Pioneer-Groundbreaker

For those of you who don't have PDF, the relavant complaint:

Defendant ATT’s Construction of a Call Monitoring Center
for the Exclusive Use of the NSA.

81. Within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush administration, and at least seven
(7) months prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, defendant ATT began
development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and internet transmissions and
other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA.
82. The center was put into development by ATT following a proposal by the NSA
for the construction and development of a network operations center identical to ATT’s
own network operations center located in Bedminster, New Jersey for the exclusive use
of the NSA.
83. The NSA proposal was accepted by the ATT sales division and referred to ATT
Solutions, an ATT project development division situated in Florham Park, New Jersey.
84. The NSA proposal sought construction of a duplicate ATT Network Operations
Center for the exclusive use of the NSA with the capacity to monitor all calls and internet
traffic placed on the ATT long distance network, as well as ATT’s wide area, fiber optic,
T-1, T-3, T-5 and high speed data networks.
85. Such a data center would also enable the NSA to tap into any call placed on the
ATT network and to monitor the contents of all digital information transmitted over the
ATT network.
86. The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the
construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic
and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network
Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct,
unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and
digital traffic on ATT’s long distance networks.
87. Said data center would enable the NSA to tap into any phone line and to monitor
any digital transfer of information on ATT’s networks including voice telephone calls,
facsimile transmission and all internet traffic.
88. Such project was in development not later than February 1, 2001, within eleven
(11) days of the onset of the Bush Administration.
89. The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had
been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant
George W. Bush.
90. The NSA program was code-named Pioneer-Groundbreaker and was also known
at ATT Solutions division as GEMS (Groundbreaker Enterprise System).
91. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was one of the parties
working with ATT and the NSA to develop the monitoring center and IBM personnel
participated in meetings with ATT and NSA officials in the development of the
monitoring center.
92. Among the purposes of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project was the storing and
monitoring of all phone call information coming across ATT’s networks; by means of
this program NSA sought to duplicate all of the phone call information that came across
ATT’s networks for real time, contemporaneous analysis or, alternately, for downloading
and later use by the NSA.
93. The proposed project was to be a storage entity modeled on ATT’s network
operations center in Bedminster, New Jersey, and would have the capability to monitor
all data and traffic that came across ATT lines, including ATT traffic and traffic
originating from other carriers that used ATT lines or that sent calls to ATT customers.
94. The NSA was seeking to duplicate the ATT network operations center and sought
by means of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker program the ability to monitor all traffic coming
across ATT’s network.
95. The contact list for the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project consisted of a minimum of
35 ATT employees dedicated in whole or in part to the Pioneer-Groundbreaker program.
96. An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-
Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.
97. The ATT Solutions logbook confirms the dates and transmissions of copies of
ATT, IBM and NSA e-mails setting forth the existence of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker
program; said e-mails remain in the custody, possession and control of ATT, IBM and
NSA.
98. Said logbook was maintained pursuant to ATT Solutions policy in the regular
course of business by telecom engineers at ATT Solutions.
99. Counsel have been informed of the foregoing information by several informants
who had direct knowledge or who have received direct admissions by ATT personnel as
to the foregoing facts.
100. ATT has not denied any of the allegations in the media disclosures of May
11, 2006.
101. Accordingly, defendant carrier ATT was engaged in active and knowing
participation and conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2702, et seq., in concert with the United
States not later than February 1, 2001.
 
Why is it explosive?
President Truman created the NSA in 1952 during the Korean war and it has been collecting data without warrants since at least 1955. FISA doesn't outlaw data mining and their approval isn't required as long as the warrentless search isn't for personal data such as social security numbers, name, address, etc. I don't see a problem with data mining to establish a pattern then using the pattern as probable cause for a warrant to search further.
I do have many reservations with collecting data that does have personal info without a warrant such as bank records and travel reservations etc.
It may not be right but it's been done for at least 40 years by eight different presidents both republican and democrat and will continue whether we agree or not.
 
Why is it explosive?
#1 it kills all arguments about these programs being implemented for counter-terrorism purposes.
#2 Even if you do subscribe to the notion above, it kills the argument that such programs would have been effective in preventing the 9/11 attacks.

I do have many reservations with collecting data that does have personal info without a warrant such as bank records and travel reservations etc.

If I read this right, this program would give NSA direct access to all of that info and a great deal more.
 
89. The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.

So it was a legacy program that was reinstated? As time goes on, the evidence will probably come out that it was never actually/fully called off.
 
There is some interesting trace route info posted here http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1510938 under the title of "The Newbie's Guide to Detecting the NSA"

It's not surprising that an expert hired by EFF should produce an analysis that supports the group's case against AT&T. But last week's public court filing of a redacted statement by J. Scott Marcus is still worth reading for the obvious expertise of its author, and the cunning insights he draws from the AT&T spy documents.

An internet pioneer and former FCC advisor who held a Top Secret security clearance, Marcus applies a Sherlock Holmes level of reasoning to his dissection of the evidence in the case: 120-pages of AT&T manuals that EFF filed under seal, and whistleblower Mark Klein's observations inside the company's San Francisco switching center.

If you've been following Wired News' coverage of the EFF case, you won't find many new hard revelations in Marcus' analysis -- at least, not in the censored version made public. But he connects the dots to draw some interesting conclusions:


The AT&T documents are authentic. That AT&T insists they remain under seal is evidence enough of this, but Marcus points out that the writing style is pure Bell System, with the "meticulous attention to detail that is typical of AT&T operations."

There may be dozens of surveillance rooms in AT&T offices around the country. Among other things, Marcus finds that portions of the documents are written to cover a number of different equipment rack configurations, "consistent with a deployment to 15 to 20" secret rooms.


The internet surveillance program covers domestic traffic, not just international traffic. Marcus notes that the AT&T spy rooms are "in far more locations than would be required to catch the majority of international traffic"; the configuration in the San Francisco office promiscuously sends all data into the secret room; and there's no reliable way an analysis could infer a user's physical location from their IP address. This, of course, directly contradicts President Bush's description of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program."


The system is capable of looking at content, not just addresses. The configuration described in the Klein documents -- presumably the Narus software in particular -- "exists primarily to conduct sophisticated rule-based analysis of content", Marcus concludes.
My bullet points don't come close to conveying the painstaking reasoning he lays out to back each of his conclusions.

Perhaps the most interesting -- and, in retrospect, obvious -- point Marcus makes is that AT&T customers aren't the only ones apparently being tapped. "Transit" traffic originating with one ISP and destined for another is also being sniffed if it crosses AT&T's network. Ironically, because the taps are installed at the point at which that network connects to the rest of the world, the safest web surfers are AT&T subscribers visiting websites hosted on AT&T's network. Their traffic doesn't pass through the splitters.

With that in mind, here's the 27B Stroke 6 guide to detecting if your traffic is being funneled into the secret room on San Francisco's Folsom street.

If you're a Windows user, fire up an MS-DOS command prompt. Now type tracert followed by the domain name of the website, e-mail host, VoIP switch, or whatever destination you're interested in. Watch as the program spits out your route, line by line.
 
rick,
I tried it but it doesn't seem to work for me. I wonder if it's the firewall or something... it just says "destination unreachable" :confused: I'm pretty clueless about all this hacker stuff.



buzz knox,
There's not enough information to tell. You're looking at literally all of the publicly available info on the subject. *But* from what I see here, I think NSA looked at this under Clinton but did not pursue it. Authorization to begin actively developing it did not occur until 11 days after Bush took office.
I read that as an internal NSA program that was shot down by Clinton but approved by Bush. Time will tell...
Regardless, even if it is a 'legacy program', it's still damning to this administration, and I'll tell you why:
They legally justify warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance by stating that his authorization for use of force gives him the right to do this.
This program clearly undermines that rationale, but even if it didn't...it certainly wouldn't justify this retroactively.
IOW, the very existence of this program torpedoes his legal defense.

Finally, supposing for the sake of argument that this *was* all Clinton's doing. Does that make it okay? What if it's all Bush's doing? Okay then?
 
"IOW, the very existence of this program torpedoes his legal defense."

Are you a lawyer? If so, is your practice in this area?

John
 
For my money, any American citizen who can read about this suit and not be extremely disturbed by the potential implications; not demand to know more about its authenticity, how it got started and who is responsible for its ongoing authority, is hard pressed to claim they have any interest whatsoever in the Bill of Rights.

I'll not go as far as to call it a damning indictment of Bush, Clinton or anyone else. But I sure as hell want to know more.
Rich
 
amen......
I would like to know a lot more. This data mining has probably effected millions of citizens. Is this saying that the administration beleives that there are millions of Al Qaueda and supporters in the U.S.? If it was indeed started prior to 9/11, what was serious threat that caused the program to be initiated? Lot of questions that need to be answered. Is something going on that the administration doesnt want the courts to have a review over? Why does the administration say that the FISA courts are not sufficient for these programs. There may be nothing to hide at all, I say let the FISA courts review it and decide.
 
I want to know more about this.....


89. The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had
been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant
George W. Bush.

Interesting....
 
It's amazing how many people would die for their 2nd Ammendment rights, but throw the 4th out the window.

I agree. Seems this program was thought about or implemented before W. I find that interesting, since mose folks are blaming W for everything.

4th Amend: Get rid of the war on drugs, reduce police powers = problem on the way to be solved.
 
I agree. Seems this program was thought about or implemented before W. I find that interesting, since mose folks are blaming W for everything.

What's the unifying factor here? Oh, yeah: Gen. Hayden was the director of NSA since '99.
 
#1 it kills all arguments about these programs being implemented for counter-terrorism purposes.
#2 Even if you do subscribe to the notion above, it kills the argument that such programs would have been effective in preventing the 9/11 attacks.

1. We had counter terrorist programs before 9/11. Our terroist problem didn't start in 2001, they just came to a head in 2001.
2. This type of data collecting was going on in all of the previous administrations and stopped at various times for whatever reasons. Ever think maybe it was started up again a little too late to catch the 9/11 attack.
I don't subscribe to the wholesale idea of it being good, but it has continued since 9/11 and we have made quite a few arrests on U.S. soil and prevented further attacks on our soil.

Rich,
I agree with you. Everyone should want to know more about it. I don't think it's damning towards the current administration anymore than I believe it's damning towards previous administrations for ignoring the signs and sending U.S. forces around the world to play policeman.

IMO, it was a collective lack of proactive measures on all of the administrations since the end of Viet Nam. We were more concerned with the Soviets for 40+ years than we were the actual threat of terrorism. We spent more money on nuclear standoff in the 70's than we spent on counter-terrorism in the 80's and 90's combined. The 70's ushered in airplane highjacking, improvised bombing, kidnapping and instead of mounting a force and facing those real dangers head on, our stance was that it was something that happened in Europe and the Middle East. The European and Middle East countries(Israel) were 15-20 years ahead of us when we began to play around with the idea of counter-terrorism in the late 80's.
I know Delta was formed in the late 70's, but it wasn't fully trained, funded and given a serious look until after Desert One in 1980 and it then took until almost 1987 until it was fully functional as we know it today.
 
Don,

I was waiting for somebody to say this...
#1 There are many phrases I'd use to describe the pre-9/11 Bush administration, but 'proactive on terrorism' would not be one of them. You're going to have to prove this one.
#2 This presupposes that our Bill of Rights was already subjugated to a 'war on terror' before 9/11. There will *always* be threats out there. Does that mean we should just trash the Constitution?
#3 The president points specifically to the AUMF granted him in October to justify these sorts of programs, yet this one was initiated 7 months early. How to explain that?


We had counter terrorist programs before 9/11. Our terroist problem didn't start in 2001, they just came to a head in 2001.
You're saying that this is a counter-terrorism program. With no proof. And in the face of the fact that he was busy dismantling other counterterrorism programs at the time.


This type of data collecting was going on in all of the previous administrations and stopped at various times for whatever reasons.
Uhh...proof?
Ever think maybe it was started up again a little too late to catch the 9/11 attack.
"Maybe" being the operative word; you're speculating. Ever think "maybe" all of this domestic spying has nothing to do with terrorism?
How's about we stop throwing around "maybe"s and get to the bottom of it?

I don't subscribe to the wholesale idea of it being good,
I don't subscribe to the possibility of it being good.
but it has continued since 9/11 and we have made quite a few arrests on U.S. soil and prevented further attacks on our soil.
Implying that #1 the end justifies the means and #2 that the ends were unattainable any other (legal, constitutional) way.
 
Rich, I agree that this is something that is something that we all should know about. Personally, I have pretty much no expectation of privacy in my use of telephones or computer lines. Haven't since I realized that every bit of that communication involves at least three entities - me, the intended recipient, and the company that I use as a transmitter of the information. Add in those who possess scanners (for cell/cordless communications), Echelon (going on long before Bush thought of running for President), Carnivore, and the gov't's refusal to allow encryption programs without having the keys made available, and I don't think anyone could have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is basically Echelon run directly by US agencies rather than our allies, in exchange for our doing the same for them. As such, I'm not jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon that this is being developed for.

Is it outrageous? Sure. But I'm about as peeved at the companies we use to transmit such information that should never have agreed to turn over said information or provide access to it as I am at the gov't. They should also have never turned over to telemarketers, commercial companies, etc., and should never have agreed to do this with the gov't.
 
Quote:
This type of data collecting was going on in all of the previous administrations and stopped at various times for whatever reasons.

Uhh...proof?

From a USAtoday article written in May 06 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

"In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping."


"Maybe" being the operative word; you're speculating. Ever think "maybe" all of this domestic spying has nothing to do with terrorism?
How's about we stop throwing around "maybe"s and get to the bottom of it?

Ok, I say that it was designed to collect data to counter terrorism. I'm not much of a govt consprieracy theorist and I don't think you'll find a quote from the CIA of the GW administration saying anything otherwise. As you've told me in the past. "I say it's true so you have to prove it's not true" Where is your proof that it is anything other than a counter-terrorism intel collection tool.

I don't subscribe to the possibility of it being good.

Do you subscribe then that there is no terrorism threat in America? I don't like being spyed on anymore than the next guy, but I also realize that I like having bombs set off in U.S. cities is something I like less.
Implying that #1 the end justifies the means and #2 that the ends were unattainable any other (legal, constitutional) way.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that I think the end justifies the means and there is always someone skirting around legal issues. This country was founded on skirting the legal system through loopholes, etc. Everytime a new law is passed there is someone who finds a way around it and some folks will just flat out break it. It's a fact of life. Did the administration break the law? Not according to them and their lawyers. They feel they have a loophole they exploited.
 
Buzz-
Agreed to a point. Government excesses cannot be excused because they've crept into our everyday life. The fact that we did "nothing" about it yesterday does not restrain us from saying "enough" today.

Also, I think the sidetrack of finger pointing, whether it be at Bush, Clinton or predecessors, is a HUGE error. A trap that the American public (and TFL in particular) fall into constantly. The resulting debate cacaphony drowns out the issue at hand and all parties waste and exhaust themselves on the sidetrack of "who has more blame". Inevitably, this is exactly how our CongressCritters manage to get nothing done on issues of real import to Americans.

If this type of eavesdropping is going on, it's wrong. If it was going on 50 years ago, it's still wrong. We need accountability from .Gov, not from one political figure. When we go down the path of looking for that "one guilty party", we inevitably lose. This cannot be about Bush or Clinton bashing...it must be about the Bill of Rights or we're all just wasting oxygen.
Rich
 
Back
Top