O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

Mostrando postagens com marcador espionagem americana. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador espionagem americana. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 24 de junho de 2015

Wikileaks: Mon Dieu! Que vous etes perfides, les americains: ecouter les amis...

Ninguém está ao abrigo, sobretudo os comedores de baguettes, de escargots e de cuisses de grenouilles...
Oh ciel, qui pourra les arrêter?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

French President Francois Hollande sharply criticized the United States over revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on him and past French presidents.
 Foreign Policy daily, June 24 2015

News of the alleged surveillance spilled out of six documents published on Tuesday evening by WikiLeaks in conjunction with Libération, a left-leaning newspaper, and the investigative website Mediapart. The documents allege that the United States spied on the internal conversations and deliberations of Hollande, as well as former presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac. The matters discussed include an appointment to the United Nations, the Middle East peace process, and the euro crisis. They also include telephone numbers listed by the NSA as being top intercept targets in France.

While the accuracy of the documents remains unconfirmed, WikiLeaks attests to their authenticity. The group has yet to say how it obtained the documents, but says that there is more to come.

"These are unacceptable facts that have already led to clarifications between the United States and France," Hollande’s office said after the country's top ministers and defense chiefs met to discuss the documents. "France will not tolerate any acts that compromise its security and the safeguarding of its interests."

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has also summoned the U.S. Ambassador Jane D. Hartley to meet with him. The French government will also send an intelligence official to the United States to be briefed on the NSA’s operations in Paris. In response, the Obama administration said that it does not currently spy on Hollande and will not in the future, but did not deny that Washington had done so in the past.

quinta-feira, 14 de maio de 2015

Os olhos (e ouvidos) do Imperio: NSA continua seu pequeno trabalho de escuta

House authorizes NSA mass surveillance program
By Robert Romano
Americans for a Limited Government, 14/05/2015

On May 13, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 338 to 88, to adopt H.R. 2048, the so-called "USA Freedom Act," that promises, in section 501, to include a "Prohibition on bulk collection" by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Ahead of the vote, the White House — a strong supporter of the agency's mass surveillance program it has said is vital to security — issued a statement in favor of the legislation, promising that it would "enhance privacy and better safeguard our civil liberties, while keeping our nation safe."

There is only one problem.

In truly Orwellian fashion, the bill does exactly the opposite, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) warned in a Facebook post to his constituents.

"H.R. 2048 actually expands the statutory basis for the large-scale collection of most data," Amash wrote in opposition to the bill hours before the vote.

Amash explained, "H.R. 2048 does this by authorizing the government to order the production of records based upon a "specific selection term" (i.e., like a search term used in a search engine)… A 'specific selection term' may be a specific person (including a corporation, such as Western Union), account, address, or personal device, but it also may be "any other specific identifier," and the bill expressly contemplates using geographic regions or communication service providers (such as Verizon) to define the records sought, so long as it's not the only identifier used as part of the specific selection term. In other words, the bill doesn't let the government require Verizon to turn over all its records without limitation, but nothing appears to prevent the government from requiring Verizon to turn over all its records for all its customers in the state of New York."

"Only a politician or bureaucrat wouldn't call that 'bulk,'" Amash added.

But it gets worse, as the legislation, if it becomes law, may undermine pending lawsuits against the agency, Amash warns, "H.R. 2048 gives our intelligence agencies, for the first time, statutory authority to collect Americans' data in bulk. In light of the Second Circuit's opinion that the NSA has been collecting our information in bulk without statutory authority for all this time, it would be a devastating misstep for Congress to pass a bill that codifies that bulk collection and likely ensures no future court will ever again be positioned to rule against the government for over-collecting on statutory grounds."

Meaning, the only remaining recourse would be to sue on constitutional grounds, leaving it to chance how courts might rule on the basis of the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless surveillance.

Congress would be better off doing nothing, since that would increase the odds of the warrantless surveillance being overturned in federal court. Instead, now members are giving their imprimatur to the program.

"The U.S. House is missing an historic opportunity to rein in the NSA mass surveillance program," Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning said, instead urging Congress to "return to real reform that protects Americans from government surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

The legislation now heads to the U.S. Senate, and in the meantime, almost everyone in the House will pretend they voted to end the program. But don't be fooled.

All they did was provide political cover and a legal basis to Big Brother to download and store your phone records. That's not called ending the program; it's called authorizing it.

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

terça-feira, 1 de julho de 2014

Espionagem americana (NSA): o Brasil nao esta sozinho, mas com outros 192 paises

Enfim, já é um consolo saber disso...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

The N.S.A. Can Spy on These 193 Foreign Governments

CIA World Factbook
The Washington Post has published a 2010 government document indicating that the National Security Agency was authorized, by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to intercept information “concerning” 193 foreign governments. According to The Post, the N.S.A. can “intercept through U.S. companies not just the communications of its overseas targets but any communications about its targets as well.”
That’s every single country except Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They’re listed below.

Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Andorra; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belarus; Belgium; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Botswana; Brazil; Brunei; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burma (Myanmar); Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Cape Verde; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo, Democratic Republic; Congo, Republic; Costa Rica; Cote d’Ivoire; Croatia; Cuba; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; East Timor (Timor-Leste); Ecuador; Egypt; E1 Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Estonia; Ethiopia; Fiji; Finland; France; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of (DPRK); Korea, Republic of (ROK); Kosovo; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Laos; Latvia; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mall; Malta; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia; Moldova; Monaco; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Netherlands; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Romania; Russia; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Seychelles; Siena Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; Solomon Islands; Somalia; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Sweden; Switzerland; Syria; Taiwan; Tajikistan; Tanzania; Thailand; Togo; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; Uganda; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Vatican City (Holy See); Venezuela; Vietnam; Western Sahara; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

terça-feira, 13 de maio de 2014

Again: Greenwald on Snowden and the NSA - book review, Charlie Savage


Book Reveals Wider Net of U.S. Spying on Envoys


WASHINGTON — In May 2010, when the United Nations Security Council was weighing sanctions against Iran over itsnuclear program, several members were undecided about how they would vote. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, asked theNational Security Agency for help “so that she could develop a strategy,” a leaked agency document shows.
The N.S.A. swiftly went to work, developing the paperwork to obtain legal approval for spying on diplomats from four Security Council members — Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda — whose embassies and missions were not already under surveillance. The following month, 12 members of the 15-seat Security Council voted to approve new sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining and only Brazil and Turkey voting against.
Later that summer, Ms. Rice thanked the agency, saying its intelligence had helped her to know when diplomats from the other permanent representatives — China, England, France and Russia — “were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various countries ‘red lines.’ ”
The two documents laying out that episode, both leaked by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, are reproduced in a new book by Glenn Greenwald, “No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the N.S.A., and the U.S. Surveillance State.” The book is being published Tuesday.
Elements of the N.S.A.’s role in helping aid American diplomatic negotiations leading up to the Iran sanctions vote had been previously reported, including in an October 2013 article in the French newspaper Le Monde that focused on the agency’s spying on French diplomats.
Mr. Greenwald’s book also reproduces a document listing embassies and missions that had been penetrated by the N.S.A., including those of Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, the European Union, France, Georgia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela and Vietnam. Aspects of that document were reported in June by The Guardian.
Revelations about N.S.A. spying abroad, including on officials of American allies, has fueled anger at the United States. But Caitlin Hayden, an N.S.A. spokeswoman, noted that President Obama sought to address those issues in January when he promised greater limits on spying aimed at allies and partners.
“While our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation do, we will not apologize because our services may be more effective,” she said.
Ms. Rice’s request for help in May 2010 was recounted in an internal report by the security agency’s Special Source Operations division, which works with telecommunications companies on the American network.
A legal team was called in on May 22 to begin drawing up the paperwork for the four court orders, one for each of the four countries on the Security Council whose embassies and missions were apparently not yet under surveillance. A judge signed them on May 26.
The internal report showing that the N.S.A. obtains country-specific orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on their diplomatic facilities may shed light on a murky document published in March by Der Spiegel. It showed that the court had issued an order authorizing spying on “Germany” on March 7, 2013, and listed several other countries whose orders were about to expire.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not authorize the court to issue orders for broad monitoring of specific countries. It does authorize orders of specific “foreign powers” operating on American soil, which expire after a year.

No Place to Hide: Greenwald book on Snowden and the NSA - Michiko Kakutani



Books


BOOKS OF THE TIMES

Snowden’s Story, Behind the Scenes

The title of the journalist Glenn Greenwald’s impassioned new book, “No Place to Hide,” comes from a chilling observation made in 1975 by Senator Frank Church, then chairman of a select committee on intelligence. The United States government, he said, had perfected “a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air.” That capability, he added, could at any time “be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.”
That was nearly 40 years ago, and as the documents leaked last year by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed, the N.S.A.’s ability to spy on our daily lives has grown exponentially to Orwellian proportions. The documents provided by Mr. Snowden revealed that the agency has an ability to monitor or collect information fromhundreds of millions of people around the globe, that it has broken into the communications links of major data centers across the world, that it has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption that protects sensitive data on the Internet, and that, according to its own records, it has broken privacy laws or exceeded its authority thousands of times a year. The first journalist Mr. Snowden approached by email was Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for The Guardian and former constitutional lawyer who had frequently written about civil liberties, the dangers of enhanced executive power, and surveillance abuses in post-Sept. 11 America. (Mr. Greenwald has since left The Guardian to work with Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, on building a new media venture, which includes the news site The Intercept, of which Mr. Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill are founding editors.)
In “No Place to Hide,” Mr. Greenwald recounts the story of how he and Ms. Poitras, a documentary filmmaker, traveled to Hong Kong to meet with Mr. Snowden and the race to publish articles based on the documents he provided, all the while fearful of authorities’ closing in. The outlines of this story will be familiar to readers who followed it in real time last year, and to readers of the recent book “The Snowden Files” (by the Guardian reporter Luke Harding), just as much of the material here about the N.S.A. will be familiar to readers of articles that have appeared in The Guardian (many with Mr. Greenwald’s byline), The Washington Post and The New York Times.
“No Place to Hide” is enlivened by reproductions of dozens of fascinating documents from the Snowden archive that help illustrate the N.S.A.’s methodology and that showcase its strange corporatelike boosterism (complete with sometimes corny graphics). And Mr. Greenwald fleshes out his portrait of Mr. Snowden with fresh observations from their exchanges. He amplifies our understanding of the N.S.A.’s sweeping ambitions, methods and global reach, and provides detailed insights into what he calls the agency’s “corporate partnerships,” which “extend beyond intelligence and defense contractors to include the world’s largest and most important Internet corporations and telecoms.”
For instance, the agency’s Stormbrew program, Mr. Greenwald writes, “gives the N.S.A. access to Internet and telephone traffic that enters the United States at various ‘choke points’ on U.S. soil. It exploits the fact that the vast majority of the world’s Internet traffic at some point flows through the U.S. communications infrastructure — a residual by-product of the central role that the United States had played in developing the network.” According to the N.S.A., he says, Stormbrew “is currently comprised of very sensitive relationships with two U.S. telecom providers (cover terms ARTIFICE and WOLFPOINT)”; the identity of such corporate partners, he adds, “is one of the most closely guarded secrets in the N.S.A.”
Mr. Greenwald portrays Mr. Snowden — regarded by some as a heroic whistle-blower, by others as a traitor — as a courageous idealist who felt he needed to act on his beliefs. That outlook, Mr. Greenwald suggests, was partly shaped by books Mr. Snowden read growing up — Greek mythology and “The Hero With a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell, which convinced Mr. Snowden that, in his own words, “it is we who infuse life with meaning through our actions and the stories we create with them.”
Mr. Snowden also confided “with a hint of embarrassment,” Mr. Greenwald writes, that video games had taught him certain lessons. As Mr. Snowden put it: “The protagonist is often an ordinary person, who finds himself faced with grave injustices from powerful forces and has the choice to flee in fear or to fight for his beliefs. And history also shows that seemingly ordinary people who are sufficiently resolute about justice can triumph over the most formidable adversaries.”
In the course of this book, Mr. Greenwald describes how he received his first communication from Mr. Snowden on Dec. 1, 2012, though he had no idea who it was from. The email came from someone calling himself Cincinnatus and urged Mr. Greenwald to begin using PGP encryption so that Cincinnatus could communicate with him securely. Busy with other projects, Mr. Greenwald procrastinated about installing the encryption program, and Mr. Snowden was only able to make contact with him months later, through Ms. Poitras.
According to Mr. Greenwald, Mr. Snowden would later describe his frustration: “Here am I ready to risk my liberty, perhaps even my life, to hand this guy thousands of Top Secret documents from the nation’s most secretive agency — a leak that will produce dozens if not hundreds of huge journalistic scoops. And he can’t even be bothered to install an encryption program.”
The most gripping sections of “No Place to Hide” recount Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras’s 10-day trip to Hong Kong, where they and The Guardian’s veteran correspondent Ewen MacAskill met with Mr. Snowden in his hotel room. Mr. Greenwald describes the tradecraft they employed (removing batteries from their cellphones, or placing the phones in the minibar refrigerator) to avoid detection; his initial five-hour, litigatorlike grilling of Mr. Snowden; and the “giddy gallows humor” that later crept into their conversations (“I call the bottom bunk at Gitmo,” Mr. Snowden reportedly joked).
Mr. Greenwald writes that Mr. Snowden said one turning point in his decision to become a leaker came in 2010, when he was working as an N.S.A. contractor in Japan. “The stuff I saw really began to disturb me,” Mr. Snowden recalled. “I could watch drones in real time as they surveilled the people they might kill.” He added: “I watched N.S.A. tracking people’s Internet activities as they typed. I became aware of just how invasive U.S. surveillance capabilities had become. I realized the true breadth of this system. And almost nobody knew it was happening”
Substantial sections of this book deal not with Mr. Greenwald’s relationship with Mr. Snowden and the N.S.A., but with his combative view of “the establishment media,” which he has denounced for “glaring subservience to political power” and to which he condescends as inferior to his more activist kind of journalism.
In “No Place to Hide,” Mr. Greenwald is critical of the process by which publications like The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian speak with government officials before publishing sensitive articles dealing with national security issues; he contends that this process allows the “government to control disclosures and minimize, even neuter, their impact.” He also makes self-dramatizing boasts about his own mission: “Only audacious journalism could give the story the power it needed to overcome the climate of fear the government had imposed on journalists and their sources.”
In one passage, Mr. Greenwald makes the demonstrably false assertion that one “unwritten rule designed to protect the government is that media outlets publish only a few such secret documents, and then stop,” that “they would report on an archive like Snowden’s so as to limit its impact — publish a handful of stories, revel in the accolades of a ‘big scoop,’ collect prizes, and then walk away, ensuring that nothing had really changed.” Many establishment media outlets obviously continue to pursue the Snowden story. Further, many of Mr. Greenwald’s gross generalizations about the establishment media do a terrible disservice to the many tenacious investigative reporters who have broken important stories on some of the very subjects like the war on terror and executive power that Mr. Greenwald feels so strongly about.
When Mr. Greenwald turns his fervor to the issue of surveillance and its implications for ordinary citizens’ civil liberties, he is far more credible. Sometimes eloquent. He places the N.S.A.’s current activities in historical perspective with the F.B.I.’s Cointelpro program to target political groups and individuals, begun in 1956 and ended in 1971. And he delivers a fierce argument in defense of the right of privacy, quoting the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous dissent in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, of the founding fathers’ efforts “to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.”
The makers of our Constitution, Brandeis argued, conferred “the right to be let alone.”

DCSIMG

sábado, 12 de abril de 2014

Big Brother and its challengers: Snowden case, encore...

Journalists Who Broke News on N.S.A. Surveillance Return to the U.S.



The journalists had been threatened, cajoled and condemned by the British and American governments. Their work together had set off a hunt for their source and a debate on both sides of the Atlantic about government surveillance.
But they had never met — until Friday.
That was when Glenn Greenwald, the journalist, lawyer and civil liberties crusader, and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian newspaper, finally shook hands after months of working remotely on articles based on material from the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. The two were in New York for the prestigious Polk Award presented to Mr. Greenwald and his colleagues, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill, and the Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, for national security reporting.
Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras returned to the United States for the first time since their articles broke in June. They arrived at Kennedy Airport in New York from Berlin, where Mr. Greenwald had given a speech on Thursday and where Ms. Poitras lives and is making a documentary on surveillance.
Mr. Gellman, who revealed the Snowden findings alongside The Guardian, has lived in the United States since their publication beginning last June. But there were fears among Mr. Greenwald’s supporters that he and Ms. Poitras might be detained upon returning to the United States. Federal prosecutors have charged Mr. Snowden with violating the Espionage Act. He has been given asylum in Russia.
The crowd of journalists at the Polk ceremony at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan cheered and applauded when it was announced that Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras had cleared customs and were en route. They arrived just after 1 p.m., trailed by flashing cameras. With the ceremony already underway, Guardian editors, including Mr. Rusbridger, welcomed the two.
“I am finally really happy to see a table full of Guardian editors and journalists, whose role in this story is much more integral than the publicity generally recognizes,” Mr. Greenwald said, as he accepted the award for national security reporting.
It speaks to the increasingly wired and global news-gathering ecosystem that two of the journalists who collaborated on the complex and politically charged revelations from Mr. Snowden about global surveillance had never met. Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill, a veteran Guardian reporter, flew to Hong Kong to meet with Mr. Snowden, someone they had only known via the Internet until they met in person at a hotel. Mr. Snowden identified himself by carrying a Rubik’s cube.
“New York, Rio, London, Berlin, Hong Kong at one point — it was just a very logistically, ethically complicated story,” Mr. Rusbridger said after the ceremony Friday. His colleagues, including the editor of Guardian U.S., Janine Gibson, her deputy, Stuart Millar, knew Mr. Greenwald well and had hired him to be a columnist the year before.
“It is much more complicated — being dispersed,” Mr. Rusbridger said. “It would have been much easier to all have been in one room — particularly a story of this nature where you assume that every conventional means of communication is suspect in some way.”
On another occasion The Guardian was forced to destroy computer equipment containing material from Mr. Snowden with power tools, under the observation of British government officials.
Despite a trouble-free entry into the United States, Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras had traveled with a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, and a German journalist to document any unpleasant surprises. “The risks of subpoena are very real,” Ms. Poitras said. “We know there is a threat.”
The Guardian and The Washington Post are considered contenders for the Pulitzer Prizes, which will be announced on Monday.

quarta-feira, 19 de março de 2014

Espionagem eletronica: a paranoia gigantesca da NSA (Washington Post, Edward Snowden)

Comment la NSA a mis sur écoute un pays entier

Le Monde.fr |  • Mis à jour le 
Abonnez-vous
à partir de 1 €
 Réagir Classer
Partager   google + linkedin pinterest

Extrait des documents confidentiels de la NSA sur le programme Mystic.

Jusqu'ici, on savait la NSA capable d'intercepter ou de collecter des métadonnées (qui appelle qui, quand, où) téléphoniques. Mais le Washington Post révèle, mardi 18 mars, que l'agence américaine est également dotée de gigantesques capacités d'interception du contenu de ces appels téléphoniques.

Selon le quotidien américain, qui s'appuie à nouveau sur des documents d'Edward Snowden, la NSA a même, à partir de 2011, mis sur écoute un pays entier à l'aided'un programme appelé Mystic, testé dès 2009. En concertation avec de hauts responsables américains, le quotidien a décidé de ne pas nommer ce pays.
REMONTER DANS LE TEMPS
Les conversations interceptées sont dans un premier temps stockés sur une période de 30 jours. Mystic se double ainsi d'un autre programme, Retro, qui permet de fouiller dans cette masse de données et, éventuellement, de remonterdans le temps en retrouvant des conversations interceptées précédemment.
En 2013, des documents évoquaient la possibilité de mettre sur écoute d'autres pays. Le détail du budget du renseignement américain, précédemment publié par le quotidien, évoque quant à lui cinq à six pays dont tout ou partie des conversations téléphoniques sont collectées par la NSA.
Même si les analystes de l'agence n'écoutent pas l'intégralité de ce qui est intercepté par l'agence, le Post précise que chaque mois, des millions de ces écoutes sont extraites du stock de 30 jours pour une conservation de plus long terme.
INTERCEPTION DE MASSE
Un porte-parole de l'administration américaine a défendu ce type d'interception de masse, où tout est englouti par l'agence sans aucune forme de ciblage, expliquant que certaines menaces sont « souvent cachées dans le vaste et complexe ensemble des communications mondiales ».
Comme le note le Washington Post, cette révélation bat en brèche ce qu'avait affirmé le président Obama lors de son discours de janvier. « Les Etats-Unis n'espionnent pas les gens ordinaires qui ne menaçent pas la sécurité nationale », avait-il dit.
Voir ci-dessous nos explications : « Comment la NSA vous surveille »