

The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program - hendzen
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

======
dredmorbius
_the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card,
rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has
come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by
unreliable metadata._

"I've got nothing to hide..."

 _The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations kill
terrorists with the utmost precision._

Note that "accuracy" and "precision" aren't the same thing. A sharp knife is
precise, but if you slice in the wrong place, it's not being used accurately.
Noting that the language here isn't a quote but a description from Scahill and
Greenwald.

~~~
yardie
> Note that "accuracy" and "precision" aren't the same thing.

Drilled into us early in freshman engineering classes.

------
D9u

      “turns out I’m really good at killing people.”
    
      The president added, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
    

Ironic words for a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

~~~
actual_hacker
Another huge piece of news from this article:

\- "The [SHENANIGANS] operation – previously undisclosed – utilizes a pod on
aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts of data from any wireless routers,
computers, smart phones or other electronic devices that are within range."

\- "The operator describes how, _from almost four miles in the air,_ he
searched for communications devices"

\- "VICTORYDANCE, he adds, _“mapped the Wi-Fi fingerprint of nearly every
major town_ in Yemen.”

This is something we didn't even know is possible: drones are cataloguing the
MAC addresses, BSSIDs, ESSIDs (unique identifiers for things like your iPhone
and the wireless adapter on your PC, laptop, or tablet) of people's personal
electronics, __at the scale of cities __, from _so high up in the air you can
't even see the drone_, and they're creating "fingerprints" from it. That
means what devices "belong" in what city.

They don't suspect these people of any wrongdoing or criminal activity - how
could they? They're monitoring entire cities. This is exactly what Snowden
warned us about: the untargeted mass surveillance of entire populations.

The next time you hear about domestic drones for police and "homeland
security," remember this article.

[The Day We Fight Back
rally]([http://www.thedaywefightback.org](http://www.thedaywefightback.org))
is tomorrow.

~~~
contingencies
Sorry, we did know that was possible. It's well reported and obviously
possible. Search even for amateur cantenna ranges and you'll see how far you
can easily pull an SSID from (hint: many kilometres).

If the above was news to you, then get more worried: Google catalogues SSIDs
versus GPS from hundreds of millions (billions?) of client android devices.
Even ones that aren't logged in. This is why geolocation is fast with android
devices. Unsure, but it's quite likely that Apple does the same.

------
farseer
>>"The NSA geolocation system used by JSOC is known by the code name
GILGAMESH. Under the program, a specially constructed device is attached to
the drone. As the drone circles, the device locates the SIM card or handset
that the military believes is used by the target."

>>"The agency also equips drones and other aircraft with devices known as
“virtual base-tower transceivers” – creating, in effect, a fake cell phone
tower that can force a targeted person’s device to lock onto the NSA’s
receiver without their knowledge."

This is unsettling! I always suspected this technology was used by law
enforcement but equipping killer robots for live missile guidance?!?!?

~~~
7952
Within a few years you will probably be able to buy such a drone for $1000 on
the internet. Everyone is going to want one.

~~~
patrickk
We're going to enter into an interesting new phase of spying and counter-
spying efforts if drones-as-faux-cell-towers are widely available.

"Citizens of [major urban area]. Do not use your cell phone, rogue foreign
agents are spying on us with a drone cell tower. Please wait until further
notice - the bogey will be shot down shortly."

Or perhaps more likely:

"All employees are advised to use landlines and encrypted channels for the
foreseeable future instead of mobile devices, we have reports of drone cell
towers for industrial espionage."

I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. There's been enough Orwellian nightmares
come to fruition lately to make these projections seem sane.

~~~
Zigurd
> drones-as-faux-cell-towers are widely available

I'm pretty sure you could find a VoIP-backhaul femtocell light enough to mount
on a drone with enough battery to power it right now. They are used to provide
cell service aboard ships.

------
coldtea
> _According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special
> Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often
> identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone
> tracking technologies._

Well, it's not like they believe their targets are human, anyway. Their lives
are worth nothing to those analysts, innocent or not.

~~~
maaku
I don't think it is analysts that make such a call.

~~~
vincie
I don't know anything about how they target their victim, but I am assuming
the have very little time between seeing the victim and deciding to execute
him/her/them. So I suspect an algorithm makes the call.

~~~
rdl
None of it is "seconds", it's all minutes or higher, and there is almost
certainly at least a Colonel (20+ years experience), or a General, making the
call. Every shoot probably goes through >20 people -- legal, various types of
targeting, and technical/tactical "can the shot be made at all". The whole
process is designed around getting approval for things like this rapidly. UAVs
have many-hour loiter times, vs. combat aircraft which are usually minutes on
station (due to fuel, since they're often based far away from the combat).

You can legitimately criticize a lot about the program, but it's not
understaffed. At some level the military likes to retain "person in the loop"
on things where automation is technically more appropriate, as it's a way to
train people for other roles later -- i.e. pilots who eventually become USAF
top brass.

My problem is with the over-use of drones in operations where we'd otherwise
not get involved (Yemen, etc.). Drones themselves probably centralize decision
making with more senior people, and the cost of not taking a shot is just
having to wait for the next one, so unless it's a shot in support of a unit
already on the ground, theoretically drones will make the military _more_
restrained in the shots it takes. If there are friendly forces on the ground
nearby, you end up with things like the "Reuters Journalist/Collateral Murder"
situation -- a lower level of evidence to support a military decision than
you'd ideally have.

~~~
joelhaus
Most everything you wrote makes intuitive sense, even for myself, with no
military experience--which is why it is so hard for me to believe that many of
the other comments in this thread are being made earnestly.

Perhaps there is some philosophy at work that is just foreign to me?

Even the basis of this article strains credulity--the authors editorialize
that any reliance on signals intel is bad. Assuming that drones are a useful
military tool, wouldn't we want maximum information to improve targeting,
leading to reductions in collateral damage?

~~~
rdl
I think people are much better at evaluating whether the totality of a
situation is good/bad, vs. why specifically that situation is bad.

There's no question much of the US response to 9/11 has been bad --
internationally (wars...) and domestically (perpetual state of war, civil
liberties losses, etc.).

Articulating which changes, particularly technological, are good and bad
individually is a lot harder. And it seems to be harder for people the closer
they are to the situation emotionally.

------
fredgrott
some of the problem...

Right now I get texts and voice mail from people attempting to contact the
former owner of the SIM Identity I have..it happens any time you buy a prepaid
phone..sometimes you get a previously owned SIM id..

Guess where this most active as far as buying a prepaid phone?

Developing countries such as Africa and Middle East..

This is a very highly political volatile situation waiting to blow up in a
Presidents face.

Its not will it happen but only a matter of when

~~~
einhverfr
> This is a very highly political volatile situation waiting to blow up in a
> Presidents face.

You have to look at this in the overall picture of military size and spending
though as well. Since WWII, with a few blips, the size of our armed forces (in
the US) has been slowly decreasing, while military spending has been
increasing at a relatively steady rate (outside of actual war-time expenses)
regardless of who is in office.

But the spending isn't equal. It is going up in critical areas, including
tactical aircraft at an exponential rate. At current projections unless
something changes, in 2054, the entire defence budget will be enough to buy
one tactical aircraft. Norman Augustine pointed that out in the mid-1980's,
but we are still on track.

So here's what I see, and it is genuinely scary:

I see a shrinking US military armed with ever more-effective force-multiplying
weapons (but insufficient _people_ ) trying very hard to maintain control over
key strategic areas they see in the world, while the weapons are getting
stronger and the human side is getting weaker. There is _no way_ this will
continue for very long. It will stir up more and more justified resentment in
the world which will face a country less and less prepared to deal with it.

All of this is a proxy for having real strength in arms.

~~~
samstave
Or maybe there will be a world war to reset the cycle, kill off tons of uppity
civilians and let those that can reap astounding profits and lock down more
control over the experience of the civilization we have...

~~~
einhverfr
Do you really think, after our experience in Iraq, that we could win a world
war? Our armed forces have been moving slowly away from a world-war type force
since WWII. Fighting a world war requires having lots and lots of boots on the
ground and vast quantities of manpower. A few robots can't match that.

~~~
samstave
Winning schminning....

War is never about winning anything. It is about profiteering off death and
destruction and paying sacrificial homage to the god of chaos to whom all
politicians worship.

~~~
einhverfr
But if you look at it that way, our military-industrial complex has become so
efficient at waging war as a means to profiteering, that all we need are very
tiny wars we can continue to wage forever. In fact this is what is happening.

But this continues to bolster my point, which is that our military is less and
less prepared to fight a major war. The scary thing is that if a major
conflict comes, we are totally unprepared _and_ that's not fixable without
rethinking the basics of military equipment and such.

Of course this is possible to turn around. The Byzantines managed to do so by
cutting military spending during a series of wars they were losing. I think we
need to follow their lead but that has tremendous implications on issues like
gun control.

------
jsmeaton
Some unnamed source says that targets aren't double checked and that maybe
innocents that have been lent a phone have been killed. This article is
extremely light for such length.

~~~
ItendToDisagree
I think the point of the article was how they are doing the data collecting
and making the decisions (for which they provided statements from a named
source as well as the leaked documents).

The thought that targeting a 'cell phone/sim', as opposed to the actual
person, could cause unexpected deaths seemed to be more of a 'logical next
step' rather than a substantiated claim (although it has been shown elsewhere
that unexpected deaths are happening with some frequency due to drone
strikes/targeting).

~~~
jsmeaton
> that unexpected deaths are happening with some frequency due to drone
> strikes/targeting

No doubt. The behaviour is extremely troubling, and the "collateral damage"
should be considered war crimes IMO.

I'm doubting the authenticity of the source and that geolocation _alone_ is
being used for targeting, without any secondary confirmation. I find that very
difficult to take at face value, although in our current climate I wonder why
I should.

------
higherpurpose
Jacob Appelbaum has been saying this for a while already. They use NSA's data
to do "signature strikes", i.e. strikes where they may assassinate someone
only based on the "harmless metadata" they have on him. Talked to someone who
may have talked to someone else from a "terrorist organization"? Well, you may
now be on a drone target list.

This is going to get exponentially worse as they move to automated drone
assassinations, where they just create an "algorithm" that's supposed to
decide who is going to die next.

This is going to be their next logical conclusion, and to them it's
"inevitable". Of course, it will be done in secret, too, probably for years
before there are even leaks about it. Going by how "accurate" their algorithms
are for determining who's American and who's not (there has to be only a 51
percent chance, which is almost like flipping a coin on whether someone is
American or not), I imagine this algorithm on who to kill will be pretty
loose, too. Better safe and kill more innocent people, than sorry and not kill
the right target, is what they will choose for that algorithm.

You could say the rules for killing are already very loose right now, but the
killing itself is done manually, and they are somewhat restricted to how many
people they can hire for this. Once it's automated, expect the assassinations
to rise by an order of magnitude, because it will just be "so easy", and also
sending a drone should become much cheaper in 10 years.

Drone assassination defenders have been saying "but would it be any different
if they just sent some guy with an F-16 in there to attack the target?". Well,
even if such an attack wouldn't be anymore precise and it would still kill a
lot of innocent people in _that_ strike, the difference between killing people
like that and killing them with automated drones or even manual ones, is about
as big as spying on highly expensive targets, and doing "mass collections on
everyone". It becomes so easy and so cheap technologically, that their rules
for doing that action become radically more loose.

Just as for spying, they will do it simply because they can. Instead of
attacking Osama's #2 with an air strike, they will be attacking a lot more
people who are just very remotely associated with an organization, and in many
of these cases, the decision to kill will be done by loose understanding of
what is a target from the NSA mass spying (whether it's the understanding of
the people deciding the drone targets now, or the algorithm for the automated
drones in the future).

Recommended watching: Daniel Suarez on automated killer robots:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI)

~~~
7952
War will always lead to the death and injury of people who do not fit within
the political motivation of the action. By removing the passion of soldiers we
see how bad a lot of the data is. The data was always bad, but that was
overshadowed by the suffering caused by actual malevolence. If a war is
justifiable for humanitarian reasons the risk to civilians is probably worth
it. Soldiers have lots of unintended consequences to civilian populations
which drones effectively remove; this could be a good thing. Of course people
said similar things about area bombing in WWII so I wouldn't bet on it.

------
tantalor
There is plenty of precedent for strikes based on hunches and guesses. For
example, they confirmed OBL was in Abbottabad only after killing him,

"no U.S. spy agency was ever able to capture a photograph of bin Laden at the
compound"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden)

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Was it really an accident, when Google also mapped radio networks and captured
data. While they were collecting street view information. Or if it was done on
purpose.

~~~
einhverfr
I think that would be hard to do by accident.

------
flavor8
The oscar nominated documentary Dirty Wars is good background on this program
(basically about Jeremy Scahill & his investigation into JSOC).

------
scrrr
This is all very depressing.

OT: Same picture used in FAZ-article in 2012 [1]. Can you search stockphoto
dot com for "Predator drone"?

[1] [http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/obamas-
drohnenkri...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/obamas-drohnenkrieg-
lizenz-zum-toeten-11843805.html)

------
D9u

      Error 503 Service Unavailable
    
      Service Unavailable
      Guru Meditation:
    
      XID: 1422544503
    
      Varnish cache server
    

Hacker News Effect?

[edit] Scratch that, the page finally loaded for me.

------
icantthinkofone
Interesting how so many people now know so many things about the most secret
organization in the world. There must be a lot of money in writing stories
about it.

~~~
frandroid
There's a difference between secretive and secret. The NSA existence is no
secret.

------
zequel
I'm personally torn. It's asymmetric warfare. They didn't care about the
thousands of innocents in the towers. If we let the Taliban regroup, another
9/11 is probable and the next strike (imo) will be at least a dirty bomb and
possibly nuclear so I don't think we can afford to fight cleanly. You can be
righteous as you want but if Manhattan gets nuked, the economic cost to the US
is incalculable.

~~~
Veratyr
"In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he explicitly stated
that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for
attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in
Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the
Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in
Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] U.S. support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against
Iraq.[9]"

To me, the current series events looks like this:

\- U.S. Assisted or condoned a bunch of violence against muslims (including
civilians)

\- A group of radical muslim terrorists decided to retaliate with violence
against U.S. civilians

\- U.S. retaliates with a full scale invasion of the countries most likely
inhabited by terrorists and proceeds to kill civilians through incompetence or
lack of care

\- U.S., unwilling to declare war against countries that aren't overtly
hostile, proceeds to repeat killing of terrorists and civilians through
incompetence or lack of care

I hate to say this because I by no means condone civilian deaths but the U.S.
has been the one escalating this war and a dirty bomb or somesuch seems like a
balanced (although by no means just) response to the actions of the U.S..

Just compare the numbers:

\- American civilians killed by terrorists: 2977 [1]

\- Middle eastern civilians killed during the Iraq invasion alone: 120,976 –
134,149 [2]

That's 40 middle eastern civilians killed for every American.

I think the longer this war continues, the more enemy combatants you're going
to find and the more desperate and bitter they'll become. How many of these
terrorists do you think are fighting against the U.S. out of insanity or blind
religious fervour? I think the majority of them will have been created after
seeing their families, friends and countrymen killed by western forces in
their homelands and by continuing such strikes, you're only creating more of
them.

I can't see any clean way out of this other than pulling out completely and
trying to make amends for the atrocities the U.S. government has committed.

Now you're encouraging the U.S. to kill more of these people on the grounds
that they might retaliate for the people you've already killed. Doesn't this
seem wrong to you? The more people you kill, the more people are going to
fight you.

Just think, pretend America was peaceful and didn't have a trillion dollar
military. One day a few stupid Americans go and kill ~12000 Chinese civilians.
China responds by launching a full scale invasion of the United States and
kills over 480000 civilians, including a number of your friends and family at
first you fear them. Over the years they start to get less discriminate
because previously rational people have decided to take up arms against the
aggressors. More and more of the people you know are dying around you because
they were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe you're in a small
town and half the people you know are killed by an indiscriminate robotic
strike from above. Wouldn't even you be eventually pushed over the edge and
want to start fighting back?

I'm not sure exactly what I'm trying to say but it seems to me the problem
with this was is that the U.S. is _creating_ the terrorists they're there to
fight.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks)

[2]: [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/](http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

//rant

~~~
zequel
You're assuming innocent people like myself actually have a say in US foreign
policy, so I guess middle eastern people should kill me? I _hate_ US foreign
policy, example 1, Cuban embargo, how's that working out? Or invade Iraq when
we need forces in Afghanistan, so instead of 1 effective war, let's fight 2
ineffective wars. Guess what? I always vote against the sitting congress and I
haven't voted for a sitting president. I have as much say an Iraqi. So yeah,
kill me and see what it does.

------
aluhut
Error 503 Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable Guru Meditation:

XID: 1198255034

Varnish cache server

