think even the supine US courts would permit an attack actually on the US.

@bwv812

Not that the NSA and its practices are really the subject of discussion here, but I suppose that’s why almost every court to have examined NSA surveillance thus far has found they are constitutional. Granted, most challenges have been concerning section 215 and the mass collection of metadata of US persons, and not section 702, but that’s likely because section 702 is even more clearly constitutional given that most of the program focuses on international communication.

The US courts have refused to acknowledge that torture is criminal and have refused to shut down the gulag the US military is running in Guantanamo. The Supreme Court is utterly discredited as a result of that, of blocking the vote count in 2000 and the behavior of its members. Thomas is conspicuously corrupt receiving about a million dollars a year in bribes through his wife who ‘consults’ for parties with business before his court. Scalia is a party hack. etc.

Since the court decisions are obviously based on the partisan commitments of the right wing majority I don’t give them any weight at all.

[bwv812]

@hallam

The FBI and NSA are both intelligence services and they work together. I think that is a rotten corrupt system but that is the way they work. In the US the national police force is also in charge of counter intelligence.

National police force? You mean the FBI?

Agencies have not traditionally played very well with each other. Historically the FBI hasn’t even played very well within itself, as pre-9/11 there used to be a pretty firm firewall between the law-enforcement and intelligence divisions. Sharing information doesn’t mean that one department is doing work for the other, however.[quote=“hallam, post:23, topic:19579”]
The reports on PRISM very specifically state that the warrants are issued to the FBI but permit the NSA to actually do the data collection.
[/quote]
I have not seen a report to that effect. I have seen multiple reports indicating that the NSA appeared before FISA courts in order to get warrants, however (though this was again in the Section 215 context).

@hallam

The US courts have refused to acknowledge that torture is criminal and have refused to shut down the gulag the US military is running in Guantanamo. The Supreme Court is utterly discredited as a result of that, of blocking the vote count in 2000 and the behavior of its members. Thomas is conspicuously corrupt receiving about a million dollars a year in bribes through his wife who ‘consults’ for parties with business before his court. Scalia is a party hack. etc.

Since the court decisions are obviously based on the partisan commitments of the right wing majority I don’t give them any weight at all.

There are any number of problems with what you’ve written, but the only observation I’ll make is that given what you’ve written you are perhaps too confident of your earlier-expressed belief that “politicians are likely to buy my argument,” given that you are clearly out of touch with the reality of American politics and the US legal system.

[hallam]

@bwv812

There are any number of problems with what you’ve written, but the only observation I’ll make is that given what you’ve written you are perhaps too confident of your earlier-expressed belief that “politicians are likely to buy my argument,” given that you are clearly out of touch with the reality of American politics and the US legal system.

They know that the torture has no effect on stopping terrorism and they don’t even give a damn about that anyway. If they really cared about terrorism they would pass gun control laws and fill the gulags with NRA members who refuse to give up their guns.

It is all about political convenience and self interest. It is not worthwhile to challenge the national security state to prosecute torturers or the people who gave the orders, not when the victims are unpopular, alleged to be Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Blocking Internet commerce on the other hand is another matter entirely.

[lolatorres]

It does not seem a bad idea but I think the blackphone can be used with bad intentions, and would generate many problems.
What I find wrong is that companies know absolutely everything about us, what we do, where we go, we talked, we say, we hear, we read. Could occupy the resources of “spy” on what is really needed

[bwv812]

@hallam

They know that the torture has no effect on stopping terrorism and they don’t even give a damn about that anyway. If they really cared about terrorism they would pass gun control laws and fill the gulags with NRA members who refuse to give up their guns.

It is all about political convenience and self interest. It is not worthwhile to challenge the national security state to prosecute torturers or the people who gave the orders, not when the victims are unpopular, alleged to be Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Blocking Internet commerce on the other hand is another matter entirely.

OK, so even pretending that “gulags” exist in the US and that the 2nd Amendment does not, you still haven’t gotten very far.

National security—regardless of it’s efficacy—is politically popular. Encouraging technology that makes security theater more difficult is not popular, especially when the only thing you have to offer is speculative economic gains, especially when you do not have to make the technology easy in order to realize much of those speculative gains.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that moving to a single-payer health care system would result in efficiency increases well in excess of 0.5% of GDP, yet it’s clear the political process won’t be taking us there in the near future.

[hallam]

@bwv812

OK, so even pretending that “gulags” exist in the US and that the 2nd Amendment does not, you still haven’t gotten very far.

The remaining one is in Cuba, nobody claimed it was in the US.

And that second amendment thing was added in response to concern that the federal government would ban slavery by the backdoor by prohibiting states from mounting slave patrols to catch runaways. Like the NRS that said absolutely nothing when the 1st and 4th amendments were being trashed, it has nothing to do with protecting freedom.

But regardless, torture is recognized internationally as a warcrime. That trumps any state constitution including the US federal constitution.

@bwv812

I don’t think there’s any doubt that moving to a single-payer health care system would result in efficiency increases well in excess of 0.5% of GDP, yet it’s clear the political process won’t be taking us there in the near future.

Yeah but the reason we didn’t get that in Obamacare is that under the old rules 60 votes were needed in the Senate and Joe Lieberman refused to support any bill with a public option.

The filibuster still exists for legislation in theory but will obviously go next time the house, senate and WH are held by the same party.

[cbm]

@hallam

This is Phil Zimmerman and Jon Callas doing the crypto. They are good at it. I trust them. They wrote PGP.

You really couldn’t ask for a stronger team here. The telecommunication infrastructure may be compromised by the NSA, but I bet the crypto on this phone is solid.

[bwv812]

@hallam

The remaining one is in Cuba, nobody claimed it was in the US.

You used the plural, “gulags.” You also need to look up the definition of gulag, which refers to political punishment. Are those at Guantanamo political prisoners?

@hallam

And that second amendment thing was added in response to concern that the federal government would ban slavery by the backdoor by prohibiting states from mounting slave patrols to catch runaways.

Again, you couldn’t be more wrong. Article IV of the Constitution already contains clauses on delivering fugitives and runaway slaves.

@hallam

But regardless, torture is recognized internationally as a warcrime. That trumps any state constitution including the US federal constitution.

OK, feel free to charge any and all US officials you feel are responsible for torture in international courts. If you’re interpreting this as a matter of international law, you can’t blame the US for inaction.

Notwithstanding the irrelevance and substantive stupidity of the above, it’s also a horrible way to argue that this somehow explains why the US political system would support encrypted email.

@hallam

Yeah but the reason we didn’t get that in Obamacare is that under the old rules 60 votes were needed in the Senate and Joe Lieberman refused to support any bill with a public option.

You mean there were political objection to things that would almost certainly have economic benefits? Gasp. I’m sure that means that nobody would object to the speculative economic gains you propose, though.