The NSA watches you poop.

Not long after Osama Bin Laden was killed by Seal Team Six in his Pakistan compound, rumors began to circulate about the leader of Al-Qaeda having an extensive video stash of pornography.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released much of bin Laden?s library files and books on May 20, but declined to release the stash, if it existed, citing the nature of the content. David Covucci, a blogger for the men?s website BroBible, decided to send a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CIA to see what the world?s most wanted man watched (and did) in his spare time. ?We are adults. We can handle it,? Covucci wrote:

We at the men?s general interest publication BroBible dot com (one of the nation?s largest websites for men), would like to know what pornographic materials Osama Bin Laden had in his possession at the time of his death.

We are adults. We can handle it. We would like to know what kind of porn the world?s most wanted man jerked it to. Does being under the constant threat of capture require extra stimulation? I imagine it would be hard for him to focus on his dick, so I figure he had to watch some really nasty shit.

On Monday, he received a response denying his request, saying that the porn is part of the ?operational files? recovered from the compound. The response also included a citation of a federal law prohibiting the government ?from mailing obscene matter?:

With regard to the pornographic material Osama Bin Laden had in his possession at the time of his death, responsive records, should they exist, would be contained in the operational files. The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA. To the extent that this material exists, the CIA would be prohibited by 18 USC Section 1461 from mailing obscene matter.

Covucci was less than pleased with the response, but gave the CIA credit for using an actual statute in order to deny the request.

You can see full text of the CIA?s response here:

Click to expand...

The documents describe how the NSA's working relationship with AT&T has been particularly important, enabling the agency to conduct surveillance, under various legal rules, of international and foreign-to-foreign Internet communications that passed through network hubs in the United States.

AT&T installed surveillance equipment in at least 17 of its U.S. Internet hubs, far more than competitor Verizon Communications Inc , the Times reported. AT&T engineers also were the first to use new surveillance technologies invented by the NSA, the Times reported.

"This is a partnership, not a contractual relationship," according to one NSA document describing the link between the agency and the company.

AT&T's "corporate relationships provide unique accesses to other telecoms and I.S.P.s," or Internet service providers, according to another NSA document.

Click to expand...

AT&T started in 2011 to provide the NSA more than 1.1 billion domestic cellphone calling records daily after "a push to get this flow operational prior to the 10th anniversary of 9/11," referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the Times reported

Click to expand...

AT&T installed surveillance equipment in at least 17 of its U.S. Internet hubs, far more than competitor Verizon Communications Inc , the Times reported.AT&T engineers also were the first to use new surveillance technologies invented by the NSA, the Times reported

Click to expand...

Malakriss_sl said:

I hope you didn't think they weren't looking at traffic coming in from overseas, but I am worried by the fact that AT&T seems to disproportionally own those connection points rather than a competent organization.

Click to expand...

The bill is expected to propose compelling companies to hold "internet connection records" for 12 months so they can be requested by authorities. The bill also makes it illegal for companies to hold any records on Muslims because they are being unfairly targeted simply because they are raping little girls and goats and such in certain areas in Britain.

Click to expand...

Obama puts down his encrypted phone long enough to tell us: Knock it off with the encryption
Back doors, skeleton keys, just make it happen, nerds

11 Mar 2016 at 23:30, Chris Williams

SXSWAmid the row between Apple and the FBI over the unlocking of a mass murderer's iPhone, President Barack Obama has told the tech world to suck it up and do what the Feds want.

Speaking today at hipster-circle-jerk SXSW in Austin, Texas, the United States' Commander in Chief said phones and computers cannot be unbreakable "black boxes," and that an "absolutist" view on encryption won't fly with the laws and courts of the land.

Of course, the President and his staff, his military, his government agencies and his intelligence services all rely on tough and non-compromised encryption - but that's not for you. You're too busy "fetishizing" your smartphone, the leader of the free world said.

Obama, nearing the end of his presidency and appearing relaxed sans necktie, decided to drop his earlier touchy-feely approach of finding a compromise between prosecutors and technology giants, and instead put his foot down.

Here are the highlights of his SXSW chat:

• People put up with body searches and scanners by the TSA at airports, which obviously thwarts terrorism, so why can't people put up with a little less security in their phones?
• Actual quote: "Everybody's walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket. So there has to be some concession for the need to get into that information."
• "If your argument is strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should create black boxes, that, I think, does not strike the kind of balance we have lived with for 200 or 300 years, and it's fetishizing our phones above every other value."
• "If there is probable cause to think that you have abducted a child, or that you are engaging in a terrorist plot, or you are guilty of some serious crime, law enforcement can appear at your doorstep and say 'I have a warrant' and go into your bedroom to rifle through your underwear and see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing.
• "The question we now have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key or no door at all. How do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?"
• "We have engaged the tech community aggressively, and my conclusion is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this."
• "The whole Snowden disclosure episode elevated people's suspicions. The Snowden issue vastly overstated the dangers to US citizens in terms of spying."
• "I am not interested in overthrowing the values that have made us a great nation for expediency. But the dangers are real, maintaining law and order in a civilized society is important, protecting our kids is important, so I'd caution against an absolutist view on this."

You can watch Obama in action in the video below - just fast forward 41 minutes to skip to the action.

Click to expand...

A while back, we noted a report showing that the ?sneak-and-peek? provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy. The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:

What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don?t need to have any ?national security? related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other ?selector? into the NSA?s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called ?national security? will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes. And we don?t have to guess who?s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It?ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra ?special? attention.
This basically formalizes what was already happening under the radar. We?ve known for a couple of years now that the Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS were getting information from the NSA. Because that information was obtained without a warrant, the agencies were instructed to engage in ?parallel construction? when explaining to courts and defense attorneys how the information had been obtained. If you think parallel construction just sounds like a bureaucratically sterilized way of saying big stinking lie, well, you wouldn?t be alone. And it certainly isn?t the only time that that national security apparatus has let law enforcement agencies benefit from policies that are supposed to be reserved for terrorism investigations in order to get around the Fourth Amendment, then instructed those law enforcement agencies to misdirect, fudge and outright lie about how they obtained incriminating information ? see the Stingray debacle. This isn?t just a few rogue agents. The lying has been a matter of policy. We?re now learning that the feds had these agreements with police agencies all over the country, affecting thousands of cases.

On the one hand, I guess it?s better that this new data-sharing policy is acknowledged in the open instead of carried out surreptitiously. On the other hand, there?s something even more ominous about the fact that they no longer feel as though they need to hide it.

It?s all another sobering reminder that any powers we grant to the federal government for the purpose of national security will inevitably be used just about everywhere else. And extraordinary powers we grant government in wartime rarely go away once the war is over. And, of course, the nifty thing for government agencies about a ?war on terrorism? is that it?s a war that will never formally end.

Click to expand...