Data and Goliath (13 page)

In Chapter 5, I mentioned the Italian company Hacking Team. Its computer and cell
phone intrusion and monitoring products are used by the governments of Azerbaijan,
Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco,
Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, the UAE, and
Uzbekistan. The Moroccan government employed Hacking Team’s software to target the
citizen journalist group Mamfakinch via an e-mail that purported to be a message from
an anonymous citizen in danger; the attached file contained a payload of malware.

In 2011, arrested dissidents in Bahrain were shown transcripts of their private e-mail
and chat sessions, collected by the government with tools provided by Nokia and Siemens.

The conference ISS World—which stands for Intelligence Support Systems—has frequent
trade shows in cities like Dubai and Brasilia. The 2014 brochure advertised sessions
on location surveillance, call record mining, offensive IT intrusion, and defeating
encryption, and the sponsor list was a Who’s Who of these capabilities. Many countries
send representatives to attend. There are similar conferences in the US and Europe.

Most of the big US defense contractors, such as Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Harris
Corporation, build cyberweapons for the US military. And many big IT companies help
build surveillance centers around the world. The French company Bull SA helped the
Libyan government build its surveillance center. Nigeria used the Israeli firm Elbit
Systems. Syria used the German company Siemens, the Italian company Area SpA, and
others. The Gadhafi regime in Libya purchased telephone surveillance technology from
China’s ZTE and South Africa’s VASTech. We don’t know who built the Internet surveillance
systems used in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, but almost certainly some Western companies
helped them. There are
few laws prohibiting this kind of technology transfer, and the ones that exist are
easily bypassed.

These are not only specially designed government eavesdropping systems; much government
surveillance infrastructure is built for corporate use. US-based Blue Coat sells monitoring
and content filtering systems for corporate networks, which are also used for government
surveillance in countries like Burma, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Venezuela. Netsweeper is a Canadian corporate filtering product
used for censorship by governments in Qatar, Yemen, the UAE, Somalia, and Pakistan.
Filtering software from the US company Fortinet is used to censor the Internet in
Burma; SmartFilter, from the US company McAfee and normally used in schools, helps
the governments of Tunisia and Iran censor the Internet in their countries. Commercial
security equipment from the UK company Sophos has been used by Syria and other oppressive
regimes to surveil and arrest their citizens.

Technology is value neutral. You can use your phone to call 911 or to plan a bank
robbery. There’s no technical difference between a government’s using a tool to identify
criminals or using it to identify dissidents. There’s no technical difference between
corporate and government uses. Legitimate corporate tools for blocking employees from
e-mailing confidential data can be used by repressive governments for surveillance
and censorship. Conversely, the same anti-censorship tools that Saudi and Iranian
dissidents use to evade their governments can be used by criminals to distribute child
porn. Encryption allows the good guys to communicate without being eavesdropped on
by the bad guys, and also allows the bad guys to communicate without being eavesdropped
on by the good guys. And the same facial recognition technology that Disney uses in
its theme parks to pick out photos its patrons might want to buy as souvenirs can
identify political protesters in China, and Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York.

GOVERNMENTS SUBVERTING COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS

So far, I have discussed how government surveillance piggybacks on corporate capabilities.
While this is mostly true, government are not above forcing corporations to spy for
them.

Back in the early 1990s, the FBI started worrying about its ability to conduct telephone
surveillance. The FBI could do it with the old analog phone switches: a laborious
process involving alligator clips, wires, and a tape recorder. The problem was that
digital switches didn’t work that way. Isolating individual connections was harder,
and the FBI became concerned about the potential loss of its ability to wiretap. So
it lobbied Congress hard and got a law passed in 1994 called the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, requiring telcos to re-engineer their digital switches
to have eavesdropping capabilities built in.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the FBI again wants the IT industry to make surveillance
easier for itself. A lot of communications no longer happen over the telephone. They’re
happening over chat. They’re happening over e-mail. They’re happening over Skype.
The FBI is currently lobbying for a legislative upgrade to CALEA, one that covers
all
communications systems: all voice, video, and text systems, including World of Warcraft
and that little chat window attached to your online Scrabble game.

The FBI’s ultimate goal is government prohibition of truly secure communications.
Valerie Caproni, the general counsel for the FBI, put it this way in 2010: “No one
should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a US court
order. They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can
provide us plain text.” Translation: you can’t actually provide security for your
customers.

Depending on the system, doing what the FBI wants would range from easy to impossible.
E-mail systems like Gmail are easy. The mail resides unencrypted on Google’s servers,
and the company has an office full of people who respond to requests for access to
individual accounts from governments all over the world. Encrypted chat programs like
Off the Record are impossible to undermine; the chat sessions are encrypted on the
conversants’ computers, and there’s no central node from which to eavesdrop. In those
cases, the only way to satisfy the FBI’s demands would be to add a backdoor to the
user software, which would render it insecure for everyone. I’ll talk about the stupidity
of that idea in Chapter 11.

As draconian as that measure would be, at least the discussion is happening in public.
Much government control of corporate communications infrastructure occurs in secret,
and we only hear about it occasionally.

Lavabit was an e-mail service that offered more security privacy than the
large corporate e-mail services most of us use. It was a small company, owned and
operated by a programmer named Ladar Levison, and it was popular among the tech-savvy.
It had half a million users, Edward Snowden amongst them.

Soon after Snowden fled to Hong Kong in 2013, Levison received a National Security
Letter demanding that the company turn over the master encryption key that protected
all of Lavabit’s users—and then not tell any of its customers that they could be monitored.
Levison fought this order in court, and when it became clear that he had lost, he
shut down his service rather than deceive and compromise his customers.

The moral is clear. If you run a business, and the FBI or the NSA wants to turn it
into a mass surveillance tool, it believes that it is entitled to do so, solely on
its own authority. The agency can force you to modify your system. It can do it all
in secret and then force your business to keep that secret. Once it does that, you
no longer control that part of your business. If you’re a large company, you can’t
shut it down. You can’t realistically terminate part of your service. In a very real
sense, it is not your business anymore. It has become an arm of the vast US surveillance
apparatus, and if your interest conflicts with the agency’s, the agency wins. Your
business has been commandeered.

The only reason we know this story is that Levison ran his own company. He had no
corporate masters. He had no shareholders. He was able to destroy his own business
for moral reasons. Larger, more beholden companies would never do that. We must assume
that every other computer company that received a similar demand has eventually complied.

For example, we know that the US government convinced Skype—through bribery, coercion,
threat, or legal compulsion—to make changes in how the program operates, to facilitate
eavesdropping. We don’t know what the changes were, whether they happened before or
after Microsoft bought Skype in 2011, or how they satisfied whatever the government
demanded, but we know they happened.

In 2008, the US government secretly threatened Yahoo with a $250,000-per-day fine,
with the daily amount increasing rapidly if it didn’t join the NSA’s PRISM program
and provide it with user data. And in 2004, the NSA paid RSA Security to make a backdoored
random number generator a default in its crypto library.

Other types of government commandeering are going on as well, behind the backs of
the companies whose technologies are being subverted. Where the NSA doesn’t have agreements
with companies to tap into their systems, it does its best to do so surreptitiously.
For instance, not satisfied with the amount of data it receives from Google and Yahoo
via PRISM, the NSA hacked into the trunk connections between both companies’ data
centers, probably with the cooperation of their service provider Level 3 Communications.
The angry response from one of Google’s security engineers, posted on his personal
Google Plus page, was “fuck those guys.” Google has since encrypted those connections
between its data centers in an effort to keep the NSA out. Yahoo claims to be doing
the same.

This isn’t the only example of the NSA hacking US technology companies. The agency
creates fake Facebook pages to hack into people’s computers, and its TAO branch intercepts
Cisco equipment during shipping to install hardware implants.

We don’t know what sort of pressure the US government has put on the major Internet
cloud providers to persuade them to give them access to user data, or what secret
agreements those companies may have reached with the NSA. We do know the NSA’s BULLRUN
program to subvert Internet cryptography, and the companion GCHQ program EDGEHILL,
were successful against much of the security that’s common on the Internet. Did the
NSA demand Google’s master encryption keys and force it to keep quiet about it, as
it tried with Lavabit? Did its Tailored Access Operations group break into Google’s
overseas servers and steal the keys, or intercept equipment intended for Google’s
overseas data centers and install backdoors? Those are all documented NSA tactics.
In the first case, Google would be prohibited by law from admitting it, in the second
it wouldn’t want to, and in the third it would not even know about it. In general,
we know that in the years immediately after 9/11, the US government received lots
of willing cooperation from companies whose leaders believed they were being patriotic.

I believe we’re going to see more bulk access to our data by the NSA, because of the
type of data it wants. The NSA used to be able to get everything it wanted from Internet
backbone companies and broadband providers. This became less true as encryption—specifically
a kind called SSL encryption—became
more common. It will become even less true as more of the Internet becomes encrypted.
To overcome this, the NSA needs to obtain bulk data from service providers, because
they’re the ones with our data in plaintext, despite any encryption in transit. And
to do that it needs to subvert the security protocols used by those sites to secure
their data.

Other countries are involved in similar skullduggery. It is widely believed that the
Chinese government embeds the capability to eavesdrop into all networking equipment
built and sold by its own company Huawei. And we have reason to suspect that British,
Russian, Israeli, and French Internet products have also been backdoored by their
governments.

We don’t know whether governments attempt to surreptitiously insert backdoors into
products of companies over which they have no direct political or legal control, but
many computer security experts believe that is happening. Are there Chinese nationals
working at major US software companies trying to make it easier for the Chinese government
to hack that company’s products? French programmers? Israeli programmers? Or, at least,
are they passing the source code back to their own country so they can find vulnerabilities
more easily? Are there US agents inserting backdoors into computer chips designed
and manufactured in Asia? We know they have employees secretly embedded in countries
like China, Germany, and South Korea to aid in subverting computer and communications
systems.

Companies have responded to this situation with caveat-laden pseudo-assurances. At
a 2013 technology conference, Google CEO Eric Schmidt tried to reassure the audience
by saying that he was “pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from
any government’s prying eyes.” A more accurate statement might be: “Your data is safe
from governments, except for the ways we don’t know about and the ways we cannot tell
you about.” That’s a lousy marketing pitch, but as long as the NSA is allowed to operate
using secret court orders based on secret interpretations of secret law, it will never
be any different.

For most Internet companies, this isn’t a problem. The other thing Schmidt didn’t
say is: “And, of course, we still have complete access to it all, and can sell it
at will to whomever we want . . . and you have no recourse.” As long as these companies
are already engaging in massive surveillance of their customers and users, it’s easier
for them to comply
with government demands and share the wealth with the NSA. And as long as governments
keep demanding access and refrain from legislating protections, it’s easier to design
systems to allow it. It’s a powerful feedback loop: the business model supports the
government effort, and the government effort justifies the business model.