- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 20, 2020, 10:05 AMJournalist Barton Gellman, who had access to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, discusses the NSA's FIRSTFRUITS program in an article titled, "Since I Met Edward Snowden, I've Never Stopped Watching My Back" published in The Atlantic. Excerpt:
Quotehttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/edward-snowden-operation-firstfruits/610573/?utm_term=2020-05-18T20%25253A37%25253A08&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic
The first time I heard the name FIRSTFRUITS, years before the Snowden leak, a confidential source told me to search for it on the internet. All I turned up were ravings on blogs about spooky plots. The George W. Bush administration, according to these accounts, had an off-the-books spying program akin to the work of the East German Stasi. FIRSTFRUITS allegedly listened in on journalists, political dissenters, members of Congress, and other threats to the globalist order. In some versions of the story, the program marked its victims for arrest or assassination. As best I could tell, these stories all traced back to a series of posts by a man named Wayne Madsen, who has aptly been described as "a paranoid conspiracy theorist in the tradition of Alex Jones." I did a little bit of reading in these fever swamps and concluded that FIRSTFRUITS was a crank's dark fantasy.
Then came the day I found my name in the Snowden archive. Sixteen documents, including the one that talked about me, named FIRSTFRUITS as a counterintelligence database that tracked unauthorized disclosures in the news media. According to top-secret briefing materials prepared by Joseph J. Brand, a senior NSA official who was also among the leading advocates of a crackdown on leaks, FIRSTFRUITS got its name from the phrase the fruits of our labor. "Adversaries know more about SIGINT sources & methods today than ever before," Brand wrote. Some damaging disclosures came from the U.S. government's own official communications, he noted; other secrets were acquired by foreign spies. But "most often," Brand wrote, "these disclosures occur through the media." He listed four "flagrant media leakers": the Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Times. The FIRSTFRUITS project aimed to "drastically reduce significant losses of collection capability" at journalists' hands.
In NSA parlance, exposure of a source or method of surveillance is a "cryptologic insecurity." If exposure leads to loss of intelligence collection, that is "impairment." I was fully prepared to believe that some leaks cause impairment, but Brand's accounting—like many of the government's public assertions—left something to be desired.
By far the most frequent accusation invoked in debates about whether journalists cause "impairment" to the U.S. government is that it was journalists' fault that the U.S. lost access to Osama bin Laden's satellite-phone communications in the late 1990s. It is hard to overstate the centrality of this episode to the intelligence community's lore about the news media. The accusation, as best as I can ascertain, was first made publicly in 2002 by then–White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. After a newspaper reported that the NSA could listen to Osama bin Laden on his satellite phone, as Fleischer put it, the al‑Qaeda leader abandoned the device. President Bush and a long line of other officials reprised this assertion in the years to come.
But the tale of the busted satellite-phone surveillance is almost certainly untrue. The story in question said nothing about U.S. eavesdropping. And one day before it was published, the United States launched barrages of cruise missiles against al‑Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan, including a facility that bin Laden had recently visited. After this, bin Laden went deep underground, forswearing electronic communications that might give his location away. Blaming a news story for this development, rather than a close miss on bin Laden's life, strained all logic. Yet somehow it became an article of faith in the intelligence community.
In 2001, according to Brand's NSA documents, the agency "stood up" a staff of leak trackers, and the CIA director hired a contractor "to build [a] foreign knowledge database"—FIRSTFRUITS. One of its major purposes was to feed information about harmful news stories to the "Attorney General task force to investigate media leaks."
The FIRSTFRUITS project produced 49 "crime reports to DOJ," three of them involving me. The FBI, in turn, was left with a conundrum. What crime, exactly, was it being asked to investigate? Congress has never passed a law that squarely addresses unauthorized disclosures to reporters by public officials. The United States has no counterpart to the United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act. Government employees sign a pledge to protect classified information; if they break that pledge, they can lose their security clearance or their job. Those are civil penalties. When it comes to criminal law, they may be subject to charges of theft or unlawful possession of government property. The nearest analogy in the law, however, and the charge most commonly prosecuted in such cases, is espionage.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 21, 2014, 03:14 PMIn October 2013, I wrote on the AntiPolygraph.org blog about an e-mail that I received from a U.S. navy petty officer in August of that year relating that during a recent DoD polygraph, he had been presented with logs of the websites that he had visited the night before on his personal computer, in his personal home, using his personal Internet service provider. The logs showed that he had visited AntiPolygraph.org, and they went about trying to discredit this website. I took that report (along with additional information from NSA whistleblower Russ Tice) seriously, and it's why there are warnings on the home page and on this message board suggesting that visitors use the Tor Browser Bundle when visiting this site.
Last night, Glenn Greenwald, the journalist to whom NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden entrusted a large cache of NSA documents detailing the vast system of mass suspicionless surveillance that the NSA has erected in the dark, was in Amsterdam to give a talk about his new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. I found the book both fascinating and compelling, and I recommend it to all, including our friends in the polygraph community.
I was one of a fortunate few who were able to ask a question during Greenwald's presentation, and I took the opportunity to mention the communication I had received from the Navy petty officer and to ask Greenwald whether he thought that kind of thing is plausible. While he did not directly answer that question, his comments clearly indicated that yes, it is plausible. He intimated that his future reporting will show that the NSA targets activists, civil rights leaders, and foreign policy critics.
Greenwald's entire Amsterdam presentation has been posted to YouTube. The following link jumps to my question and Greenwald's reply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ihRjmFcGxjE#t=4745
Last night, Glenn Greenwald, the journalist to whom NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden entrusted a large cache of NSA documents detailing the vast system of mass suspicionless surveillance that the NSA has erected in the dark, was in Amsterdam to give a talk about his new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. I found the book both fascinating and compelling, and I recommend it to all, including our friends in the polygraph community.
I was one of a fortunate few who were able to ask a question during Greenwald's presentation, and I took the opportunity to mention the communication I had received from the Navy petty officer and to ask Greenwald whether he thought that kind of thing is plausible. While he did not directly answer that question, his comments clearly indicated that yes, it is plausible. He intimated that his future reporting will show that the NSA targets activists, civil rights leaders, and foreign policy critics.
Greenwald's entire Amsterdam presentation has been posted to YouTube. The following link jumps to my question and Greenwald's reply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ihRjmFcGxjE#t=4745
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 23, 2009, 01:01 AMNew York Times? They lost their credibility with me a long time ago. If you want the real "dope" you have to read "Hustler"!
It's all politics. If Obama did it, they'd find a way to cover for him! Just like they will find a handy excuse for him when he FAILS to pull the troops out of Iraq.
They covered him pretty well during the election campaign. We will find out soon enough what this lack of vetting will be mean for the country.
But I don't want to get political!
TC
P.S. I forget which of our founding fathers said it, maybe TJ. But it was words to the effect that any politician even , in his most angelic form is but a "necessary evil", in his worse form a "curse". The less government and politicians effect us, what ever their ilk, the better! The best any politician can do is pick our pocket and try to control us!
Joke: What is the difference between a prostitute and a politician?
Ans: Well, they both take our money and screw us in the end, but at least with a prostitute, we get our rocks off!!
It's all politics. If Obama did it, they'd find a way to cover for him! Just like they will find a handy excuse for him when he FAILS to pull the troops out of Iraq.
They covered him pretty well during the election campaign. We will find out soon enough what this lack of vetting will be mean for the country.
But I don't want to get political!
TC
P.S. I forget which of our founding fathers said it, maybe TJ. But it was words to the effect that any politician even , in his most angelic form is but a "necessary evil", in his worse form a "curse". The less government and politicians effect us, what ever their ilk, the better! The best any politician can do is pick our pocket and try to control us!
Joke: What is the difference between a prostitute and a politician?
Ans: Well, they both take our money and screw us in the end, but at least with a prostitute, we get our rocks off!!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 22, 2009, 11:53 PMHere is the second part of Keith Olbermann's interview of Russ Tice, in which it is revealed that the NSA also collected credit card records of American citizens. Olbermann also speaks with New York Times reporter James Risen, who was the subject of government surveillance:
http://216.87.173.33/media/2009/0901/msnbc_ko_tice_part2_090122a.flv
A text summary is available on RawStory.com.
http://216.87.173.33/media/2009/0901/msnbc_ko_tice_part2_090122a.flv
A text summary is available on RawStory.com.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 22, 2009, 09:47 PMGentlemen,
Even paranoids have real enemies. Welcome to EVE, HAL's ugly stepsister. How close to the truth you are. So close we better not mention it here.
Regards.
Even paranoids have real enemies. Welcome to EVE, HAL's ugly stepsister. How close to the truth you are. So close we better not mention it here.
Regards.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 22, 2009, 08:42 PMI said as a side bar, since they were talking about illegally collecting on US citizens.
From what I have read about Echelon (and I had nothing to do with it when I worked in the SIGINT community, and only know what I know from what I've read on the web) the NSA would collect on UK citizens (which would be illegal for the NSA SIGINT counterpart in the UK ?GCHQ?), then share the info with the UK government. GCHQ, in turn, spied on americans and shared the info with the NSA. This so as to not violate USSID 18. The net effect was as if the NSA had actually spied on Americans.
As for the specific targeting individuals (journalists, funeral directors, gay florists...etc). Echelon may not have specifically targeted individuals, and was just a computer driven system of collection receivers...etc. as you said, but who knows how analysts could have sifted through the data once collected by the system. Via meta tags...etc. Again, UK on US citizens, US on UK citizens, with the two working together.
Do you think OBAMA will make any changes as to polygraph policy within the federal government? That's the million dollar question.
My point is they can get around this stuff, and have for years. Under all administrations going way back. As for the Oberman piece, your average viewer (say my mom) would have come away thinking, "Gee, that GW spied on us!". Which is probably the impression he wanted to make.
You have to take what you see on TV with a grain of salt, whether from Oberman, O'reilly, hannity, whomever.
Now, as for the CIA's giving unsuspecting soldiers LSD.....just kidding.
TC
From what I have read about Echelon (and I had nothing to do with it when I worked in the SIGINT community, and only know what I know from what I've read on the web) the NSA would collect on UK citizens (which would be illegal for the NSA SIGINT counterpart in the UK ?GCHQ?), then share the info with the UK government. GCHQ, in turn, spied on americans and shared the info with the NSA. This so as to not violate USSID 18. The net effect was as if the NSA had actually spied on Americans.
As for the specific targeting individuals (journalists, funeral directors, gay florists...etc). Echelon may not have specifically targeted individuals, and was just a computer driven system of collection receivers...etc. as you said, but who knows how analysts could have sifted through the data once collected by the system. Via meta tags...etc. Again, UK on US citizens, US on UK citizens, with the two working together.
Do you think OBAMA will make any changes as to polygraph policy within the federal government? That's the million dollar question.
My point is they can get around this stuff, and have for years. Under all administrations going way back. As for the Oberman piece, your average viewer (say my mom) would have come away thinking, "Gee, that GW spied on us!". Which is probably the impression he wanted to make.
You have to take what you see on TV with a grain of salt, whether from Oberman, O'reilly, hannity, whomever.
Now, as for the CIA's giving unsuspecting soldiers LSD.....just kidding.
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 22, 2009, 02:43 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Jan 22, 2009, 01:42 PMThe NSA's Project "Echelon" probably did the same kind of thing, and took place, I believe, under the CLINTON administration. I wonder why the left leaning obermann didn't ask about that? Even as a sidebar. Selective journalism at it's best. 8-)
TC
I disagree. That Olbermann did not discuss Echelon (the code name of a computer system for sharing intercept information between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) is readily explained by the fact that Tice's allegations of governmental criminality do not concern Echelon. Rather, they are about the NSA's illegal interception of the communications of essentially all Americans -- even those with no terrorist connections -- as well as NSA's (also illegal) targeting of journalists. Olbermann questioned Tice about what he knew and how he knew it. And I think his commentary in this case was spot-on.
Note that Olbermann also took Barack Obama to task over the latter's support for the FISA bill granting telecommunications companies immunity from lawsuits for their complicity in the NSA's law-breaking.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 22, 2009, 01:42 PMThe NSA's Project "Echelon" probably did the same kind of thing, and took place, I believe, under the CLINTON administration. I wonder why the left leaning obermann didn't ask about that? Even as a sidebar. Selective journalism at it's best. 8-)
TC
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 22, 2009, 02:22 AMNSA whistleblower Russ Tice appeared on MSNBC's Countdown program with Keith Olbermann to speak more about the NSA's illegal monitoring of journalists. See "Whistleblower: NSA spied on everyone, targeted journalists" on RawStory.com. Here's the Countdown video:
http://216.87.173.33/media/2009/0901/msnbc_ko_tice_nsa_090121a.flv
http://216.87.173.33/media/2009/0901/msnbc_ko_tice_nsa_090121a.flv
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jan 18, 2007, 12:06 AMTo all Concerned,
It looks like the Bush Administration lost its battle to keep its domestic spying without oversite going.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/
This is a definate win for privacy and the 4th Amendment.
Text follows:
Independent body to monitor spying program
Court has already approved one surveillance request from government
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps placed on people with suspected terror links.
"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote in the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," the attorney general wrote.
The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.
The White House said it is satisfied with new guidelines the FISA court adopted on Jan. 10 to address administration officials' concerns about national security.
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.
The secret panel of judges, known as the FISA court, was established in the late 1970s to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States. The Bush administration had resisted giving the court final approval over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, even when communications involved someone inside the country.
A federal judge in Detroit last August declared the program unconstitutional, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.
Additionally, the Justice Department's inspector general is investigating the agency's use of information gathered in the spying program. In testimony last fall in front of the Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was not allowed to discuss classified details that could show whether it has curbed terrorist activity in the United States.
Congressional intelligence committees have already been briefed on the court's orders, Gonzales said in his letter. It was sent to the committee the day before he is set to testify before the panel, which oversees the Justice Department.
--------
This is how it was suppose to be done !!
Regards ....
It looks like the Bush Administration lost its battle to keep its domestic spying without oversite going.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/
This is a definate win for privacy and the 4th Amendment.
Text follows:
Independent body to monitor spying program
Court has already approved one surveillance request from government
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps placed on people with suspected terror links.
"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote in the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," the attorney general wrote.
The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.
The White House said it is satisfied with new guidelines the FISA court adopted on Jan. 10 to address administration officials' concerns about national security.
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.
The secret panel of judges, known as the FISA court, was established in the late 1970s to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States. The Bush administration had resisted giving the court final approval over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, even when communications involved someone inside the country.
A federal judge in Detroit last August declared the program unconstitutional, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.
Additionally, the Justice Department's inspector general is investigating the agency's use of information gathered in the spying program. In testimony last fall in front of the Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was not allowed to discuss classified details that could show whether it has curbed terrorist activity in the United States.
Congressional intelligence committees have already been briefed on the court's orders, Gonzales said in his letter. It was sent to the committee the day before he is set to testify before the panel, which oversees the Justice Department.
--------
This is how it was suppose to be done !!
Regards ....
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 25, 2006, 03:36 AMQuote from: retcopper on Aug 24, 2006, 12:09 PMEos:
Yo make some good points and I respect your opinions but the leader of some of the Middle East countries like Iran are sounding just like Hitler with their vitriolic remarks about "wiping Israel off the face of the earth". The world didn't take Hitler seriously and look what happened. I did read the Rise and Fall many yrs ago but I will have to reread it again to refresh my memory. (Too many bad concussions over the yrs.)
Retcopper,
I have no doubt that those despotic regimes will never have our best intentions, but most tolerate us as long as the $$$ keeps coming from us buying their oil. I don't have a problem with us cleanng house either. Iran & Syria I think also need a good butt kicking. But that fight is for a later time. But we still need to watch our own government to make sure that they follow the laws too. Hence why the judge shut the NSA program down. If it had been done right with the warrants and FISA court, this whole discussion would be mute. I played football and lacrosse, and I fully understand concussions and the follow on issues that come from them.
Regards ....
Posted by retcopper
- Aug 24, 2006, 12:09 PMEos:
Yo make some good points and I respect your opinions but the leader of some of the Middle East countries like Iran are sounding just like Hitler with their vitriolic remarks about "wiping Israel off the face of the earth". The world didn't take Hitler seriously and look what happened. I did read the Rise and Fall many yrs ago but I will have to reread it again to refresh my memory. (Too many bad concussions over the yrs.)
Cesium:
I have read many books abuot Franklin and our founding fathers but it is my opinon that you cannot take their words and thoughts from that period and apply them to todays world.
Thanx to both of you for your remarks regarding history. I am a history buff and ehjoy the analogies.
Have a good day.
Yo make some good points and I respect your opinions but the leader of some of the Middle East countries like Iran are sounding just like Hitler with their vitriolic remarks about "wiping Israel off the face of the earth". The world didn't take Hitler seriously and look what happened. I did read the Rise and Fall many yrs ago but I will have to reread it again to refresh my memory. (Too many bad concussions over the yrs.)
Cesium:
I have read many books abuot Franklin and our founding fathers but it is my opinon that you cannot take their words and thoughts from that period and apply them to todays world.
Thanx to both of you for your remarks regarding history. I am a history buff and ehjoy the analogies.
Have a good day.
Posted by cesium_133
- Aug 24, 2006, 04:16 AMThe polygraph, as a work of fiction, creates fictional security. So does the concept of GSR monitors ar airports, VSA, and all else in the truth-telling pseudosciences.
Any sort of wiretap sans warrant, searching in houses without warrant (like by heat detection), and things of that nature erode liberty and security. And as someone said once:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
That was Ben Franklin...
Hitler promised security, which the Jews never got to enjoy because he used his security crap to exterminate them. His nation was wiped out in 12 years. And he took liberty, also...
Any sort of wiretap sans warrant, searching in houses without warrant (like by heat detection), and things of that nature erode liberty and security. And as someone said once:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
That was Ben Franklin...
Hitler promised security, which the Jews never got to enjoy because he used his security crap to exterminate them. His nation was wiped out in 12 years. And he took liberty, also...
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 23, 2006, 08:44 PMQuote from: retcopper on Aug 23, 2006, 01:36 PMEos:
I am a staunch supporter of our constitutional rights. In fact I spent 30 yrs defending these rights.
(Please refer back to my post about how I supported the Miranda decision becasue of the abuse by cops in the past.) However, there comes a time when the safety of our country becomes more important than our rights. Common sense has to prevail. I won't go on about how I think Bush has the safety of our countyr at hear because you are probably a liberal who is anti Bush everything and I am a conservative Bush backer and we will never agree. I would rather have the Feds do wtaps on suspected individuals who mean to do harm to us than see one of our cities become destroyed by some "dirty bomb" because we were concerned about some terrorist's constitutional rights.
Have a good day.
RetCopper,
I am neither conservative or liberal. I make my decisions on issues by what I perceive as moral, honest and correct for any given problem. GW Bush has nothing but the best interest of the country I am sure. Except he listens to his cabinet full of self important neophytes that have, since he was first elected given him bad info and advice on policies, Iraq, and homeland security.
But you bring up a good point and you show it quite well in your message. That you are willing to give up some of your liberties for security. This is dangerous as it sets us down this police state road everytime we do this. The germans did this in 1932 when they elected Hitler because he promised them security, in return he expected complete loyalty by the population. If you do not see this correlation, then I suggest reading the "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". The similarities to today will scare you. Especially the part where Hitler was given the powers from the Enabling Act. He guaranteed security with the giving up of liberties.
Regards ...
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Aug 23, 2006, 02:02 PMQuote from: retcopper on Aug 23, 2006, 01:36 PMI would rather have the Feds do wtaps on suspected individuals who mean to do harm to us than see one of our cities become destroyed by some "dirty bomb" because we were concerned about some terrorist's constitutional rights.
There are not very many bank robberies in Mexico. That is because when someone tries hold up a bank, the guards start shooting everything that moves until the perpetrators are dead. If you happen to be a customer or a worker, you better hit the floor and take cover because your life is inconsequential. They WILL get the perpetrators and anybody that gets in the way is just the cost of security.
I have no concern for a terrorist's constitutional rights, but I do have concern for individuals who are caught in the crossfire.
Does the end justify the means?
Also, wouldn't the intelligent terrorists be using secure methods of communication that are nearly impossible to intercept?