The NSA Surveillance State — makes the State very strong in a certain way, but also very vulnerable — it’s Policing on Auto-Pilot

Exclusive: High-Level NSA Whistleblower Says Blackmail Is a Huge – Unreported – Part of Mass Surveillance

Copy paste below, or go to link. My commentary:

NSA surveillance of everyone means that you must always assume a third person is listening to any electronic communication, or even if you are in a room with a cell phone that has it’s battery in it.

This also means that the National Security State has put policing on Auto-Pilot, in order to cut staff and pensions. Existing “intelligence police” are relying heavily on SIGINT and not so much on HUMINT.

You can be fairly certain that your electronic communications are not being listened to in real time; they are being vaccuumed up for later use. So it’s simple enough, if inconvenient, to communicate in a way that, when they go to fetch your cell phone call or text from June 22, 2015, it is totally useless.

It’s not PGP either. How do we know PGP is secure? I don’t know.

This method is clearly unbreakable on it’s face, as long as the Excel file isn’t captured or the NSA doesn’t have some way of knowing the number randomizations in Excel. Number randomizations are seeded with the time of the execution of the program, so I don’t think so, but this is a potential vulnerability. You could input the number randomization yourself. I invented this method myself, and I’m surprised no one else came up with it.

1. Google for a big list of words on the internet, and copy/paste into a huge Excel column, Column A. Go for 20,000 words, and add in your own words as needed if they aren’t there.

2. Do the random number function for 5 digit numbers for 25,000 rows for column B. Do extra numbers so you have room for growth. Having some unmatched numbers is not a problem.

3. Share this Excel file with your communicant. Ideally, keep the Excel files on computers that never connect to the internet — that don’t even have network cards or wireless radio cards. But even if you have the Excel file on an internet connected computer, the NSA isn’t collecting in real time and goign to say, “Oh, this citizen is using encrypted communication, let’s hack his computer and find out what he’s up to!” It’s just unlikely.

4. To create a message, use the find function to find your word, and write down the 5 digit number next to it. Rinse, repeat, until message is complete, then send the string of numbers to your communicant. Preferably by a different device than the computer — like a text with burner phones. Years later, NSA wants to retrieve your communications — it’s just strings of digits. Oops! Ha ha!

The NSA is spending it’s resources collecting noise and what Russians call Kompromat, but anyone who is determined to keep their communications secure from them can succeed easily enough.

As an aside, I don’t bother doing this myself because I live a very bourgeouis and law abiding life. But I just wanted people to not be too freaked out over the NSA. It can be defeated easily enough, and my method is only one of many.

It is well-documented that governments use information to blackmail and control people.

The Express reported last month:

British security services infiltrated and funded the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange in a covert operation to identify and possibly blackmail establishment figures, a Home Office whistleblower alleges.


Whistleblower Mr X, whose identity we have agreed to protect, became a very senior figure in local government before retiring a few years ago.


He has given a formal statement to that effect to detectives from Operation Fernbridge ….


“And he said [the pedophile group] was being funded at the request of Special Branch which found it politically useful to identify people who were paedophiles….”
Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 made gross indecency a crime in the United Kingdom, which included male gay sex. The Amendment was so frequently used to blackmail gay Brits that it was dubbed the “Blackmailer’s Charter“.

There is widespread speculation that Pope Benedict resigned because of sexual blackmail.

And the American government has a long history of blackmailing people – including high-level officials- with knowledge of their sexual peccadilloes.

Wikipedia notes:

The Lavender Scare refers to the fear and persecution of homosexuals in the 1950s in the United States, which paralleled the anti-communist campaign known as McCarthyism.

Because the psychiatric community regarded homosexuality as a mental illness, gay men and lesbians were considered susceptible to blackmail ….

Former U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson has written: “The so-called ‘Red Scare’ has been the main focus of most historians of that period of time. A lesser-known element . . . and one that harmed far more people was the witch-hunt McCarthy and others conducted against homosexuals.”
FBI head Hoover was famous for blackmailing everyone … including politicians. The New York Times reports:

J. Edgar Hoover compiled secret dossiers on the sexual peccadillos and private misbehavior of those he labeled as enemies — really dangerous people like … President John F. Kennedy, for example.
Alfred McCoy – Professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison – provides details:

Upon taking office on Roosevelt’s death in early 1945, Harry Truman soon learned the extraordinary extent of FBI surveillance. “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police,” Truman wrote in his diary that May. “FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail.”

After a quarter of a century of warrantless wiretaps, Hoover built up a veritable archive of sexual preferences among America’s powerful and used it to shape the direction of U.S. politics. He distributed a dossier on Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson’s alleged homosexuality to assure his defeat in the 1952 presidential elections, circulated audio tapes of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s philandering, and monitored President Kennedy’s affair with mafia mistress Judith Exner. And these are just a small sampling of Hoover’s uses of scandal to keep the Washington power elite under his influence.

“The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator,” recalled William Sullivan, the FBI’s chief of domestic intelligence during the 1960s, “he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter…’ From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.” After his death, an official tally found Hoover had 883 such files on senators and 722 more on congressmen.


With a few hundred cable probes and computerized decryption, the NSA can now capture the kind of gritty details of private life that J. Edgar Hoover so treasured and provide the sort of comprehensive coverage of populations once epitomized by secret police like East Germany’s Stasi. And yet, such comparisons only go so far.

After all, once FBI agents had tapped thousands of phones, stenographers had typed up countless transcripts, and clerks had stored this salacious paper harvest in floor-to-ceiling filing cabinets, J. Edgar Hoover still only knew about the inner-workings of the elite in one city: Washington, D.C. To gain the same intimate detail for an entire country, the Stasi had to employ one police informer for every six East Germans — an unsustainable allocation of human resources. By contrast, the marriage of the NSA’s technology to the Internet’s data hubs now allows the agency’s 37,000 employees a similarly close coverage of the entire globe with just one operative for every 200,000 people on the planet.


In the Obama years, the first signs have appeared that NSA surveillance will use the information gathered to traffic in scandal, much as Hoover’s FBI once did. In September 2013, the New York Times reported that the NSA has, since 2010, applied sophisticated software to create “social network diagrams…, unlock as many secrets about individuals as possible…, and pick up sensitive information like regular calls to a psychiatrist’s office, late-night messages to an extramarital partner.”


By collecting knowledge — routine, intimate, or scandalous — about foreign leaders, imperial proconsuls from ancient Rome to modern America have gained both the intelligence and aura of authority necessary for dominion over alien societies. The importance, and challenge, of controlling these local elites cannot be overstated. During its pacification of the Philippines after 1898, for instance, the U.S. colonial regime subdued contentious Filipino leaders via pervasive policing that swept up both political intelligence and personal scandal. And that, of course, was just what J. Edgar Hoover was doing in Washington during the 1950s and 1960s.


According to James Bamford, author of two authoritative books on the agency, “The NSA’s operation is eerily similar to the FBI’s operations under J. Edgar Hoover in the 1960s where the bureau used wiretapping to discover vulnerabilities, such as sexual activity, to ‘neutralize’ their targets.”

The ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer has warned that a president might “ask the NSA to use the fruits of surveillance to discredit a political opponent, journalist, or human rights activist. The NSA has used its power that way in the past and it would be naïve to think it couldn’t use its power that way in the future.” Even President Obama’s recently convened executive review of the NSA admitted: “[I]n light of the lessons of our own history… at some point in the future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking.”

Indeed, whistleblower Edward Snowden has accused the NSA of actually conducting such surveillance. In a December 2013 letter to the Brazilian people, he wrote, “They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target’s reputation.” If Snowden is right, then one key goal of NSA surveillance of world leaders is not U.S. national security but political blackmail — as it has been since 1898.
Today, the NSA tracks people’s porn-viewing habits in order to discredit activists. The NSA also gathers and keeps nude and suggestive photos of people in order to blackmail them.

The Associated Press notes:

The stockpiling of sexually explicit images of ordinary people had uncomfortable echoes of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” where the authorities — operating under the aegis of “Big Brother” — fit homes with cameras to monitor the intimate details of people’s home lives.


The collection of nude photographs also raise questions about potential for blackmail. America’s National Security Agency has already acknowledged that half a dozen analysts have been caught trawling databases for inappropriate material on partners or love interests. Other leaked documents have revealed how U.S. and British intelligence discussed leaking embarrassing material online to blacken the reputations of their targets.
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds alleged under oath that a recently-serving Democratic Congresswoman was secretly videotaped – for blackmail purposes – during a lesbian affair. (Other Congress members have been blackmailed as well.)

Edmonds tells Washington’s Blog that judges who are too “squeaky clean” are often not approved for nomination … while ones with skeletons in their closets are. And she says that high-level FBI managers have publicly confirmed this blackmail process.

There have been allegations of blackmail of gay activities within the U.S. armed forces for years.

And even the raw data on American citizens collected by the NSA is shared with Israel. This likely includes Congress members and other politicians, as well.

Bill Binney – the NSA’s senior technical director and head of the agency’s global digital information gathering program – told Washington’s Blog:

Bulk collection of everything gives law enforcement all the data they need on every citizen in the country. And, it gives NSA all that info on everyone too. Makes them akin to a J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids.
Binney explained to us the importance of this story:

Being able to blackmail people is one major aspect of bulk/mass collection that has not been talked about. E.g., they could use this data to blackmail members of governments around the world. But, surely just to get them to do what they wanted them to do. Just like J. Edgar Hoover did.

This is on top of the ability to do world-wide industrial espionage.
Indeed, Binney tells us that the NSA’s blackmail tactics are the same as those used by the KGB and Stasi:

This is just one of the ways to make controlling people possible. Standard KGB/Stasi tactics.
(Binney told the Guardian recently: “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”)

And Binney tells Washington’s Blog that NSA surveillance allows the government to target:

“[CIA head] General Petraeus and General Allen and others like [New York State Attorney General] Elliot Spitzer”
“Supreme Court Judges, other judges, Senators, Representatives, law firms and lawyers, and just anybody you don’t like … reporters included”
NSA whistleblower Russell Tice (a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping), also says:

The NSA is spying on and blackmailing its overseers in Washington, as well as Supreme Court judges, generals and others
The agency started spying on Barack Obama when he was just a candidate for the Senate
And senior NSA executive Thomas Drake explains to Washington’s Blog that the NSA can use information gathered from mass surveillance to frame anyone it doesn’t like.


About Rob

Come with me if you want to live
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The NSA Surveillance State — makes the State very strong in a certain way, but also very vulnerable — it’s Policing on Auto-Pilot

  1. Rollory says:

    This is NOT SECURE.

    This is just a classic substitution code. It is largely crackable by statistical methods that were known more than a century ago and that I was playing with when I was 10 years old. (“The Kids’ Code and Cipher Book” was what got me started on this, it’s an excellent introduction even for adults who aren’t familiar with the concepts, and for kids it uses a pirate adventure story to keep them engaged. It won’t take you as far as public key cryptography, but it gives you all the basics up to that.)

    A related code that has been used in the real world is book coding: two people each have the same copy of a book, and messages consist of two numbers for each word: page number, and the position of the word on the page. So you look up the page, count words, and that’s the word. It’s functionally equivalent to what you describe (being essentially random; there is no simple rule describing why any particular word might be on any particular page of a book) but is crackable due to simple statistical frequency of different words in any particular language.

    You would have to either use the code described in your post very rarely (as in, less than 100 words ever used, and even that’s risky) (to keep the pool of data small enough that statistics just doesn’t have enough to work on) or change the encoding every few times – reordering the excel file after every couple messages. This requires that everybody using it be in regular contact to coordinate the reordering outside of the actual encoded messages – a level of effort and trouble that makes the coding itself of questionable utility.

    Better advice? How about this:

    The message gets through.

    • mindweapon says:


      You could make 1000 unique Excel files and use each one only once.

      You’re saying you could take a string of numbers, not knowing they are in 5 digit strings, and crack that into words?

      Thnk of it — an NSA guy just finds a string of numbers. What’s he going to do with that?

      • Mr. Rational says:

        DES is far more secure than any substitution cypher.  The 56-bit key length is much bigger than the effective key length of any spreadsheet you could make.  Yet even DES is much too weak to stand against current cryptanalytic techniques.

        If you really need to be secure, the only thing you can be sure of is a one-time pad.  The one-time pad must absolutely not be shared any more widely than necessary and must be destroyed after use.

        Using non-standard cryptography attracts attention.  The NSA can hack your hardware, and Stuxnet shows that they can hack off-network systems by infecting thumb drives.

      • mindweapon says:

        I don’t think the NSA is going to suddenly start paying attention to people sending strings of numbers.

        heck, we could use HAM radio to transmit the numbers.

        In short, secure comms is not that difficult if you really need to do it. You want to tell me if I use 100 separate Excel spreadsheets, and re-use them after 100 of them, they are going to crack that?

      • mindweapon says:

        The PGP type stuff just crunches numbers until it hits clear text. I worked in tech support for an encryption company back in 1999-2001.

        I’d like to learn more about using statistical analysis to crack my substitution cypher. Anybody want to crack mine? I’ll send you a string of numbers and you can tell me what I said. I’ll give you a long message, tell me hwo many characters/words.

      • Rollory says:

        “You could make 1000 unique Excel files and use each one only once.”

        Throwaway ciphers work, yes. Just make sure everyone involved knows which order to use them in, and that this knowledge is not communicated in an interceptable form.

        But that is a more complicated scenario than the base one you outlined. A single substitution matrix will not keep your messages secret at all.

        As for teasing meaning out of strings of numbers, that is the whole point: there are people who are very, very good at that. Don’t underestimate them.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        You want to tell me if I use 100 separate Excel spreadsheets

        I’m telling you that frequency analysis can crack a single use of such a spreadsheet.  Puzzle addicts crack letter substitution cyphers with their eyeballs.

        If your life depends on such a message not being cracked, you’re a fool to send it.

      • mindweapon says:

        Mr. Rational,

        Can you teach me this frequency analysis?

        Does the frequency use analyzer have to know that one is using 5 digit strings to represent words or 7 digit or 10 digit?

      • Mr. Rational says:

        A program as trivial as zip will find repeated strings of any length in your text and mark them with codes to flag further occurrences in the compressed text.  That would be sufficient to find what length of string you’re using, and it’s not even a cryptanalytic tool!  Real cryptanalysts can do this in their sleep.

      • mindweapon says:

        OK, so suppose for every recurrence of the same word, I use a string from a second column? Make 2 or more columns of random numbers, so there’s no recurrence of strings when a word is repeated?

        Thanks for the criticism and finding weaknesses.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        You’d be much better off compressing with variable-length Huffman encoding beginning with a standard dictionary (removing redundancy and cutting the message length), then just doing exclusive-OR of the bit string with a completely random keystring of your one-time pad.  The recipient (who has the one-time pad also) does XOR to recover the compressed text stream and unpacks using the pre-seeded initial dictionary.  So long as the one-time pad is truly random, is not leaked and your system is secure (i.e. no Stuxnet-type worms which can smuggle out decrypted text via shared thumb drives!), this is unbreakable.

        This is a very tall order.  We can assume that anyone the NSA wants to monitor has already been infected with Stuxnet-like monitors, root kits, etc.  It would not be surprising to me to learn that every PC you buy has been pre-rooted for their convenience.

      • Anon says:

        “Thnk of it — an NSA guy just finds a string of numbers. What’s he going to do with that?” – run a statistical analysis on it. words and letters aren’t evenly distributed in any language so the fact that a certain number is showing up a lot gives an indication of what the number means.

      • Anon says:

        Heres a link to letter frequency:

        This type of analysis is just a simple matter of counting and comparing, string length and words would be a little more complicated though.

  2. PA says:

    Is there any doubt that justice Roberts was blackmailed for that obmacare ruling?

  3. Magnum: In this case they know that any attempt to blackmail me based on very personal photos will backfire because I’ll get a very significant percentage of all women’s vote.


    • mindweapon says:


      The KGB guys were trained that if they were shown Kompromat of them fucking a woman, to say to the blackmailer, “Send it in high definition color, please!”

  4. Pingback: NSA Spies On Americans, Then Passes Around Their Nude Pictures and Videos | Hipster Racist

  5. Stary Wylk says:

    A computer cannot generate random anything; programs carry out formulas and “random” means there is no formula. What a program can do is generate “pseudo-random” numbers which are substitutable for a random series of numbers in limited ways. That’s all the Excel rand() function does.

    • Mr. Rational says:

      You are wrong.  There are random elements even in computers, such as clock jitter.  There are random number generators which measure these things and output random bit strings.  There is a limit to how fast they can work, of course.

    • PA says:

      A computer can generate random output only by interfacing with unpredictable (to the computer) external input such as clock jitters, sound of traffic or conversation, etc.

  6. Pingback: Fake Cell Phone ‘towers’ May Be Spying on Americans’ Calls, Texts | saboteur365

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s