Yet More Proof Facebook’s Surveillance Capitalism Is Good at Surveilling — Even Russian Hackers

I’ve long tracked Facebook’s serial admission to having SIGINT visibility that nearly rivals the NSA: knowing that Facebook had intelligence corroborating NSA’s judgment that GRU was behind the DNC hack was one reason I was ultimately convinced of the IC’s claims, in spite of initial questions.

Among all his evasions and questionably correct answers in Senate testimony yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg provided another tidbit about the visibility Facebook had on the 2016 attacks.

One of my greatest regrets in running the company is that we were slow in identifying the Russian information operations in 2016. We expected them to do a number of more traditional cyberattacks, which we did identify, and notified the campaigns, that they were trying to hack into them. But we were slow to identifying [sic] the type of new information operations.

Not only did Facebook see GRU’s operations in real time, but they notified “the campaigns” about them.

Note, Zuck didn’t describe the targets in any more detail than “campaigns.” That led Robby Mook to dispute Zuck, eliciting more details from Facebook CISO Alex Stamos.

Aside from illustrating how routinely those involved in and covering the 2016 hacks confuse the possible affected targets (resulting in some real misunderstanding of what happened), Stamos’ clarification provides important new details: these hacks affected both the DNC and RNC’s key employees, and Facebook alerted the FBI (something we’ve previously heard).

The DNC likes to claim they never got any warning they were being hacked. But apparently, in addition to the FBI’s serial attempts to lead them to discover Russia was hacking them, Facebook let them know too.

Elsewhere in his testimony, Zuck got coy about the degree to which Facebook remains involved in the Mueller investigation, a fact that should have been obvious to anyone who has read the Internet Research Agency indictment, but which numerous news outlets treated as news anyway.

Facebook has a lot to answer for (this David Dayen piece on yesterday’s testimony is superb).

But one thing that has continued to trickle out is that Facebook’s surveillance capitalism is good at what it’s designed for: surveillance, including of Russian hackers.

Cambridge Analytica Uncovered and More to Come

A little recap of events overnight while we wait for Channel 4’s next video. Channel 4 had already posted a video on March 17 which you can see here:

Very much worth watching — listen carefully to whistleblower Chris Wylie explain what data was used and how it was used. I can’t emphasize enough the problem of non-consensual use; if you didn’t explicitly consent but a friend did, they still swept up your data

David Carroll of Parsons School of Design (@profcarroll) offered a short and sweet synopsis last evening of the fallout after UK’s Channel 4 aired the first video of Cambridge Analytica Uncovered.

Facebook CTO Alex Stamos had a disagreement with management about the company’s handling of crisis; first reports said he had resigned. Stamos tweeted later, explaining:

“Despite the rumors, I’m still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It’s true that my role did change. I’m currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security.”

Other reports say Stamos is leaving in August. Both could be true: his job has changed and he’s eventually leaving.

I’m betting we will hear from him before Congress soon, whatever the truth.

Speaking of Congress, Sen. Ron Wyden has asked Mark Zuckerberg to provide a lot of information pronto to staffer Chris Sogohian. This ought to be a lot of fun.

A Facebook whistleblower has now come forward; Sandy Parkilas said covert harvesting of users’ data happened frequently, and Facebook could have done something about it.

Perhaps we ought to talk about nationalization of a citizens’ database?

[Photo: National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD via Wikimedia]

Technical Fixes in HJC Bill Suggest SCOTUS May Have Reviewed a (2015 ?) FISA Application

HJC has released a new version of the bill they’re cynically calling USA Liberty. The most significant change in the bill is that it makes the warrant requirement for criminal backdoor queries that will never be used an actual probable cause warrant, with the judge having discretion to reject the warrant.

But that’ll never be used. If a warrant requirement falls in the woods but no one ever uses it does it make a sound?

I’m more interested in a series of changes that were introduced as technical amendments that make seemingly notable changes to the way the FISC and FISCR work.

The changes are:

In 50 USC 1803 and 50 USC 1822 eliminating the requirement that the FISA Court of Review immediately explain its reason for denying an application before sending it to the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice shall publicly designate three judges, one of whom shall be publicly designated as the presiding judge, from the United States district courts or courts of appeals who together shall comprise a court of review which shall have jurisdiction to review the denial of any application made under this chapter. If such court determines that the application was properly denied, the court shall immediately provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision and, on petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.

Letting the FISA Court of Review, in addition to the FISC, ensure compliance with orders.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to reduce or contravene the inherent authority of the court established under subsection (a) [a court established under this section] to determine or enforce compliance with an order or a rule of such court or with a procedure approved by such court.

In 50 USC 1805 (traditional FISA), 50 USC 1842(d) and 50 USC 1843(e) (pen registers), and 50 USC 1861(c) (215 orders) stating that a denial of a FISC order under 50 USC 1804 may be reviewed under 50 USC 1803 (that is, by FISCR).

Now, I suppose these (especially the language permitting FISCR reviews) count as technical fixes, ensuring that the review process, which we know has been used on at least three occasions, actually works.

But the only reason anyone would notice these technical fixes — especially how something moves from FISCR to SCOTUS — is if some request had been denied (or modified, given the language permitting the FISCR to ensure compliance with an order) at both the FISA court and the FISA Court of Review, or if FISCR tried (and got challenged) to enforce minimization procedures imposed at that level.

There’s one other reason to think there must have been a significant denial: The report, in the 2015 FISC report, that an amicus curiae had been appointed four times.

During the reporting period, on four occasions individuals were appointed to serve as amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i). The names of the three individuals appointed to serve as amicus curiae are as follows:  Preston Burton, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II  (with Freedom Works), and Amy Jeffress. All four appointments in 2015 were made pursuant to § 1803(i)(2)(B). Five findings were made that an amicus curiae appointment was not appropriate under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A) (however, in three of those five instances, the court appointed an amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(B) in the same matter).

We know of three of those in 2015: Ken Cuccinelli serving as amicus for FreedomWorks’ challenge to the restarted dragnet in June 2015, Preston Burton serving as amicus for the determination of what to do with existing Section 215 data, and Amy Jeffress for the review of the Section 702 certifications in 2015. (We also know of the consultation with Mark Zwillinger in 2016 and Rosemary Collyer’s refusal to abide by USA Freedom Act’s intent on amici on this year’s reauthorization.) I’m not aware of another, fourth consultation that has been made public, but according to this there was one more. I say Jeffress was almost certainly the amicus used in that case because she was one of the people chosen to be a formal amicus in November 2015, meaning she would have been called on twice. If it was Jeffress, then it likely happened in the last months of the year.

Obviously, we have no idea what this hidden consultation is. The scan of all of Yahoo’s email accounts was in 2015, but it has always been reported as “spring” and weeks before Alex Stamos left Yahoo, so that seems sure to have happened before June 8 and therefore without a post-USA Freedom Act amicus. Moreover, it seems very likely that this fourth amicus consultation involved a denial, because the government is supposed to release any significant decision. So I’m guessing that Jeffress proved persuasive in one case we don’t get to know about.

Update: In this bill I briefly called the bill USS Liberty but thought better of doing so.

More Thoughts on the Yahoo Scan

I want to lay out a few more thoughts about the still conflicting stories about the scan the government asked Yahoo to do last year.

The three different types of sources and their agenda

First, a word about sourcing. The original three stories have pretty identifiable sources. The first Reuters story, by tech security writer Joseph Menn and describing the scan as “a program to siphon off messages” that the security team believed might be a hacker, cited three former Yahoo employees and someone apprised of the events (though I think the original may have relied on just two former Yahoo employees).

NYT had a story, by legal reporter Charlie Savage and cyber reporter Nicole Perloth and relying on “two government officials” and another without much description, that seems to have gotten the legal mechanism correct — an individual FISA order — but introduced the claim that the scan used Yahoo’s existing kiddie porn filter and that “the technical burden on the company appears to have been significantly lighter” than the request earlier this year to Apple to unlock Syed Rezwan Farook’s iPhone.

A second Reuters story, by policy reporter Dustin Volz and spook writer Mark Hosenball, initially reported that the scan occurred under Section 702 authority, though has since corrected that to match the NYT report. It initially relied on government sources and reported that the “intelligence committees of both houses of Congress … are now investigating the exact nature of the Yahoo order,” which explains a bit about sourcing.

Motherboard’s tech writer Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchieri later had a story, relying on ex-Yahoo employees, largely confirming Reuters’ original report and refuting the NYT’s technical description. It described the tool as “more like a ‘rootkit,’ a powerful type of malware that lives deep inside an infected system and gives hackers essentially unfettered access.”

A followup story by Menn cites intelligence officials reiterating the claim made to NYT — that this was a simple tweak of the spam filter. But then it goes on to explain why that story is bullshit.

Intelligence officials told Reuters that all Yahoo had to do was modify existing systems for stopping child pornography from being sent through its email or filtering spam messages.

But the pornography filters are aimed only at video and still images and cannot search text, as the Yahoo program did. The spam filters, meanwhile, are viewable by many employees who curate them, and there is no confusion about where they sit in the software stack and how they operate.

The court-ordered search Yahoo conducted, on the other hand, was done by a module attached to the Linux kernel – in other words, it was deeply buried near the core of the email server operating system, far below where mail sorting was handled, according to three former Yahoo employees.

They said that made it hard to detect and also made it hard to figure out what the program was doing.

Note, to some degree, the rootkit story must be true, because otherwise the security team would not have responded as it did. As Reuters’ sources suggest, the way this got implemented is what made it suspicious to the security team. But that doesn’t rule out an earlier part of the scan involving the kiddie porn filter.

To sum up: ex-Yahoo employees want this story to be about the technical recklessness of the request and Yahoo’s bureaucratic implementation of it. Government lawyers and spooks are happy to explain this was a traditional FISA order, but want to downplay the intrusiveness and recklessness of this by claiming it just involved adapting an existing scan. And intelligence committee members mistakenly believed this scan happened under Section 702, and wanted to make it a 702 renewal fight issue, but since appear to have learned differently.

The ungagged position of the ex-Yahoo employees

Three comments about the ex-Yahoo sources here. First, the stories that rely on ex-Yahoo employees both include a clear “decline to comment” from Alex Stamos, the Yahoo CISO who quit and moved to Facebook in response to this event. If that decline to comment is to be believed, these are other former Yahoo security employees who have also since left the company.

Another thing to remember is that ex-Yahoo sources were already chatting to the press, though about the 2014 breach that exposed upwards of 500 million Yahoo users. This Business Insider piece has a former Yahoo person explaining that the architecture of Yahoo’s systems is such that billions of people were likely exposed in the hack.

“I believe it to be bigger than what’s being reported,” the executive, who no longer works for the company but claims to be in frequent contact with employees still there, including those investigating the breach, told Business Insider. “How they came up with 500 is a mystery.”


According to this executive, all of Yahoo’s products use one main user database, or UDB, to authenticate users. So people who log into products such as Yahoo Mail, Finance, or Sports all enter their usernames and passwords, which then goes to this one central place to ensure they are legitimate, allowing them access.

That database is huge, the executive said. At the time of the hack in 2014, inside were credentials for roughly 700 million to 1 billion active users accessing Yahoo products every month, along with many other inactive accounts that hadn’t been deleted.


“That is what got compromised,” the executive said. “The core crown jewels of Yahoo customer credentials.”

I can understand why Yahoo security people who lost battles to improve Yahoo’s security but are now at risk of being scapegoated for a costly problem for Yahoo would want to make it clear that they fought the good fight only to be overruled by management. The FISA scan provides a really succinct example of how Yahoo didn’t involve its security team in questions central to the company’s security.

One more thing. While Stamos and maybe a few others at Yahoo presumably had (and still have) clearance tied to discussing cybersecurity with the government, because none of them were involved in the response to this FISA order, none of them were read into it. They probably had and have non-disclosure agreements tied to Yahoo (indeed, I believe one of these stories originally referenced an NDA but has since taken the reference out). But because Yahoo didn’t involve the security team in discussions about how to respond to the FISA request, none of them would be under a governmental obligation, tied to FISA orders, to keep this story secret. So they could be sued but not jailed for telling this story.

It wouldn’t be the first time that the government’s narrow hold on some issue made it easier for people to independently discover something, as Thomas Tamm and Mark Klein did with Stellar Wind and the whole world did with StuxNet.

Stories still conflict about what happened after the scan was found

Which brings me to one of the most interesting conflicts among the stories now. I think we can assume the scan involved a single FISA order served only on Yahoo that Yahoo, for whatever reason, implemented in really reckless fashion.

But the stories still conflict on what happened after the security team found the scan.

Yahoo’s non-denial denial (issued after an initial, different response to the original Reuters story) emphasizes that no such scan currently remains in place.

We narrowly interpret every government request for user data to minimize disclosure. The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems.

That could mean the scan was ended when the security team found it, but it could also mean Yahoo hurriedly removed it after Reuters first contacted it so it could claim it was no longer in place.

The original Reuters story doesn’t say what happened, aside from describing Stamos’ resignation. NYT’s spook and lawyer sources said, “The collection is no longer taking place.” The updated congressionally-sourced Reuters story says the scan was dismantled and not replaced before Stamos left.

Former Yahoo employees told Reuters that security staff disabled the scan program after they discovered it, and that it had not been reinstalled before Alex Stamos, the company’s former top security officer, left the company for Facebook last year.

The Motherboard story is the most interesting. It suggests that the security team found the scan, started a high severity response ticket on it, Stamos spoke with top management, and then that response ticket disappeared.

After the Yahoo security team discovered the spy tool and opened a high severity security issues within an internal tracking system, according to the source, the warning moved up the ranks. But when the head of security at the time, Alex Stamos, found out it was installed on purpose, he spoke with management; afterward, “somehow they covered it up and closed the issue fast enough that most of the [security] team didn’t find out,“ the source said.

The description of the disappearing ticket could mean a lot of things. But it doesn’t explain whether the scan itself (which the security team could presumably have found again if it worked in the same fashion) continued to operate.

Reuters’ latest story suggests the scan remained after the security team learned that Marissa Mayer had approved of it.

In the case of Yahoo, company security staff discovered a software program that was scanning email but ended an investigation when they found it had been approved by Chief Executive Officer Marissa Mayer, the sources said.

This seems to be consistent with Motherboard’s story about the disappearing ticket — that is, that the investigation ended because the ticket got pulled — but doesn’t describe how the scan continued to operate without more security people becoming aware of it.

But the implication of these varying stories is that the scan may have been operating (or restarted, after Stamos left), in a way that made Yahoo vulnerable to hackers, up until the time Reuters first approached Yahoo about the story. Even NYT’s best-spin sources don’t say when the scan was removed, which means it may have been providing hackers a back door into Yahoo for a year after the security team first balked at it.

Which might explain why this story is coming out now. And why ODNI is letting Yahoo hang on this rather than providing some clarifying details.

And what if the target of this scan is IRGC

As you know, I wildarse guessed that the target of this scan is likely to be Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. I said that because we know IRGC at least used to use Yahoo in 2011, we know the FISC long ago approved treating “Iran” as a terrorist organization, and because there are few other entities that could be considered “state-sponsored terrorist groups.” I think NYT’s best-spin sources might have used that term in hopes everyone would yell Terror!! and be okay with the government scanning all of Yahoo’s users’ emails.

But the apparent terms of this scan conflict with the already sketchy things the IC has told the European Union about our spying on tech companies. So the EU is surely asking for clarifying details to find out whether this scan — and any others like it that the FISC has authorized — comply with the terms of the Privacy Shield governing US tech company data sharing.

And while telling the NYT “state-sponsored terrorist group” might impress the home crowd, it might be less useful overseas. That’s because Europe doesn’t treat the best basis for the claim that IRGC is a terrorist group — its support of Hezbollah — the the same light we do. The EU named Hezbollah’s military wing a terrorist group in 2013, but as recently as this year, the EU was refusing to do so for the political organization as a whole.

That is, if my wildarseguess is correct, it would mean not only that an intelligence request for a back door exposed a billion users to hackers, but also that it did so to pursue an entity that not even all our allies agree is a top counterterrorism (as distinct from foreign intelligence) target.

Thus, it would get to the core of the problem with the claim that global tech companies can install back doors with no global ramifications, because there is no universally accepted definition of what a terrorist is.

Which, again, may be why ODNI has remained so silent.

The Yahoo Scans Closely Followed Obama’s Cybersecurity Emergency Declaration

Reuters has a huge scoop revealing that, in spring of 2015, Yahoo was asked and agreed to perform scans for certain selectors on all the incoming email to its users.

The company complied with a classified U.S. government directive, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said two former employees and a third person apprised of the events.


It is not known what information intelligence officials were looking for, only that they wanted Yahoo to search for a set of characters. That could mean a phrase in an email or an attachment, said the sources, who did not want to be identified.

The timing of this is particularly interesting. We know that it happened sometime in the weeks leading up to May 2015, because after Alex Stamos’ security team found the code enabling the scan, he quit and moved to Facebook.

According to the two former employees, Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer’s decision to obey the directive roiled some senior executives and led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer Alex Stamos, who now holds the top security job at Facebook Inc.


The sources said the program was discovered by Yahoo’s security team in May 2015, within weeks of its installation. The security team initially thought hackers had broken in.

When Stamos found out that Mayer had authorized the program, he resigned as chief information security officer and told his subordinates that he had been left out of a decision that hurt users’ security, the sources said. Due to a programming flaw, he told them hackers could have accessed the stored emails.

That would date the directive to sometime around the time, on April 1, 2015, that Obama issued an Executive Order declaring cyberattacks launched by persons located outside the US a national emergency.

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America,find that the increasing prevalence and severity of malicious cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside theUnited States constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of theUnited States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.

On paper, this shouldn’t create any authority to expand surveillance. Except that we know FISC did permit President Bush to expand surveillance — by eliminating the wall between intelligence and criminal investigations — after he issued his September 14, 2001 9/11 emergency declaration, before Congress authorized that expansion. And we know that Jack Goldsmith focused on that same emergency declaration in his May 2004 OLC opinion reauthorizing Stellar Wind.

Indeed, just days after Obama issued that April 2015 EO, I wrote this:

Ranking House Intelligence Member Adam Schiff’s comment that Obama’s EO is “a necessary part of responding to the proliferation of dangerous and economically devastating cyber attacks facing the United States,” but that it will be “coupled with cyber legislation moving forward in both houses of Congress” only adds to my alarm (particularly given Schiff’s parallel interest in giving Obama soft cover for his ISIL AUMF while having Congress still involved).  It sets up the same structure we saw with Stellar Wind, where the President declares an Emergency and only a month or so later gets sanction for and legislative authorization for actions taken in the name of that emergency.

And we know FISC has been amenable to that formula in the past.

We don’t know that the President has just rolled out a massive new surveillance program in the name of a cybersecurity Emergency (rooted in a hack of a serially negligent subsidiary of a foreign company, Sony Pictures, and a server JP Morgan Chase forgot to update).

We just know the Executive has broadly expanded surveillance, in secret, in the past and has never repudiated its authority to do so in the future based on the invocation of an Emergency (I think it likely that pre FISA Amendments Act authorization for the electronic surveillance of weapons proliferators, even including a likely proliferator certification under Protect America Act, similarly relied on Emergency Proclamations tied to all such sanctions).

I’m worried about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Act, the Senate version of the bill that Schiff is championing. But I’m just as worried about surveillance done by the executive prior to and not bound by such laws.

Because it has happened in the past.

I have reason to believe the use of emergency declarations to authorize surveillance extends beyond the few data points I lay out in this post. Which is why I find it very interesting that the Yahoo request lines up so neatly with Obama’s cyber declaration.

I’m also mindful of Ron Wyden’s repeated concerns about the 2003 John Yoo common commercial services opinion that may be tied to Stellar Wind but that, Wyden has always made clear, has some application for cybersecurity. DOJ has already confirmed that some agencies have relied on that opinion.

In other words, this request may not just be outrageous because it means Yahoo is scanning all of its customers incoming emails. But it may also be (or have been authorized by) some means other than FISA.