Spying conference vocab
Amnesty- A pardon or forgiveness of transgressions.
Asylum- The political concept that a person guilty of something in their home country can seek
refuge in another sovereign nation. Many countries (Like U.S.A., France, and the United Kingdom)
allow people who are persecuted for religious/political freedoms to seek asylum in their borders.
Edward Snowden- An American former C.I.A. operative and former NSA contractor. He came to
international attention when he disclosed a large number of classified NSA documents to media
outlets. The leaked documents revealed operational details of global surveillance systems and
outlined how the U.S. used mass surveillance (including phone tapping and email reading) on its
citizens.
Extradition- The official process whereby one country transfers a suspected/convicted criminal to
another country.
NSA- National Security Agency. The NSA is an America agency that is tasked with the global
monitoring, collection, decoding, translation, and analysis of information for intelligence and
counter-intelligence purposes.
Sanctions- Penalties or other means of enforcement, used to persuade a country to follow laws and
agreements. In the United Nations, economic sanctions are generally used. These sanctions can
affect financial aid, bar certain items from being imported/exported, etc.
Sovereignty- The idea that a nation has the power to make and abide by its own rules and laws. For
example, the maximum speed limit in America and Canada are different because they are both
independent sovereign states.
Whistleblower- A person who exposes misconduct or illegal activity occurring in an organization.
Edward Snowden is considered to be a whistleblower.
1
Is the United States the only nation that collects intelligence on its citizens? Hardly. Here’s a quick
list of 12 other nations that are known to be monitoring their populace.
1) Germany
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is not happy that the United States is spying on her. And Germans are not
happy that the United States is spying on them. But does anyone care that Merkel’s government was one of
the National Security Agency’s “key partners”? Der Spiegel reported that German intelligence agencies
worked with the NSA to collect data on its own citizens. The software, XKeyScore, allows users to monitor
and store data, some from personal messages. The government recently ended its Cold War pact with the
United States and the United Kingdom to prevent any spying on German citizens. But what if that spying is
done by the German government?
2) France
France’s Le Monde newspaper reported that the French government is spying on its citizens in much the
same way as the United States. According to the paper, the Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure
collects data daily from phone calls, emails, text messages and social media accounts. It then stores the
information for years. The government says the allegations are false.
3) China
China spies on its own citizens — that’s no secret. The country has a vast digital empire to perform such
tasks. But the domestic spying has gotten so out of control in China that its public officials are even spying
on each other. Many Chinese officials have found wires in their offices and cars. Some have even found them
in their showers. Communist Party member Bo Xilai went as far as wiretapping the president. Before
meetings, Chinese officials now often hug so they can pat each other down.
4) Russia
If surveillance were an Olympic sport, Russia would likely take the gold this year. It has installed
a surveillance system so the government can listen to athletes and visitors at next year’s Sochi Olympic
Games. The system, known as SORM, was first developed in the 1980s and has been used in Russia to spy on
the opposition. During the Games, law enforcement agencies will have the authority to tap all internet and
phone communications without notifying communication providers.
5) Zimbabwe
The government of Robert Mugabe is really good at winning elections. It’s almost like it has some kind of
unfair advantage. Recently, the government asked all broadband providers and phone companies to begin
saving information on its users for up to five years. The information will be stored in a national database.
They say such monitoring is an effort to fight crime; but many suspect it’s just another way for the
government to spy on the political opposition.
6) Syria
Syria’s internet is in the control of two main corporations, both of which were founded by Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad. These companies record all online and offline activities. They also block text messages and
shut down internet access to deter protesters. According to a report from Reporters Without Borders, Syria is
one of the most spy-happy countries in the world. Iran, China, Vietnam and Bahrain also made the group’s
list.
7) Iran
The Iranian government does not just censor websites. It’s also a fan of “deep packet inspection,” which is
just a fancy way of saying that the government likes to collect personal data, with the help of Western
2
companies like Nokia and Siemens. According to the Wall Street Journal, the government has access to
emails, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and any internet phone calls.
8) New Zealand
New Zealand? Really? A new law allows the country’s main intelligence agency to spy on its own citizens. The
government realized that the Government Communications Security Bureau had been spying on New
Zealand citizens illegally, anyway — so it introduced the new law to make it a lot less illegal. As in other
countries, there’s been a lot of public opposition to the law; as in other countries, the government claims that
the added surveillance is needed to protect the people. Aww, thanks government!
9) Bahrain
The Bahrain monarchy, which has been brutally stamping out a protest movement for several years now, uses
FinFisher, a spyware software sold by Gamma Group, a UK company. The government uses the software to
monitor opposition activists in both Bahrain and abroad. The software works by sending activists an email
about some pertinent subject, like political prisoners or torture methods used by the government. Hidden in
the email is the software, and once opened it allows the government to copy files, log keystrokes and
intercept Skype calls.
10) Canada
Yes, even Good Guy Canada spies on its own. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
recently accused the government of illegal domestic surveillance. The group said Canada’s intelligence agency,
known as Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), is collecting personal information on its
citizens. The head of CSEC denied the accusations. If you can’t believe the head of an intelligence agency,
who can you believe?
11) Vietnam
Vietnam’s communications networks may not be as strong as in some other countries, but it’s still under tight
government control. After the passage of Decree 72, Vietnamese bloggers and social media users are
prohibited from publishing material against the government. Vietnam is also using the same UK-developed
software as Bahrain. And, like Bahrain, it is accused of using it to spy on the political opposition.
12) United Kingdom
The United Kingdom and the United States have a beautiful friendship. They share everything, even records
of your phone calls. The UK intelligence agency, known as the Government Communication Headquarters,
or GCHQ, has been sharing information collected on its own citizens with the NSA through a program
known as PRISM. Many in Britain say such sharing, and the original surveillance, is illegal. The government,
to no one’s surprise, says it committed no crime.
3
What are some of the tools of the spying/intelligence gathering trade?
This is a USB key logger. A person can plug this into your
computer, plug your keyboard into the device, and then save
everything you type. Some even have the power to remotely
send the data. Passwords, emails, instant messages,
everything is saved.
GPS trackers (like the IGotU shown above) are fairly
common. They function like a standard GPS, but instead of
providing directions to places they follow the whereabouts of
people. The data collected can be pulled up in Google Maps
and other mapping software to see where a person is/has
been. Smart phones also contain GPS technology and have
been used to locate/track people.
The U.S. government (among others) uses various software
to track a person’s web usage. The right software can capture
everything; from what sites a person visits, to what they read,
who they contact, etc.
Hidden cameras are still quite popular. Technology has made it
so they are smaller and can be disguised as anything; pens, plants,
smoke detectors, dvd players, alarm clocks, keys, watches, books,
etc.
This is a survelliance drone. These quadcopters are small
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). On average, they can go 400600 feet in the air and reach speeds of 30mph. A camera is
mounted to the underside of the drone to record/take photos.
Governments have used them for videotaping protesters,
looking for suspects, and neighborhood surveillance. Many local
law enforcement groups have a quadcopter drone.
Military drones are similar to the UAVs used by local law
enforcement, except they’re much more powerful. They can go
farther distances, detect underground bunkers (see above image),
carry weapons and supplies, drop bombs on suspects, and
explore regions that are hard to reach by foot.
4
US diplomats spied on UN leadership
• Diplomats ordered to gather intelligence on Ban Ki-moon
• Secret directives sent to more than 30 US embassies
• Call for DNA data, computer passwords and terrorist links


Robert Booth and Julian Borger
The Guardian, Sunday 28 November 2010 13.14 EST
A directive from Hillary Clinton ordered US diplomats
to gather biometric information on the UN secretary
general, Ban Ki-moon. Photograph: Bernat
Armangue/AP
Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign
targeted at the leadership of the United Nations,
including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the
permanent Security Council representatives from
China, Russia, France and the UK.
A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US
diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the
communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys
used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of
specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations
and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management
and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to
diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data
included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.
Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even
frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN
Security Council permanent representatives".
The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New
York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
The operation targeted at the UN appears to have involved all of Washington's main intelligence agencies.
The CIA's clandestine service, the US Secret Service and the FBI were included in the "reporting and
collection needs" cable alongside the state department under the heading "collection requirements and
tasking".
The leak of the directive is likely to spark questions about the legality of the operation and about whether
state department diplomats are expected to spy. The level of technical and personal detail demanded about
the UN top team's communication systems could be seen as laying the groundwork for surveillance or
5
hacking operations. It requested "current technical specifications, physical layout and planned upgrades to
telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks and technologies used by top
officials and their support staff", as well as details on private networks used for official communication,
"to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys and virtual private network
versions used".
The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN
convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be
inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held,
shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference,
whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".
The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official
correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable".
The emergence of the directive also risks undermining political trust between the UN leadership and the
US, which is the former's biggest paying member, supplying almost a quarter of its budget – more than
$3bn (£1.9bn) this year.
Washington wanted intelligence on the contentious issue of the "relationship or funding between UN
personnel and/or missions and terrorist organisations" and links between the UN Relief and Works
Agency in the Middle East, and Hamas and Hezbollah. It also wanted to know about plans by UN special
rapporteurs to press for potentially embarrassing investigations into the US treatment of detainees in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, and "details of friction" between the agencies co-ordinating UN
humanitarian operations, evidence of corruption inside UNAids, the joint UN programme on HIV, and in
international health organisations, including the World Health Organisation (WHO). It even called for
"biographic and biometric" information on Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of WHO, as well as
details of her personality, role, effectiveness, management style and influence.
The UN is not the only target. The cables reveal that since 2008 the state department has issued at least
nine directives to embassies around the world which set forth "a list of priorities intended to guide
participating US government agencies as they allocate resources and update plans to collect information".
They are packed with detailed orders and while embassy staff are particularly encouraged to assist in
compiling biographic information, the directive on the mineral and oil-rich Great Lakes region of Africa
also requested detailed military intelligence, including weapons markings and plans of army bases. A
directive on "Palestinian issues" sent to Cairo, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Amman, Damascus and Riyadh
demanded the exact travel plans and vehicles used by leading members of Hamas and the Palestinian
Authority, without explaining why.
In one directive that would test the initiative, never mind moral and legal scruples, of any diplomat,
Washington ordered staff in the DRC, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi to obtain biometric information of
leading figures in business, politics, intelligence, military, religion and in key ethnic groups.
Fingerprints and photographs are collected as part of embassies' consular and visa operations, but it is
harder to see how diplomats could justify obtaining DNA samples and iris scans. Again in central Africa,
embassy officials were ordered to gather details about countries' military relations with China, Libya,
North Korea, Iran and Russia. Washington assigned high priority to intelligence on the "transfer of
strategic materials such as uranium", and "details of arms acquisitions and arms sales by government or
6
insurgents, including negotiations, contracts, deliveries, terms of sale, quantity and quality of equipment,
and price and payment terms".
The directives, signed simply "Clinton" or "Rice", referring to the current and former secretaries of state,
Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, form a central plank of America's intelligence effort and reveal
how Washington is using its 11,500-strong foreign service to glean highly sensitive information on both
allies and enemies.
They are compliant with the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, which is approved by the
president, and issued by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who oversees the CIA, the
Defence Intelligence Agency, FBI and 13 other intelligence agencies.
Washington circulated to its Middle Eastern embassies a request for what was effectively a counterintelligence operation against Mukhabarat, the Palestinian Authority's secret service, and Istikhbarat, its
military intelligence.
The directive asked for an assessment of the foreign agencies' "signals intercept capabilities and targets,
decryption capabilities, intercept sites and collection hardware, and intercept operation successes" and
information of their "efforts to illicitly collect classified, sensitive, commercial proprietary or protected
technology information from US companies or government agencies".
Missions in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were asked to gather biometric information "on
key Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders and representatives, to include the young guard inside Gaza,
the West Bank", as well as evidence of collusion between the PA security forces and terror groups.
Taken together, the directives provide a vivid snapshot of America's perception of foreign threats which
are often dazzlingly interconnected. Paraguayan drug traffickers were suspected of supporting Hezbollah
and al-Qaida, while Latin American cocaine barons were linked to criminal networks in the desert states
of west Africa, who were in turn linked to Islamist terrorists in the Middle East and Asia.
High on the list of requests in an April 2009 directive covering the Saharan west African countries,
including Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, was information about the activities
of fighters returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Information was wanted on "indications that international
terrorist groups are seeking to take advantage of political, ethnic, tribal or religious conflict".
Diplomats were told to find out about the links between drug traffickers in the region to Latin American
cocaine cartels, as well as terrorist or insurgent groups' income derived from the drugs trade.
Sometimes the directives appear linked to forthcoming diplomatic obligations of the secretary of state. In
a cable to the embassy in Sofia last June, five months before Clinton hosted Bulgaria's foreign minister in
Washington, the first request was about government corruption and the links between organised crime
groups and "government and foreign entities, drug and human trafficking, credit card fraud, and
computer-related crimes, including child pornography".
Washington also wanted to know about "corruption among senior officials, including off-budget financial
flows in support of senior leaders … details about defence industry, including plans and efforts to cooperate with foreign nations and actors. Weapon system development programmes, firms and facilities.
Types, production rates, and factory markings of major weapon systems".
7
Top tips for dealing with defectors and turncoats
One cable offered a detailed and practical guide for embassies on how to handle possible defectors,
known as "walk-ins", who turned up at embassies offering to switch sides. It called for them to be treated
with considerable care because they "may be sources of invaluable intelligence".
"Walk-ins may exhibit nervous or anxious behaviour, particularly because access controls and host nation
security forces around many of our diplomatic posts make it difficult for walk-ins to approach our
facilities discreetly," it warned. "All briefings should also stress the importance of not drawing attention
to the walk-in or alerting host nation security personnel."
Embassy staff should immediately copy the person's identification papers or passport, in case they got
cold feet and ran off, it said. A walk-in who possessed any object that appeared potentially dangerous
should be denied access even if the item was presented "as evidence of some intelligence he offers, eg,
red mercury [a possibly bogus chemical which has been claimed to be a component of nuclear weapons]
presented as proof of plutonium enrichment". 8
5 Key Points from President Obama’s NSA Speech
From St. Louis Pubic Radio (http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/5-takeaways-presidents-nsa-speech)
Shortly after the New Year, President Obama made a speech about reforming the NSA. His remarks came after
widespread backlash against U.S. surveillance practices as revealed by the documents that Edward Snowden
leaked. Here are five key points from that speech. Do you think the goes far enough? Or do you think he is taking
too much power from the NSA? What would you do to reform the NSA?
1.) The Real Battle Over Bulk Phone Record Collection Could Come Next Year
President Obama left it to Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper to decide who will store billions of records of American phone
call metadata.
He asked the officials to figure out a solution before March 28, when the secret foreign
intelligence surveillance court will need to do a regular renewal of the government's authority of
that provision of the Patriot Act. But telecom companies don't want the job, a third-party
consortium doesn't yet exist to hold the data, and the NSA really doesn't want to give it up. In the
words of privacy advocate Julian Sanchez, a fellow at the Cato Institute, "the frustrating thing is
the details are so up in the air we can't even really say yet whether this means an end to bulk
collection."
Beyond that, the president asked the intelligence community to look over the next year for a
technical solution that would allow targeted data collection, instead of the dragnet being
performed now. But NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander has testified the agency has no short term
fix and would welcome help from the private sector. The Patriot Act expires in 2015 and the
part that covers phone metadata, known as Section 215, will require congressional
approval—which means the real battle could come next year.
2.) The Limits Of Privacy Protections For Foreign Persons
The President unilaterally stopped surveillance on some foreign allies after the Snowden
revelations and ordered the intelligence community to submit collection priorities for high-level
review on an annual basis. He also extended some privacy protections to people internationally
— not just Americans. And he ordered the attorney general and the director of national
intelligence to develop new restrictions on the government's ability to retain, search and use
information under section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act it's collected on Americans who are
communicating with targets overseas. But privacy advocates say the details, which are not yet
apparent, will make all the difference here. Among the key questions: how long will that data
be retained, how can it be searched, and in what kinds of cases?
3.) About Those Privacy Advocates
The president has asked Congress to create an independent panel of advocates who might
help judges on the foreign surveillance court in select cases that involve groundbreaking
areas of law and technology.
9
4.) Congress As Wild Card
For any of the changes President Obama made today to stick, and for most of the policy
prescriptions he recommended, Congress will need to act.
Whether Democrats, libertarians and Tea Party Republicans can work together long enough to
form a stable coalition that survives House and Senate review is an open question.
5.) The Snowden Issue
And then, there is the issue of Snowden himself. In an unusual move, the president went out of
his way to mention the former NSA contractor who's been charged with violating the 1917
Espionage Act, closing the door on calls for clemency or lenient treatment.
"Our nation's defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation's secrets,"
Obama said. "If any individual who objects to government policy can take it in their own hands
to publicly disclose classified information, then we will never be able to keep our people safe, or
conduct foreign policy."
Snowden is in Russia on a grant of temporary asylum – and the clock is ticking on his one-year
sanctuary from Vladimir Putin. Will Russian leaders evict him, shepherd him to yet another
country, or try to send him back to the U.S.?
10
U.S.-Germany Intelligence Partnership
Falters Over Spying
By DAVID E. SANGER and ALISON SMALE
BERLIN — Nearly two months after President Obama assured Chancellor Angela Merkel of
Germany that the United States would never again target her cellphone, a broader effort to build
a new intelligence relationship with Germany is floundering, with each side increasingly
reluctant to make major changes in how it deals with the other.
American officials have refused to extend the “no spying” guarantee beyond Ms. Merkel, telling
German officials in private sessions that if the White House agreed to forgo surveillance on
German territory, other partners would insist on the same treatment.
“Susan Rice has been very clear to us,” one senior German official said, referring to Mr.
Obama’s national security adviser. “The U.S. is not going to set a precedent.”
How aggressively to continue targeting the leaders of countries allied with the United States is
one of the most delicate questions facing Mr. Obama as he weighs the still-confidential report of
an outside advisory group that submitted 40 recommendations to him on Friday, including
several dealing with spying on the United States’ closest allies and partners.
The director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, said in an interview
after the monitoring of Chancellor Merkel was revealed that the United States may soon have to
choose between spying on partners and making them full participants in combating digital
threats. Ms. Merkel has also responded to the disclosures: Among the ministers she named to her
new coalition government on Sunday was a former intelligence official.
“This is a consequence of the N.S.A. matter, or affair,” she said, using the common reference in
Germany to the reports on American intelligence activities. It is “a justified response to the new
challenges we face.”
According to officials familiar with the advisory group’s report to Mr. Obama, it concluded that
the White House must regularly review the N.S.A.’s surveillance programs to determine whether
the intelligence gathered is worth the damage that would be done if a program were revealed —
a process that C.I.A. operations go through annually. Officials said elements of that
recommendation were already being adopted ahead of Mr. Obama’s broader announcement,
expected in January, about the N.S.A. overhauls he plans to make.
But as Mr. Obama considers his options, the effort to repair the damage to the United States’
relationship with Germany appears to have stumbled. American officials have so far refused to
11
pull back from electronic spying in the country, save for Ms. Merkel’s own communications,
even though German officials argue that the United States is violating German law.
At the same time, Germany is equally reluctant to enter into a deeper cooperation agreement, at
least on American terms.
Germany has for years participated in American counterterrorism operations, especially those
tracking suspected Al Qaeda or other terrorist cells inside Germany, but it has refused to provide
the United States with information that it believes could help provide targets for drone strikes.
Now, officials are reluctant to join in some types of bulk collection of telephone data or
preparations for offensive digital strikes against other countries.
“We simply don’t have the capability or the legal authorities,” said one senior German official
involved in the talks, who, like other officials interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity
because the negotiations are confidential.
The White House has tried to engage the German leadership quietly, hoping to avoid further
public confrontations while Ms. Merkel formed her new government.
“At the president’s and chancellor’s direction, we continue to talk with our German partners
about how we can strengthen our intelligence cooperation and address some of the concerns that
have been raised,” Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said
Saturday. “We’ve agreed that these talks are best held confidentially, so I’m not going to provide
any details at this stage.”
Nonetheless, in interviews in the past week, American and German officials described a
continued wariness in the countries’ relationship after documents that the German newsmagazine
Der Spiegel received from Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, revealed the
apparent tracking of Ms. Merkel’s personal cellphone and suggested that other surveillance
operations had been run out of the United States Embassy here.
While Mr. Obama tried to make amends, several senior German officials expressed suspicions
that the United States might be using its surveillance technology to strengthen its negotiating
hand in trade talks with the European Union, in which Germany is the most important player.
The dispute also reflects very different views of how far the state should go in conducting
surveillance, both at home and abroad.
In an angry conversation with Mr. Obama in October after the phone monitoring was revealed,
Ms. Merkel said that the N.S.A.’s activities reminded her of growing up as the daughter of a
Protestant minister in East Germany. “She told him, ‘This is like the Stasi,’ ” said one person
who had discussed the conversation with the chancellor.
Another person familiar with the conversation said Ms. Merkel had told Mr. Obama that she was
particularly angry that, based on the disclosures, “the N.S.A. clearly couldn’t be trusted with
private information, because they let Snowden clean them out.”
12
American officials said that the German accounts accurately captured the spirit of the heated
conversation, but that the quotations given by German officials were more direct and pointed
than what was actually said. But the exchange set the tone for a dialogue between Washington
and Berlin that has only underscored how differently the two countries see the issue. United
States officials talk about conducting surveillance, whether of adversaries or allies, to protect
American interests; German officials emphasize the importance of reaffirming the alliance.
American officials are intent on gathering the data needed to quickly determine the whereabouts
of terrorism suspects; the Germans start with privacy concerns.
The man Ms. Merkel tapped for the new post in her coalition government is a veteran of the
German security apparatus. Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, 60, now a top Interior Ministry official, was
previously deputy head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s
domestic intelligence service.
The distaste within the German political establishment for the United States’ approach extends
beyond former citizens of East Germany, like Ms. Merkel. Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the
Social Democratic Party and deputy chancellor in Ms. Merkel’s new government, took time in a
speech last month to emphasize Germany’s dismay that the United States could engage in the
kind of surveillance Mr. Snowden has disclosed.
“The United States, the country we Germans have so much to thank for,” Mr. Gabriel said at a
party congress in Leipzig, “is at the moment endangering the most important foundation of our
trans-Atlantic partnership.”
13
Creative Ambiguity – International Law’s
Distant Relationship with Peacetime Spying
By Craig Forcese for JustSecurity.Org
Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 8:30 AM
In all the sound and fury over “five eye” intercept programs, commentators appear so far to have
paid relatively little attention to international law. This is no simple oversight. International law
is unusually anemic when it comes to pronouncing on the rights and wrongs of peacetime
spying. This is not to say, however, that international law is silent on matters directly implicated
by spying. Indeed, the Snowden revelations to date suggest a number of ways in which “five
eyes” spying raises international law doubts.
Spying from the Territory of Another State
First and most obviously, spying by a foreign power on the territory of another state raises
sovereignty concerns. State “sovereignty” includes, among other things, “the right to
exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to
the immunities recognized by international law”.1 Actions by a foreign state’s agents, done on
another state’s territory, may violate the latter’s sovereignty. This is most acutely true where
these actions are illegal under the territorial state’s laws. In this respect, running a covert wiretap
program from another state’s territory in violation of domestic privacy laws is no different from
snatching someone from the streets of that state in violation of its kidnapping rules.
This is true even if the operation is mounted under diplomatic cover, in sheds on the roofs of
embassies. The precise functions of a diplomatic mission consist, among other things, of
“ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and
reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State”.2 Using a diplomatic mission to
intercept communications protected by domestic privacy law might easily exceed the “lawful
means” requirements.
Spying and Human Rights
International human rights principles might also be implicated by spying. This conversation is
normative, asking what rule human (and civil) rights law should play in this area.
And this forward-looking thinking is particularly timely. Not least: there is good reason to doubt
that human rights treaty law actually reaches the conduct at issue so far in the Snowden
releases. Covert electronic surveillance indisputably impairs privacy, a right guarded by Article
17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But these privacy
guarantees are limited – making them a modest constraint on state electronic surveillance so long
as certain basic protections are observed.
14
In addition, whatever its content, it is doubtful that Article 17 reaches extraterritorial
spying. Under Article 2, a state’s ICCPR obligations extend to “all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction”. While the issue is sometimes contested, the Human
Rights Committee and the International Court of Justice have concluded that the ICCPR does
have a modest extraterritorial reach. Specifically, a person may be within a state’s jurisdiction
when that person is within the power or “effective control” of the state, even if not on the state’s
territory.3
Covert extraterritorial surveillance almost by definition will not be of persons within the spying
state’s effective control. It follows that the ICCPR privacy protections are inapplicable, unless
there is a dramatic re-construal of the treaty’s reach.
For these reasons, the ICCPR is of modest use in critiquing the extraterritorial activities of
signals intelligence agencies.
Purely Transnational Intelligence Gathering
There is even less to say when the spying is “transnational” — that is, the intercept is conducted
by agencies physically located on the territory of the spying state, drawing on communications
transiting between states (and indeed, often intercepted on the territory of the spying
state). Human rights preoccupations can be dismissed on the jurisdictional basis described above
– the individuals whose communications are intercepted are far from the effective control of the
spying state. Likewise, it is difficult to see how the intercept of electronic leakage from one state
in the territory of another state violates a sovereignty interest.
The International Telecommunications Convention does provide (in Article 22) that members
will “take all possible measures, compatible with the system of telecommunication used, with a
view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence.” This is, however, hardly a
resounding prohibition. The treaty also states that members “[n]evertheless, …reserve the right
to communicate such correspondence to the competent authorities in order to ensure the
application of their internal laws or the execution of international conventions to which they are
parties.” Put another way, a domestic law steering international communications to a security
agency on national security grounds is plausibly an “internal law” that trumps the secrecy
proviso found in the Convention.
Conclusion
In sum, public international law rules pertaining to spying are best described as a checkerboard
of principles, constraining some practices in some places and in relation to some actors, but not
in other cases in relation to other actors. The clearest principle is a simple expression of
sovereignty preoccupations: don’t spy on the territory of another state, in violation of its
laws. Beyond that, there is no simple rule governing the international legality of
spying. This may not be a happy situation, but it is fair to say that this is the world that states
have quite clearly set out to create. After all, all states spy at one time or another.
15
1. International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission to the
General Assembly, 1949 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 2 at 278, containing the draft
“Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States”. While the declaration has never been
adopted, and is not in its own rights international law, it has had a “long-term effect on
the development of international law”. B. Grafrath, The International Law Commission
Tomorrow: Improving Its Organization And Methods Of Work, (1991) 85 A.J.I.L. 595. It
is fair to say that many of its provisions reflect core precepts in modern international law.
[↩]
2. Vienna Convention, Art 3 (emphasis added). [↩]
3. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, UN GAOR, 59th Sess., Supp. No.
40, Vol. 1, at 175, 177, UN Doc. A/59/40 (2004) at para. 12 [↩]
Filed Under: Civil Liberties, International and Foreign
16
| <xrun.esc // nsa1013841934/PRISMexx//E-S-encryption>
<=isch&sa=X&ei=06z9UrbZKum2yAHS-IDQDg&ved=0CAcQ>
<ex//:
the-EDWARD-SNOWDEN-files /011843941 >
Pictures and black text from “A timeline of Edward Snowden’s life” (The Washington Post, http://archive.is/lrRRG)


<run://e=lnms&sa=X&ei=9a_9UtemBOOayAGuo4DoBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUo
CHILDHOOD-EDUCATION-andFAMILY/1983-2004
/
<?searchode+run+
c
<enc:EncryptedData>
<encryption xhlns’’urnalskdj-1902983129skdjlfs9801293812’’
xnlnsinc==0101000100101010010101101011
<EncryptData.exe://
CAREER/2004-2010/>
/program&source=lnms&sa=//>
June 21, 1983
Edward Joseph Snowden is born.
May 7, 2004
At age 20, Snowden enlists in the Army Reserve
as a Special Forces recruit.
1980s and 1990s
Snowden and his family live in North Carolina for
many years, and then move to Maryland. He
attends Crofton Woods Elementary School,
Crofton Middle School and then Arundel High
School for 1 ½ years.
Sept. 28, 2004
Snowden is discharged from the Army without
completing any training or receiving any awards
he says he broke both his legs in a training
accident.
1998
Snowden attends the first semester of 10th grade
but drops out before continuing the second
semester. He would have been in the class of
2001. His father says this was because he got
really sick sophomore year.
1999
Snowden enrolls in credit courses at Anne
Arundel Community College. He continues
attending classes for the next six years, taking
breaks during the spring semesters of 2002 and
2003.
February – May 2002
“Ed Snowden” takes classes at the
Computer Career Institute, a forprofit college then affiliated with Johns Hopkins
University.
Snowden says he left the CIA to work for a
private contractor and was based at an NSA
[National Security Agency] facility in Japan.
<?source=Patrick-Semansky/Associated-Press>
2005
Snowden gets a job as a
security guard at the
federally funded University
of Maryland Center for
Advanced Study of Language,
which conducts classified and
unclassified research. Snowden is
in the job for less than a year.
Summer 2009
Snowden enrolls in classes through the
University of Maryland University College, which
offers online classes.
Fall 2005
Snowden takes his last classes at AACC. He
never earns a degree or certificate.
March 2012
Snowden makes a $250 donation to Ron Paul's
presidential campaign. In May, he gives another
$250 to Paul's campaign.
2007
The CIA stationed him with
diplomatic cover in Geneva.
2009
2011
Snowden registers to study computer security
through an online program offered by the
University of Liverpool.
Early 2013
Snowden works for Booz Allen
Hamilton as an
"infrastructure analyst" for
the NSA based in Hawaii, he said. The
company said in a statement in early June that
Snowden worked there for fewer than three
months.
May 16, 2013
Snowden's first direct exchange with Washington
Post reporter Barton Gellman.
May 20, 2013
Snowden tells his supervisors at the NSA that he
needs time off for treatment for epilepsy and
leaves for Hong Kong, according to the
Guardian.
GLOBALSURVEILLENCE-LEAKS-ANDNSA-FALL-OUT/2013--Present/>
April 2013
The dated listed on the PRISM PowerPoint that
Snowden leaked to the news media.
</?source-‘‘Photos of Edward Snowden on the front pages of
local English and Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong on June
11.’’/Bobby Yip/Reuters>
June 6, 2013
The Washington Post and
the Guardian break the
story about PRISM.
June 9, 2013
Snowden's identity becomes public.
May, 2013
Snowden and girlfriend move out of their Oahu,
Hawaii house.
June 23 to August, 2013
Flies to Moscow. This was supposed to be a oneday layover en route to Ecuador, but the U.S.
revokes his passport, leaving him stranded in the
Russian Airport until August. American
officials have charged him
with espionage and stealing
government property
August, 2013
Russia grants Snowden amnesty.
He is assumed to be there
currently.
Sources refer to him as
</?source=’’Booz Allen Hamilton's cyber solutions center in
Maryland’’/Jeffrey MacMillan/The Washington Post>
</encryptdata.exe/
<xKeystroke://10232xlkjcxlk?=’’system breach
detected’’source=???>
<://xKeyscore/enc0294829241/:
<?source=’’The front page of South China Morning Post at a
news stand in Hong Kong on June 13, 2013.’’/AP/Kin Cheung>
June 12, 2013
The South China Morning Post, a newspaper in
Hong Kong, posts an interview with Snowden on
June 12.
‘‘the world’s most
wanted man’’
</x:Keyscore/ enc0294829241
<encryptionAlgo=
&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=9a_9UtemBOOayAGuo4DoBg&ved=0/extraditi
on.exe/
</encryptionAlgo>
<run:extradition10341082.exe/location=????>
</run>
THE NSA TALKS BACK
In response to the intelligence leaks by Edward Snowden, along with subsequent national and international outrage, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has
spoken out to defend itself. Here are some key talking points from an unclassified NSA document, responding to the NSA’s critics and defining the Agency’s role in
U.S. intelligence. [Text directly from the NSA 2013 Talking Points]
Mission
NSA's mission is to produce foreign
intelligence to protect the U.S. and its allies.
We’ve served the nation in
silence for over 60 years.
Connecting the Dots
After 9/11 it was determined that the
intelligence community failed to connect the
dots.
A major challenge in this digital age is that
terrorists and citizens use the same
communication networks [facebook, cell
phones, wi-fi, etc.]
History and Tools
Post-9/11 we made several changes and
added a number of capabilities to enable us
to enable us to connect dots
Two of those capabilities are the Business
Records FISA, or Section 215 and FAA 702
or PRISM
Section 215 of the Patriot Act helps the
government connect the dots by “enabling
the detection of telephone contact between
terrorists overseas and operatives within the
U.S.
Congress enabled the NSA to collect
telephone data “with the assistance of US
Communications providers” [Comcast,
Verizon, etc.] to better track foreign persons
outside of the US.
Protection of Privacy and Civil
Liberties
In order to target the content of a U.S.
person’s communications anywhere in the
world, NSA requires a finding of probable
cause under a specific court order.
Any allegations that NSA relies on its
foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is
absolutely false.
This is also true of contractors. The
misdeeds of one contractor should not
tarnish all the contractors because they do
great work for our nation, as well.
Industry is a Necessary Partner
We could not do this without industry
support. In these cases, industry is
compelled by the court to provide the
required information
Disclosures and Damage
Public Discussion of NSA's tradecraft, or the
tools that support its operations, provide
insights that terrorists can and do use to
hide their activities. This would be
detrimental to national security.
Those who wish to do us harm now know
how we counter their actions; this has done
irreversible harm to our nation's security
If we could have an open
and public debate without
arming terrorists with
the information about how
to defeat our
capabilities, we would
jump on it.
TERRORIST ATTACKS THE NSA HELPED PREVENT
NYC ATTACK PLOT 2009
he tried to depart from Chicago O'Hare
airport on a trip to Europe.
East Africa network, and an unknown San
Diego-based number.
In early September of 2009, while
monitoring the activities of Al Qaeda
terrorists in Pakistan, NSA noted contact
from an individual in the US that the FBI
subsequently identified as Colorado-based
Najibullah Zazi.
At the time of his arrest, Headley and his
colleagues were plotting to attack the
Danish newspaper that published the
unflattering cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammed, at the behest of Al Qaeda.
That tip ultimately led to the FBI's opening
of a full investigation that resulted in a
February 2013 conviction of Basaaly
Moaklin and three others for conspiring to
provide material support to Al Shabaab, a
State-Department designated terrorists
group in Somaliz that engages in suicide
bombings, targets civilians for
assassination, and uses improvised
explosive devices.
The US intelligence community, including
the FBI and NSA, worked in concert to
determine his relationship with Al Qaeda, as
well as identify any foreign or domestic
terrorist links
The FBI Tracked Zazi as he travelled to
New York to meet up with co-conspirators,
where they were planning to conduct a
terrorist attack.
Compelled collection (authorized under
FISA Section 702) against foreign terrorists
and meta data analysis (authorized under
the Business Records Provision of FISA)
were utilized in complement with the FBI
law enforcement authorities to investigate
Headley's overseas associates and their
involvement in Headley's activities
Zazi and his co-conspirators were
subsequently arrested. Zazi, upon
indictment, pled guilty to conspiring to bomb
the NYC subway system.
CHICAGO TERROR INVESTIGATION
In October 2009, David Coleman Headley,
a Chicago business man and dual U.S. and
Pakistani citizen, was arrested by the FBI as
In January 2009, using authorized collection
under Section 702 to monitor the
communications of an extremist overseas
with ties to Al-Qaeda, NSA discovered a
connection with an individual based in
Kansas City.
NSA tipped the information to FBI, which
during the course of its investigation
uncovered a plot to attack the New York
Stock Exchange. NSA queried metadata
obtained under Section 215 to ensure that
we identified all potential connections to the
plot, asissting the FBI in running down lead
This plot was characterized as 'the most
serious terrorist threat on U.S. soil since
9.11
Compelled collection (authorized under
FISA Section 702) against foreign terrorists
was critical to the discovery and disruption
of this threat against the United States
OPERATION WI-FI, APRIL 2009
BASAALY MOALIN, OCTOBER 2007
NSA provided the FBI with information
obtained from querying the metadata
obtained under Section 215. This
information established a connection
between a phone known to be used by an
extremist overseas with ties to Al Qaeda's