Reporter's PC reportedly bugged by US government

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Just warning you, Iceman.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey you ever think 2014 Val Kilmer ever watches Top Gun at home while crying, and eating an entire cheesecake?

Thats awesome. I'me visualizing this occurring in a dirty bathrobe while chain smoking Camels.

**Ouze**

And now we know which branch of the US government allegedly did the bugging.

source

Going postal: Reporter sues government for spying from USPS network
Sharyl Attkisson seeks $35 million in damages from DOJ and USPS.

by Sean Gallagher - Jan 6 2015, 11:11am CST

Sharyl Attkisson, the former CBS investigative reporter who published her claims of government intimidation, electronic surveillance, and cyber-attacks in a book last fall, has begun the process of taking the government to court over the hacking of her personal and work computers, as well as her home network.

In the process, Attkisson’s attorneys have begun to reveal the details of forensic investigations by computer security experts. In legal filings against the government, the attorneys disclosed which government agency’s network was the source of at least some of the hacks: the US Postal Service.

In an administrative claim filed on January 5 under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act and a complaint filed with the District of Columbia Superior Court, Attkisson’s attorneys gave an initial summary of their accusations against the US Justice Department, which they claim directed the surveillance of Attkisson as part of an ongoing Obama administration campaign against journalists and government employees acting as their confidential sources. Attkisson and her family have named outgoing US Attorney General Eric Holder, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, and “unknown named agents” of the Department of Justice and US Postal Service as defendants in the suit, seeking damages that could total approximately $35 million.

“Employees or agents of the Department of Justice conducted unauthorized and illegal surveillance of Ms. Attkisson’s laptop computers and telephones from 2011–2013,” the complaint asserts. “By conducting said surveillance, the employees or agents of the Department of Justice violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act… and the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Foreign Intelligence Act, and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.”

In the claim and the civil complaint, Attkisson’s attorneys asserted that they have obtained forensic evidence of the government’s involvement in the insertion of surveillance malware onto Attkisson’s computers. “Among other findings,” the attorneys wrote in the claim, “Ms. Attkisson's computer forensics expert has identified an unauthorized communications channel opened into her Toshiba laptop directly connected to an Internet Provider (IP) address belonging to a federal government agency, specifically the United States Postal Service, indicative of unauthorized surveillance.”

Analysis of the forensic data, Attkisson’s attorneys stated, “shows the connection to a federal government agency was in use prior to January 8, 2013.” The attorneys assert that the Postal Service is “known to have a strong relationship with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and DOJ when conducting computer forensic actions.”

Attkisson, along with the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, sued the Department of Justice in November of 2014 to obtain the findings of a DOJ inspector general’s investigation into the hacking and surveillance of Attkisson’s computers—during which investigators examined Attkisson’s laptop. The FBI had failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request from Attkisson for the data. In December, the DOJ’s attorneys filed for an extension of time for their response to the case, pushing the deadline back to January 16.

Note: since this is a news thread with a significant update; I feel that it's OK to bump it. If that's not the case I apologize and will start a new thread.

**whembly**

Here's the actual court case document.
http://documents.gawker.com/sharyl-attkisson-v-eric-holder-1677567257

I still want to see the explicit evidence... but, so far it's compelling.

I didn't realize that the USPS works with the FBI extensively on surveillance. But, then again, when you think about it... it does make sense.

o.O

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

Note: since this is a news thread with a significant update; I feel that it's OK to bump it. If that's not the case I apologize and will start a new thread.

I'm alright with it... in fact, I prefer topics stay within the same thread as long as possible, regardless how old it is.

**Ouze**

She's going to have to name some of these experts now, and submit some evidence.

I remain highly dubious that if the government wanted to delete a document off someone's PC, the best way to do that would be to remote in, fire up Word, and just scroll all the way up, deleting a few paragraphs at a time, in realtime, while someone is using it.

**Frazzled**

Well I'd say that was just crazy. Then I found out the NSA records every email ever made and that the government admitted it had wiretapped THE ENTIRE WASHINGTON POST phone system.

I don't think its that crazy any more.

**whembly**

And don't forget that the DoJ admitted to tapping James Rosin as well.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
And don't forget that the DoJ admitted to tapping James Rosin as well.

This is instructive, in that to spy on James Rosen, they simply subpoena'd his ISP and got his information. There was no installing mystery wires in his house, no his PC coming on with loud screeching noises at 3am, no sporadic network outages. This is exactly why I don't believe the government was spying on Ms. Attkisson - it was so amateurish. Why would they do what was done instead of just sending some NSL's? Why install a mystery wire when they could just ask Verizon to trap her line? It's not like Verizon would have even asked for a warrant, FFS!

They used state sponsored level malware, but also set it to dial home to an IP address that anyone could trace back to the USPS by typing whois (IP adress) into google? Really? Really really?

**daedalus**

Ouze wrote:
She's going to have to name some of these experts now, and submit some evidence.

I know if they do get named, I'd enjoy sitting down with their resumes and a bowl of popcorn.

I remain highly dubious that if the government wanted to delete a document off someone's PC, the best way to do that would be to remote in, fire up Word, and just scroll all the way up, deleting a few paragraphs at a time, in realtime, while someone is using it.

Why? Works on TV.

**Jihadin**

USPS network my non hairy butt

Spoiler:

**daedalus**

Jihadin wrote:
USPS network my non hairy butt

Spoiler:

Man, at first I was like, "okay Internet, I'm gonna play along and click on that spoiler tag and you better not be a picture of Jihadin's non hairy butt.

...I'm not going to tell people what I saw.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
USPS network my non hairy butt

Spoiler:

That would explain much.

**squidhills**

daedalus wrote:

Why? Works on TV.

That's the problem I have with this: it sounds exactly how Hollywood thinks government internet surveillance works, as opposed to the reality of how it actually works. The things this woman talks about are all things I expect to see in a movie or on a particularly bad episode of CSI. None of them are things the actual government would do if they wanted to spy on someone. That's why I don't believe her one bit.

**gorgon**

squidhills wrote:
daedalus wrote:

Why? Works on TV.

That's the problem I have with this: it sounds exactly how Hollywood thinks government internet surveillance works, as opposed to the reality of how it actually works. The things this woman talks about are all things I expect to see in a movie or on a particularly bad episode of CSI. None of them are things the actual government would do if they wanted to spy on someone. That's why I don't believe her one bit.

I suspect that "movie rights" was part of her thinking.

**Torga_DW**

Too early to tell at this point, but "plausible deniability" has existed for a while now. The american government has been caught doing all manner of illegal things* lately, i don't see why it's so hard to believe they could have done another. As for why they would remotely install malware instead of go on the record as having asked her isp for a tap? Maybe because they lacked credible grounds and/or didn't want this to be on record? Watergate happened in the same manner - we don't want this known about so we'll do something shady to control the situation. Still too early to tell at this point, though.

*getting caught and getting disciplined for it is a different kettle of fish, however.

**squidhills**

Torga_DW wrote:
Too early to tell at this point, but "plausible deniability" has existed for a while now. The american government has been caught doing all manner of illegal things* lately, i don't see why it's so hard to believe they could have done another. As for why they would remotely install malware instead of go on the record as having asked her isp for a tap? Maybe because they lacked credible grounds and/or didn't want this to be on record? Watergate happened in the same manner - we don't want this known about so we'll do something shady to control the situation. Still too early to tell at this point, though.

The government has performed sweeping data collections in the past, with no decent justifiaction for them, apart from "comabtting terrorism". The government, if it wanted to spy on this woman, could have her info picked up in a broad sweep of a bunch of people (where her name would go unnoticed in the larger mass). Or, heck... the NSA could just spy on her with no warrant or anything. It isn't like the governemnt hasn't done that to our own allies or anything. The NSA spied on our allies, without any real justification, using real spy methods and internet surveillance. Why would the government suddenly turn to cartoon villany and Hollywood spy techniques for the sake of spying on this *one* person? Why not just add her name to the NSA's list of people to spy on? The government doesn't want to risk getting caught? Well, they got caught in the NSA spying thing because of a whistleblower. And you know what? More Americans are mad at the whistleblower than they are at their own government. The government doesn't need to hide it's spying behind layers of plausible deniability; they can spy on anyone and most of America won't care. They certainly don't need to resort to cartoon villany or "spying" methods that only a Hollywood screenwriter would think are real. This woman is lying about what happened.

**whembly**

squidhills wrote:
This woman is lying about what happened.

Did you read the court filing I posted earlier?

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
Here's the actual court case document.
http://documents.gawker.com/sharyl-attkisson-v-eric-holder-1677567257

I still want to see the explicit evidence... but, so far it's compelling.

I didn't realize that the USPS works with the FBI extensively on surveillance. But, then again, when you think about it... it does make sense.

o.O

Uh, you do realize that the USPS isn't even a full federal agency right? So, no, it doesn't make a lick of sense at all.

**squidhills**

whembly wrote:
squidhills wrote:
This woman is lying about what happened.

Did you read the court filing I posted earlier?

Yeah, and I'm not convinced. I think it's possible the government was/is spying on her. I think it is absolutely untrue that they used the methods that the woman is claiming that they used. I think the fact that she was being spied on using the established methods of internet surveillance wasn't "sexy" enough for her, so she had a tech-minded friend of hers put together some Hollywood sexy spy stuff and claim that was what the government was using to watch her.

Ask yourself which sounds more plausible:

"The government spied on me by using complicated software, keystroke loggers, ISP fishing, and spyware programs."

or

"The government spied on me by hooking up strange wires to my cable box, deleting my files while I was using them, and putting stuff in my laptop that made it turn itself on in the middle of the night."

One of those two statements sounds awfully tin-foil hat, I must say...

**whembly**

streamdragon wrote:
whembly wrote:
Here's the actual court case document.
http://documents.gawker.com/sharyl-attkisson-v-eric-holder-1677567257

I still want to see the explicit evidence... but, so far it's compelling.

I didn't realize that the USPS works with the FBI extensively on surveillance. But, then again, when you think about it... it does make sense.

o.O

Uh, you do realize that the USPS isn't even a full federal agency right? So, no, it doesn't make a lick of sense at all.

You do know they work closely with the Federal Law Enforcement Agencies... right?

In any evident... I'm just waiting for the evidence to be made public during the discovery phase.

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
whembly wrote:
Here's the actual court case document.
http://documents.gawker.com/sharyl-attkisson-v-eric-holder-1677567257

I still want to see the explicit evidence... but, so far it's compelling.

I didn't realize that the USPS works with the FBI extensively on surveillance. But, then again, when you think about it... it does make sense.

o.O

Uh, you do realize that the USPS isn't even a full federal agency right? So, no, it doesn't make a lick of sense at all.

You do know they work closely with the Federal Law Enforcement Agencies... right?

In any evident... I'm just waiting for the evidence to be made public during the discovery phase.

For mail fraud and the like, sure.

For domestic spying? Pull the other leg.

**whembly**

squidhills wrote:
whembly wrote:
squidhills wrote:
This woman is lying about what happened.

Did you read the court filing I posted earlier?

Yeah, and I'm not convinced. I think it's possible the government was/is spying on her. I think it is absolutely untrue that they used the methods that the woman is claiming that they used. I think the fact that she was being spied on using the established methods of internet surveillance wasn't "sexy" enough for her, so she had a tech-minded friend of hers put together some Hollywood sexy spy stuff and claim that was what the government was using to watch her.

Ask yourself which sounds more plausible:

"The government spied on me by using complicated software, keystroke loggers, ISP fishing, and spyware programs."

or

"The government spied on me by hooking up strange wires to my cable box, deleting my files while I was using them, and putting stuff in my laptop that made it turn itself on in the middle of the night."

One of those two statements sounds awfully tin-foil hat, I must say...

I work in the IT industry. I deal with people everyday who don't speak IT "language" right*... Sharyl strikes me as one of those people.

In any event... she had 3 or 4 independent IT forensic expert investigate her claims. I'm interested in seeing their reports.

* for levity, check this out:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
whembly wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
whembly wrote:
Here's the actual court case document.
http://documents.gawker.com/sharyl-attkisson-v-eric-holder-1677567257

I still want to see the explicit evidence... but, so far it's compelling.

I didn't realize that the USPS works with the FBI extensively on surveillance. But, then again, when you think about it... it does make sense.

o.O

Uh, you do realize that the USPS isn't even a full federal agency right? So, no, it doesn't make a lick of sense at all.

You do know they work closely with the Federal Law Enforcement Agencies... right?

In any evident... I'm just waiting for the evidence to be made public during the discovery phase.

For mail fraud and the like, sure.

For domestic spying? Pull the other leg.

Uh... the system was put in placed primarily because of the Anthrax ordeal we've had.

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
Uh... the system was put in placed primarily because of the Anthrax ordeal we've had.

You mean the Anthrax that was sent, I dunno, through the mail? Gee, I wonder why the USPS would work with Federal agencies on that one...

The USPS is not a law enforcement agency. Heck, they're not even an agency.

**squidhills**

streamdragon wrote:

The USPS is not a law enforcement agency. Heck, they're not even an agency.

They do have their own police force. I forget what they are called. "Postal Police" would probably be too easy, but they exist to deal with... postal crime? I guess? A buddy of mine worked for USPS for half a decade and he mentions them from time to time.

**streamdragon**

squidhills wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

The USPS is not a law enforcement agency. Heck, they're not even an agency.

They do have their own police force. I forget what they are called. "Postal Police" would probably be too easy, but they exist to deal with... postal crime? I guess? A buddy of mine worked for USPS for half a decade and he mentions them from time to time.

Yup. They look into all the mail fraud and stuff, but actual arrests I believe are done by Federal Police? That whole interstate commerce thing?

Regardless, they're not the FBI's flunkies, especially for computer stuff. I mean, if any agency should hate computers it's the USPS. Computers basically killed 99% of their business, which is why they run budget shortfalls all the time now.

**daedalus**

streamdragon wrote:

Yup. They look into all the mail fraud and stuff, but actual arrests I believe are done by Federal Police? That whole interstate commerce thing?

Regardless, they're not the FBI's flunkies, especially for computer stuff. I mean, if any agency should hate computers it's the USPS. Computers basically killed 99% of their business, which is why they run budget shortfalls all the time now.

Mail trains in the old days used to have armed agents stationed on them. Not really sure if they were actually a part of the postal service or another branch of the government though.

**streamdragon**

daedalus wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

Yup. They look into all the mail fraud and stuff, but actual arrests I believe are done by Federal Police? That whole interstate commerce thing?

Regardless, they're not the FBI's flunkies, especially for computer stuff. I mean, if any agency should hate computers it's the USPS. Computers basically killed 99% of their business, which is why they run budget shortfalls all the time now.

Mail trains in the old days used to have armed agents stationed on them. Not really sure if they were actually a part of the postal service or another branch of the government though.

Considering the Post Office prior to 1971 was a fully funded government agency, I'm not surprised. 1971 saw Nixon pseudo privatize them.

**Ouze**

The United States Postal Inspection Service is indeed a law enforcement agency (with arrest powers and wiretap capabilities), and the USPS is not actually a government agency, in that they receive no taxpayer funding. However, they still have structural dictates issued by Congress. That's a whole other thread though.

That being said this really doesn't seem to fall within their purview. Even if DoJ was interested - which they say they aren't - domestic spying investigations would be FBI. USPS would have no role here.

**Grey Templar**

Ouze wrote:
The United States Postal Inspection Service is indeed a law enforcement agency (with arrest powers and wiretap capabilities), and the USPS is not actually a government agency, in that they receive no taxpayer funding. However, they still have structural dictates issued by Congress. That's a whole other thread though.

That being said this really doesn't seem to fall within their purview. Even if DoJ was interested - which they say they aren't - domestic spying investigations would be FBI. USPS would have no role here.

Sooo what you are saying is that Seinfeld is more accurate than most of us would want to believe?

**Ouze**

Unfortunately, I never got into Seinfeld so I don't know any non-Festivus related Seinfeld references.