BFP Report: Meet the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Distinguished’ Privacy Advisory Committee Members

Wednesday, 30. November 2011

Let’s See Who is Watching DHS Mega Fusion Center

Yesterday I came across an article on DHS plans to create its own internal fusion center so that its many agencies can aggregate the data they have and make it searchable from a central location. Let’s read a few excerpts from this typical half-hearted MSM attempt to provide a semi-complete picture of the state of ‘things’ when it comes to our government:

Information sharing (or lack thereof) between intelligence agencies has been a sensitive topic in the U.S. After 9/11, there was a push to create fusion centers so that local, state, and federal agencies could share intelligence, allowing the FBI, for example, to see if the local police have anything in their files on a particular individual. Now the Department of Homeland Security wants to create its own internal fusion center so that its many agencies can aggregate the data they have and make it searchable from a central location…

Of course this is another troubling development in an extremely troubling state of ‘things.’ However, this wasn’t the focus my attention. Here comes the not-really-reported angle in this half-covered story [All emphasis mine]:

The DHS is calling it a “Federated Information Sharing System” and asked its privacy advisory committee to weigh in on the repercussions at a public meeting in D.C. last month…

So what is this ‘privacy advisory committee’ and who are its members? This is what the article provides on that front:

The committee, consisting of an unpaid group of people from the world of corporate privacy as well as the civil liberty community, were asked last December to review the plan and provide feedback on which privacy protections need to be put in place when info from DHS components (which include the TSA, the Secret Service, and Immigration Services, to name a few) are consolidated. The committee raised concerns about who would get access to the data given the potentially comprehensive profile this would provide of American citizens…

It sounds good. Doesn’t it? It hits all the rights adjectives and catch phrases: Unpaid, Civil Liberties Community, Corporate Privacy Activists-Experts …Let’s read one more relevant excerpt and then I’ll tell you the ‘real’ significance of this half-covered report:

The committee’s recommendations are available in draft form below. DHS would not provide the original document — a “tasking letter” — that it issued to the committee describing its plans. But DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division did announce this month that it had awarded a contract to Raytheon for a “new system [that] will enhance how agencies manage, investigate, and report on law enforcement and intelligence activities by improving data sharing between multiple law-enforcement agencies,” reported Information Week. Raytheon’s work started on September 27, a week before the privacy committee got back to DHS with its draft privacy policy recommendations (available below). The committee noted that it had been given an “aggressive timeline” by DHS on coming up with its recommendations…

What got my mind wondering, what should have gotten the wheels turning in MSM reporters’ head, was this question:

Who are the members of this ‘selected’ aka government hand-picked, privacy-integrity advisory committee?

An important and very logical question, no? And I tell you what, not a difficult one to find an answer to. The article even had a link to the DHS website where the members of this ‘select’ committee are listed by name with their background. Check for yourself here. Because the information contained in this page is at least as significant and revealing as the point half-covered in this quasi exposé. Let me show you a few examples of what I am talking about here:

Chairman: Richard V. Purcell, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Privacy Group, Nordland, Wash. Mr. Purcell runs an independent privacy consulting group, focusing on policies, practices, and education. He is currently Chairman of TRUSTe and was formally the Chief Privacy Officer for the Microsoft Corporation.

Well, Mr. Purcell had served Microsoft Corporations for many years, and only recently left MS to start his ‘vague’ consulting business.

In 2003 Microsoft was chosen as exclusive Department of Homeland Security contractor.

DHS has chosen Microsoft Corp. as its preferred supplier of desktop computer and server software, according to a statement issued late Tuesday…The contract “establishes a key partnership relationship” between the government and Microsoft, the world’s biggest software maker, the statement said…The deal is worth $90 million.

The business (and the large dollars involved) between Microsoft and DHS has been growing and prospering ever since. Every year, including this year, 2011, Microsoft is listed as one of DHS’ major private business contractors. Are you with me so far? Now during all these lucrative Microsoft-DHS business marriage years, Mr. Purcell was working as the CPO at Microsoft. Not only that, he was royally exposed in his involvement in the Microsoft-NSA Key-Echelon case and its subsequent cover up. You can read more on this major 2000 exposé and related communications here at Cryptome. Here is the title of the exposé and some background on Microsoft’s and Purcell’s  ‘intimate’ involvement in the NSA Key controversy and the subsequent cover up:

Microsoft Offer to Resolve “Questions About NSA_Key”, then Put Up a Brick Wall

Background : Duncan Campbell gave a presentation on Global surveillance and the Echelon network at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2000 (CFP2000) conference held in Toronto, Canada from 4-7 April 2000. During the presentation, he instanced the NSA_KEY controversy as one of a number of outstanding issues related to security and surveillance.

Richard Purcell, Microsoft’s Director of Corporate Privacy, also attended the CFP2000 conference. After the presentation, Purcell approached Campbell. He said that he wished to resolved the doubts about NSA_KEY. He would see that this was done.

Campbell then put a number of key questions, politely but persistently. After three weeks, Microsoft backed off. They refused to answer outstanding questions. They declined even to explain why they were unwilling to continue contact. They stopped answering e-mail.
…

I encourage you to read the entire communication-correspondence between the investigator and Purcell’s unit at Microsoft here. Also check out this article on ‘How NSA Access was Built into Microsoft Windows.’

You see, our government, the Department of Homeland Security, could not have cherry-picked a better candidate as its Chairman of Privacy-Integrity Advisory Committee. With his long years in Microsoft as an executive until recently, with his stocks and shares tied to Microsoft, with his proven track record in covering up privacy and liberty-violating government-private business collusion and practices, Mr. Richard Purcell appears to be the best candidate to chair the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.’

Let’s check out another hand-selected colluder by DHS for its mockery of an advisory board on ‘privacy and integrity’:

Christopher Pierson, Chief Privacy Officer and Senior Vice President, Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (Royal Bank of Scotland- RBS). Dr. Pierson was President and Chairman of the Board of the Intraguard Phoenix Member’s Alliance, Inc., from 2003-2007 and served on the Arizona Office of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Coordinating Council from 2003-2006.

Well, right off the bat, this dude used to directly work for the Department of Homeland Security; 2003-2006. Now, what is this the Intraguard Phoenix Member’s Alliance, Inc.? Here are a few noteworthy excerpts from its website:

Arizona InfraGard is an alliance between the Arizona Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and individuals committed to protecting the nation’s infrastructure and its people. The members, who are representative of all infrastructure sectors, public and private, identify and mitigate physical and cyber threats through information sharing. Arizona InfraGard promotes best practices, security awareness and training, community outreach, and the exchange of information between law enforcement and infrastructure owners and operators.

So we have Mr. Christopher Pierson hand-picked by the DHS to watch over DHS practices and objectively advise on whether certain policies and practices violate the people’s privacy and integrity. The man used to work for them-the DHS, he worked with the FBI to help ‘share data,’ and now he will watch out for your privacy and mine!

Let’s check out other member:

David A. Hoffman, Director of Security Policy and Global Privacy Officer, Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Ore. Mr. Hoffman has experience in privacy policy issues at the business and technical level, working on issues of interoperability, improved data quality, and data retention. He serves on the board of directors for the non-profit privacy compliance organization, TRUSTe.

Where do I begin? Let’s begin with Intel Corporation’s business and services to the federal government as a contractor. They had so much that they had to form a wholly owned subsidiary ‘Intel Federal LLC.’ Of course Intel has major contracts and advisory positions with DHS. Oh, interestingly he is closely connected to Richard Purcell, the Chairman of this DHS mockery privacy advisory committee. Purcell is the chairman of this TRUSTe, and Hoffman serves on its board of directors. And here is another blurb on Hoffman from a release only 3 months ago:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ – The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA), a nonprofit public-private partnership focused on cybersecurity awareness and education for all digital citizens, today announced that David Hoffman, director of security policy and global privacy officer at Intel Corporation, has joined the organization’s board of directors.

…

NCSA board includes all our government partners and contributors to its surveillance program:

NCSA board members include: ADP, AT&T, Bank of America, Cisco Systems, EMC Corporation, ESET, Facebook, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Google, Intel, Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Services, McAfee, Microsoft, PayPal, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Symantec, Verizon and Visa…

Please check the list of this laughable privacy advisory board and continue this thread. Whether it is a member from other government contractor moguls like IBM, or academics from University departments generously and heavily funded by our governments, or lap-dog watch-dog organizations funded by the shadow government players such as Rockefellers, Soros, Carnegie, Ford…you’ll see a board of clowns juggling self-interest and profits while faking advisory roles on the 99% absent-privacy and long-gone integrity committee.

Please follow the links in the article to find out more.

Also check out this article on ‘How NSA Access was Built into Microsoft Windows.’

Source:  Boiling Frogs  - h/t to Jean Stoner

Microsoft Files Patent For Software That Allows The Government To Spy on All Personal Digital Communications

A patent filed by Microsoft reveals the company has voluntarily created software that provides the Government and other agencies seeking to spy on you  with the ability to easily intercept,  re-route and record all forms of personal digital communications, including Skype calls which are directly named in the patent.

A patent filed by Microsoft seeks to give the company exclusive rights to intercept personal electronic communications and resend them directly to the Government and other agencies who may be seeking to spy on you.

By filing the patent, Microsoft clearly shows they have voluntarily created the software,  instead of waiting for a Government mandate to do so. The patent states that “the  government or one of its agencies may need to monitor communications” and software acts as a “recording agent” that is able to silently record the communication”.

The patent specifically names certain types of communications, such as Skype calls, instant messaging, video conferencing software, and even meeting software but does not stop there. Instead it goes on to label just about all electronic devices you can think of as a computer and requests for a patent to be able to intercept digital communications from those devices, and even access data stored in a variety of other storage mediums, and forward the to the Government.

A Gizmodo article on the patent points out that Microsoft appears to trying to patent Skype spying,  which is specifically named within the patent,  but the scope of patent goes far beyond the ability to just spy on Skype calls.

Only by digging into the patent can you see the deceptiveness in Microsoft’s the labeling of certain technologies and realize the true scope of what the software company is trying to provide the Government easy access to spy on.

For example, the label all packet-based communication as VoIP, which clearly nothing is further from the truth. All data that can be sent over the internet is a “packet-based communication”.

[...] the term VoIP is used to refer to standard VoIP as well as any other form of packet-based communication that may be used to transmit audio over a wireless and/or wired network. For example, VoIP may include audio messages transmitted via gaming systems, instant messaging protocols that transmit audio, Skype and Skype-like applications, meeting software, video conferencing software, and the like.

The patent goes on and deceptively labels all digital electronic devices as computers, say that everything from computers, to printers, gaming devices, automobile systems, even printers, home appliances and all other mobile based electronics are computers. The patent even applies to microcontroller which are often the brain of electronic devices and used in products ranging from automobile engine control systems, implantable medical devices, remote controls, office machines, appliances, power tools, and even toys.

A computer may include any electronic device that is capable of executing an instruction[...]

Examples of well known computing systems, environments, or configurations that may be suitable for use [include] personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microcontroller-based systems, set-top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), smartphones, gaming devices, printers, appliances including set-top, media center, or other appliances, automobile-embedded or attached computing devices, other mobile devices, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.

The patent also doesn’t stop with computers or even communications for that matter. It targets a variety of offline mediums that can used to store data and even computer programs themselves.

[...] a variety of computer-readable media [including] any available media that can be accessed by the computer  removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data.

Computer storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVDs) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by the computer.

The patent further reveals that the software’s capability includes the ability to intercept all digital communications regardless of the medium, or whether they are online or offline, bluntly including the ability to intercept all modulated data signals.

Communication media typically embodies computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above should also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.

Quoted directly from US patent application 20110153809:

June 23, 2011- Assignee: Microsoft Corporation

Legal Intercept

Aspects of the subject matter described herein relate to silently recording communications. In aspects, data associated with a request to establish a communication is modified to cause the communication to be established via a path that includes a recording agent. Modification may include, for example, adding, changing, and/or deleting data within the data. The data as modified is then passed to a protocol entity that uses the data to establish a communication session. Because of the way in which the data has been modified, the protocol entity selects a path that includes the recording agent. The recording agent is then able to silently record the communication.

Claims

---

1. A method implemented at least in part by a computer, the method comprising: receiving data regarding establishing a communication session between at least two entities via a switched packet network for a communication that includes audio; locating one or more parameters in the data that indicate one or more local candidate communication points of at least one of the at least two entities; removing the one or more parameters from the data to cause the communication session to be established over a path that includes a recording agent that is capable of silently copying the communication between the at least two entities; and providing the data with the parameters removed to a protocol entity that uses the data to follow a communication protocol to establish the communication session via the path, the protocol entity potentially including one or more of the at least two entities and/or any entity that interacts with one or more of the at least two entities.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving data regarding establishing a communication session between at least two entities comprises receiving the data from a call server that is involved in establishing the communication session, the call server responsible at least for relaying invite requests from a requesting one of the entities to a receiving one of the entities, the call server configurable to provide the data to a recording agent before establishing the communication session.
[...]

20. The apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a recorder manager operable to configure a recording agent to silently copy communication transmitted via the communication session.

Description

---

BACKGROUND

[0001] Plain old telephone service (POTS) allows people from all over the world to talk to each other through the use of telephones. POTS has been around since the late 19th century and has remained basically the same. In traditional usage, POTS has transmitted voice communications using electrical signals that are transmitted via pairs of wires. Central offices establish connections between callers and those called.

[0002] Sometimes, a government or one of its agencies may need to monitor communications between telephone users. To do this with POTS, after obtaining the appropriate legal permission, a recording device may be placed at a central office associated with a selected telephone number. Electrical signals corresponding to sound to and from the telephones at the selected telephone number may be monitored and transformed into sound. This sound may then be recorded by the recording device without the telephone users being aware of the recording. With new Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and other communication technology, the POTS model for recording communications does not work.

[...]
SUMMARY

[0004] Briefly, aspects of the subject matter described herein relate to silently recording communications. In aspects, data associated with a request to establish a communication is modified to cause the communication to be established via a path that includes a recording agent. Modification may include, for example, adding, changing, and/or deleting data within the data. The data as modified is then passed to a protocol entity that uses the data to establish.

Exemplary Operating Environment

[...]

[0015] Aspects of the subject matter described herein are operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well known computing systems, environments, or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the subject matter described herein comprise personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microcontroller-based systems, set-top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), smartphones, gaming devices, printers, appliances including set-top, media center, or other appliances, automobile-embedded or attached computing devices, other mobile devices, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.

[0016] Aspects of the subject matter described herein may be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and so forth, which perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Aspects of the subject matter described herein may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices.

[0017] With reference to FIG. 1, an exemplary system for implementing aspects of the subject matter described herein includes a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer 110. A computer may include any electronic device that is capable of executing an instruction. Components of the computer 110 may include a processing unit 120, a system memory 130, and a system bus 121 that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit 120. The system bus 121 may be any of several types of bus structures including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. By way of example, and not limitation, such architectures include Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus also known as Mezzanine bus, Peripheral Component Interconnect Extended (PCI-X) bus, Advanced Graphics Port (AGP), and PCI express (PCIe).

[0018] The computer 110 typically includes a variety of computer-readable media. Computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by the computer 110 and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media, and removable and non-removable media. By way of example, and not limitation, computer-readable media may comprise computer storage media and communication media.

[0019] Computer storage media includes both volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Computer storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVDs) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by the computer 110.

[0020] Communication media typically embodies computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above should also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.

[...]

Legal Intercept

[0028] As mentioned previously, traditional techniques for silently recording telephone communication may not work correctly with VoIP and other network-based communication technology. As used hereafter, the term VoIP is used to refer to standard VoIP as well as any other form of packet-based communication that may be used to transmit audio over a wireless and/or wired network. For example, VoIP may include audio messages transmitted via gaming systems, instant messaging protocols that transmit audio, Skype and Skype-like applications, meeting software, video conferencing software, and the like.

[...]

Source: US Patent Office  -  Posted at AlexanderHiggins.com

Is anyone surprised out there?? Bill Gates… Mr. Bilderberg depopulation guy himself wants to help the government spy on you??