<\/p>\n
Washington\u2019s Blog<\/a><\/strong> You\u2019ve heard that the government spies on all Americans.<\/p>\n But you might not know that the government shares some of that information with big corporations.<\/p>\n In addition, Reuters reported<\/a> in 2011 that the NSA shares intelligence with Wall Street banks in the name of \u201cbattling hackers.\u201d<\/p>\n The National Security Agency, a secretive arm of the U.S. military, has begun providing Wall Street banks with intelligence on foreign hackers, a sign of growing U.S. fears of financial sabotage.The assistance from the agency that conducts electronic spying overseas is part of an effort by American banks and other financial firms to get help from the U.S. military and private defense contractors to fend off cyber attacks, according to interviews with U.S. officials, security experts and defense industry executives.<\/p>\n The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also warned banks of particular threats amid concerns that hackers could potentially exploit security vulnerabilities to wreak havoc across global markets and cause economic mayhem.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n NSA Director Keith Alexander, who runs the U.S. military\u2019s cyber operations, told Reuters the agency is currently talking to financial firms about sharing electronic information on malicious software, possibly by expanding a pilot program through whichit offers similar data to the defense industry<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n NSA, which has long been charged with protecting classified government networks from attack, is already working with Nasdaq to beef up its defenses after hackers infiltrated its computer systems last year and installed malicious software that allowed them to spy on the directors of publicly held companies.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The NSA\u2019s work with Wall Street marks a milestone in the agency\u2019s efforts to make its cyber intelligence available more broadly to the private sector<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Greater cooperation with industry became possible after a deal reached a year ago between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, allowing NSA to provide cyber expertise to<\/strong> other government agencies and certain private companies<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In March, PC Magazine noted<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cRight now, the ability to share real-time information is complicated and there are legal barriers. We have to overcome that,\u201d Gen Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, said during a Thursday appearance at Georgia Tech\u2019s Cyber Security Symposium.<\/p>\n [Alexander has been pushing for the anti-privacy Internet bill known as “CISPA<\/a>” to be passed.] \u201cIt allows the government to start working with industry and \u2026 discuss with each of these sector about the best approach,\u201d he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n CISPA would allow the NSA to more openly share data with corporations in the name of protecting against \u201ccyber threats.\u201d But that phrase is too squisy. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes:<\/a><\/p>\n A \u201ccybersecurity purpose\u201d only means that a company has to think that a user is trying to harm its network. What does that mean, exactly? The definition is broad and vague. The definition allows purposes such as guarding against \u201cimproper\u201d information modification, ensuring \u201ctimely\u201d access to information or \u201cpreserving authorized restrictions on access\u2026protecting\u2026proprietary information\u201d (i.e. DRM).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, as the ACLU notes<\/a>, \u201cFusion Centers\u201d \u2014 a hybrid of military, intelligence agency, police and private corporations set up in centers throughout the country<\/a>, and run by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security \u2014 allow big businesses like Boeing to get access to classified information which gives them an unfair advantage<\/em> over smaller competitors:<\/p>\n Participation in fusion centers might give Boeing access to the trade secrets or security vulnerabilities of competing companies, or might give it an advantage in competing for government contracts. Expecting a Boeing analyst to distinguish between information that represents a security risk to Boeing and information that represents a business risk may be too much to ask.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A 2008 Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office review<\/a> of fusion centers concluded that they presented risks to privacy because of ambiguous lines of authority, rules and oversight, the participation of the military and private sector<\/strong><\/em>, data mining, excessive secrecy, inaccurate or incomplete information and the dangers of mission creep.<\/p>\n The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found<\/a> in 2012 that fusion centers spy on citizens, produce \u2018shoddy\u2019 work unrelated to terrorism or real threats:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Subcommittee investigation found that DHS-assigned detailees to the fusion centers forwarded \u2018intelligence\u2019 of uneven quality \u2014 oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens\u2019 civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Under the FBI\u2019s Infraguard program, businesses sometimes receive intel even before<\/em> elected officials<\/a>.<\/p>\n Law enforcement agencies spy on protesters and then share the info \u2014 at taxpayer expense<\/a> \u2014 with the giant Wall Street banks<\/p>\n And a security expert says that all Occupy Wall Street protesters had their cellphone information logged by the government<\/a>.<\/p>\n Alternet notes<\/a>:<\/p>\n Ironically, records indicate that corporate entities engaged in such public-private intelligence sharing partnerships were often the very same corporate entities criticized, and protested against, by the Occupy Wall Street movement as having undue influence in the functions of public government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In essence, big banks and giant corporations are seen as being part of \u201ccritical infrastructure\u201d and \u201ckey resources<\/a>\u201d \u2026 so the government protects them. That creates a dynamic where the government will do quite a bit to protect the big boys against any real or imagined threats \u2026 whether from activists or even smaller competitors. (Remember that the government has completely propped up the big banks<\/a>, even though they went bankrupt due to stupid gambles<\/a>.)<\/p>\n And given that some millions of private contractors<\/a> have clearance to view information gathered by spy agencies, and that information gained by the NSA by spying on Americans is being shared with agencies in other countries<\/a>, at least some of the confidential information is undoubtedly leaking into private handseven without<\/em> the government\u2019s knowledge or consent.<\/p>\n As the ACLU noted<\/a> in 2004:<\/p>\n There is a long and unfortunate history of cooperation between government security agencies and powerful corporations to deprive individuals of their privacy and other civil liberties, and any program that institutionalizes close, secretive ties between such organizations raises serious questions about the scope of its activities, now and in the future.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Indeed, the government has been affirmatively helping the big banks, giant oil companies and other large corporations cover up fraud<\/a> and to go after critics. For example, Business Week reported <\/a>on May 23, 2006:<\/p>\n President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reuters noted<\/a> in 2010:<\/p>\n U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve\u2019s bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wired reported<\/a> the same year:<\/p>\n The DHS issued a directive to employees in July 2009 requiring a wide range of public records requests to pass through political appointees for vetting. These included any requests dealing with a \u201ccontroversial or sensitive subject\u201d or pertaining to meetings involving prominent business leaders<\/strong> and elected officials. Requests from lawmakers, journalists, and activist and watchdog groups were also placed under this scrutiny.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of wrongdoing \u2014 the Department of Justice told Bank of America<\/a> to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this<\/a>)<\/p>\n The government and big banks actually coordinated on the violent crackdown<\/a> of the anti-big bank Occupy protest.<\/p>\n The government is also using anti-terrorism laws to keep people from learning what pollutants are in their own community, in order to protect the fracking, coal and other polluting industries. See this<\/a>, this<\/a>,this<\/a>, this<\/a> and this<\/a>.<\/p>\n Investigating factory farming can get one labeled a terrorist<\/a>.<\/p>\n Infringing the copyright of a big corporation may also get labeled as a terrorist \u2026 and a swat team may be deployed to your house. See this<\/a>, this<\/a>, this<\/a> and this<\/a>. As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes<\/a>:<\/p>\n This administration \u2026 publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nJune 11, 2013<\/p>\n