|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
| Home | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Dec 22, 2015 | Zero Hedge
As if further proof were needed Orwell's dystopia is now upon us, China has now gamified obedience to the State. Though that is every bit as creepily terrifying as it sounds, citizens may still choose whether or not they wish to opt-in - that is, until the program becomes compulsory in 2020. "Going under the innocuous name of 'Sesame Credit,' China has created a score for how good a citizen you are," explains Extra Credits' video about the program. "The owners of China's largest social networks have partnered with the government to create something akin to the U.S. credit score - but, instead of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line."
Zheping Huang, a reporter for Quartz, chronicled his own experience with the social control tool in October, saying that"in the past few weeks I began to notice a mysterious new trend. Numbers were popping up on my social media feeds as my friends and strangers on Weibo [the Chinese equivalent to Twitter] and WeChat began to share their 'Sesame Credit scores.' The score is created by Ant Financial, an Alibaba-affiliated company that also runs Alipay, China's popular third-party payment app with over 350 million users. Ant Financial claims that it evaluates one's purchasing and spending habits in order to derive a figure that shows how creditworthy someone is."
However, according to a translation of the "Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System," posted online by Oxford University's China expert, Rogier Creemers, it's nightmarishly clear the program is far more than just a credit-tracking method. As he described it,
"The government wants to build a platform that leverages things like big data, mobile internet, and cloud computing to measure and evaluate different levels of people's lives in order to create a gamified nudging for people to behave better."
While Sesame Credit's roll-out in January has been downplayed by many, the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, urges caution, saying:
"The system is run by two companies, Alibaba and Tencent, which run all the social networks in China and therefore have access to a vast amount of data about people's social ties and activities and what they say. In addition to measuring your ability to pay, as in the United States, the scores serve as a measure of political compliance.
Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without prior permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen Square massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market collapse. It will hurt your score not only if you do these things, but if any of your friends do them."
And, in what appears likely the goal of the entire program, added, "Imagine the social pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create."
Social pressure, of course, can be highly effective given the right circumstances. China seems to have found exactly that in the intricate linking of people's scores to their contacts, which can be seen publicly by anyone - and then upping the ante through score-based incentives and rewards. Rick Falkvinge pointed out a startling comparison:
"The KGB and the Stasi's method of preventing dissent from taking hold was to plant so-called agents provocateurs in the general population, people who tried to make people agree with dissent, but who actually were arresting them as soon as they agreed with such dissent. As a result, nobody would dare agree that the government did anything bad, and this was very effective in preventing any large-scale resistance from taking hold. The Chinese way here is much more subtle, but probably more effective still."
As Creemers described to Dutch news outlet, de Volkskrant,
"With the help of the latest internet technologies, the government wants to exercise individual surveillance. The Chinese aim […] is clearly an attempt to create a new citizen."
Chinese internet specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Johan Lagerkvist, said the system is
"very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist."
James Corbett has been tracking the implementation of Sesame Credit for some time. Introducing the ubiquitous tracking system for a recent episode of the Corbett Report, he mused:
"Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like the government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen! What could be more fun?"
Indeed, because mandatory enrollment in Sesame Credit is still a few years away, its true effectiveness won't be measurable for some time. But even a reporter's usual wariness appears knocked off-kilter, as Zheping Huang summarized his personal experience,
"Even if my crappy credit score doesn't mean much now, it's in my best interest I suppose to make sure it doesn't go too low."
And that, of course, is precisely why gamifying State obedience is so terrifying.
Cornfedbloodstool
We just have FICO scores in the US, that measures how obidient you are to the banks, the true rulers of the country.
ToSoft4Truth
And Facebook 'Likes'. Can't get laid without the Likes, man.
CAPT DRAKE
It is already here. There is a thing called an "NSA Score", based on your habits, contacts, and email/posts. Fortunately, porn surfing, even addiction, is not a negative. Only anti state stuff counts, and no, most of the posts on ZH don't count as they are seen as venting and not actionable intel.
knukles
I love Big Brother...
Miffed Microbiologist
"The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is "good," since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical "cornfield", an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is "bad" and doesn't "like [him] at all," and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it."
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Miffed
Old Poor Richard
You beat me to it on FICO score. If you're off the grid, out of the electronic money system or not paying sufficient fealty to banksters, you are NOT being obedient to the state.
NoDebt
I'm as off the grid as you can get and still live a middle class lifestyle with electricity and a cell phone. I assure you they still score me and I'm usually over 800. I don't use credit much these days but what I use says nothing but "pays as agreed".
Now, if you start to factor in the "slightly to the right of the John Burke Society" shit I post on ZH I'd be down around -500.
Uchtdorf
http://qz.com/519737/all-chinese-citizens-now-have-a-score-based-on-how-...
Dated October 9th of this year.
savagegoose
thats it, in the communist version of facebook you can vote on gov post's, ie you can like them.
Government needs you to pay taxes
Cmon its China, where numbers are faked everyday. Ya think this number will be any different? And even if its effective in China, when the US .govbots roll this out, how effective can it be when US .gov employees 'at the wheel'?
The US .gov can fuck ANYTHING up.
roisaber
It will be funny to see who gets a low citizen loyalty oath score for unpredictable reasons, or from hacks, and their increasing radicalization as their honest efforts to try to get themselves back into good standing only makes them register as more anti-social.
techpriest
The other question is, how many services are going to pop up to help you boost your score, just like there are books, guides, and services for your credit score currently?
"Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400 points in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you!"
SgtShaftoe
China doesn't have enough enforcers to control the population. They will lose control. That is only a matter of time. They may be able to delay the inevitable for a while but eventually reality will arrive. Keep pushing that volatility into the tail and see what happens. When it goes, it will blow your fucking socks off.
Tick tock motherfuckers, and that goes for the US as well...
tarabel
That is the (evil) genius of this scheme. It is collectively enforced by the proletarians themselves. If you do anti-social things, that will reflect badly on your friends and family so they will excoriate you and, if necessary, shun you until you get with the program. Really, it's just a crowd-sourced Communist Block Warden program gone digital.
I don't worry about the Chinese. They're fooked any which way you slice it. But China invents nothing, merely imitates. So where did they get this idea from, hmmm?
techpriest
At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit out a score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff ;)
With that in mind, what would you be able to accomplish with a team of 40-50 developers and several months? What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can give you radically different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly explain what methods they are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.'
cherry picker"I have nothing to hide"
Well, the bozos who coined the above term, have fun. You think keeping up with mortgage, car payments, Obama Care, taxes, raising kids and keeping a spouse happy is stressful, wait til .gov does a 'test' on you.
Me, I'm not worried. I'm a non conformist, live in the boonies and am too old. I tell my children and grandchildren they need to get rid of this 'evil eye' government encroachment.
They think I am crazy now, but I think they may be coming around.
techpriest
I would love to turn that "You shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" around by pointing out that the Fed shouldn't be afraid of an audit if they have nothing to hide.
Amish Hacker
Patriot Points.
Bopper09
Is this not what assface is? (facebook for people plugged in). I admit I went on it for the simple fact I couldn't find anything better for talking to my Russian fiance. But even a year before she got here, I said fuck it. Tried cancelling, but if you click a link that has something to do with facebook, your profile becomes active again. Fucking criminals. I left a computer for 3 weeks (not that I haven't done that before. TRY IT, no cell phone or computer for ONE WEEK. Take vacation days and see what's important in your life. Seriously, I've never owned a cell phone. Where I work I don't need one. Cell phones do not 'save your life'.
Consuelo
Interesting the references to FB, especially when one considers who's at the head and his position on censorship. Then again, what happened in Mao's China descended from the likes of Trotsky, so it kinda sorta follows...
Gantal
The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our own.
The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with – and trust – their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to their national leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead – morally and practically. It works for them, as we see.
The underlying lie is that the Chinese government needs to repress its people. It doesn't. Anyone purporting to be China 'experts' like Messrs. Lagerkvist and Creemers, should know that China's government is the most popular, most trusted government on earth.
By why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Fuku Ben
The score is created by Ant Financial
FedFunnyMoney
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer...Chinese style.
rejected
Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the "Perfect" tool for the crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every breath (literally).
Sure, it's cool, you can play games and other useless crap but even a blind man could see how governments are going to be useing it. The social networks are piped right into governments security complex. Wouldn't surprise me if everything we post even here on ZH is stored on some digital crap machine somewhere.
For sure it's on ZH servers and thus available to any Tom, Dick or Harry LEO. I myself am very close to going dark. This stuff isn't laughable anymore. It's getting DEADLY serious.
|
|
|
The New Yorker
Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal. "Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."
The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government, whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the subject is a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."
The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward Snowden revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?
The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically, in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS. Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because then you'd have to ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance. Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the country in which they were built-and also kill their C.E.O.s.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2015 | The Guardian
Stumphole 16 Dec 2015 17:44Use a VPN and Start Page as a search engine. Nothing is saved from your search.
Fgt 4URIGHTS -> lefthalfback2 16 Dec 2015 19:44
sand44 16 Dec 2015 18:26Only the brain dead idiots who are deceived and under collective Stockholm syndrome are fine with it. Yeah, all the illegal surveillance in the world didn't stop the San Bernadinos attack. Also, let's not forget the treason and terrorism being conducted against innocent Americans (Cointelpro/Gangstalking) and hidden from the American people while their asleep to the crimes happening in secret all around them. Yeah for a fascist, totalitarian police state, isn't it cool?? I feel so safe knowing my criminal government is there to protect me because they love me so much.
Whistleblower: "Every Time There Is a Terrorist Attack, What We Really Need to Do Is Demand that They CUT the Budgets of All the Intelligence Agencies" - William Binney
AvZweeden 16 Dec 2015 14:53"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin 1755How far has the standard of American politicians managed to fall?
Edward Snowden might as well not have blown any whistle, and saved himself a lot of trouble.
Most Americans think America is a democracy, but it is really an oligarchy in disguise. Probably always was. I read this earlier this year:
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/
|
|
|
May 26, 2015 | ITworld
Are Windows and OS X malware?Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.
Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:
As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious, but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious – and often are, when not free/libre.
Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs (end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing for suckers.
Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.
Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.
JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos, email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one, Google, you creep."
Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.
I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city. Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.
Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."
CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax break is absolutely reprehensible."
Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance, or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."
AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."
Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different approach, Richey."
Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you like doing, what's the big deal?
Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means you'll have to search out everything for yourself.
The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away through loads of crap to find what they want.
They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether mining such data is bad per se."
Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or "lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators: musicians, artists, photographers."
Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost) technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to be right about what the security services get up."
|
|
|
www.howtogeek.com
... ... ...
Ever since we found out just how much government spying is going on, the security community has been systematically looking into every piece of technology that we use, from operating systems to network protocols, and we've learned just how insecure everything is.
... ... ...
That's the good news. The bad news is that nothing has fundamentally changed as far as the spying is concerned, despite all of the stories and media attention online. Organizations like the ACLU have tried, and failed, to even bring cases to figure out what's actually going on. Very few politicians even talk about it, and the ones that do have no power to change anything. People not only haven't exploded in anger, they don't even know the details, as John Oliver illustrated brilliantly in his interview with Snowden.
Everybody knows the government is probably spying on everything, and nobody really cares.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2015 | The New York Time
Facebook is so far defying concerns about its spending habits - a criticism that has at times also plagued Amazon and Alphabet's Google - because the social network is on a short list of tech companies that make money from the wealth of mobile visitors to its smartphone app and website. The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago.
... ... ...
Revenue was also bolstered by Facebook increasing the number of ads it showed users over the past year, said David Wehner, the company's chief financial officer. And video advertising, a growth area for Facebook, is on the rise: More than eight billion video views happen on the social network every day, the company said.
Hand in hand with the increased advertising is more users to view the promotions. The number of daily active users of Facebook exceeded one billion for the first time in the quarter, up 17 percent from a year earlier, with monthly active mobile users up 23 percent, to 1.4 billion.
... ... ...
Beyond the properties it owns, Facebook is dabbling in partnerships with media companies that could prove lucrative in the future. In May, the company debuted a feature called Instant Articles with a handful of publishers, including The New York Times, which lets users read articles from directly inside the Facebook app without being directed to a web browser.
|
|
|
11/05/15 | Observer
Firefox ups its privacy game with version 42.
Mozilla made a bit of a splash this week with the announcement of its updated "private mode" in Firefox, but it's worth spelling out exactly why: Firefox's enhanced privacy mode blocks web trackers.
Users familiar with Chrome's "Incognito Mode" may assume that's what it does as well, but it doesn't. It's no fault of Google or the Chromium Project if someone misunderstands the degree of protection. The company is clear in its FAQ: all Incognito Mode does is keep your browsing out of the browser's history.
'We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share on the web.'
Firefox's new "Private Mode" one-ups user protection here by automatically blocking web trackers. Nick Nguyen, Vice President for Product at Mozilla, says in the video announcement, "We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share on the web." That sounds right. In fact, most people probably think private modes provide more safety than they do.
Firefox has been working to educate web users about the prevalence of trackers for a long time. In 2012, it introduced Collusion to help users visualize just how many spying eyes were in the background of their browsing (a tool now known by the milquetoast name 'Lightbeam') and how they follow you around.
Privacy nuts might be thinking, "Hey, isn't the new Private Mode basically doing what the Ghostery add-on/extension does already? It looks that way. Ghostery was not immediately available for comment on this story. This reporter started using Ghostery in earnest in the last few weeks, and while it does bust the odd page, overall, it makes the web much faster. As Mr. Nguyen says in the video, Firefox's new mode should do the roughly the same.
The best way to update Firefox is within the 'About Firefox' dialogue. Open it and let it check for updates (if it doesn't say version 42.0 or higher, the browser doesn't have it). On Macs, find "About Firefox" under the "Firefox" tab in the menu bar. On a PC, find it in the hamburger menu in the upper right.
Competition in the browser battles keeps improving the functionality of the web. When Chrome first came along, Firefox had become incredibly bloated.
Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)
Then, Chrome popularized the notion of incognito browsing, back when the main privacy concern was that our roommate would look at our browsing history to see how often we were visiting Harry Potter fansites (shout out to stand-up comic, Ophira Eisenberg, for that one).
As the web itself has become bloated with spyware, incorporating tracker blocking directly into the structure of the world's second most popular browser is a strong incentive for web managers to be more judicious about the stuff they load up in the background of websites.
Don't forget, though, that even with trackers blocked, determined sites can probably identify visitors and they can definitely profile, using browser fingerprinting. If you really want to hide, use Tor. If you're mega paranoid, try the Tails OS.
|
|
|
Oct 01, 2015 | observer.com
Federal law enforcement began planning to use license plate readers in 2009 to track cars that visited gun shows against cars that crossed the border into Mexico, according to notes from a meeting between United States and Mexican law enforcement, released on Wikileaks. The notes were taken by Marko Papic, then of Stratfor, a company that describes itself as a publisher of geopolitical intelligence.
License plate readers are becoming a standard tool for local and national law enforcement across the country. In 2013, the ACLU showed that state and local law enforcement were widely documenting drivers' movements. Ars Technica looked at license plate data collected in Oakland. In January, the ACLU described documents attained from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the Freedom of Information Act that showed that agency has been working closely with state and local law enforcement. Many of the findings in these latter documents corroborate some of the insights provided by the 2009 meeting notes on Wikileaks.
Wikileaks began publishing these emails in February 2012, as the "Global Intelligence Files," as the Observer previously reported. The documents have to be read with some caution. These were reportedly attained by hackers in December 2011. A Stratfor spokesperson declined to comment on the leaked emails, referring the Observer instead to its 2012 statement, which says, "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either."
While it's hard to imagine that such a giant trove could be completely fabricated, there is also no way to know whether or not some of it was tampered with. That said, details about federal license plate reader programs largely square with subsequent findings about the surveillance systems.
The meeting appears to have been primarily concerned with arms control, but related matters, such as illegal drug traffic and the Zetas, come up as well. The focus of the meeting appears to be information sharing among the various authorities, from both countries. Among other initiatives, the notes describe the origins of a sophisticated national system of automobile surveillance.
Here are some findings on law enforcement technology, with an emphasis on tracking automobiles:
- The program wasn't fully live in 2009. The notes read, "Mr. 147 asked about the License Plate Reader program and Mr. 983 from DEA responded that they were still in the testing phase but that once completed the database would be available for use by everyone." However, an email found by the ACLU from 2010 said that the DEA was sharing information with local law enforcement as of May 2009. (People at the meeting are largely referred to by numbers throughout the notes)
- Gun shows. The officials in the meeting suspect that a lot of guns that reach Mexico come from American gun shows. The Ambassador from Mexico is cited as believing that shows were the main source of firearms coming into his country. The ATF then says that investigating gun shows is "touchy."
- Cross-referencing. Despite the sensitivity, the ATF hoped to be able to identify vehicles that visited gun shows and then crossed the border. The notes read, "[Mr. 192] noted that they would do the check once they came into Mexico. Mr. 009 stated part of the new ways that are being looked at is incorporating that type of information into license plate readers for local law enforcement. He added that DEA is going to provide more and more license plate readers especially southbound." This last point squares with ACLU's finding, which found a 2010 document that said the DEA had 41 readers set up in southern border states.
- ATF and the NRA. Apparently law enforcement checks in with the gun rights advocates. Mr. 123 is identified as an ATF employee in the hacked email. In a conversation about the federal government's gun tracking system, eTrace, the notes attribute to him the following, "He added that they are in constant communication with Mr. Templeton who has the Cross Roads of the West Gun Show as well as NRA attorneys and that there had been no complaints on how things were moving." Bob Templeton is shown as the President of the National Association of Arms Shows on this op-ed and runs the gun show mentioned, according to its site.
- Other data. The notes also indicate that the ATF was working on ways to identify people who bought more guns at gun shows than their income should allow. It also indicated that the United States' gun tracking system was being translated into Spanish, so that Mexican authorities could check guns against American records.
The notes themselves are not dated, but the email containing them is dated September 4, 2009. It provides no names, but it cites people from the Mexican Embassy, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firerearms, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. The only person named is Marko Papic, who identifies himself in this hacked email. Stephen Meiners circulated Mr. Papic's notes from the summit's morning and afternoon session in one email.
The Supreme Court of California is set to review police's exemption to sharing information on how they use license plate reader data in that state. A court in Fairfax County, Virginia, is set to consider a suit against police there over local law enforcement keeping and sharing of data about people not suspected of a crime.
The DEA and the ATF did not reply to a request for comment for this story.
|
|
|
observer.com
When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.
They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear.
"If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September and uploaded onto Ted.com today.
This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"
To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust. In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy. Please send a drone strike."
Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:
... ... ...
|
|
|
observer.com
The most secure and, at the same time, usable, method of creating, sharing and storing information is to write it up on a manual typewriter and store it in a locked filing cabinet
If the CIA's Director John Brennan can't keep his emails private, who can? Sadly, the fact that email and instant messaging are far more convenient than communicating via papers in envelopes or by actually talking on the phone, or (God forbid) face to face, these technologies are far more insecure. Could it be that the old ways protected both secrecy and privacy far better than what we have now?
The men and women in the United States government assigned to protect our nation's most important secrets have good reason to quote Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet who proclaimed, "The typewriter is holy." For that matter so are pens, pencils, carbon paper and ordinary paper. In the digital age privacy as we once knew it, is dead, not just for ordinary citizens, but for government officials including, apparently, the head of the CIA-not to mention our former Secretary of State. Neither the NSA nor the U.S. military have been able to keep their secrets from being exposed by the likes of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
Given America's failures to protect our own secret information, one hopes and wishes that the U.S. is as successful at stealing information from our potential foes as they are at stealing from us.
In the private sector, hackers steal information from countless companies, ranging from Target to Ashley Madison. The banks rarely let on how badly or how often they are victimized by cybercrime, but rumor has it that it is significant. At least for now, the incentives for making and selling effective cyber security systems are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives for building systems that can steal secret or private information from individuals, as well as from corporations and governments. In the digital age, privacy is gone.
Increasingly, organizations and individuals are rediscovering the virtues of paper. Non-digital media are simply invulnerable to hacking. Stealing information from a typewriter is harder than stealing it from a word processor, computer or server. A physical file with sheets of paper covered in words written either by hand or by typewriter is a safer place to store confidential information than any electronic data storage system yet devised.
|
|
|
The Guardian
Critics call it a revived snooper's charter, because the government wants police and spies to be given access to the web browsing history of everyone in Britain.
However, Theresa May says her measures would require internet companies to store data about customers that amount to "simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
Who is right? And is there anything you can do to make your communications more secure?
What exactly is the government after?The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit.
This is the log of websites that you visit through your internet service provider (ISP), commonly called internet browsing history, and is different from the history stored by your internet browser, such as Microsoft's Edge, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome.
It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read.
Clearing your browser history or using private or incognito browsing modes do nothing to affect your browsing history stored by the ISP.
What will they be able to learn about my internet activity?Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison – the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know.
The logged internet activity is also likely to reveal who a person banks with, the social media they use, whether they have considered travelling (eg by visiting an airline homepage) and a range of information that could in turn link to other sources of personal information.
Who will store my web browsing data?The onus is on ISPs – the companies that users pay to provide access to the internet – to store the browsing history of its customers for 12 months. That includes fixed line broadband providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin, but also mobile phone providers such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.
... ... ...
Don't ISPs already store this data?
They already store a limited amount of data on customer communications for a minimum of one year and have done for some time, governed by the EU's data retention directive. That data can be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).
The new bill will enshrine the storage of browsing history and access to that data in law.
Can people hide their internet browsing history?There are a few ways to prevent the collection of your browsing history data, but each way is a compromise.
The most obvious way is the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). They channel your data from your computer through your ISP to a third-party service before immersing on the internet. In doing so they can obfuscate your data from your ISP and therefore the government's collection of browsing history.
Companies routinely use VPNs to secure connections to services when off-site such as home workers. Various companies such as HotspotShield offer both free or paid-for VPN services to users.
Using the Tor browser, freely available from the Tor project, is another way to hide what you're doing from your ISP and takes things a stage further. It allows users to connect directly to a network of computers that route your traffic by bouncing it around other computers connected to Tor before emerging on the open internet.
Your ISP will see that you are connected to Tor, but not what you are doing with it. But not everybody has the technical skills to be comfortable using Tor.
Is there any downside to using a VPN?In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would.
The speed of your internet connection is also limited by the VPN. Most free services are slow, some paid-for services are faster.
Tor also risks users having their data intercepted, either at the point of exit from the Tor network to the open internet or along the path. This is technically tricky, however. Because your internet traffic is bounced between computers before reaching you, Tor can be particularly slow.
Can I protest-browse to show I'm unhappy with the new law?One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that.
At some point it will be very difficult to store that much data, should everyone begin doing so.
... ... ...
|
|
|
Peak Prosperity
cmartensonSpeaking of not having a clear strategy or visionSnowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage.
It bears repeating; US Bankers committed literally hundreds of thousands of serious felonies and *not one* was ever charged by the Justice Dept. under Obama's two terms.
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."
Well, either you believe serious crimes should be prosecuted or you don't.
Pick one.
But to try and be selective about it all just makes one something of a tyrant. Wielding power when and how it suits one's aims instead of equally is pretty much the definition of tyranny (which includes "the unreasonable or arbitrary use of power")
However, the EU has decided to drop all criminal charges against Snowden showing that the US is losing legitimacy across the globe by the day.
EU parliament votes to 'drop any criminal charges' against whistle-blower
The European parliament voted to lift criminal charges against American whistle-blower Edward Snowden on Thursday.
In an incredibly close vote, EU MEPs said he should be granted protection as a "human rights defender" in a move that was celebrated as a "chance to move forward" by Mr Snowden from Russia.
This seems both right and significant. Significant because the US power structure must be seething. It means that the EU is moving away form the US on important matters, and that's significant too. Right because Snowden revealed deeply illegal and unconstitutional practices that, for the record, went waaaaAAaaay beyond the so-called 'meta-data phone records' issue.
And why shouldn't the EU begin to carve their own path? Their interests and the US's are wildly different at this point in history, especially considering the refugee crisis that was largely initiated by US meddling and warmongering in the Middle East.
At this point, I would say that the US has lost all legitimacy on the subject of equal application of the laws, and cannot be trusted when it comes to manufacturing "evidence" that is used to invade, provoke or stoke a conflict somewhere.
The US is now the Yahoo! of countries; cheerleading our own self-described excellence and superiority at everything when the facts on the ground say something completely different.
Quercus bicolor
cmartenson wrote:
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."
And this "serious crime" was committed by Snowden because he saw it as the only viable path to revealing a systematic pattern of crimes by none other than our own federal government that are so serious that they threaten the basic founding principles on which our REPUBLIC was founded.
lambertadTruth is treason
You know how the old saying goes "truth is treason in the empire of lies". I'm a staunch libertarian, but I wasn't always that way. Before that I spent most of my 20's in Special Operations wanting to 'kill bad guys who attacked us' on 9/11. It wasn't until my last deployment that I got ahold of Dr. Ron Paul's books and dug through them and realized his viewpoint suddenly made much more sense than anyone else's. Not only did it make much more sense, but it was based on Natural Law and the founding principals of our country.
A lot has been made of the fact that Snowden contributed money to Dr. Paul's 2008 presidential campaign and that this was an obvious tell that he was really an undercover (insert whatever words the media used - traitor, anarchist, russian spy, etc.). The part that I find troubling is the fact that Snowden revealed to the world that we are all being watched, probably not in real time, but if they ever want to review the 'tapes' they can see what we do essentially every minute of every day. That's BIG news to get out to the citizenry. If you've got access to that kind of data, you don't want that getting out, but here's the kicker - Very few in this country today even care. Nothing in this country has changed that I'm aware of. GCHQ still spies on us and passes the info to the NSA. The NSA still spys on everyone and the Brits and passes the info to GCHQ. Austrialia and NZ and Canda still spy on whoever and pass the info on to whoever wants it. It's craziness.
At the same time, as Chris and others have pointed out, we're bombing people (ISIS/Al Nusra/AQ) we supported ('moderate rebels) before we bombed them (AQ) after we bombed Sadaam and invaded Iraq. Someone please tell me the strategy other than the "7 countries in 5 years plan". Yup, sounds a lot like Yahoo!.
I'm looking forward to Christmas this year because I get to spend 5 days with my wife's family again. My father-in-law is a smart man, but thinks the government is still all powerful and has everything under control. It should make some interesting conversations and debating.
Thanks for the article Adam, interesting parallel between TPTB and Yahoo!.
|
|
|
www.theguardian.com
This is the state of such legislation in this country, where lawmakers wanted to do something but, by passing Cisa, just decided to cede more power to the NSA
Under the vague guise of "cybersecurity", the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever.
Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security.
eminijunkie 28 Oct 2015 17:34
Being competent requires work. Actual work.
You can't honestly say you expected them to do actual work, now can you?
david wright 28 Oct 2015 13:44
'The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway '
The newsworthy event would be the Senate's passage of anything, on the basis of knowledge or serious reflection, rather than $-funded ignorance. The country this pas few decades has been long on policy-based evidence as a basis for law, rather than evidence-based policy. Get what our funders require, shall be the whole of the law.
Kyllein -> MacKellerann 28 Oct 2015 16:49
Come ON! You are expecting COMPETENCE from Congress?
Wake up and smell the bacon; these people work on policy, not intelligence.VWFeature -> lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 13:37
Bravo!
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
lostinbago -> KhepryQuixote 28 Oct 2015 12:09
We became the enemy when the people started attacking the Military Industrial Corporate complex and trying to regain our republic from the oligarchs.
lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 12:07
Congress: Where Catch 22 melds with Alice in Wonderland
Phil429 28 Oct 2015 11:44
we now have another law on the books that carves a hole in our privacy laws, contains vague language that can be interpreted any which way, and that has provisions inserted into it specifically to prevent us from finding out how they're using it.
They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didn't you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Who's got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill?
guardianfan2000 28 Oct 2015 08:53
This vote just showed the true colors of the U. S. Government,...that being a total disregard for all individuals' privacy rights.
newbieveryday 28 Oct 2015 02:11
Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. We're sliding down the slippery slope. Who's going to be der erster Fuehrer? David Koch?
Triumphant George -> alastriona 27 Oct 2015 18:55
From elsewhere:
On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law.
CISA still faces some hurdles to becoming law. Congressional leaders will need to resolve remaining differences between the bills passed in the Senate and the House.
President Obama could also still veto CISA, though that's unlikely: The White House endorsed the bill in August, an about-face from an earlier attempt at cybersecurity information sharing legislation known as CISPA that the White House shut down with a veto threat in 2013.
--"CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed", Wired
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
You are a tool of the state, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.The NSA in the U.S., and its equivalent in the UK, GCHQ, are taking control of your phone not just to spy on you as needed, but also to use your device as a way to spy on others around you. You are a walking microphone, camera and GPS for spies.
Snowden, in a BBC interview, explained that for the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot.
According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack.
GCHQ calls these smartphone hacking tools the "Smurf Suite." The suite includes:
Snowden said the NSA has spent close to $1 billion to develop these smartphone hacking programs.
- "Dreamy Smurf" is the power management tool that turns your phone on and off with you knowing.
- "Nosey Smurf" is the hot mic tool. "For example," Snowden said, "if the phone is in your pocket, NSA/GCHQ can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you, even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.
- "Tracker Smurf" is a geolocation tool which allows spies to follow you with a greater precision than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
- "Paranoid Smurf" is a defensive mechanism designed to make the other tools installed on the phone undetectable.
Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2015 | RT USA
US government 'engaged' in spying activities on US soil
- A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11 attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA, Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the democratic principles and values of our Nation."
- Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
- When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals.
Debate over torture restrictions
- WikiLeaks published two documents related to the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques, though notably neither was written by Brennan.
- One was written by then-Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), vice chairman on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which outlined a proposal to limit the CIA's torture techniques without restricting the development of new techniques complying with the law.
- The document suggests listing the types of techniques that the CIA is barred from using instead of restricting the agency to only those explicitly listed in the Army Field Manual.
- Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.
Bond's suggestions get a bill
- The final document appears to show Bond's suggestions making their way into a legislative proposal titled "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008."
- The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document, though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual.
|
|
|
www.theguardian.com
Paul C. Dickie 20 Oct 2015 12:32
With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form.
AmyInNH -> NigelSafeton 21 Oct 2015 11:59
You seriously underestimate the technical incompetence of the federal government. They buy on basis of quantity of big blue arrows, shown on marketing slideware.
Laudig 21 Oct 2015 05:31
This is great. This man is a serial perjurer to Congress. Which does eff-all about being lied to [they lie to everyone and so don't take offense at being lied to] and now he's hacked by a 13 year-old who, until a few weeks ago was protected by the The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
Well done, CIA or whatever you are.So your well constructed career gets collapsed by someone who is still in short pants. The Age of Secrets is over now.
Stieve 21 Oct 2015 02:54
Er, why has no-one mentioned, why has there been no press coverage, why has not a single presidential candidate been asked to comment on the fact that The USA has been the victim of a military coup?
All pretence of government oversight has been dropped. The NSA, CIA and most likely every other arm of the "intelligence service" have simply taken over the elected government, ripped up The Constitution and transformed The US into a police state. Seven thousand people disappeared in Chigaco? Exactly why have there not been massive arrests of these Stasi? Or riots on the streets? Exactly why has there not been an emergency session of The Senate or Congress to find out why Chicago is being run like an Eastern Bloc dictatorship? Exactly why are police departments been given military hardware designed to be used by an occupying army?
I'll tell you exactly why.Because The US actually has been taken over
Glenn J. Hill 21 Oct 2015 01:28
LOL, the Head of the CIA put sensitive info on an personal AOL ACCOUNT !!!!! What an total idiot. Just proves the " Peter Principle", that one gets promoted to one`s point of incompetent!
Can he be fired ? Locked up for gross stupidity ?? Will he come hunting for me, to take me out for pointing out his asinine stupidity ??
Fnert Pleeble -> Robert Lewis 20 Oct 2015 23:42
Congressmen are self motivating. They want the gravy train to continue. The carrot is plenty big, no need for the stick.
Buckworm 20 Oct 2015 21:51
Those old, tired, incompetent, ignorant, trolls are asking for more and more access to citizens data based on the assumption that they can catch a terrorist or another type of psycho before they act out on something. Don't they realize that so far, after 15 years of violating the citizen's constitutional rights, they HAVE NEVER CAUGHT not even ONE single person under their illegal surveillance.
This is the problem: they think that terrorists are as stupid as they are, and that they will be sending tons of un-encrypted information online- and that sooner or later they will intercept that data and prevent a crime. How many times have they done so? Z E RO . They haven't realized that terrorists and hackers are waaaaayyy ahead of them and their ways of communicating are already beyond the old-fashioned government-hacked internet. I mean, only a terrorist as stupid as a government employee would think of ever sending something sensitive through electronic communications of any kind - but the government trolls still believe that they do or that sooner or later they will!! How super-beyond-stupid is that? Congress??
Don't even talk about that putrid grotesque political farce - completely manipulated by the super-rich and heated up by the typical white-trash delusional trailer park troll aka as the "tea party". We've had many killing in the homeland after 9/11 - not even one of them stopped by the "mega-surveillance" - and thousands committed by irresponsible and crooked cops - and this will continue until America Unites and fight for their constitutional rights. That will happen as soon as their priority is not getting the latest iPhone with minimal improvement, spends endless hours playing candy crush,stand in long lines to buy pot, get drunk every evening and weekends, and cancel their subscription to home-delivered heroin and cocaine. So don't hold your breath on that one.
Wait until one of those 13-yr old gets a hold of nuclear codes, electric grid codes, water supply or other important service code - the old government farts will scream and denounce that they could have prevented that if they had had more surveillance tools - but that is as false as the $3 dollar bills they claim to have in their wallets. They cannot see any further from their incompetence and ignorance.
Robert Lewis -> Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 18:38
Did the FSB cook data so the US would invade Iraq and kill 1,000,000 civilians?
yusowong 20 Oct 2015 18:20
This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them it's all great fun.
Triumphant -> George Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 14:41
Are you saying that because you aren't in a concentration camp, everything's pretty good? That's a pretty low bar to set.
Most people probably didn't vote for your current leader. To compare, in the UK, only 37% of the popular vote went for the current government. And once you leader is voted in, they pretty much do as they please. Fortunately, there are checks and balances which are supposed to prevent things getting out of control. Unfortunately, bills like the cybersecurity bill are intend to circumvent these things.
Let's be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic. It is unAmerican.
Red Ryder -> daniel1948 20 Oct 2015 14:16mancfrank 20 Oct 2015 13:27The whole freakin government is totally incompetent when it comes to computers and the hacking going on around this planet. Hillary needs to answer for this email scandal but currently she is making jokes about it as if nothing happened. She has no clue when she tried to delete her emails. Doesn't the government know that this stuff is backed up on many computers and then stored it a tape vault somewhere. Hiding emails is a joke today.
Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 12:53It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan.
I still don't understand why Russia is allowed to have the FSB but the US is forbidden from having the CIA Who makes these rules again? Because frankly I'm tired of the world being run by popular opinion.
bcarey 20 Oct 2015 12:33The bill is so bad that the major tech companies like Google and Amazon all came out against it last week, despite the fact that it would give them broad immunity for sharing this information with the government.
The usual show... "We're totally against it, but it's okay."
Donald Mintz 20 Oct 2015 12:02I've said it before and I'll say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny. So let us be grateful for John Brennan.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2015 | Daily Mail Online
Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national secrets - when it backed up her private server
- It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal or palm scan allows access to its facilities
- But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas
- Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence
- Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions
The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.
In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer.
Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.
Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever data they wanted.
Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.
On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including stereotypes of Mexicans.
Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.
Nobody from Datto was available for comment.
[Oct 13, 2015] Hillary Clintons private server was open to low-skilled-hackers
Notable quotes:
"... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."
"... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."
"... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."
"... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."
"... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."
Daily Mail Online
Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections
- Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety features - but had none
- Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked - but nothing was done to make server safer
- President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state but FBI probe is still under way
... ... ...
Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012.
Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.
.... ... ...
Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.
" That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert
- One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
- The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages.
- Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
- Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information.
- Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.
The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks.
'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned.
Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.
The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity.
Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites, although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.
Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system.
Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.
Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable.
Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were 'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.
It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.
[Oct 10, 2015] Forums and bulleting board users are watched by GCHQ
Oct 10, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren , September 25, 2015 at 2:25 pmet Al , September 26, 2015 at 4:23 am
et Al, September 26, 2015 at 4:48 amA top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.) just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up service?!
et Al , September 26, 2015 at 9:52 am…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…
…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains, because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so, the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions and try not think whether they are legal or not. What people can do to protect themselves is a) don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag); b) just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life; c) use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.; d) don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done! ;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!marknesop , September 26, 2015 at 2:38 pmThis should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago.
Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited info from the security services.
And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially,
The cat is, again, out of the bag!
GCHQ and the CIA are in bed with one another, and have been for years. This might be a timely occasion to mention once again that both are capable of hacking into smartphones by all leading manufacturers; in the case of the IPhone the CIA uses a program application called Dropout Jeep.
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that is private, except maybe for Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU) from the NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight to the NSA. You can't believe anyone any more.
[Oct 03, 2015] The Athens Affair shows why we need encryption without backdoors
"... after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government discovered that an unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker spied on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered. ..."
"... all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the "lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens without their knowledge: ..."
"... It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors: they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host of other malicious actors. ..."
Sep 30. 2015 | The Guardian
Revelations about the hack that allowed Greek politicians to be spied on in 2004 come at a time when the White House is set to announce its encryption policyJust as it seems the White House is close to finally announcing its policy on encryption - the FBI has been pushing for tech companies like Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones so the US government can always access users' data -= new Snowden revelations and an investigation by a legendary journalist show exactly why the FBI's plans are so dangerous.
One of the biggest arguments against mandating backdoors in encryption is the fact that, even if you trust the United States government never to abuse that power (and who does?), other criminal hackers and foreign governments will be able to exploit the backdoor to use it themselves. A backdoor is an inherent vulnerability that other actors will attempt to find and try to use it for their own nefarious purposes as soon as they know it exists, putting all of our cybersecurity at risk.
In a meticulous investigation, longtime NSA reporter James Bamford reported at the Intercept Tuesday that the NSA was behind the notorious "Athens Affair". In surveillance circles, the Athens Affair is stuff of legend: after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government discovered that an unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker spied on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered.
According to Bamford's story, all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the "lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens without their knowledge:
Exploiting the weaknesses associated with lawful intercept programs was a common trick for NSA. According to a previously unreleased top-secret PowerPoint presentation from 2012, titled "Exploiting Foreign Lawful Intercept Roundtable", the agency's "countries of interest" for this work included, at that time, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt and others. The presentation also notes that NSA had about 60 "Fingerprints" - ways to identify data - from telecom companies and industry groups that develop lawful intercept systems, including Ericsson, as well as Motorola, Nokia and Siemens.It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors: they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host of other malicious actors.
... ... ...
Disclosure: Trevor Timm works for Freedom of the Press Foundation, which is one of the many civil liberties organizations to have called on the White House to support strong encryption.
TDM MCL -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 21:21You are getting very warm near the real reasons why the government does not want your to have full privacy....encryption (of a certain type, not your usual off the shelf type mind you), is the threat that all power greedy controlling tyrant governments phreak out about....they tell you it's about national security...
if you don't find the contradiction in that line of thinking...you are not thinking carefully.
which is precisely what the elites desire..you ! no thinking...do what you are told..get in line..work hard...don't ask questions...
this is the world powers at work...and the minions of narrow minded geeks that support them in exchange for unbelievable amounts of money, influence and true freedom...it's ironic, really..that the world's smartest people have to steal your power from you, in order to have any themselves.
but it is what makes the current regimes' clock ticking.
TDM MCL -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 21:16
only by the most self favored moralistic nationalist bigotry can one assume that a "certain" kind of government can pull off mass surveillance "responsibly"!
and apparently, the USA would have you believe there is some significant difference in how well they perform the freedom robbing than their comrades..
I call them both tyrants..how bout them apples?!
TDM MCL -> ACJB 30 Sep 2015 21:12
what makes you believe that ALL NON-TRIVIAL communications are not being surveilled in real time at this moment, now?
If any entity of any significance is communicating, it is surely being tracked... this isn't some conspiratorial thinking either...
The vast reach and capacity for surveillance infrastructure is many time more then necessary to capture all real time communications. The most important significant communications are in fact the target...
Mom sending her sister a recipe on her aol account never registers....the "machine"...listens specifically.. it is far more intelligent and directed than most people understand.
But it also has the capacity to target just about anything..and that is the danger... What happens to the newsie or the everyday fella that takes note of something very disturbing...illegal even..or morally objectionable?
Remember why the tor network was designed for...mostly to allow people that could not talk freely to do so..in warzones..or where their discussions would bring grave danger to them and others....
Tor was hacked and it a dead animal to privacy for over 6 years now...don't use it, unless you want to the information to be used against you...
There are very few private venues anymore...the world has gone to shit
TDM MCL -> Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 20:58It happens more often than most people understand.
If you want to get a reality test of this, here is how you too can verify that the spy agencies are very prevalent in every day communications.
btw: this simple type of test, is best applies using several of the off the shelf encryption programs ...in this way, you get verification of what snowden and many others have acknowledged for quite some time.
a. create a secure email ...join a secure vpn..use encrypted off the shelf s/w for your message.
b. send "someone" that you know ..that you call first ...that wants to play along...and within the email message...write some off the wall content about terrorism...bombs...etc..use all the sorted "key words"..it's easy to locate a list...google is your friend. Just make sure they understand that the purpose of the test to to verify that security exists..you will find..it doesn't...
c. it is best that your "friend" be localed outside of the us...middle east ...or russia...or china...ukraine...gernamny.,.,..etc..you get the idea.
d. repeat, rinse and wash using all the garden variety of the shelf security...PGP...GPG...CRYPTZONE...SYMANTEC...HPSECURE...ETC..ETC...DO ANY AND ALL OF THEM THAT YOU LIKE TO TEST. Fire them out like a shotgun...if you can enlist the help of hundreds to chain the mail along, even better.
When the agencies contact you...and they will depending on how authentic you have decided to mask your traffic and how authentic they consider your email content exchange merited inspection...you will discover what anyone who has actually used encyption in a real world way has come to understand...
if you are using typical commercially available encryption..there is NO privacy.
meaning it is not simple possible to crack..but easily...
Zhubajie1284 GoldMoney 30 Sep 2015 20:29Facebook and Twitter were banned in China after someone posted a bunch of gruesome photos from some rioting in Xinjiang. It looked to me, as an outsider, that someone was trying to provoke anti-Muslim rioting elsewhere in China. It would be reasonable for Chinese security people to suspect the CIA or some other US agency famous for destabilizing foreign governments. The US had already announced it's strategic pivot towards Asia, which can easily be interpreted as a declaration of Cold War on China.
I don't know the whole truth of the incident, but people in PR China have good reason to be suspicious.
now, what is the risk...you may be harassed..but unless I am missing some new law, none of this type of testing is unlawful...
for real world security that works...similar kinds of penetration tests are used as above....
hey you can even honey pot a public network if you wanted to....you know just to prove to yourself there is no such thing as secrecy achieved by using a public library or a "shared" computer.
note: one of the first indications that you are being surveilled, is that there will a subtle but noted performance hit on your machine..if you attach a security gateway with logging, even better...or a high end hardware firewall-gateway, that sniffs...
watch also for some very interesting emails to hit all of your "other" accounts.
if you do this, I can predict at least the following:
your machine will take a hit...
you will get notified most likely by the FBI, via your isp.
if you do this on your smartphone and that is linked to other accounts..you can guarantee to have spread malware abundantly to all other accounts linked.
if the FBI asks that you reveal the content of emails...ask them to show you first...and grin very large when you say that...if it's a low end non-tech....force them to gain a warrant...and contact your lawyer...is it a waste of time for law enforcement to show their hand in how intimately they have backended encyption..? or is worth it to you to understand that it is common..and secret..and very broad...
that time when making things better is waning...and narrowing..if you aren't willing to take a stand and object and posit your own resistance to overreaching spying..then the awful dreadful future that awaits you, is just as much your own fault.
that is where I land on the issue.
for the issue, now...not later!take a stand!
TDM MCL martinusher 30 Sep 2015 20:27
the real issue with the "legal tacK' wrt to halting the fed from building backdoors or mandating them, is the reality that most of the high level secret business of spy agencies DEFY any law. As is the case with most software and hardware corporations..there is massive financial and intelligence capitol that depends on building backdoors in secret..sharing them with the government simply provides "cover"...
the real threat of all of this of course is the very reason why the constitution was written and preoccupied with protecting freedom and liberty...eventually, abuses from a tyranny government or fascist state comes into power.
some say we have already passes that threshold...given the broad "known" abuses of the 300+ secret spy agencies and the secret laws that not only authorize them but threaten companies who do not comply...you really can't deny the fact that the target is you and me. And sometimes, although, seemingly unproven, some existential external terror organization.
I've long since held that a formal security arrangement can implemented by ISP's where ALL internet traffic is routed...and where the most inteligent and efficient means to shut down malware and other activities that are unlawful and harmful...
I has never been seriously considered or even suggested by the government .....you have to serious be suspicious why that has never been considered...
perhaps too much intelligent security programs, would put all of the security industry and fear agencies out of business...What else would they do with their time...
I have zero faith in the US government to do the right thing anymore..they have been vacant at their core responsibility to protect its citizens. They have built a wall of mistrust by their abuses.
to the technologically talented, what this all means is that the US government has created a niche market that is growing ever larger...and that is to establish highly secure networks for end users. It also happens to make them appear to be criminals.
Imagine that...a software engineer who is actually doing the business of protecting a persons right to privacy...immediately falls into the long list of persons of interest!
the government has parted company with its responsibilities..and has created a adversarial rife with the people of its own country...I give it less than 10 years before the people perform their own arab spring...it really is going to get very bad in this country.
beelzebob 30 Sep 2015 17:34
This is all very interesting from a certain standpoint. 21 CFR Part 11 requires all drug companies, and other companies doing business before the FDA to take reasonable steps to ensure the security of all of their data to guarantee that the data are not tampered with. If the FBI and CIA are inserting backdoors into electronic communications devices, defined broadly to include everything from telephones to the Internet, there is no reasonable way to ensure that unauthorized parties can not use these devices to alter drug company data. Thus, it appears that drug companies, and their employees, contractors and suppliers, can not use the internet or anything connected to the internet as part of their FDA regulated operations.
kenalexruss 30 Sep 2015 14:02
Data is big business and ironically, only serves big business. The US government couldn't tell it's head from its ass regarding the stuff, but the data is critical for corporations. Since corporations are people and dictate government policy and are also the primary government interest, there will be back doors. Apple, google, microsoft, et.al. are ALL big business and they don't want you knowing how they really feel about it, so they feign objections. It's all about money, as usual.
martinusher 30 Sep 2015 13:23
There was an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that suggested that adding backdoors or otherwise hacking into people's computers was a violation of the 3rd Amendment.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gatto-surveillance-3rd-amendment-20150929-story.html
Quite apart from that never making it past the Roberts court (although it might be worth trying) I daresay proponents of universal surveillance will argue that businesses aren't covered by this so hacking into servers &tc. is OK.
Government agencies do appear to be out of control. Its not the snooping so much as their general ineffectiveness when it comes to crime and the Internet -- you can get your identity stolen, your back account hacked and so on and they shrug as if to say "What's this got to do with us?". The seem to be only interested in a very narrow range of political activities.
Phil429 30 Sep 2015 12:14
Coming out strongly against such a mandate [to eliminate everyone's security] would be huge on multiple fronts for the Obama administration: it would send a strong message for human rights around the world, it would make it much harder for other governments to demand backdoors from US tech companies and it would also strengthen the US economy.
Only if you assume some connection between the administration's stated policies and its actions.
GoldMoney -> RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 12:05I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something to fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll
haha - I loved that post, so true!
GoldMoney -> koichan 30 Sep 2015 11:49The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit card payments and so on...
Very good point.
By having backdoors you compromise the entire security of the system and make it vulnerable to attackers in general.
Snowden deserves the Nobel peace prize if you ask me....
While we are on the topic - lets take back the prize from Obama....
GoldMoney -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 11:39If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.
Exactly right.
I think the internet as we know it will break down in the future as countries will not trust foreign technology companies colluding with their home intelligence agencies.
Its already happening in China - most western technology companies like FB, Twitter, etc. are banned there for fear they could be used by the US to spy on Chinese citizens or to orchestrate a "Chinese Spring" there....
Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 11:13You can go online and get the source codes off of several excellent encryption websites, and then develop your own. My brother and I did this, and we were sending our weekly NFL football picks back and forth each week. We stopped after the FBI came to my brother's place of business, after a couple months, and questioned him. When my brother asked how they able to even look at our emails, they said they had a computer program in place that kicked out encrypted emails. After being threatened with arrest at his job in front of everyone, he showed them the unencrypted versions.
They said that our silliness had wasted valuable FBI time and resources. If you don't think Big Brother is watching...
Peter Dragonas -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 10:25Why do you think the anti-American Muslim Community and others, call us TERRORISTS? OUR COMPASS is as faulty as ????????. The world situation is a mirror of Grandiose Individuals who look down on reality. Reality is an obstruction to their neediness for attracting attention and control.
Peter Dragonas 30 Sep 2015 10:19Another major "foundation section" removed from our Country's integrity. Sick, paranoia, similar to the "J. EDGAR HOOVER ERA & CONTINUATION THROUGH HIS LEGACY FUNDS TO THIS DAY". Could this be true, I could think the "The Athens Affair" predates the elements that brought down Greece, in favor of pushing Turkey to becoming the American doorway into Asia & the Middle East. Just a theory. Yet, where there is smoke, something is cooking, which requires political FIRE.
RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 08:50I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something to fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll
I don't care about State cameras recording everyone out, because I don't go out. I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about State cameras recording wives, girlfriends, children, because I don't have any. I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing of any value to hide. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing of any value to say. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of the press because I have nothing of any value to write. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of thought, because I have no thoughts of any value. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of intellectual property, because I have no intelligence of any value. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of bank details, because I have nothing of any value in my bank account. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of love letters, because I have no love of any value. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the rights of HR activists, because I don't contribute anything to HRs. I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about society, community, future, because I don't contribute anything to them. I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about the right to privacy of my vote, because we have no democracy of any value anyway. I don't care about countries that have.
I don't care about Gypsies, Blacks, Jews, Invalids, Unions, socialists, Untermensch, because I am not one. I don't care about those that are.
I only care about me, here & now! It's look after number one, as the Tories tell us.
koichan 30 Sep 2015 08:39
For the less technically minded, heres another example of whats wrong with government backdoors:
http://boingboing.net/2015/09/17/3d-print-your-own-tsa-travel-s.html
The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit card payments and so on...
LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 08:10
I would only ever trust open source encryption software. I don't trust the "encryption" built into Windows or Apple software at all.
If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.
[Sep 27, 2015] Since st least 2009 GCHQ has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale
BBC used by GCHQ to spy on Internet users https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/
"... I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the usual bollox. ..."
"... …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums… ..."
"... Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions and try not think whether they are legal or not. ..."
"... The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian system. All that is required is a political decision. ..."
"... Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei! ..."
"... GCHQ and the CIA are in bed with one another, and have been for years. This might be a timely occasion to mention once again that both are capable of hacking into smartphones by all leading manufacturers; in the case of the IPhone the CIA uses a program application called Dropout Jeep. ..."
"... the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government spyware could be installed on them. ..."
"... You can't believe anyone any more. ..."
Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren, September 25, 2015 at 2:25 pmhttps://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/
et Al, September 26, 2015 at 4:23 am
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.et Al, September 26, 2015 at 4:48 amOther websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.) just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up service?!
…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…et Al, September 26, 2015 at 9:52 am…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains, because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so, the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions and try not think whether they are legal or not.
What people can do to protect themselves is
- don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag);
- just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life;
- use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.;
- don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done! ;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago. Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.marknesop, September 26, 2015 at 2:38 pmWhat it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited info from the security services. And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially. The cat is, again, out of the bag!
GCHQ and the CIA are in bed with one another, and have been for years. This might be a timely occasion to mention once again that both are capable of hacking into smartphones by all leading manufacturers; in the case of the IPhone the CIA uses a program application called Dropout Jeep.We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that is private, except maybe for Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU) from the NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight to the NSA.
You can't believe anyone any more.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2015 | tech.slashdot.org
Posted by timothyAn anonymous reader writes: Computer scientists at a group of UK universities are developing a system to detect malicious code in shortened URLs on Twitter. The intelligent system will be stress-tested during the European Football Championships next summer, on the basis that attackers typically disguise links to malicious servers in a tweet about an exciting part of an event to take advantage of the hype.Anonymous Coward
Shouldn't browsers be changed to not simply follow the redirect, but ask the user first?
Zontar The Mindless
For TinyURL, you can enable preview of the full URL here [tinyurl.com]. Uses a cookie, though.
Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26, 2015 @06:37AM (#50603143)
I can connect to the server and retrieve the redirect information manually. Works for all of them. But it's a) inconvenient, and b) not something everyone is able to do. Some addons seem to be available, but they don't do things nicely.
1) Patch the page directly (not just retrieve the data on mouse over), making it less original
2) Even retrieve the title of the redirection target (just that connection is enough to validate the existence of an email address)
My requirements are:
- shall not connect to the host of the shortened url (or any other -- no distinction between "normal" and shorted urls) unless clicked
- shall not connect to the the redirect target unless confirmed by the user, or the target is on the same host
Zontar The Mindless
Whatever. I despise shorteners, don't use them myself, and generally refuse to follow shortened URLs. Just bored and trying to be helpful.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2015 | yro.slashdot.org
September 24, 2015
Ars Technica reports that a Federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday that the Fifth Amendment protects from compelled disclosure the passwords that two insider-trading suspects used on their mobile phones. In this case, the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information associated with their jobs to trade stocks-in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.However, ruled the court , "Since the passcodes to Defendants' work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment privilege. A"
|
|
|
September 25, 2015
An anonymous reader writes: As the Snowden revelations have shown, personal data stored in the United States of America is not protected from the US government, be it through warrantless eavesdropping or national security letters. In light of this, the general attorney for the Court of Justice of the European Union has just issued an opinion requiring the US to be removed from the list of "safe harbors", where the transfer of personal data of European citizens is permitted. If the court follows his opinion, the change will have deep impact in the operations of large transnational Internet companies, between a US government that wants to keep on spying, and European authorities that will punish them if they let it happen.
|
|
|
September 24, 2015
An anonymous reader writes: According to a story at The Washington Post, an Obama Administration working group considered four backdoors that tech companies could adopt to allow the government to break encrypted communications stored on phones of suspected terrorists or criminals. The group concluded that the solutions were "technically feasible," but they group feared blowback. "Any proposed solution almost certainly would quickly become a focal point for attacks. Rather than sparking more discussion, government-proposed technical approaches would almost certainly be perceived as proposals to introduce 'backdoors' or vulnerabilities in technology products and services and increase tensions rather [than] build cooperation," said the unclassified memo.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com
Sep 26, 2015 | Zero H4edge
GreatUncleSgtShaftoeDrop the random number generator method that is already venerable now.
Go for an encryption key of length > data length instead so each data bit is uniquely encrypted by a unique key bit.
Break one bit has no bearing on breaking any other bit.
For the NSA comes the headache under such an encryption method a 10 letter statement can be any other 10 letter statement from different keys.
Now it gets interesting "I love you" is from one encryption key whilst another key says "I hate you".
Now each message generated if asked for the key you provide one of an infinite number of keys where the the key you give is for the message you wish them to see provided it makes sense any evidence used through a prosecution on this is only ever circumstantial evidence and quite easily refuted questioning only the key being used.
Kind of like it myself.
logicalmanBullshit. Encryption works. Even if the NSA had some back-door in a particular encryption algorithm, or weakened a random number generator (Microsoft, cough), the NSA does not have the processing power to decrypt everything.
Snowden has stated as much, I've seen the same thing in .mil circles during my time there. Using decent encryption works. It's far easier to attack the people directly with social engineering than crack decent encryption.
John_ColtraneThe world has gone totally batshit crazy.
NSA want to watch everyone and also have the ability to plant damaging or malicious files on targeted computers.
What a fucking trick!
On a good day you can trust yourself.
blindmanWhat type of encryption is being discussed? I've notice very few actually understand how encryption works. When public/private key encyption is used only the public key is ever available to the counterparty and can be freely published. The secret key is kept on your machine only and never shared. Both parties/computers use the others public key to encrypt the plaintext and only the person with the unique secret key on both ends can read it. Authentication is also facile: You simply sign using the secret key. Only your public key can decrypt the signature so anyone intercepting and attempting to change your message cannot do so (spoofing impossible). Unbreakable and requires no secure key exchange like like two way keys such as AES, for example. This is what happens on https sites where key pairs are generated by both parties and the secret keys are never exchanged or shared-new key pairs are generated each visit. Intercepting the encrypted message is useless since the secret key remains physically in your possesion. That's why the NSA and any government hates this algorithm. Make the key at least 2048 bits long and you'll need more time than the age of universe to crack it by brute force with the entire computing power of every machine on earth. Even 256 bits is sufficient to protect against anyone before they die.
q99x2information is power and access to information is big business. the taxpayer pays the bills for the gathering, hell, the individual "user" of the technology pays for the surveillance and data collection themselves. we are paying to have our privacy sold to corporations. get that, it is freakin' brilliant! and the "officials" sell the access for personal gain. the corporations love to eat it all up and reward the loyal local success story dupes, pimps and prestitutes. everyone is on stage 24/7 and no one is the wiser in the field of cultural normalcy bias, mind control and entertaining with the Jones's. soft control moving into hard up confiscation, then incarceration. wonderfully yokel deterioration impersonating culture and civilization, what many call government, but i take exception to every term and wonder wtf.
Gaius Frakkin' ...The NSA works for corporations and they need to break into peoples stuff to steal from them as well as to steal from other corporations. There is a war going on but it is much larger than a war on nations or citizens of bankster occupied nations.
HenryHallWith one-time pad, the software is trivial.
There are two big challenges though:
1) Building a hardware random number generator which is truly random, or as close as possible.
2) Getting the keys to your counter-party, securely. It has to be down physically ahead of time.
Lookout MountainE.R.N.I.E. - the electronic random number indicator equipment was used with British Premium Bonds in the 1950s. A chip based on digital counting of thermal noise must be easy to make. Getting the keys to thye other party just involves handing over a chip. 16Gigabytes or so miniSD should be good for enough emails to wear out a thousand or more keyboards.
It just needs to be made into a product and sold for cash.
Open source encryption software may or may not be trivial, but it sure isn't easy to use for folks who aren't experts in encryption.
ah-ooog-ahThe NSA decided that offense was better than defense. Suckers.
Write your own encryption. Use AES - freely available. Exchange keys verbally, face to face, or use One Time Pads (once only!!). If you didn't write, don't trust it.
NelsWriting your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
If you don't know what you're doing and are very very careful and exacting in running a OTP system (One time pad) you will be fucked. That's why they aren't typically used except in very small use cases. They're hard to run properly.
Anyone claiming to have an encryption product for a computer based on a one time pad is full of shit. Cough, Unseen.is, cough. It's a glorified Cesar cypher and the NSA will have your shit in 2.5 seconds or less.
Good encryption works. Snowden stated that fact. Don't use shitty encryption, unless you want everyone to know what you're doing.
There's plenty of open source projects out there based on good encryption, twofish, serpent, AES, or ideally a combination of multiple algorithms. Truecrypt is still alive and has been forked with a project based in Switzerland. I think that's still a good option.
I wouldn't use MS bitlocker or PGP unless you trust symantec or microsoft with your life. Personally I wouldn't trust those companies with a pack of cigarettes, and I don't even smoke.
. . . _ _ _ . . .Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
I read the original note to mean you use a peer reviewed algorithm, but write the code yourself. Or, at least review it well. Some open source code tends to be a bit tangled. Checkout Sendmail and its support for X.400 and other old mail protocols, as well as a convoluted configuration setup. At some point, with code with that much historical baggage and convoluted setup becomes impossible to really check all possible configurations for sanity or safety.
If you believe that the simpler the code the safer it is, code it yourself.
SgtShaftoePower grab by the NSA (deep state) basically saying that they don't trust the hand that feeds it. So why should we? What level of classification would this entail? Are we then supposed to trust the NSA? Civil War 2.0.???
Sorry for all the questions, but... WTF?
S.N.A.F.U.
Urban RomanIt really starts with asymmetry of power. If some agency or person has a asymmetric level of power against you and lack of accountability, you should be concerned about them.
That's a much easier test case vs enemy/friend and far more reliable.
Long self-published certificates, Novena and Tails.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2015 | The Guardian
JoeCorr -> Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 23:57
The US has no class...
They call it 'American directness'. In fact it's gross bad manners but thats how the Empire of the Exceptionals sees itself.
A John Wayne mindset and a Lex Luthor worldview. Being dismantled with astonishing ease by the PRC.
Eugenios -> SuperBBird 25 Sep 2015 23:58The Chinese Communists are humanists itself compared to the brutality of the US.
Just compare prison populations, for examine. The US has more people in prison both proportionately and absolutely than all of China.
HollyOldDog -> TheEqlaowaizer 25 Sep 2015 21:30Looks like the wise words of the Pope has not penetrated the 'brains' American State Department or its President, if all that Obama can say is to threaten sanctions against another country. Is the BRICS alternative bank such a worry to the Americans as their first thoughts are bullying tactics.
ID240947 25 Sep 2015 21:22How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising his head again.
JoeCorr -> goatrider 25 Sep 2015 21:08Take all that cheap junk
Cheap junk? Its 2015 can you even just try to keep up. We're buying Chinese flat screens the size of billboards and China leads the world in home appliances. BYD and Shanghai Auto sales are expanding at warp speed. I could go on but thats enough.
The US and Europe made the same stupid jibes at Japan before they decimated our electrics, shipbuilding, auto manufacturing and every single electronics company outside military patronage.
Its not China whos at fault here. It's people like you with your head so deeply wedged in the sand your shitting pebbles.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 21:01My daughter drew speech balloons on this photo and mages it to the fridge.
Obama is saying. " Sanctions are still on the table". Xi is saying. " Poor thing. Allah will look after you"
Which I thought kinda perceptive for a 13 year old.
HauptmannGurski -> Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 20:46I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. Never mind, we all get emotional in these troubled times and find ourselves in contraction with ourselves.
In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10 years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all 'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
(PS: if we think that the perpetual wars are too costly, in the sense that the populations miss out more and more, then we ought to keep an eye on the US job figures. There's a view out there that it's been US arms sales under Obama which underpin the 'recovery'. The Nobel Peace prize committee would take the prize back now, I gues, but that's not in the rules.)
goatrider 25 Sep 2015 20:37
How is America going to sanction a country that produces a majority of the items sold in America? Take all that cheap junk off the shelves of box stores and the American people will revolt----they are addicted consumers of cheap junk and fast food.
JoeCorr -> vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 20:15Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
Bradley Manning. Aaron Swartz driven to Suicide having never broken a single law. Snowden driven to exile. There are many others.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 20:00News of this deal, first revealed on Thursday, was followed up before...
Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan.
The 'sanctions' are another interesting bit of spin. How would you enforce sanctions against almost a quarter of the worlds population when they are your most reliable customer and literally thousands of American companies have invested and relocated there.
what I am hoping that President Xi will show me is that we are not sponsoring these activities and that … we take it seriously and will cooperate to enforce the law."
This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit.
Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 19:12The US has no class and is a paper tiger. First, no one in the administration met President Xi when arrived on American soil. This is an insult to the Chinese and shows no class on the part of the Obama administration. Sure, the Pope was here at the same time but I don't understand why some schedules couldn't have been changed a little to accommodate the visit the leader of the world's most populous country. Second, the US continues to accuse and scold China as if they were a kid. Yet, the US has offered no proof that China hacked American records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses and throwing stones.
Chin Koon Siang 25 Sep 2015 19:05Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations.
vr13vr -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:42
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 18:40
Obama never stops surprising with his manners. Or actually a lack of such. He just made an agreement with a leader of another country, a large and powerful country mind you. And right away he publicly expresses a doubt whether the other party intends to carry the agreements. Basically calling his counterpart a liar for no good reason. And as a cheap bully, inserts more threats of more sanctions. Sure, the president of the other country had more class, he stayed there and smiled friendly, but with such arrogant display of disrespect and bullying, nobody would ever take Obama serious. And nobody should.
shawshank -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:24
Grasping at straws? Xi is not Hitler. Also, Snowden already exposed that the US was spying on China.
Book_of_Life -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:10"Acts of war"
USA are worlds biggest warmongers instigators including false flags and regime changes covert activity black opsyou better check yourself before you wreck yourself
cause i'm bad for your health, i come real stealth
droppin bombs on ya moms
So chikity-check yo self before you wreck yo self
Come on and check yo self before you wrikity-wreck yourself
Lrgjohnson -> canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 18:00Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept. needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!"
Book_of_Life CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 17:22American Hypocrisy "fuck off"
say countries spied on
http://time.com/2945037/nsa-surveillance-193-countries/
canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 15:59It is plain silly and ridiculous to pin blame of the so-called theft of finger prints of American 5.6 millions employees.
Those rubbish finger prints have zero value to anyone other than those who are at position to manipulate, modify or even fabricate them.
In any case why should a technological so advanced American system need to keep the finger prints of their own employees? Is it impossible for American government to keep the finger prints of own employees safe?
peternh 25 Sep 2015 15:57"President Xi indicated to me that with 1.3 billion people he can't guarantee the behaviour of every single person on Chinese soil."
Although that is, in fact, what his government is entirely dedicated to attempting to do, by controlling all education, all media, what may and may not be said publicly, and controlling everything that happens on the Internet inside the Great Firewall.
Utter hypocrisy.
bujinin 25 Sep 2015 15:24Analysis:
In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels to continue doing what both sides have always been doing.
Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 15:24Another useless summit with a lame duck President who achieved the Nobel Peace Prize for being an ineffectual player on the world stage and propagating constant war for the profit of his corporate puppet masters.
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2015 | TheAntiMedia.org,
For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial concept of a shadowy secret government pulling the strings on the world's heads of state and captains of industry.
The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it turns out the core idea - one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government with a globalist agenda - is operational in what a number of insiders call the "Deep State."
In the past couple of years, the term has gained traction across a wide swath of ideologies. Former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren says it is the nexus of Wall Street and the national security state - a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve vested interests. Calling it "the big story of our time," Lofgren says the deep state represents the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with the globalist war on terror.
"It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street," he explained.
Even parts of the judiciary, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, belong to the deep state.
How does the deep state operate?A complex web of revolving doors between the military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence.
According to Mike Lofgren and many other insiders, this is not a conspiracy theory. The deep state hides in plain sight and goes far beyond the military-industrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech over fifty years ago.
While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight or accountability. According to Lofgren, 70% of our intelligence budget goes to contractors.
Moreover, while Wall Street and the federal government suck money out of the economy, relegating tens of millions of people to food stamps and incarcerating more people than China - a totalitarian state with four times more people than us - the deep state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in stride.
After years of serving in Congress, Lofgren's moment of truth regarding this matter came in 2001. He observed the government appropriating an enormous amount of money that was ostensibly meant to go to Afghanistan but instead went to the Persian Gulf region. This, he says, "disenchanted" him from the groupthink, which, he says, keeps all of Washington's minions in lockstep.
Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state. Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a FISA court order.
Now, Lofgren notes, these CEOs want to complain about foreign market share and the damage this collusion has wrought on both the domestic and international reputation of their brands. Under the pretense of pseudo-libertarianism, they helmed a commercial tech sector that is every bit as intrusive as the NSA. Meanwhile, rigging of the DMCA intellectual property laws - so that the government can imprison and fine citizens who jailbreak devices - behooves Wall Street. It's no surprise that the government has upheld the draconian legislation for the 15 years.
It is also unsurprising that the growth of the corporatocracy aids the deep state. The revolving door between government and Wall Street money allows top firms to offer premium jobs to senior government officials and military yes-men. This, says Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer for the CIA, explains how the Clintons left the White House nearly broke but soon amassed $100 million. It also explains how former general and CIA Director David Petraeus, who has no experience in finance, became a partner at the KKR private equity firm, and how former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell became Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies.
Wall Street is the ultimate foundation for the deep state because the incredible amount of money it generates can provide these cushy jobs to those in the government after they retire. Nepotism reigns supreme as the revolving door between Wall Street and government facilitates a great deal of our domestic strife:
How did the deep state come to be?"Bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments," said Giraldi.
Some say it is the evolutionary hybrid offspring of the military-industrial complex while others say it came into being with the Federal Reserve Act, even before the First World War. At this time, Woodrow Wilson remarked,
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
This quasi-secret cabal pulling the strings in Washington and much of America's foreign policy is maintained by a corporatist ideology that thrives on deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization, and financialization. American exceptionalism, or the great "Washington Consensus," yields perpetual war and economic imperialism abroad while consolidating the interests of the oligarchy here at home.
Mike Lofgren says this government within a government operates off tax dollars but is not constrained by the constitution, nor are its machinations derailed by political shifts in the White House. In this world - where the deep state functions with impunity - it doesn't matter who is president so long as he or she perpetuates the war on terror, which serves this interconnected web of corporate special interests and disingenuous geopolitical objectives.
"As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret) budgets get rubber stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly," according to Mike Lofgren in an interview with Bill Moyers.
Interestingly, according to Philip Giraldi, the ever-militaristic Turkey has its own deep state, which uses overt criminality to keep the money flowing. By comparison, the U.S. deep state relies on a symbiotic relationship between banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, a mutant hybrid that also owns the Fourth Estate and Washington think tanks.
Is there hope for the future?
Perhaps. At present, discord and unrest continues to build. Various groups, establishments, organizations, and portions of the populace from all corners of the political spectrum, including Silicon Valley, Occupy, the Tea Party, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, anarchists and libertarians from both the left and right, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others are beginning to vigorously question and reject the labyrinth of power wielded by the deep state.
Can these groups - can we, the people - overcome the divide and conquer tactics used to quell dissent? The future of freedom may depend on it.
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2015 | naked capitalism
bh2 September 20, 2015 at 3:26 pmThe witch-burning craze would be best suited as yet another unwritten chapter in Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".
If both men and women were charged and tried for this imaginary crime driven by baseless superstition, a narrative proposing it was really an ancient war on women is logically absurd - and therefore also a baseless superstition.
craazyman September 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm
It wasn't unwritten. He wrote it!
"The Witch Mania" between "The Crusades" and "The Slow Poisoners".
Laughingsong September 20, 2015 at 5:03 pm
We could lump it all together and I do agree that the context is important, but it is much easier to see why members of new religions were targeted than peasants being accused of being witches.
I find the theory fascinating because it does provide a possible explanation for something that does not really fit the usual "threat to power/otherness" explanations. I don't know if the theory is correct but I find it intriguing, especially after reading the Sonia Mitralias article yesterday.
sd September 20, 2015 at 2:25 pm
sd September 20, 2015 at 3:48 pmNot having read the book, is there any mention of c (ergot) in relation to witch hunts? I first heard of this thesis in my college botany class. The theory seems controversial even though there's archaeological evidence of rye cultivation as far north as Scandinavia by 500 AD.
Worth noting that rye blight typically affects the poor and those with limited food resources.
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/LECT12.HTMskippy September 20, 2015 at 7:10 pm
If memory serves, the Salem witch saga was defined by topographical elevation e.g. poor down the hill, the soggy bottom, elites up the hill, w/ poor consuming the lesser status rye whilst the elites consumed wheat.
Its not hard to imagine the elites with their religious "self awarded" superiority complex, that any, straying from the narrative would just reinforce the aforementioned mental attitude. As such any remediation would be authoritatively administered by the elites as they owned the code [arbiters of religious interpretation].
Skippy…. the old NC post on that provincial French town would make a great book end to this post, by Lambert imo….
BEast September 20, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Jim September 20, 2015 at 4:42 pmTwo other noteworthy aspects of he witch hunts: one, they were an attempt by the Catholic Church to destroy non-Church authorities; and two, they were an attempt by physicians (nobles) to destroy alternate sources of medical care.
Thus, the targets were frequently midwives and herbalists.
(It's also worth noting that the court physicians had no scientific basis for their treatments - that was shoehorned in later. So the traditional healers were, and remained for centuries, to the extent they and their methods survived, the better choice for health care, particularly for childbirth.)
False Foundations of Capitalism?
"Primitive accumulation is the term that Marx uses in Capital vol.1, to characterize the historical process upon which the development of capitalist relations was premised. It is a useful term, for it provides a common denominator through which we can conceptualize the changes that the advent of capitalism produced in economic and social relations. But its importance lies, above all in the fact that primitive accumulation is treated by Marx as a foundational process, revealing the structural conditions for the existence of capitalist society."
Marx seemed to seek the determinants of capitalism's genetic process in the logic of the preceding mode of production–in the economic structure of feudal society. But is such a description an explanation for the transition from feudal to capitalistic society?
Doesn't Marx's explanation of the origins of capitalism seems to presuppose capitalism itself?
Doesn't Marx's use of only economic variables lead into a blind alley in terms of understanding the origins of capitalism?
Shouldn't the collapsing Left finally take a serious look at cultural and political explanations for the origins of capitalism?
What about a cultural explanation in which the creation and role of nationalism in 16th century England provided a key competitive individual motivating factor among its citizens– as a possible cause of capitalism? What about the emergence of the autonomous city as a primary political cause of capitalism? Was capitalism born in Catholic, urban Italy at the end of the Middle Ages?
Why has the search for explanations of the origins of capitalism, only in the economic sphere, come to occupy such a central place in our thinking?
craazyman September 20, 2015 at 5:45 pm
I think this analysis is off the mark and probably a convolution of an array of underlying variable and functions.
It's as if the author says z = g(x); when in fact x = f(z,t,u and v).
To conclude that z relies on x is a distortion of the underlying phenomenological structure and also distorts the agency by which z, t, u and v correspond to z.
one item that is quite significant to note, and perhaps is one of the underlying variables, is the urgency by which authorities demanded "confessions' by witches, which in and of itself was sometimes enough to ameliorate punishment.
The other underlying variable is the reality of paranormal phenomenon. We think witchcraft is a doddering myth invented by overly imaginative minds, but the reality is quite other than that.
Relating "capitalism" to persecution of witches on the basis of their femaleness lacks all precision. The Roman empire was capitalist but accepted paganism. Our current culture would view persecution on the basis of witchcraft as daftminded lunacy. yet pagan cultures in Africa do so even today.
The book author throws up an interesting cloud of ideas but doesn't seem capable of credible navigation, based simply on the summary offered here. I suspect it has to do less with capitalism and femaleness in particular and more, in general, in terms of threats posed by alternative consciousness structures to the dominant structure of social organization (inclusive of economics, theology, eshatology, etc.) These would be the z, t, u and v of the underlying f-function. It's seen the world over in varying guises, but the underlying variables manifest in different costumes, in varying degrees of malision.
DJG September 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm
The problem of witches depends on the history of individual countries and also on religious orthodoxies, Catholic as well as Calvinist and Lutheran.
As is often the case, Italy is contradictory and somewhat of an exception. Yet the exceptions are regional. The peasants on the Peninsula ruled by Naples were treated differently from northern Italians. Venice was an exception.
The process of liberation seems to have begun earlier in Italy than the Black Death. While doing research about Bologna, I ran across this:
"Liber Paradisus
The Liber Paradisus (Heaven Book) is a law text promulgated in 1256 by the Comune of Bologna which proclaimed the abolition of slavery and the release of serfs (servi della gleba)."So you have emancipation and the development of an idea of human rights a hundred years before the Black Death. But the source was a social war and a desire for higher wages.
Throughout Italy, too, the Inquisition and its treatment of witches was highly uneven. I happen to have studied the benandanti, who didn't consider themselves witches, but had visions and myterious rituals. Some were healers. The Franciscans who investigated them were considered lousy Inquisitors (not tough enough) and the results are highly ambiguous. See Carlo Ginzburg's works, and see the work of Italian scholars who found even more ambiguities. Many of the benandanti in trouble were men–and the women and men reported the same mystical experiences, many of which are astounding and rather beautiful. Reports of benandanti extend into the early 1800s.
Piero Camporesi also wrote about the economic status of Italian peasants, the rituals of their year (which didn't always coincide with Catholic orthodoxy), and the strength of ancient pagan customs.
I realize that your point is witchcraft as a kind of collision with the growth of the state and "modern" markets. Yet I'd encourage you to consider Italy as a counterexample. On the other hand, fragmented Italy was the most highly developed economy in Europe during most of the middle ages and up to roughly 1550, so the markets may have developed (capitalistically as well as by state intervention, especially in Venice) more slowly, more peculiarly, and less disruptively. There are peasant revolts in Italian history, but not regions in flames and years and years of scorched-earth actions against rebellious peasants.
Chauncey Gardiner September 20, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Enlightening observations regarding the premeditated, planned and organized use of witch-hunts by the elite of that period as a vehicle of social control. I was surprised at the level of elite information and coordination in what I had previously viewed as a very primitive era of considerable physical isolation. The events discussed here suggest there was a fairly high level of communication and organization among and by the elite.
However, I would question to what extent the extreme 14th century depopulation of Europe and Britain caused by the great plague pandemics, the Great Famine, wars and weather would have led to similar elite initiatives, regardless of the transition to capitalism.
Appears to share some common threads with events and behaviors which have occurred in our own time – from those mentioned in the article to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, the Powell memorandum of 1971 and related subsequent behavior, including the forms of "primitive accumulation" cited that led to the 2008 financial collapse.
Thank you for the review of Silvia Federici's book, Lambert, and your related observations. Seems worthwhile reading.
LifelongLib September 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm
There was at least one man in the Salem witch trials who did save his wife. At the preliminary hearing he cursed the judges for allowing her to be imprisoned, saying God would surely punish them. When she was bound over for trial anyway, he broke her out of jail and fled with her to New York.
Would that all of us men had that kind of courage and resourcefulness. Sadly most of us don't.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2015 | The Guardian
The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.
Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being "a joke", and said the situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.
He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.
"Some people were complaining because they couldn't find me on Facebook. They couldn't find me on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I've never felt the need for it," Cannataci, a professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.
... ... ...
But for Cannataci – well-known for having a mind of his own – it is not America but Britain that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: "That is precisely one of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism's a joke, and a rather bad joke at its citizens' expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?"
He said proper oversight is the only way of progressing, and hopes more people will think about and vote for privacy in the UK. "And that is where the political process comes in," he said, "because can you laugh off the economy and the National Health Service? Not in the UK election, if you want to survive."
The appointment of a UN special rapporteur on privacy is seen as hugely important because it elevates the right to privacy in the digital age to that of other human rights. As the first person in the job, the investigator will be able to set the standard for the digital right to privacy, deciding how far to push governments that want to conduct surveillance for security reasons, and corporations who mine us for our personal data.
Mario_Marceau 26 Aug 2015 07:27At the time of writing this comment, there are only 155 other comments. This is a very important article. A crucial one. Nobody's reading. It is as though nobody gives a damn anymore*. (Taylor Swift just opens her mouth and thousands of comments fill the pages.)
People have very clearly become numb to the idea of privacy mining. By this I mean everyone knows that their privacy is being eradicated, we all despise the idea, but somehow, very few get involved and are taking steps to prevent it from going further or, dare I hope, roll it back!
After the revelations by Edward Snowden (a very important apex for TheGuardian), one would expect the entire western world to be up in arms about unlawful government surveillance and big corporation scooping our privacy away. Yet big brother and major corporations have been able to perform 'damage control' with surgical precision, going as fas as manipulating or intimidating the press, therefore keeping their precious status quo on the issue and keeping people across entire nations hostage and on a very tight leash.
I hope Mr Cannataci is taking or will take into account the fact that the *people have seemingly given up while in fact they are worried but don't know what to do anymore and feel utterly helpless. I strongly believe this aspect of the whole fiasco on privacy constitute perhaps the most important cog in the gear of online positive changes when it comes to taking back our rights.
guardianfan2000 26 Aug 2015 00:55
British oversight of GCHQ surveillance is non-existent. If you live or work in Britain your privacy is wholly violated on everything you do. Pervasive snooping.
luella zarf syenka 25 Aug 2015 23:54
Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.
Also if anyone desires protection from abusive police officers it might be necessary to set up a private army.
If you desire to avoid being poisoned by Monsanto it might be necessary to purchase giant farms and grow your own food: corn, wheat, rice, avocados, melons, carrots, pigs, cattle, tilapia, hazelnuts... and make cheese and butter!
And ultimately, for those of us desiring to avoid being cooked up by the fossil industry and its minions, it might be necessary to acquire another planet, which we could call Absurdistan.
newschats4 Barbacana 25 Aug 2015 18:00The Toshiba laptop - the least expensive model I could find as a replacement - came with windows 8. I am trying to use the internet without getting hooked on all the expensive come-ons, the confusing and even contradictory offers, amenities, protection programs (some of which are scams) and other services, that unless you are in the business, most people don't seem to know much about how they all work or what is really reliable or necessary. I don't know how many times sites have tried to change my home page or provide a new tool bar to control what I'm doing, just because I responded to a "free offer" like solitaire games. Ads are enough pay off for those offers aren't they? Being electronically shanghaied is a step too far. I even unchecked the box to opt out of the tool bar but got it anyway. Now I have to try to figure out how to remove it again.
The personal computer business is the capital city of artificial obsolescence and quackery. it is also highly addictive even for people who don't really need it for business. But having an email address is almost as necessary now as having a phone number or even a home address. The situation offered by most suppliers of equipment and even the providers is "take it or leave it". But the internet is driving out the older print media (a subscription to a physical newspaper is so much more expensive) and is becoming a requirement of classrooms at all levels, so "take it or leave it" isn't good enough. For an industry intent on dominating all aspects of life, "take it or leave it" can't be tolerated forever. I have tried at times to read the policies I have to accept or not use the product and all the protection is one-sided: the industries aren't liable for one damned thing: they could destroy your computer and you couldn't do anything about it. But it isn't an honest choice if the user, having purchased the product, has only the option to accept with no other provisions allowed, except refusal. You can shop for all sorts of alternatives for access and protection but the sheep still have to buy from the wolves to use any of them.Statutes governing "mail fraud", as it is called in the US, should apply to dubious scams that occur on the internet. The internet is very nearly a world wide public utility and as such should be very heavily regulated as one. It is barely regulated at all and the industry seems to be the only effective voice with regulators like the FCC.
You can't be spied on legally on the telephone system, or with the public mails, but apparently anyone can do it with the internet as long as they know how to do it and know how to go undetected.
BTW - I followed that link and saw no price mentioned.
FreedomAboveSecurity -> newschats4 25 Aug 2015 15:02
Not to mention that you had to agree to access to your computer by Microsoft before activating Windows 8. The agreement states that they can shut down your laptop anytime they find malicious files...indefinitely. You don't really own your computer under this agreement or any of the programs you paid for in purchase. There is a clause about third party access, too. One questions if the agreement provides backdoor authority. I returned both laptops with 8 on them. Oh...and you promised to connect to the net, preventing air-gapping as a privacy tactic.
newschats4 25 Aug 2015 14:32
It is obvious that the consumer has little or no protection on the internet or even with the manufacturers and providers. And even antivirus protection can, itself, be a form of protection racket.
The internet is supported by industries that can make the problems they can then make even more money on by claiming to solve them.
BTW - I have had a new laptop that I reluctantly purchased in January 2014 because I was notified (and confirmed) that I had to get an updated program because windows XP was no longer "supported". I wasn't getting updates anymore. But updates never said what they were doing or why they were doing it. It is also very obvious that the personal computer works both ways. If you can look "out", other can just as easily look in.
When I got the new laptop with windows 8, my first impression was it was glitzier but also dumbed down. It was stuffed with apps for sale that I didn't want and I quickly removed. But what really angers me about the come-ons is, updates have removed apps I did want and found free online that someone doesn't want me to have. I had a free version of Google earth that I downloaded easily but has since disappeared.
But now when I try to download the free version, the google earth site says that windows 7, windows XP and one other are required but not windows 8. ?? I get an error message and am told I have to download a site that will allow Google earth to keep a log of my hard drive so they can determine why I get an error message.
I am sure that the execs at the top of the ladder know that the vast majority of internet users are sheep to be shorn. But those corporate decision makers are also the only people in key positions to know they can make the sheep pay for the razors that they will be shorn with.
And now the school systems are raising a new generation of sheep that won't be able to live without the internet. They will feel helpless without it.
syenka -> Robert987 25 Aug 2015 12:44Good point about the NSA and the GCHQ. However, neither of these outfits has magical powers and really solid encryption can pretty effectively stymie their efforts to pry. The question remains whether software purveyors can resist the government's insistence that there be a backdoor built in to each program. Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.
AdMelliorandum 25 Aug 2015 08:08Better late than never…
Let's wish the United Nations first UN privacy chief, Mr. Cannataci, success in "challenging the business model of companies that are "very often taking the data that you never even knew they were taking"."
Likewise consider the ongoing investigation in Switzerland against Microsoft, as pertains the alleged Windows 10 theft of client information and privacy violations.
See the corresponding article titled:"Berne a lancé une procédure concernant Windows 10", (roughly translated as: "Berne has launched a procedure concerning Windows 10"),
published on 24.08.15 on the "Le Tribune de Geneve" newspaper:http://www.tdg.ch/economie/berne-lance-procedure-concernant-windows-10/story/29192122
Excerpts from said article follow, translated using Google Translate:
"The federal policeman launched a clarification process on Windows 10 de Microsoft."
". . . infringement of privacy committed by Microsoft. He demanded the examination of several issues related to the operating system of Windows 10."
"The computer program automatically captures and shares information from its users with software vendors. They transmit them further, including for advertising."
"In Valais, the cantonal officer Sébastien Fanti had expressed his indignation at the beginning."
"If Microsoft does not review its privacy policy, Windows 10 could be the subject of a recommendation prohibiting the purchase" in the canton. . ."wichdoctor 25 Aug 2015 02:32
I have been pointing these dangers out for over 20 years ever since the local authority stuck CCTV around the town without any consultation. If these systems were only there to act as spectators then the authorities should have no objection to slaving every camera to a publicly viewable screen or even the web. Since they do object we have to suppose they are using these things to spy on us.
Then there are the ANPR systems that allegedly log every vehicle journey between every town on mainland UK. There is no trustworthy independent oversight on how the data is stored or used just the usual "trust us we are the police".
Then there is the private stasi style database of the credit reference companies. No real control over their compilation or use. Use extended from credit checking to being used in employment references. Can even be used to track movements of a spouse by a vindictive ex.
DVLA? A long history of letting any gangster with a business card access to anyone's data. Same with the electoral roll. Anyone wanting to avoid being tracked by someone bent on violence such as an ex spouse or gangster can not safely exercise their right to vote.
I don't use social networking sites and until recently used an assumed name for voting. After a career spent in IT specialising in data acquisition I'm well aware just how easy it is to suck data a database using very basic tools. I hide my data as much as possible even though at my stage in life I probably have little to fear from the state or even the bankers
WalterBMorgan 25 Aug 2015 01:11In many respects we are the problem. As pointed out we give away our privacy too easily and too cheaply. We accept massive CCTV intrusions because we fear crime unduly but don't wish to pay for more police officers instead. We want free email, news, and entertainment if we can get it so we end up with the KGB of the digital age following us about. We are bombarded with advertising yet most of us don't fight back with ad blockers or protest the over intrusion of billboard advertising. Government will spy on us and business will exploit us if we let them. Both business and government can be good and necessary but we connive with their downsides because it's cheaper.
JaitcH BritCol 24 Aug 2015 23:40I live in an 'authoritarian' [state] and yet we enjoy more personal freedom that do people in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA!
xxxsss MrPotto51 24 Aug 2015 17:16
Encryption is all well and good, but engaging in an encryption arms race with business and governmental bodies is not going to end well; there is no point encrypting your emails if the spies have backdoors in your OS or whatever.
We need to debate and then come to a truce, as well as clearly setting out what is acceptable, and unacceptable, behaviour.
BritCol 24 Aug 2015 15:14
I agree entirely with this assessment, and especially how ominous surveillance has become in the UK. When I grew up outside London it seemed to be the freest nation on Earth. We would visit North America and found the city police to be gun-toting thugs (they still are) but England has become the world's worst police state in surveillance techniques.
Not even Russia or China spies on its citizens as much.
Lafcadio1944 24 Aug 2015 14:06Way too little way too late. Just think about the vast amount of personal data that is already out there and the vast amount that is entered every minute. The dependence society and business on the internet and the fact that the data on the internet is INDELIBLE!! Everything having been collected by the NSA/GCHQ/BND etc could be accessed by hackers in the future who could trust them to actually protect it. Even the super high tech super security company Hacking Team which sells hacking and spying tools to governments and government agencies all over the world (with no concern about who they are) was itself hacked. Given that and the fact that the spyware and hacking techniques are becoming known by more and more people each day how is an ordinary internet used to protect himself? - he can't. Look at the Ashly Madison hack which was apparently done for purely personal petty grievances and adolescent morality. This can only increase with all sorts of people hacking and releasing our data can only get worse and the INDELIBLE data is always there to take.
We all thought the internet would be liberating and we have all enjoyed the movies, porn social networking and the ability to make money on the internet but what has been created is a huge monster which has become not our friend but our enemy.
well_jackson rationalistx 24 Aug 2015 13:59"I doubt if George Orwell had the imagination to conceive of airliners being hijacked and being flown into buildings, killing thousands."
I seem to recall George Bush saying a similar thing about his own government on countless occasions following 9/11. The fact NORAD were carrying out mock exercises that same morning, including this very scenario, seems lost on people.
As for the train shooting, it sounds like utter nonsense to me. This man well known to the intelligence agencies but allowed to roam free gets stopped by Americans and Brits just as hell is to be unleashed (I bet they were military or ex military weren't they? UK/US public love a good hero army story).... smells like BS.
Besides, if these events tell us anything it's that surveillance never seems to work when needed most (there are very limited videos of 7/7 bombers, the pentagon attack lacked video evidence, virtually every nearby camera to the pont d'alma tunnel was not working as Diana hurtled through to an untimely end, etc, etc)....
|
|
|
"Mass surveillance is not about protecting people; it is about social control.The shadow government is its own enterprise, and it rewards those who pay obesiance quite richly"
Here is the second segment of a fascinating five part interview about the deep state and the mechanics of what some might call corporatism.You may watch all five segments of this interview at The Real News here. Note that they are listed in descending order on the site, so start from the bottom up to see them in order.
|
|
|
marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop, August 4, 2015 at 11:46 am
Not hard to see where they're going with that – the U.S. State Department enjoyed such dramatic success with the earlier events in the "Arab Spring" that it took even them by surprise. Unfortunately for them, they built a template of it and tried to use the same formula too repetitively, and without spontaneity it failed to achieve the same results.In most countries, people angrily defend a completely free and open internet, with no government oversight or censorship – a comment under the Facebook comments to that article reflects this attitude. I have to pity that, because I wish we still lived in that kind of world, but a core truth is this – the people who demand unrestricted access to information regardless its source are operating under the unspoken belief that those who pitch them information are telling them the truth.
Just make your play, honestly and openly, and let me make up my own mind. In such an environment, the west would say, come on over here, baby; it's fine. We got chicken-fried steak and Kentucky bourbon, all you want, and potato chips and Doctor Pepper. And Russia says, why you wanna put that crap in your mouth when you know you'll have an ass five axe-handles wide by sunup tomorrow? And you say, hey, that's right. Think I'll just stay here with my kvas, and a salad.
But it's not like that. The State Department uses social media to get a mob going and then to keep it building, by firing tweets at you so fast you can't think. Usually it starts with an outrageous incident, such as a riot policeman beating a defenseless student or protester – remember that kreakle female student back during the short-lived "White Revolution" whose thing was to put on an agonized expression when being restrained by police so the photo would suggest she was having her arm torn out by the roots? The same one caught on video taking a rock out of her bag and throwing it at police, yeah, that's the one; I forget her name now. Then another tweet will come in, saying, brothers, come to Taganka right now, they're dragging the bureaucrats out of their offices like Navalny promised, we need everybody here now and so on and so on. Complete stage-managing of the fray using phony incidents and successes to inject a spirit of unstoppable momentum. Those who argue for an unregulated access to information do not ever imagine that kind of scenario.
I'm for an unregulated internet myself. But I have all the time in the world to sift through information and decide what is likely to be true and what is not. Well, sort of; I mean, I'm busy, but nobody is running a push campaign here involving, say, an assault by the Ukrainian forces on Crimea which is not happening. But what if the State Department managed to shut off local broadcasts which would reveal that as a lie, and all the English-speaking networks started running with a breaking story at the same time? I'd believe it, of course I would, so would you. And our ability to reason and think clearly would be affected by it. We'd look for corroboration, but if we couldn't find anything we'd have little choice but to assume it was true. And that's how the political side of the USA uses the internet.
|
|
|
truth-out.org
"We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget, and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation's balance of payments." - Sir Colin McColl, MI6 Chief
For years public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify the United States' far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it's wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests.
... .... ...
These disclosures confirm what Edward Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: Terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around "economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation." Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture.
Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011, the European Union's chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China:
Houben insisted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a U.S. initiative, appears to be designed to force future negotiations with China. Washington, he pointed out, is negotiating with every nation that borders China, asking for commitments that exceed those countries' administrative capacities, so as to 'confront' Beijing. If, however, the TPP agreement takes 10 years to negotiate, the world - and China - will have changed so much that that country likely will have become disinterested in the process, according to Houben. When that happens, the U.S. will have no alternative but to return to the WTO.
US business interests are eager to "open markets in Asia" and "provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment." At least, that's how Hillary Clinton phrased it back when she was the US secretary of state. China represents a potential competitor and so US politicians need an enemy that they can demonize to help justify massive intelligence budgets and the myriad clandestine operations that they conduct. The US deep state wishes to maintain economic dominance and US spies have been working diligently to this end.
Bill Blunden is an independent investigator whose current areas of inquiry include information security, anti-forensics and institutional analysis. He is the author of several books, including The Rootkit Arsenal, and Behold a Pale Farce: Cyberwar, Threat Inflation, and the Malware-Industrial Complex. Bill is the lead investigator at Below Gotham Labs.
Related Stories
- NSA Spying Scandal Roils US-EU Trade Negotiations
- By Mary Bottari, PR Watch | Report
- NSA Creates Google-Like Search Engine to Help Other Agencies Access Collected Phone, Email Records
- By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
- NSA Documents Suggest a Close Working Relationship Between NSA, US Companies
- By Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, ProPublica | Report
Jethro_T
Some of you are old enough to remember the public service announcement (PSA) that used to run on TV in the weeks leading up to Christmas: it warned of pickpockets who worked the stores and streets in small groups, in which some would start a commotion, and the others would seek out distracted onlookers to rob.
But soon after the Communist Party USA pointed out that this was exactly the same tactic the imperialist warmongers used to rob their own citizens, that PSA was quickly pulled, never to reappear.
"War is a racket."
---Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, Commandant, USMC (ret.)Psychedelic Chicken > Jethro_T
9/11 was/is a "racket" on steroids.
Jethro_T > Psychedelic Chicken
There's a straight line from Dealy Plaza to WTC 1,2 & 7, that runs straight through the Bush crime family.
Amy Rannells
Snowden has brought to light important information that deserved to be in the public domain. He recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, undemocratic and unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of privacy does not contribute to our security, it puts in danger the very liberties we are trying to protect. Does Snowden deserve a statue.... (much bigger one)... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3217...
Psychedelic Chicken > Amy Rannells •
And it has never been about "our security". There is zero intent by the Deep State to protect "liberties" through NSA spying, CIA thuggery, et al.
Not to project on your comment that you don't get that, but rather I've had too much espresso and need to keep busy.
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2014 | The Atlantic
...But their narrative now contradicts itself. The Washington Post's latest article drawing on Snowden's leaked cache of documents includes files "described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained" that "tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless."The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected "medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam ..."
Have you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your photo in the Washington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward. In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who'd read her correspondence.
Snowden defenders see these leaked files as necessary to proving that the NSA does, in fact, massively violate the private lives of American citizens by collecting and storing content-not "just" metadata-when they communicate digitally. They'll point out that Snowden turned these files over to journalists who promised to protect the privacy of affected individuals and followed through on that oath.
What about Snowden critics who defend the NSA? Ben Wittes questions the morality of the disclosure:
Snowden here did not leak programmatic information about government activity. He leaked many tens of thousands of personal communications of a type that, in government hands, are rightly subject to strict controls. They are subject to strict controls precisely so that the woman in lingerie, the kid beaming before a mosque, the men showing off their physiques, and the woman whose love letters have to be collected because her boyfriend is off looking to join the Taliban don't have to pay an unnecessarily high privacy price. Yes, the Post has kept personal identifying details from the public, and that is laudable. But Snowden did not keep personal identifying details from the Post. He basically outed thousands of people-innocent and not-and left them to the tender mercies of journalists. This is itself a huge civil liberties violation.
The critique is plausible-but think of what it means.
I never thought I'd see this day: The founder of Lawfare has finally declared that a national-security-state employee perpetrated a huge civil-liberties violation! Remember this if he ever again claims that NSA critics can't point to a single serious abuse at the agency. Wittes himself now says there's been a serious abuse.
The same logic applies to Keith Alexander, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Stewart Baker, Edward Lucas, John Schindler, and every other anti-Snowden NSA defender. So long as they insist that Snowden is a narcissistic criminal and possible traitor, they have no choice but to admit that the NSA collected and stored intimate photos, emails, and chats belonging to totally innocent Americans and safeguarded them so poorly that a ne'er-do-well could copy them onto thumb drives.
They have no choice but to admit that the NSA was so bad at judging who could be trusted with this sensitive data that a possible traitor could take it all to China and Russia. Yet these same people continue to insist that the NSA is deserving of our trust, that Americans should keep permitting it to collect and store massive amounts of sensitive data on innocents, and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect that data. To examine the entirety of their position is to see that it is farcical.
Here's the reality.
The NSA collects and stores the full content of extremely sensitive photographs, emails, chat transcripts, and other documents belong to Americans, itself a violation of the Constitution-but even if you disagree that it's illegal, there's no disputing the fact that the NSA has been proven incapable of safeguarding that data. There is not the chance the data could leak at sometime in the future. It has already been taken and given to reporters. The necessary reform is clear. Unable to safeguard this sensitive data, the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect and store it.
Rick > MatthewTarpy
"Again, I go back to the fact that these "robust" safeguards already do exist, we've been told this from James Clapper to Diane Feinstein. "
Is that supposed to represent a large range of opinion? Clapper, the guy in charge, and Feinstein, the most steadfast defender of the NSA in Congress?
Unrepentant Atheist > Rick
You forgot to mention that Clapper lied to the very people that was supposed to watch over the NSA.
Political Questions > MatthewTarpy
The need for security-state proponents to portray centuries-old protections as a passing fad instead of honestly advocating the DDR-esque governmental abuse they desire is as revealing as it is disturbing. I guess there are probably still a lot of anticommunists in "the intelligence community", though.
steelcityguy > Jeffrey G. Johnson
"I'm only denied freedom at the point when that data is abused by government agents."
It's already been demonstrated that some NSA agents used the system to investigate people that they were dating, to whom they were married etc. Police officers abuse the system every day for the same reason or to do a "favor" or just out of plan curiosity.
The best way to prevent the abuse of personal information by government agents is to legally deny access to non-pertinent information and to severely punish any legal infraction thereof.
Political Questions > steelcityguy
NSA or military intelligence employees or contractors can easily find out someone is committing an illegal activity and blackmail them, which I can say I've seen up close. Figuring that there are a lot more pot dealers, bigamists and people who cheat the IRS on their gambling winnings than there are people willing to make sacrifices for an extreme geopolitical opinion, you'd think it'd possibly be more common than doing their actual job. If someone like Snowden can get that close to the data, it seems like there's possibly too big a workload to restrict high clearance to trustworthy people.
Of course, even if someone is sort of trustworthy, after years on the job they will (likely overtly) have internalized the need to put the interests of a secretive government agency before the people it nominally serves. Given that the de facto role of the NSA is apparently somewhat unique globally, it's mote than fair to ask if we need it (or similar functions at oyher agencies) at all.
Jeffrey G. Johnson > Tim_Sims
I agree with you if we say "here government, have all this data, and manage it as you see fit". It will be abused because people have to power to do so.
I'm saying that by law we stipulate such data can only be gathered if it is stored in a system that only allows access using strict security controls that can only be unlocked by carefully designed algorithms operating with clearance provided by digital keys associated with warrants based on judicial approval. What I'm suggesting would require real work and new expertise, but it is not out of reach.
This would not be your typical insurance company database. All access would be audit logged and clearly identifiable as to who did it, when, under what warrant authority.
What I'm suggesting could end up being infeasible because of cost. But I just hope the debate at least considers this option because it could enable some real benefits that would be lost by simply blocking all data gathering.
bobbyriled > Jeffrey G. Johnson
I work as a technical analyst for a provincial health ministry in Canada. Every request for information is audited and the audit record examined every month by security personnel.
The technical team is required to attend security seminars twice a year in which we are told again and again which practices and methods are absolutely forbidden eg. any movement of private information out of the secure zone.
Violation results in immediate dismissal, public shaming via the news media, fines, and quite possibly imprisonment.
It would be very easy for me to capture some of this private information, to supply it to interested parties, then grab a plane to Moscow before the monthly security audit, but that would be a violation of the trust placed in me.
It is one thing for Snowden to reveal the extent of the NSA's data gathering. It is quite another to violate the privacy of the people he is pretending to protect.
Off with his head!
And -oh yeah- forgot what I was responding to. This security process and the software required to support it is a very small portion of the overall project's budget.
bobbyriled > Unrepentant Atheist
Health information and private communications between citizens are different classes of information. I give you that.
Snowden's original disclosure - that the NSA is gathering personal information - was a legitimate whistle blow. Although it came as no surprise to anyone I've discussed this with.However. My point is that he disclosed private information to a public news outlet. That was a violation of trust, and in my opinion a criminal act. I'll go so far as to call it creepy.
Unrepentant Atheist > bobbyriled
I'll have to disagree with you. There was a TON of information. Much of it was redacted, and many of the key examples were contacted before the article went live. This is exactly what reporters/news outlets do, regardless of the source of the information. At no point can you, or should you, limit the press' rights.
If the government had private intimate communications of me, I would want to know. I would thank the reporter for bringing it to my attention. I might not be comfortable with them publishing it, and I might ask them to keep private somethings, but I would never judge them on reporting it. Definitely not in this case.
You don't shoot the messenger. If it was Assange, it would be all over the Internet without any kind of filter. There was no perfect way for Snowden to get the message out, and this was a very very important message. I applaud the reporting on this.
Herring > bobbyriled
The question is why the NSA had these documents. You can label Snowden "creepy" or whatever you want, but he took this action to illustrate with brutal clarity what the NSA's routine activities are. You have no idea what other people at the NSA are doing with that very same data.
bobbyriled > Political Questions
False equivalency. I could say it's disingenuous but out of respect for the civility of this forum I won't say that. Instead I'll say that perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough.
What if the material Snowden released to the Post included evidence of an affair between Obama and Condy Rice? That's an extreme example, and hugely improbable, ok impossible, but it's difficult to imagine that the Post would not start an investigation. As an investigative reporter you would be irresponsible to not follow up. To find evidence other than that released by Snowden.
We don't know what he gave them. And if you're sure the Post's reporters aren't in there looking for stories, then you don't know reporters.
Snowden crossed a line.
Unrepentant Atheist > Jeffrey G. Johnson
Problems with your concept.
1. The higher you go up the chain, the more likely violations are ignored, marginalized, or enforced with a slap on the wrist. Clapper was never held accountable for lying to Congress proves this point.
2. Security controls are only so good as the men/women holding the keys. The Snowdens and Clappers of the world. Information has value, and that means someone will want to use it. All the protection in the world can not keep it safe. Its not a "if" question, but a when.
3. We have laws that allow them to get the information prior to the PATRIOT Act. They have this nice little tool called a warrant (the specific individual variety). If they have probable cause that you've done something wrong or are a threat, then the court will give the government body permission to get the info. It is sad that they are too lazy to go through basic process or that they do not "trust" the courts to let them do their jobs. How are we to trust the government to hold and protect our data, if we can not trust them to follow the constitution and protect our right to privacy.
Jeffrey G. Johnson > Unrepentant Atheist
1. acknowledged, this is problem. It exists throughout the entire government, so it isn't really an argument to give up trying.
2. In my view the keys would be controlled by the courts charged with authorizing warrants. Keys would only be issued in conjunction with and digitally bound to a warrant. Rigorous audit trails would be a powerful disincentive to abuse legally warranted powers. This is primarily a technological problem.
3. See my explanation to #2. It presumes exactly what you recommend here. The whole point of my argument is that intelligent use of technology can both enhance the ability to track dangerous criminals and strengthen traditional warrant based procedures. I totally agree that now things are being done badly, even stupidly. But what most people are unable to do is visualize how technology can make the way we do things better.
Unrepentant Atheist > Jeffrey G. Johnson
The courts can not be secret however, and they need to have counsel defending citizen interests. This is the way normal courts work. Right now the courts are nothing more than a personal rubber stamp for Clapper.
I disagree with the technology problem. Technology is a tool. Not a guard. It is only as good as the people running it. In recent news, there was an issue where the NSA claimed it couldn't control its own system to comply with a judges order. There is always going to be a "reason" why they couldn't follow the rules. They didn't follow the rules before the revelations, they aren't following them now, why do you expect them to do so in the future?
Even if there was a fool proof technology, Clapper and co would just refuse to use it, as they did with technologies that Thomas Drake tried to implement. They would declare it too expensive, that it failed to meet some kind of criteria, or pick a different product altogether without explanation.
Caveman > Tim_Sims
I did not click the "Accept Button" that NSA can obtain my data, or cc any of my documents i wanted NSA to have. This is a criminal act! I have no respect for criminals. The one BAD guy out of 500 000 is most likely a person acting out of revenge as his/her family was destroyed by a Drone attack? Guess the USA has to protect itself!!!
Political Questions > Tim_Sims
It seems to border on inhuman, frankly, to yield such power to human individuals and then expect them not to find out if they're being cuckolded or cheated on something. It's hard to imagine the feeling of not-knowing-but-being-able-to-know (and the attendant social reaction at the water cooler) is significantly better than seeing for yourself the unwanted behavior is actually happening. Given thr ideology of NSA supporters, actual employees might decide after about a week of adjusting yo their new workplace that they'd really be doing the person a favor by giving them a chance to prove they *aren't* doinh something wrong.
Thorvington Finglethorpe > Jeffrey G. Johnson
Except that the "abuse" is occurring routinely. More to the point, the "abuse" already appears to be a bigger component of their spying operations against innocent Americans than any efforts to locate "terrorists."
When you factor in that LinuxJournal is one of the sites that the NSA has targeted for spying on the rationale that the site is "frequented by extremists and terrorists," and yet the site only contains innoccuous technical articles about the linux computer operating system, how could anybody at this point be defaulting to accepting the NSA's "we're protecting yoU" B.S. rationale?UncleStu > Jeffrey G. Johnson
"robust provisions for citizens to subpoena government records and defend themselves in court"
If a citizen wanted to take advantage of all the remedies you dream of, a few things would have to exist:
1) He/she would have to know that the abuse happened. Forget it. How many people with Snowden's courage do you think there are? So far, I count two - Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame. How else would a person find out? The Freedom of Information Act would be useless - national security would be claimed - end of story.
2) The citizen would also need the courage to stand up to the self-righteous wrath of a government dealing with a person who dared to stand up to them. It would mean social ostracism, and likely the loss of present and future employment. Look what happened to the poor guy who blew the whistle on Big Tobacco, and they aren't as big as the Government.
3) The citizen would need a ton of money for the long drawn out procedures that would inevitably happen.
Why? To protect what the Constitution guaranteed in the first place.
Now, Mr. Johnson, with all due respect, I beg you - get real, please.
Jeffrey G. Johnson > UncleStu
If you want to nix any possible solution because government is too big and powerful, and citizens are helpless to do anything, then what is your solution?
Any solution at all is predicated on the ability to pass laws that can reign in the government. If you think those laws ought to be to simply ban surveillance entirely, why would you be more optimistic that such laws wouldn't be similarly flouted by powerful interests?
If you reject any kind of legal solution as a possibility, what do you suggest?
|
|
|
October 24, 2013 | www.tomroganthinks.com
Accusations that the NSA has listened in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations are not conducive to positive German-US relations. Interestingly, the fact that the White House is saying that they 'are not' monitoring and 'will not' monitor Merkel, suggests that 'they have' monitored her in the past. To be sure, as I noted yesterday, there are worthwhile reasons behind US intelligence collection operations in Europe. Still, targeting the phone of a close ally (especially a head of state and especially one as friendly as Merkel) is a dangerous gamble. It risks significant blowback in terms of personally alienating a valued American friend. The NSA will have known this. Correspondingly, I assume that Merkel was targeted for a short time and in pursuit of specific information. Perhaps in regards to her position during a conference/financial negotiations (international meetings are a playground for intelligence officers).
There's another point here; as Marc Ambinder (a top journalist on the NSA) notes, if Merkel was indeed targeted, then why wasn't her position as an intelligence source more highly classified? Ambinder hints at the larger truth. If she was monitored, Merkel was effectively a deep cover source. In that regard, it's truly ridiculous that Snowden was able to gain access to such an operation. He was a contractor, not the Director of the NSA. As I've argued before, the US Government has a serious problem with its protection of its highly classified sources.
Of course, all of this raises the broader question as to what other information Snowden might have given Greenwald. Does he have agents/officers details? The British certainly think so. Based on what's happening at the moment, we must assume that Greenwald is upping the ante. This may signal how he'll conduct himself at Omidyar's new media endeavor. Ultimately, this is what will most concern the US Government - signal intelligence programs can be reconstructed. Humans cannot.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2015 | WikiLeaks
Washington has been leading a policy of economic espionage against France for more than a decade by intercepting communications of the Finance minister and all corporate contracts valued at more than $200 million, according to a new WikiLeaks report.The revelations come in line with the ongoing publications of top secret documents from the US surveillance operations against France, dubbed by the whistleblowing site "Espionnage Élysée."
The Monday publications consist of seven top secret documents which detail the American National Security Agency's (NSA) economic espionage operations against Paris.
According to the WikiLeaks report, "NSA has been tasked with obtaining intelligence on all aspects of the French economy, from government policy, diplomacy, banking and participation in international bodies to infrastructural development, business practices and trade activities."
The documents allegedly show that Washington has started spying on the French economic sector as early as 2002. WikiLeaks said that some documents were authorized for sharing with NSA's Anglophone partners – the so-called "Five Eyes" group – Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.
The report strongly suggests that the UK has also benefited from the US economic espionage activities against France."The United States not only uses the results of this spying itself, but swaps these intercepts with the United Kingdom. Do French citizens deserve to know that their country is being taken to the cleaners by the spies of supposedly allied countries? Mais oui!" said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a statement on Monday.
The documents published on Monday also reveal US spying on the conversations and communications the French Finance Minister, a French Senator, officials within the Treasury and Economic Policy Directorate, the French ambassador to the US, and officials with "direct responsibility for EU trade policy."
The leaked NSA documents reveal internal French deliberation and policy on the World Trade Organization, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the G7 and the G20, the 2013 French budget, the decline of the automotive industry in France, and the involvement of French companies in the Oil for Food program in Iraq during the 1990s, the report said.
"The US has been conducting economic espionage against France for more than a decade. Not only has it spied on the French Finance Minister, it has ordered the interception of every French company contract or negotiation valued at more than $200 million," said Assange.
"That covers not only all of France's major companies, from BNP Paribas, AXA and Credit Agricole to Peugeot and Renault, Total and Orange, but it also affects the major French farming associations. $200 million is roughly 3,000 French jobs. Hundreds of such contracts are signed every year."
On June 23, WikiLeaks announced a plan to reveal a new collection of reports and documents on the NSA, concerning its alleged interception of communications within the French government over the last ten years.
In the first tranche of leaked documents WikiLeaks claimed that NSA targeted high-level officials in Paris including French presidents Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac, as well as cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US.
Despite the tapping claims made by WikiLeaks, US President Barack Obama has assured his French counterpart Francois Hollande that Washington hasn't been spying on Paris top officials.
Hollande, on his part, released a statement saying that the spying is "unacceptable" and "France will not tolerate it."
It's not the first time that the NSA has been revealed to be spying on European leaders. According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published at the end of 2013 the US intelligence agency had previously targeted the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The tapping scandal is believed to have created a rift between Washington and Berlin.
The US collects the information through spy operations regardless of its sensitivity, as it has the ability to do so, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst told RT.
"It's hard to be surprised by any revelations of this kind," he said. "The snooping is conducted because it's possible to conduct it. In a new way we have a technical collection on steroids. The President of the US said that just because we can collect this material, doesn't mean we should. The thing has a momentum, an inertia of its own. Since about ten years ago it has become possible to collect everything, and that's precisely what we're doing."
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2015 | The Guardian
- Canon Collins Educational and Legal Assistance Trust is alarmed both that GCHQ has been monitoring and retaining the electronic communications of the Legal Resources Centre and other international NGOs and, despite breaches of process, that this should be ruled lawful (Rights groups targeted by GCHQ spies, 23 June). The supposed balance between the security interests of the state and the rights of citizens is currently not a balance at all, but a lopsided and unhealthy bias towards the former. We urge the government to make known all the facts in this case and to ensure that the rights of citizens in the UK and elsewhere are respected.
Sandy Balfour
CEO, Canon Collins Educational and Legal Assistance Trust- Am I the only person to be appalled that a US drone operation in a country not at war – Yemen – is called Widowmaker (UK faces call to explain role in US drone killing in Yemen, 25 June)? We have known for a long time about some of the activities of NSA/NRO Menwith Hill, Denver and Alice Springs thanks to Edward Snowden and others. A small group of people are at the gates of this most secretive and unaccountable US base every Tuesday evening and has been there for nearly 15 years. We are awaiting for a brave, courageous, principled and honest whistleblower like Edward Snowden to come out of the Menwith Hill woodwork.
Lindis Percy
Joint coordinator, Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases- While the legal framework under which GCHQ shares intelligence with the US on drone strikes is an important issue, the direct role of NSA facilities located in the UK should be the subject of investigation. Through the monitoring of electronic communications, combined with satellite imagery, Menwith Hill plays a crucial role in US military power projection, including extra-judicial killings by drone and missile strikes. The least we should expect is a parliamentary investigation into the legality of NSA operations in the UK and a full, informed debate as to whether their continued presence is in our interests.
Steven Schofield
Bradford
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 | Slate.fr
The documents revealed on 23 June by Wikileaks do not contain real "scoops". But they say a lot about the amplitude of the american spying in Europe.
Of course, we knew even from that in April had been found in Germany, the collaboration between the NSA and the intelligence service of germany (BND) in espionage, not only european companies but also of the French political leaders. Today, we have the proof.
Between 2006 and 2012 at least, the services of the United States have listened to the three presidents of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande. Mediapart and Release publish five documents obtained by Wikileaks under the title "Global SIGINT Highlights". They reported the information obtained through wiretaps, and the comments made by the analysts of the NSA.
READ ALSO
Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande: the French presidents have been spied on
Read
"No spy"
This information first of all poses a question of principles. "There should be no spying on friends", said Angela Merkel, in October 2013, when it had been revealed that his mobile phone had been listened to by the NSA. The information came from the whistleblower, Edward Snowden, a refugee in Russia. The German chancellor had then tried to get president Obama to an agreement "no spy". In vain.
The Wikileaks revelations show that France had tried the same approach a few years ago. She had failed in the same way in 2010, the United States, showing that they were reluctant to stop spying on its allies. Release and Mediapart reported that, during his visit to Washington in February 2014, François Hollande had said:
"The commitment has been made not to practice undifferentiated listening for the goverments and head of States of allied countries."
There is nothing to say that this commitment has been taken, but this statement shows that the president of the Republic had the least suspicion that carried out the united states.
François Hollande takes all cases seriously enough new revelations of Wikileaks for having convened Wednesday morning, a Council of defense. A report of the NSA, three days after his arrival at the Elysée palace in 2012, tells of his impression, to say the least mixed of his first meeting with Angela Merkel. The telephone conversation in which he relates to his Prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, while preparing for a quiet meeting with the opposition social democratic party, German, was obviously was intercepted by the Americans. It would, therefore, not surprising that he asked for explanations from the Us and reviving the idea of an agreement "no spy", even if the chances of success are slim.
READ ALSO
France, listened to by the NSA, needs to request accounts
The second relates to the amplitude of the american spy in Europe. We knew that the United States, like other countries, interested in the activity of the companies with which American firms are in competition. We also knew that eavesdropping "undifferentiated" had the stated objective of the fight against terrorism. The intelligence services of the European exchanging information with their counterparts from across the Atlantic recognize, moreover, that the attacks may have been thwarted thanks to this surveillance. The espionage of the heads of State and government, politicians, and foreign diplomats are under a different intention, hardly acceptable among the allies.
Know in advance the positions that will be defended in the conversations or bilateral international negotiations
Of course, the five documents classified as ultra-confidential, revealed by Wikileaks do not contain real "scoops". Nobody will be surprised to learn that in 2008 Nicolas Sarkozy saw himself as "the only man capable of solving the financial crisis". Or as Jacques Chirac, in 2006, took himself in hand, the campaign in favour of its candidate for the post of deputy secretary-general of the united nations, to the place of his minister of foreign affairs, Philippe Douste-Blazy. The latter has, according to the analysis of the Americans, "a tendency [...] to make statements that are inaccurate or inappropriate".
More interesting is the information on the intentions of Nicolas Sarkozy in 2011 to re-launch the israeli-palestinian peace, to the passing of the United States and in cooperation with the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in which the French president has placed unreasonable expectations.
READ ALSO
Sarkozy, the pretentious, the Near-East
We also learn that Nicolas Sarkozy does shogun did not shun frank lobbying for the company Pernod Ricard. According to the American services, he had asked his diplomatic advisor to put the issue of the labeling of the bottles of Pernod on the agenda of an interview with Barack Obama.
Means colossal
The topic is only in appearance anecdotal. The intercepts allow US to know in advance the positions that will be defended by their interlocutors in the conversations bilateral or international negotiations, and prepare accordingly.
The argument that all the Great States which can participate in this kind of espionage is only half relevant. First of all because the United States has colossal advantage and capabilities in this activites. Then, because they can count on the cooperation, voluntary or forced, of other countries which serve as relays. Since the Second world War, there is a network for the exchange of information and surveillance co-operative, called "Five Eyes", which includes, in addition to the United States, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The network has survived the world war and the cold War.
Germany has not formally joined but its intelligence services have been re-created in the 1950s by the Americans, which explains but does not justify the collaboration between the NSA and the BND. If it is confirmed that the NSA used BND as a relay for spy of French personalities, the problem obtains Franco-German dimension, with Paris working on to now minimize the fallout.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 | Slashdot
msm1267 writes:
The US Navy posted a RFP, which has since removed from FedBizOpps.gov, soliciting contractors to share vulnerability intelligence and develop zero day exploits for most of the leading commercial IT software vendors. The Navy said it was looking for vulnerabilities, exploit reports and operational exploit binaries for commercial software, including but not limited to Microsoft, Adobe, [Oracle] Java, EMC, Novell, IBM, Android, Apple, Cisco IOS, Linksys WRT and Linux, among others. The RFP seemed to indicate that the Navy was not only looking for offensive capabilities, but also wanted use the exploits to test internal defenses.The request, however, does require the contractor to develop exploits for future released CVEs. "Binaries must support configurable, custom, and/or government owned/provided payloads and suppress known network signatures from proof of concept code that may be found in the wild," the RFP said.
quenda (644621) on Monday June 15, 2015 @07:50PM (#49917853)
Ask the NSA (Score:4, Interesting)
So much for post-911 interagency cooperation. While one agency is inserting weaknesses, another is having to buy then on the open market. Though the Navy approach is probably cheaper.
Taco Cowboy (5327) on Monday June 15, 2015 @09:17PM (#49918315)
This has been happening since day one (Score:2)
How many years it officially took the hackers to stumble across the existence of the embedded NSA backdoor inside MS Windows??
Way before the news of that 'discovery' was told to the world, a friend of mine found it, but was told to 'shut up or else' by his then boss
Apparently they (and many other people) already knew about it for quite a while, but none of them bother to tell the world about it
Luthair (847766) on Monday June 15, 2015 @08:01PM (#49917925)
Why.... (Score:2, Interesting)
does every agency and division of the military need to do this? Seems like the classic not invented here syndrome and a colossal waste of tax payer money.
onproton (3434437) <emdanyi.gmail@com> on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @12:34AM (#49919171)
and yet real secuirty research is all but outlawed (Score:2)
I am finding it harder and harder to accept that the people in charge of these types of programs aren't aware of just how glaringly hypocritical they are [boingboing.net]. I can't help but be reminded of the quote:
We grow up in a controlled society, where we are told that when one person kills another person, that is murder, but when the government kills a hundred thousand, that is patriotism.
- Howard Zinn
Find a zero day and report it to someone who might fix it, that is criminal. Find a zero day and report it to the navy, you've done a service for your country. There is a unfortunate disconnect when the things the government does in the name of keeping us safe, end up making us all decidedly less safe in the end [schneier.com].
|
|
|
The government has an obligation to respond to the Sunday Times report that MI6 has been forced to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries
The Sunday Times produced what at first sight looked like a startling news story: Russia and China had gained access to the cache of top-secret documents leaked by former NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Not only that, but as a result, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6, had been forced "to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries".
These are serious allegations and, as such, the government has an obligation to respond openly.The story is based on sources including "senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services". The BBC said it had also also been briefed anonymously by a senior government official.
Anonymous sources are an unavoidable part of reporting, but neither Downing Street nor the Home Office should be allowed to hide behind anonymity in this case.1. Is it true that Russia and China have gained access to Snowden's top-secret documents? If so, where is the evidence?
Which cache of documents is the UK government talking about? Snowden has said he handed tens of thousands of leaked documents over to journalists he met in Hong Kong, and that he has not had them in his possession since. Have Russia and China managed to access documents held by one of the journalists or their companies?In addition, if agents had to be moved, why? Which Snowden documents allegedly compromised them to the extent they had to be forcibly removed from post?
2. Why have the White House and the US intelligence agencies not raised this?Snowden is wanted by the US on charges under the Espionage Act. The White House, the US intelligence agencies and especially some members of Congress have been desperate to blacken Snowden's reputation. They have gone through his personal life and failed to come up with a single damaging detail.
If the UK were to have evidence that Russia and China had managed to penetrate his document cache or that agents had been forced to move, London would have shared this with Washington. The White House would have happily briefed this openly, as would any number of Republican – and even Democratic – members of Congress close to the security services. They would not have stinted. It would have been a full-blown press conference.Related: UK under pressure to respond to latest Edward Snowden claims
The debate in the US has become more grownup in recent months, with fewer scare stories and more interest in introducing reforms that will redress the balance between security and privacy, but there are still many in Congress and the intelligence agencies seeking vengeance.3. Why have these claims emerged now?
Most the allegations have been made before in some form, only to fall apart when scrutinised. These include that Snowden was a Chinese spy and, when he ended up in Moscow, that he was a Russian spy or was at least cooperating with them. The US claimed 56 plots had been disrupted as a result of surveillance, but under pressure acknowledged this was untrue.The claim about agents being moved was first made in the UK 18 months ago, along with allegations that Snowden had helped terrorists evade surveillance and, as a result, had blood on his hands. Both the US and UK have since acknowledged no one has been harmed.
So why now? One explanation is that it is partly in response to Thursday's publication of David Anderson's 373-page report on surveillance. David Cameron asked the QC to conduct an independent review and there is much in it for the government and intelligence services to like, primarily about retaining bulk data.Anderson is scathing, however, about the existing legal framework for surveillance, describing it as intolerable and undemocratic, and he has proposed that the authority to approve surveillance warrants be transferred from the foreign and home secretaries to the judiciary.
His proposal, along with another surveillance report out next month from the Royal United Services Institute, mean that there will be continued debate in the UK. There are also European court rulings pending. Web users' increasing use of encryption is another live issue. Above all else though, there is the backlash by internet giants such as Google, which appear to be less prepared to cooperate with the intelligence agencies, at least not those in the UK.The issue is not going away and the Sunday Times story may reflect a cack-handed attempt by some within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative.
4. Why is the Foreign Office not mentioned as a source?It seems like a pedantic point, but one that could offer an insight into the manoeuvring inside the higher reaches of government. The Foreign Office is repsonsible for MI6, but the Home Office is quoted in the story. Is it that the Home Office and individuals within the department rather than the Foreign Office are most exercised about the potential transfer of surveillance warrant approval from the home secretary, the proposed scrapping of existing legislation covering surveillance and other potential reforms?
5. What about the debatable assertions and at least one totally inaccurate point in the Sunday Times piece?The Sunday Times says Snowden "fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history". In fact he fled Hong Kong bound for Latin America, via Moscow and Cuba. The US revoked his passport, providing Russia with an excuse to hold him in transit.
The Sunday Times says it is not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden's data or "whether he voluntarily handed over his secret documents in order to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow". The latter is not possible if, as Snowden says, he gave all the documents to journalists in Hong Kong in June 2013.The Sunday Times also reports that "David Miranda, the boyfriend of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 'highly-classified' intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow".
This is inaccurate. Miranda had in fact been in Berlin seeing the film-maker Laura Poitras, not in Moscow visiting Snowden. It is not a small point.The claim about Miranda having been in Moscow first appeared in the Daily Mail in September under the headline "An intelligence expert's devastating verdict: Leaks by Edward Snowden and the Guardian have put British hostages in even greater peril". It was written by Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the centre for security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, and has never been corrected. Maybe the Sunday Times can do better.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Following what are now daily reports of evil Russian hackers penetrating AES-encrypted firewalls at the IRS, and just as evil Chinese hackers penetrating "Einstein 3" in the biggest US hack in history which has allegedly exposed every single federal worker's social security number to shadowy forces in Beijing, the message to Americans is clear: be very afraid, because the "evil hackers" are coming, and your friendly, gargantuan, neighborhood US government (which is clearly here to help you) will get even bigger to respond appropriately.
But don't let any (cyber) crisis go to waste: the porous US security firewall is so bad, Goldman is now pitching cybersecurity stocks in the latest weekly David Kostin sermon. To wit:
The meteoric rise in cybersecurity incidents involving hacking and data breaches has shined a spotlight on this rapidly growing industry within the Tech sector. Cyberwar and cybercrime are two of the defining geopolitical and business challenges of our time. New revelations occur daily about compromised financial, personal, and national security records. Perpetrators range from global superpowers to rogue nation-states, from foreign crime syndicates to petty local criminals, and from social disrupters to teenage hackers. No government, firm, or person is immune from the risk.
Because if you can't profit from conventional war, cyberwar will do just as nicely, and as a result Goldman says "investors seeking to benefit from increased security spending should focus on the ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR)."
The HXR index has outperformed S&P 500 by 19pp YTD (22% vs. 3%). Since 2011, the total return of the index is 123pp higher than the S&P 500 (207% vs. 84%). The relative outperformance of cybersecurity stocks versus S&P 500 matches the surge in the number of exposed records (see Exhibit 2).
Goldman further notes that "the frequency and seriousness of cyberattacks skyrocketed during 2014. Last year 3,014 data breach incidents occurred worldwide exposing 1.1 billion records, with 97% related to either hacking (83%) or fraud (14%). Both incidents and exposed records jumped by 25% during the last year. The US accounted for 50% of total global incidents and exposed records. Businesses accounted for 53% of all reported incidents followed by government entities at 16%. Exhibit 1 contains a list of selected recent high-profile cyberattacks."
It is almost as if the US is doing everything in its power to make life for hackers that much easier, or alternatively to make Goldman's long HXR hit its target in the shortest possible time.
Or perhaps the US is merely giving the impression of a massive onslaught of cyberattacks, one which may well be staged by the biggest cybersecurity infringer, and false flag organizer of them all, the National Security Administration in conjunction with the CIA
We won't know, however just to make sure that the fear level spread by the Department of "Developed Market" Fear hits panic level promptly, overnight the UK's Sunday Times reported via Reuters, "citing unnamed officials at the office of British Prime Minister David Cameron, the Home Office (interior ministry) and security services" that Britain has pulled out agents from live operations in "hostile countries" after Russia and China cracked top-secret information contained in files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
MI6 building in London.
It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files, but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic.
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Snowden had done a huge amount of damage to the West's ability to protect its citizens. "As to the specific allegations this morning, we never comment on operational intelligence matters so I'm not going to talk about what we have or haven't done in order to mitigate the effect of the Snowden revelations, but nobody should be in any doubt that Edward Snowden has caused immense damage," he told Sky News.
Reading a little further reveals that in the modern world having your spies exposed merely lead to invitations for coffee and chocolates.
An official at Cameron's office was quoted, however, as saying that there was "no evidence of anyone being harmed." A spokeswoman at Cameron's office declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them, nor harmed them in any way. How cultured.
Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building:
A British intelligence source said Snowden had done "incalculable damage". "In some cases the agencies have been forced to intervene and lift their agents from operations to stop them being identified and killed," the source was quoted as saying.
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate.
The revelations about the impact of Snowden on intelligence operations comes days after Britain's terrorism law watchdog said the rules governing the security services' abilities to spy on the public needed to be overhauled. Conservative lawmaker and former minister Andrew Mitchell said the timing of the report was "no accident".
"There is a big debate going on," he told BBC radio. "We are going to have legislation bought back to parliament (...) about the way in which individual liberty and privacy is invaded in the interest of collective national security.
"That's a debate we certainly need to have."
Cameron has promised a swathe of new security measures, including more powers to monitor Briton's communications and online activity in what critics have dubbed a "snoopers' charter".
And because Britain's terrorism laws reviewer David Anderson said on Thursday the current system was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable" and called for new safeguards, including judges not ministers approving warrants for intrusive surveillance, saying there needed to be a compelling case for any extensions of powers, this is precisely why now was the right time for some more "anonymously-sourced" anti-liberty propaganda.
So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself.
If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.
casey13
http://notes.rjgallagher.co.uk/2015/06/sunday-times-snowden-china-russia...
All in all, for me the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions, made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements is antithetical to good journalism.
James_Cole
The sunday times has already deleted one of the claims in the article (without an editors note) because it was so easily proved wrong. Whenever governments are dropping anonymous rumours without any evidence into the media you know they're up to some serious bullshit elsewhere as well, good coverage by zh.
MonetaryApostate
Fact A: The government robbed Social Security... (There's nothing left!)
Supposed Fact B: Hackers compromised Social Security Numbers of Officials...
suteibu
Just to be clear, Snowden is not a traitor to the people of the US (or EU).
However, it is perfectly appropriate for the governments and shadow governments of those nations to consider him a traitor to their interests.
One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter.
Renfield
<<The New Axis of Evul.>>
Which is drastically stepping up its propaganda effort to justify aggressively attacking the rest of the world, in an effort to start WW3 and see who makes it out of the bunkers.
Fuck this evil New World Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHOUrYFj70
It took a long time to build and set in place, and it sure as hell isn't going to be easy taking it down. They couldn't be any clearer that they have their hand poised over the nuke button, just looking for any excuse to use it. I think they know they've lost, so they've resorted to intimidate the rest of the world into supporting the status quo, by showing just how desperate they are and how far they are willing to go. The USUK government, and its puppet governments in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan -- are completely insane. Ukraine is acting out just who these people are. They would rather destroy the whole world than not dominate everyone else. The 'West' is run by sociopaths.
<<It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files, but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic... So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them, nor harmed them in any way. How cultured. Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building... Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate... So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself. If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.>
Bighorn_100b
USA always looks for a patsy.
Bravo, Tyler. This is truth very clearly written. It is incredible how the onslaught of propaganda is turning into deluge. I'm glad you have the integrity to call it what it is. Propaganda is also an assault on journalism.
chunga
HowdyDoodyThat's true but gov lies so much moar and moar people don't believe any of it.
The Sunday Times' Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst - and Filled with Falsehoods
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowde...
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.(greenwald rants mostly about media sock puppets with this)
And the US SFM86 files contained details of British spies? Consider this bullshitish.foghorn leghorn
Goldman is looking to make a fast buck off the stupid uninformed public trying to cash in on totalitarianism. If Goldman is running this pump and dump I suggest waiting till the price looks like a hockey stick. As soon as it starts to cave in short the hell out of it but only for one day. Government Sacks is the most crooked bank in the history of the whole entire world from the past up till now. In case you are wondering about the Fed well Gioldman Sachs runs the joint.
talisman
"Snowden encryption"???
Just more US Snowden-bashing propaganda.You mean US has not tightened up its encryption since Snowden's whistleblowing two years ago??
Shame -- ! !....
Snowden information likely had nothing to do with the latest hacks, but the blame goes on--
Blaming Snowden a lot simpler than figuring out how to solve the basic problem
of overwhelming US Homeland Security incompetenceThe other day, Eugene Kaspersky noted:
"We discovered an advanced attack on our own internal networks. It was complex, stealthy, it exploded several zero-day vulnerabilities, and we're quite confident that there's a nation state behind it."
The firm dubbed this attack Duqu 2.0, named after a specific series of malware called Duqu, considered to be related to the Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran in 2011.
It is, of course, now well-known that Stuxnet originated as a Israel/US venture; however this time it would appear that CIA/Mossad may have got a bit overconfident and shot themselves in the foot when they inserted very advanced spyware into Kaspersky's system…
Kaspersky is not just some simple-minded backward nation state; rather they are the unquestioned world leader in advanced cybersecurity systems, so when they found this malware in their own system, of course they figured it out, and of course got a bit pissed-so, since they are in the business of providing advanced cybersecurity to various nations---they very legitimately passed on the critical encryption information to their clients, and it is not at all inconceivable that some of the clients decided to take the system for a spin and see what it could do….
And, of course, a bit later at the opportune moment after they let the cat out of the bag, to rub a bit of salt in the wound Kaspersky mentioned: "And the attackers are now back to the drawing board since we exposed their platform to the whole IT security industry. "They've now lost a very expensive technologically-advanced framework they'd been developing for years,"
an interesting background article:
https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2011/11/02/the-man-who-found-stuxnet-sergey-ulasen-in-the-spotlight/
kchrisc
Am I still the only one that sees this whole Snowden thing as a CIA ruse?
My favorite is the strategic "leaking" out of information as needed by a Jewish reporter working for a noiZ-media outlet. I have even read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, and I'm still not buying it.
I'm not buying any of it, but then I'd prefer to not ask for a "refund."
My personal opinion is that the CIA, in their ongoing battle with the Pentagon, penetrated the NSA, then tapped a photogenic young man in their mitts to serve as the "poster boy" for the ensuing "leaks." Once they have the attention of the sheeple, they can then claim anything, as any NSA defense will not be believed.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"They lie about everything. Why would they lie about this?"
Christ Lucifer
Either Snowden read the play for some decade to come and took the key pieces of info with him that he keeps secret but those pieces of intel currently allow him to access and control all covert govt surveillance including that adapted due to being compromised, there maybe some grains of truth in this in a cyber dependant organization created in an incorrectly perceived superiority complex. Or maybe his name is synonymous with modern spying, the geek who made good for the people, and his credibility is used to market a large amount of information releases for public digestion. A figurehead if you will. Not to say that some years on, the shockwaves from his actions reverberating around the planet coincide in specific places as various imperatives are displaced by the dissolution of the foundation he cracked, while the public are still only really concerned about their dick pics, which apparently women do not enjoy so much anyway.
Promoted as a storm in a teacup by those who suffer to the transparency he gave, but it is the woodchips the show the direction of the wind, not the great lumps of timber, and when the standing trees fall it is the woodchips that have shown the truth, such is the way that key figures move the static behemoths of overstated self importance ignorant to the world they create. The hemorrhage has been contained but for some reason it continues to bleed out at a steady rate, slowly washing the veil from the eyes who suffer the belief of attaining prosperity or power through subjecting themselves to the will of others.
He's good, but was he that good? What else is playing in his favour, or the favour of his identity?
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2015 | The Guardian
Germany has closed its investigation into a report that the US National Security Agency had hacked Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, a move that appears to be aimed at ending transatlantic friction that threatened intelligence cooperation between the two countries.US intelligence agencies have been angered by the amount of sensitive information being made public as a result of German investigations into US surveillance after the Edward Snowden revelations two years ago.
German federal prosecutors announced on Friday that their investigation was being wound down because they had been unable to find evidence that would stand up in court.
The investigation came after Der Spiegel reported in October 2013 that the NSA had a database containing Merkel's personal phone number. Merkel publicly expressed outrage and dispatched a team of senior German intelligence officers to Washington, supposedly to extract a "no spy" agreement. When the row was its height, the chancellor said: "The charges are grave and have to be cleared up."
A German federal investigation began last June but the office of the German chief prosecutor, Harald Range, announced on Friday that it did not have an original NSA document proving the NSA spied on Merkel.
"The documents published in the media so far that come from Edward Snowden also contain no evidence of surveillance of the mobile phone used by the chancellor solid enough for a court,"
Range's office said. German prosecutors said they saw no prospect of success in continuing to investigate.
The White House, responding to the Der Spiegel story in 2013, said it was not spying on Merkel at present and nor would it in the future, but refused to say whether it had in the past, which was interpreted by some as an admission of guilt.
But German prosecutors said:
"The vague comments by US officials about possible surveillance of the chancellor's mobile telecommunication by a US intelligence service 'not any more' are not enough to describe what happened. The comments, which were viewed in public as a general admission of guilt, do not discharge us from (fulfilling) the burden of proof according to the requirements of criminal procedure."
The federal prosecutor's office received virtually no cooperation in its investigation from either the NSA or Germany's equivalent, the BND.
Christoph Scheuermann, UK correspondent for Der Spiegel, said closure of the investigation was about reassuring the US and showing that Germany was going to be more cooperative. "Merkel wants to be a good ally again after all the embarrassing things that have happened," he said.
While German intelligence has a reputation for being solid on the Middle East, it remains heavily reliant on the US for other parts of the world and may have feared the flow of information from the US could be cut off, Scheuermann said.
Germany may also be reliant on US cooperation in helping keep tabs on foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq with groups such as Islamic State, which is active on social media. The NSA has better access to US-based internet providers than Germany.
Related:
|
|
|
NYTimes.com
Some time ago, a friend of mine was hit by a bus in New York, one of almost 5,000 pedestrians killed in traffic every year. I also lost a nephew to gun violence - one of more than 11,000 Americans slain by firearms in this country. And I fell out of a tree that I was trying to prune in my backyard. I was O.K. But the guy next to me in the trauma ward was paralyzed from his fall. He was taking down his Christmas lights.
So it goes. Life is full of risk. Every day brings a minor calculation with the possibility of mortality: cross the street on red, get on a plane, jog in the heat.
It was encouraging, then, to watch the congressional debate this week over the Patriot Act, and realize that we are learning how to be afraid. At least, we're starting to put the infinitesimal risk of being killed by a terrorist in perspective.
Though a majority of Americans are still worried about an imminent terrorist attack in this country, the number of people who think such an assault will happen in their home area has dropped to the lowest figure in the post-9/11 period - 16 percent.
This is a good start. But the fear-industrial complex continues to dominate national priorities. Over the last 14 years, the enormous apparatus that has been built up to combat terrorism - huge structural changes in American society, and a lock-hold on the federal budget - has grown only more outsize and out of proportion to the actual threat.
You've heard it before, but it bears repeating: You are much more likely to be struck dead by lightning, choke on a chicken bone or drown in the bathtub than be killed by a terrorist. Any number of well-known diseases - cancer, diabetes, the flu - take the lives of far, far more people. Yet, by one estimate, the United States spends $500 million per victim of terrorism, and a piddling $10,000 per cancer death.
Since the 9/11 attacks, taxpayers have squandered about $1.6 trillion in the so-called global war on terror - which doesn't include money for the feckless Department of Homeland Security.
Most of us are going to live to the actuarial average of 78, and never experience terrorism as anything other than the energy drink that keeps Wolf Blitzer going in the absence of real news. (This week, he was breathless over an apparent hoax, while "Breaking News: Airline threats not credible" flashed on the screen, contradicting his reason for doing the story.)
Consider the various threats to life. The sun, for starters. The incidence of melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer, has doubled in the last 30 years. More than 9,000 Americans now die every year from this common cancer. I also lost a friend - 30 years old, father of two - to malignant melanoma.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death, just behind heart disease. Together, they kill more than a million people in this country, followed by respiratory diseases, accidents and strokes. Then comes Alzheimer's, which kills 84,000 Americans a year. And yet, total federal research money on Alzheimer's through the National Institutes of Health was $562 million last year.
To put that in perspective, we spent almost 20 times that amount - somewhere around $10 billion - on the National Security Agency, the electronic snoops who monitor everyday phone records. For the rough equivalent of funding a breakthrough in Alzheimer's, the government has not prevented a single terrorist attack, according to a 2014 report on the telephone-gathering colossus at the N.S.A.
People who text and drive are certainly a lethal threat. Every day, nine Americans are killed and 1,153 are injured by distracted drivers, though not all of them are checking their smartphones. If Wolf Blitzer spent a week on each of those victims, the rush of politicians calling for reform would be a stampede.
Food is a mortal menace. Every year, one in six Americans gets sick, and 3,000 die from food-borne illness. Your burger is a bigger threat than radical Islam.
You can blame the media, particularly cable news, for misplaced fear and budgets. CNN is the worst. Politicians do whatever they can to get cable time, and complaining about the paltry amount of money given to Parkinson's disease ($139 million a year) will not get you in the "Situation Room."
Some politicians are all fear, all the time. The Cheneys, father Dick and daughter Liz, are deeply, darkly, desperately afraid, and think we should be, too. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the latest why-not-me candidates for president, seems to live in a hyperbaric chamber of imaginary nightmares. He famously said we needed to send troops to Syria - now! - "before we all get killed back here at home."
Don't get me wrong: Radical Islam is a serious threat, a poison on the globe. Hats off to the police in Boston for tracking the latest religiously infected potential killer. But we should put the threat in perspective: This is not World War II. Our entire democracy does not teeter on the outcome.
So what should you be afraid of? Are you sitting down? Get up - you shouldn't be. Sitting for more than three hours a day can shave life expectancy by two years, through increased risk of heart disease or Type 2 diabetes. "A lot of doctors think sitting is the new cancer," said Tim Cook, the Apple C.E.O.
It was an overstatement, and he probably meant to compare sitting to smoking, not cancer. But still, the War on Sitting would be welcome, if for no other reason than to give some legitimate fears a chance.
XY, NYC
Obviously it is all about the money. The terrorists are the perfect enemy. Infinitely better than the former Soviet Union. Unlike the Soviets, the terrorists pose no real threat; they can't really hurt us; but they can never be defeated. It makes me sick.
Even the threat of the Soviets was over blown, all the better to divert trillions of dollars to the military industrial complex.
JO, CO
FEAR is one of the oldest selling points for tyranny (which, to be clear, is usually voted into office, at least initially). First comes "Be afraid," followed by, "We will protect you" with expanded police powers, from NSA to your local pistol-packin' PD.
False claims of enemies, from within or without, are a particular hallmark of the right (but not exclusively). When fears are fed, coaxed, and encouraged until they grow up into paranoia, extremism is a common result of irrationality. Remember "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?"
Examples abound: Texans who insist everyone has the right -- and, by implication, would all be safer if they exercised the right -- to carry pistols in holsters on their hips while on college campuses, on freeways, in bars, in Walmarts and in church ... did I hear nursery schools on the list? To quote one leading Texas politician repeatedly elected to high state office: "There are three things I advise everyone to do: 1. pack a pistol; 2. Take it out of its holster upon provocation; and 3., well, I can't remember the third thing just now ... but I advise everyone to do it."
craig geary, redlands, fl
To hear Dick Cheney, Lindsay Graham and Oops Perry pimp perpetual war is a bad joke. Their qualifications?
Cheney is a Viet Nam draft dodging coward.
Graham, the warrior lawyer, able to kill platoons of ISIS with a single writ, will or divorce petition.
Perry, a literal guy cheerleader, exactly like Reagan, Boy George, Willard Mitty, who hid out in ROTC to expressly avoid Viet Nam, to dodge going to war, exactly like Reagan, Boy George and Willard Mitty.
The leading cheerleaders for perpetual war. Not one of whom has been in a war. But lusting to play tough guys by sending other people's children to suffer and die at something they are too cowardly to do themselves.
Despicable human beings.
Ralph, Wherever
Thank you Mr. Egan!!! Ten years ago, no one would have dared to write this column. The fact that you can write this tells me that the post 911 hysteria has started to pass.
Yesterday, Lyndsey Graham asserted that ISIS is a major threat to America. That is an absurd statement designed to exploit the fears of the nation. ISIS has about 31 thousand troops ( consider that Syria has about 300,000 troops ). It only survives in failed states like Iraq, Syria and Libya. Despite it's shocking brutality, ISIS has a very limited ability to launch attacks in America.
Yet, we will spend Billions of dollars in response to the hysteria. Politicians manipulate public fear for their own advantage. Thank you for sticking a pin in the fear balloon.
Mary Scott, is a trusted commenter NY 14 hours ago
The "fear-industrial complex" fuels increased spending on our military-industrial complex, which now claims a whopping 50% of ALL discretionary spending. Keeping Americans in a constant state of fear is also an effective way of diverting their attention from our crumbling infrastructure, income inequality and every other problem that affects the lives of millions of Americans every year.
Many pundits are predicting the 2016 presidential election will be more about foreign policy than anything else. Expect to be terrorized by the politicians and the MSM in the weeks and months ahead. Fear wins elections and keeps the press/media flush with cash.
Socrates, Verona, N.J. 12 hours ago
Fear, paranoia, propaganda and moneyed 'speech' is the entire Republican electoral strategy.
Without those precious ingredients to disrupt the neurotransmissions of its Republican voter base, no one except the Kochs, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson and a few white supremacists would vote Republican.
The only thing the Republican Party fears is a lack of fear in the American voter.... and the elimination of money as 'speech'.
JFR, Yardley
I was in middle school (~50 yrs ago), fond of parroting my father's conservative view of Vietnam (bomb them out of existence) and mocking the timid left when I read an essay pointing out that it was the right that was fearful (or exploited fear) - communism, militant blacks, liberal ideas ... - and the left that was essentially unworried about those threats (they had others, of course). That was an epiphany for me. Evolution has given us the ability to be fearful, but it overdid it - we can be too easily manipulated by our fears, and people, businesses, and governments do so to advantage themselves. If someone tells you to be afraid, you must ask how they themselves benefit.
ctflyfisher, Danbury, CT
As a psychotherapist, I couldn't agree with you more. There are some things to fear in our world, but terrorism is among the minor threats. We have much more to fear from how technology is the tail wagging the dog, and not something we decide. We have a rapidly disappearing middle class, an unpredictable path to succeed in being financially independent, an infrastructure that is crumbling all around us, a Congress that is insulated from the American people, and a political process that is about buying votes not democracy.
Rob Porter, PA 13 hours ago
"The fear-industrial complex." Thank you for putting a label on the conservatives' favorite tool.
For decades it was the "commies" we had to fear and overfund an endless war against. Remember how that morphed immediately into the "war on drugs" in the mid-80s when it became clear that the "commies" were even worse at running a country than Republicans? Lots of money funneled into that war. Lots of fear generated. Now the drums beat out their anxious rumble against "terrorism" despite its killing fewer Americans than falling down stairs (1200/yr).
And I have complete certainty that the Republicans will have a new fear ready to unleash when this one wears out its welcome. I don't know what it will be, but I do know it will keep the money flowing and the herd clumped in a fearful bunch, voting to keep the snarling sheepdogs circling, chasing away phantoms.
AT, media, pa
Scared people are easy to manipulate.
You can point to the "other" as the cause of whatever they're afraid of, thereby dividing what should be allies and encouraging people to vote against their economic interests in order to vote for what they feel is "protecting their way of life".
You can come up with highly intrusive and military type programs to "keep people safe" so that those people thank you for taking away their civil liberties. You can pump up ratings with "breaking news" about something, anything that could possibly imperil the public so you can increase your ad rates. You can provide personal protection services and sell survivalist food packages and gold to those who ready themselves for the coming collapse of society- people who will buy $1000 worth of dehydrated soup to keep in their basement but will complain bitterly about having to pay $100 a month to have health insurance.Sadly, since so much of the fear merchants' power and money depend on the American public being afraid all the time, there's no incentive to tell people the truth or to educate them as to how to find the truth themselves.
|
|
|
June 4, 2015 | NYTimes.com
MOSCOW - TWO years ago today, three journalists and I worked nervously in a Hong Kong hotel room, waiting to see how the world would react to the revelation that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States. In the days that followed, those journalists and others published documents revealing that democratic governments had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong.
Within days, the United States government responded by bringing charges against me under World War I-era espionage laws. The journalists were advised by lawyers that they risked arrest or subpoena if they returned to the United States. Politicians raced to condemn our efforts as un-American, even treasonous.
Privately, there were moments when I worried that we might have put our privileged lives at risk for nothing - that the public would react with indifference, or practiced cynicism, to the revelations.
Never have I been so grateful to have been so wrong.
Two years on, the difference is profound. In a single month, the N.S.A.'s invasive call-tracking program was declared unlawful by the courts and disowned by Congress. After a White House-appointed oversight board investigation found that this program had not stopped a single terrorist attack, even the president who once defended its propriety and criticized its disclosure has now ordered it terminated.
This is the power of an informed public.
Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness. Since 2013, institutions across Europe have ruled similar laws and operations illegal and imposed new restrictions on future activities. The United Nations declared mass surveillance an unambiguous violation of human rights. In Latin America, the efforts of citizens in Brazil led to the Marco Civil, an Internet Bill of Rights. Recognizing the critical role of informed citizens in correcting the excesses of government, the Council of Europe called for new laws to protect whistle-blowers.
Beyond the frontiers of law, progress has come even more quickly. Technologists have worked tirelessly to re-engineer the security of the devices that surround us, along with the language of the Internet itself. Secret flaws in critical infrastructure that had been exploited by governments to facilitate mass surveillance have been detected and corrected. Basic technical safeguards such as encryption - once considered esoteric and unnecessary - are now enabled by default in the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private. Such structural technological changes can ensure access to basic privacies beyond borders, insulating ordinary citizens from the arbitrary passage of anti-privacy laws, such as those now descending upon Russia.
Though we have come a long way, the right to privacy - the foundation of the freedoms enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights - remains under threat. Some of the world's most popular online services have been enlisted as partners in the N.S.A.'s mass surveillance programs, and technology companies are being pressured by governments around the world to work against their customers rather than for them. Billions of cellphone location records are still being intercepted without regard for the guilt or innocence of those affected. We have learned that our government intentionally weakens the fundamental security of the Internet with "back doors" that transform private lives into open books. Metadata revealing the personal associations and interests of ordinary Internet users is still being intercepted and monitored on a scale unprecedented in history: As you read this online, the United States government makes a note.
Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused, "Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?" He soon found his answer, proclaiming that "for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone."
At the turning of the millennium, few imagined that citizens of developed democracies would soon be required to defend the concept of an open society against their own leaders.
Yet the balance of power is beginning to shift. We are witnessing the emergence of a post-terror generation, one that rejects a worldview defined by a singular tragedy. For the first time since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we see the outline of a politics that turns away from reaction and fear in favor of resilience and reason. With each court victory, with every change in the law, we demonstrate facts are more convincing than fear. As a society, we rediscover that the value of a right is not in what it hides, but in what it protects.
Edward J. Snowden, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer and National Security Agency contractor, is a director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Dan Whittet, New England
A democracy cannot abandon it's responsibility to consider the rights and freedom of it's citizens as the highest purpose of law. When an agency assumes to protect with secrets and monitor the very people it has been paid and entrusted, to protect, the contract with the public is broken. Mass surveillance is a tool of the totalitarian state and does not belong in a free society, it's effectiveness is not the issue.
Greg Day, New Zealand
Privacy is something that is often ignored, treated as a right but without having true value. The true value is only appreciated when it has gone.
The surveillance society has not gone away, indeed, it will only progress as technology becomes more adapt at tracking us, detecting the softest of footprints, both in the real world and online. However, at least we're talking about it now.
I'm not sure how the US views you Edward, but I at least consider you have done a service to humanity. Thank you.
MCS, New York 18 hours ago
Mr. Snowden, you've been called a man without a country. But you're more accurately a man without a generation. Your generation who voluntarily live their lives tapping senseless bits of information about their self inflated lives onto apps for the world to own. All this while people go to war, people suffer, innocent people are killed, fundamental human dignities are abused. Yet, hardly a blip of a response at all from this anti-activist generation. It is the generation of people in their 40's and 50's that are demanding change.
The Facebook generation aren't socially nor politically active. They're self absorbed group of anti-intellects in a race to the bottom. In fact, I find it hypocritical that anyone from that generation should be outraged over government intrusion when a mass of them are positively hooked on social media, posting every excruciatingly boring detail of their lives, details that seem to know no boundaries.
We have a growing problem on our hand, a divide not only between haves and have nots, but secular and religious societies respectively. The admirable beliefs you stand by, beliefs that changed the course of your life, don't offer an answer to what to do about a multiplying population of angry extremists raised in countries that guarantee no freedoms at all for its citizens. They will exploit our demands for privacy to cause great harm one day. A balance in your theories, not extreme suspicion of government is what's needed here.
Anne Hills, Portland, Maine 14 hours ago
I'd argue that Snowden's best quote is: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
I feel that the NRA has perhaps been the most effective organization in history at convincing their members that a "slippery slope" is to be feared above all things, and that the loss of even the smallest gun rights for the most worthwhile of reasons, is in fact unacceptable.
We need their kind of effectiveness in spreading understanding to all Americans who don't get it yet - that there is in fact a dangerous slippery slope when fundamental freedoms are truly lost. Your right to private letters, private conversations is not about hiding criminal acts, it's about preventing people in positions of authority from being able to manipulate you or the person you would elect or the person you have already elected. An all-knowing government has historically been oppressive. Why oh why do people fail to see that it could happen to us? It's the "it happens to others but not me" mentality.
Thank you so very much Mr. Snowden. Unless President Obama is being threatened by the NSA not to, let's hope that he will pardon Mr. Snowden. I can't think of anyone in American history more deserving due to service to his countrymen.
Arthur Layton, Mattapoisett, MA 18 hours ago
The idea that we can live private lives is absurd. If you use a cell phone, someone knows where you are (or have been) and records who you called. If you use a credit card, there is a permanent record of the date, time and location of your purchase. And video cameras are everywhere, from bank lobbies to grocery store, gas stations and office buildings.
If you want privacy today, stop using your cell phone. Pay cash for your purchases, "unregister" to vote and don't renew your driver's license.
|
|
|
Jun 02, 2015 | The Guardian
Joe Stanil -> awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 21:27
Poor deluded child. You still believe that the POTUS runs the show? He's merely the MC of a long running cabaret act called "US Politics". He reads the script, you applaud - or else!
SamIamgreeneggsanham 2 Jun 2015 21:27
So this is great, but what about the man who sacrificed his life so that we could have this information? Surely if this passage is a vindication of his actions, then the conversation needs to move towards allowing him to return to the US (if he wishes to) or at least not make him a wanted criminal...?
EdChamp -> russmi 2 Jun 2015 21:22I guess to most of his supporters this is one instance where "the results justify the means."
Actually, we don't have to argue that the end justify the means. The end was that we were all aware of what had been kept secret from us, culminating in the failure to renew metadata collection. The means to that was the illegal distribution of classified information. I applaud both the ends and the means, it might have been better if he had not been required to break the law, but in this case, I applaud his doing so.
He should return home and accept the legal consequences of his actions. Someone who truly felt he or she was in the right would do so.
Nonsense, but how nice of you to easily volunteer that he give up his freedom. Where is it written that we must be prepared to spend the rest of our lives in prison to make known a secret program, effecting every American, violating the constitution, and subsequently ruled illegal by the courts?
Joe Stanil -> osprey1957 2 Jun 2015 21:21Remind me. Who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Ah, yes, Dr Johnson.
Joe Stanil 2 Jun 2015 21:17Does anyone honestly believe that passing a little law will stop the NSA from continuing its collection of data? Like, it's against the law to steal, that's why there aren't any thieves. Wake up children. This whole game, starting with Snowden, was a calculated "limited hangout" operation, ie show a bit of naughtiness, get the public used to it, then go back under cover. Now the real spying begins.
James Saint-Amour 2 Jun 2015 21:06
Pardon Edward Snowden! He's a patriot just like the Founding Fathers, who were also considered criminals when they stood up for freedom. It's interesting that our government doesn't see that side of the story (but then again, who am I kidding to think they would?)
Nyarlat -> russmi 2 Jun 2015 21:04
Snowden is so baaaad!
The CIA and NSA is soooo trustworthy!
(Of course they helped Pinochet dispose of Allende and also killed thousands of Vietcong with black ops death squads etc.)osprey1957 2 Jun 2015 21:04
Whatever happens, know that Snowden is, was, and always will be a great patriot. he may be a deluded libertarian...but his patriotism can never be questioned.
shininhstars122 2 Jun 2015 21:01>>>>New Mexico senator Martin Heinrich, another Democrat on the intelligence committee, praised the bill's passage on Tuesday, saying: "Ben Franklin would have been proud of this outcome."
HAH! What altered universe is the Ben Franklin from that the Senator from the Land of Enchantment is referring to?
Ben Franklin would have said this sir.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Waterdown liberty is what the USA Freedom Act is plain and simple.
awoolf14 -> TeamAmerica2015 2 Jun 2015 20:58
Come out of the 1950's for 10 seconds and you might notice that there is no longer any difference whatsoever between the vested interests of either Party other than the window dressing... Wake up.
russmi 2 Jun 2015 20:54
Personally I'm tired of Snowdon. He still stole and illegally distributed classified info. I guess to most of his supporters this is one instance where "the results justify the means." But how often do they let others get away with that excuse? He should return home and accept the legal consequences of his actions. Someone who truly felt he or she was in the right would do so.
awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 20:53Its great to know that we're all being 'protected' and are 'safe' in the hands of Obamas exorbitantly expensive "national security professionals."
.
...Professionals like The TSA, who recently failed 95% of a 'Red Team' national airport security infiltration test, including but not limited to failing to notice a team member walking by them, with a fake bomb taped to his back (face-palms).Or The NSA, who have just been forced by their own Govornment to shut down a 4 year multi million dollar bulk surveillance program that- er- didn't actually catch any 'terrorists,' because they don't make a point of sending open emails or telephone calls to each other to discuss their evil plans (something an 8 year old could figure out).
Please, please lets get somebody sane into the White House this time- because the only job these people are doing, is making all of us look like complete fools.
et_tu_brute -> Oneiricist 2 Jun 2015 20:44
Yeh... the surveilance worked so well, that they didn't see the 'Boston Bombers' coming. People have every right to question the NSA's self-given right to delve into peoples lives, all without any independent oversight, no checks and balances, no transparency. No wonder people don't trust them.
et_tu_brute -> BradBenson 2 Jun 2015 20:38
You are absolutely correct, however the o/p is a member of a tribe that choses to believe Snowden was a traitor, no matter what facts were presented or are revealed by his actions.
et_tu_brute -> delphinia 2 Jun 2015 20:35
Yeh, I remember that. Bush & Cheney promoting the looney neo-con cause by creating the fiction of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Now look at the mess left behind by these stupid idiots who were intent on creating a new mess by trading up on the goodwill they received internationally that backed the US in their quest to go into Afghanstan after 9/11.
et_tu_brute -> MtnClimber 2 Jun 2015 20:29There has been no evidence that that ever happened. What did happen though was Snowden leaking embarrassing information which gave cause to his fellow citizens to wake up and smell the flowers, that they were being illegally 'spied upon', collectively, through the bulk collection of telecommunications data, without legal authority to do so.
Now go back to looking for commies or jihardists lurking around the corner. I guess you are just a simple victim of politicians' rhetoric that promotes 'fear, uncertainty & doubt' within the community, a.k.a. 'The F.U.D. principle'.
Gary M. Wilson -> Nicholas_Stone 2 Jun 2015 20:28
THE MAN IN THE ARENA:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Theodore RooseveltPosh_Guardianista -> JohnDavidFletcher 2 Jun 2015 20:28
Do you know who controls them, who governs the use of the data, what happens to it? That's a bigger danger to your freedom than the NSA.
Key difference being that you can block them. You can't block the NSA surveillance.
et_tu_brute -> shortcircuit299 2 Jun 2015 20:19
Unfortunately, I suspect this won't curtail the NSA's nefarious activities, just change the goal posts. No doubt 'Plan B' had already been devised a long while ago and would come into play in such a contingency. The lack of independent oversight and transparency of the activities of the NSA will mean that another 'whistle-blower', if they are game enough, would be needed to come forward to further expose wrong-doing. Most, if not all members of Congress and the Senate still haven't got a clue about any of this, and most never will.
Leondeinos 2 Jun 2015 20:18
This so-called reform is very limited: as he "praised" the passage of this bill, Obama said he will "work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country." You bet! That means he'll set the NSA and the other "competent organs" to work on new ways to gobble up even more useless data. He will also continue telling lies, repressing revelation of truth throughout the government, and driving war all over the planet.
Senators Sanders and Paul are right about the USA Freedumb Act.
TiredOfTheLies 2 Jun 2015 20:11McConnell should be ashamed of himself. The bulk collection of cell phone data was a stalker's candy store, and there are just as many predators on the inside of government as on the outside. The Republicans were well aware of problem agents, some even suspected of abduction, rape, and murder. As if the founding fathers didn't know about rape, and the problem with abusers of all kind having too much information on innocent peoples' lives.
Search warrants are there for a reason. They leave a paper trail. If the only thing that missing women have in common are search warrants by the same agent or group of agents, then police have the suspect list that they need. When they don't have search warrants, you're likely to find bodies all over the country with no idea of how they got there, which is what the US has now.
And by the way, that beloved program of theirs was of no use for solving those crimes because criminals are smart enough not to leave phone record evidence. The only people who leave a trail that can be found this way are the innocent (read: victims), and the stupidest criminals on earth.
redbanana33 2 Jun 2015 20:05"US Congress passes surveillance reform in vindication for Edward Snowden"
Those are the headlines on this Guardian story.
To vindicate, my dictionary says, means to clear of blame or suspicion.
Well, then, COME ON HOME, ED!!
No? You won't? Well,..... why? Then why would the Guardian say you are vindicated by the passage of this stupid half-bill in the U.S. Congress?
Someday soon, though.
Sydneyfl -> Nicholas_Stone 2 Jun 2015 19:57
Traitor to WHAT? Oppression? Spying? Conjured up enemies? The military industrial complex, financed by the bankers, cabal? Hooray for Snowdon!
MKB1234 2 Jun 2015 19:54
Mitch "The Party of Smaller Government" McConnell destroying America from the inside.
Lesm -> Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:51
No his refusal to do so shows he recognises the complete and utter failure of the US legal system, as is evidenced almost daily by the revelations emerging about the mass torture, incarceration without trial and sometimes death of innocent people whose only sin was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Lesm -> Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:51
No his refusal to do so shows he recognises the complete and utter failure of the US legal system, as is evidenced almost daily by the revelations emerging about the mass torture, incarceration without trial and sometimes death of innocent people whose only sin was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Posh_Guardianista -> FoolsDream 2 Jun 2015 19:51
You should read the entire article.
NSA "reform" is essentially a reset - existing legislation has passed, reorganisation will now take place and the mass surveillance will still continue as before.
Make no mistake, PRISM, mass surveillance of the world, XKEYSCORE, widespread backdoors in routers and computer equipment; compulsory sharing of data (whether for security or corporate gain, as with Petronas) with the US Government - will still continue. If you think otherwise, then it is you who is deluded.
FoolsDream -> JohnDavidFletcher 2 Jun 2015 19:49
Only if you assume we visit this page unprotected my friend. Besides, the argument of they do it so it's not a problem if the others do it, is a poor argument.
Lesm 2 Jun 2015 19:48
It would be nice if all the troglodytes who bagged Snowden for his act of conscience would recognise the courage that he showed in doing so, but that is about as likely to happen as Hell freezing over. These loons, who spend hours every day blogging about the State trying to take away their freedoms have the capacity that Orwell talked about as "doublespeak" and doublethink" where you can hold two completely conflicting ideas in your head at the same time and believe both, as they see Snowden as a traitor for revealing the traducing of the American people by their own government.
Washington_Irving SteB1 2 Jun 2015 19:44Unfortunately, the NPP committee consists of discarded politicians. And when it comes to standing up to Uncle Sam, Norwegian politicians are – as a general rule – a bunch of despicable cowards.
Snowden was awarded a £12500 freedom of expression prize earlier today (well, yesterday), and the chances of him being allowed to accept it in person in September are virtually non-existent.
FoolsDream Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:44You'd have been great back in the witch-hunting days. "If you drown, you're a witch and we'll burn you. If you live, you're a witch.. and guess what?.. yep, burned."
kowalli 2 Jun 2015 19:41future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy7FVXERKFE&feature=youtu.be
JohnDavidFletcher SpeakFreely 2 Jun 2015 19:39Know these chaps?
Audience Science
Facebook Social Graph
Google Dynamic Remarketing
Krux Digital
NetRatings SiteCensus
Outbrain
PointRoll
ScoreCard Research Beacon
Twitter BadgeThat's the 9 companies/organisations tracking you on this very page. They will then record where you go next, what you do on this page, the frequency of these visits, what links you click on your emails etc.
Do you know who controls them, who governs the use of the data, what happens to it? That's a bigger danger to your freedom than the NSA.
Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:38If Mr. Snowden has been, as The Guardian says, "vindicated", will he now be returning to the U.S. to receive whatever apologies, honors and rewards are bestowed on those who have been "vindicated"? Or, alternatively, will he continue to reside in Russia, remaining a fugitive from justice in the U.S.? And, if he chooses to do the latter (which I predict he will do--anybody want to make a bet?), in what sense has he been "vindicated".
The passage of this legislation doesn't change the fact that Snowden has been charged with multiple violations of U.S. law regarding confidential, secret information, and his refusal to stand trial is powerful evidence that those charges are well-founded.
awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 19:36
Re Obama: "work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country".
- Ah yes, the famous 'National Security Professionals." That would be Star Trek fan Kieth Alexander, who had the command center of the NSA converted into a full scale replica of the bridge of the 'USS Enterprise,' complete with whooshing doors and a Captain Kirk chair for him to sit in, and his 'Mr Spock' James Clapper (oddly unretired) who lied to Congress during the NSA hearings, then absolved himself by saying he'd given the "least untruthful answer."
- "Professional?' What on earth is Obsms talking about, these people are obviously stark raving bonkers!
bodicca 2 Jun 2015 19:23Orwell lives on! What is this "Freedom" that government intrusion into our lives and activities is protecting? Is it the freedom to work harder and longer than people in other developed countries for less access to advanced education, healthcare and free time than those people?
Or is it the freedom to pay excessive salaries and benefits beyond our imagination to CEOs of corporations? Or the freedom to exist with a crumbling infrastructure while funds for repairs are diverted? Or the freedom to pay for bribes (er lobbying) for legislators elected by us, so that they will pass laws that oppose the wishes of the people. How long will we tolerate being lied to? Freedom, indeed!
Jim Mansberger 2 Jun 2015 19:20
It is the military and intelligence agencies that do not want to drop all criminal charges against Snowden, and rather do the right and just thing, which is to recognize him as a US Government whistleblower and protect him.
Wharfat9 2 Jun 2015 19:12
On cutting out the bulk surveillance ...
This makes one a little uneasy - this, so they say - stopping of bulk data collection. Look here: you got that big ´ol facility out at Bluffdale, Utah. A huge mongramamous caw that can take in all the e-mails, phone this and that and every other thing - including, probably, the kitchen sink - and don´t tell me that they gonna just put all those huge gears and terabytes and fans and flywheels and nobs and buttons and doodlygooks on idle?
Idle? A ´sweet machine´ like that?
No way, José.
Sydneyfl 2 Jun 2015 19:10America no longer has a press. Foreigners and Neocons have used the international banksters to finance their buying up of 99% of our newspapers, book publishers, TV content, magazines, radio, etc.,.. and who they didn't buy out ...they try to bribe or muzzle with the threat of job loss. Snowdon had no choice. Remember we are the "huddled masses yearning to BREATHE FREE". We will keep chipping away until we get our God Given country back. Snowdon risked himself to help us do just that. He had no choice!! Some people can't be bought!!
Dugan222 Edward Frederick Ezell 2 Jun 2015 19:08The advantage is that this third party is a NSA front operation. :) Do you know what it means??? Every night, all the data being stored by this company are being transferred and backed up by the NSA. Hehehehehhee......
The NSA still keeps all the data but the public won't assume the NSA has the data since we are supposed to think that the NSA is no longer storing out phone data..... No one talks about who is running this third party company...
Edward Frederick Ezell 2 Jun 2015 19:07Since users of communications services will be required by the private providers to agree to the recording of their communications, this procedure nicely sidesteps the limitations placed on the government by the Constitution.
Although it seems quite clever it is in effect a conspiracy between the government and providers to facilitate government violation of the constitution.
WadeLovell 2 Jun 2015 18:49ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer says, "This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check." I don't see this as vindication. OTOH, I don't believe it would have passed without the lingering bitter taste of overzealous government and the people like Snowden who helped expose it.
Dugan222 2 Jun 2015 18:41Sigh...I am not convinced. The NSA would go after where the data is. If they are in the hands of the phone company, they would have operatives working there. Worst, the phone company would outsource the data management retention to a third party, NSA front company. Here, on the surface, the NSA may appear to have no connections and responsibilities for storing the phone data. Again, who is policing the phone company. And who is policing this "third party."
vr13vr 2 Jun 2015 18:08
Why does the Congress have to name laws with such fanfare? Freedom Act, Patriot Act, and so on? Just to sound self righteous? Or to make sure that whoever does not agree with it could be viewed as a unpatriotic and against freedom?
Would that be much better, and practical as well, not to over-hype laws but give them reasonable and descriptive names?
sbabcock 2 Jun 2015 18:07Seems to me the difference is the NSA has to actually go to the phone companies and plug in to their server to vacuum up the data instead of having it delivered on a silver platter. Let's face it, there are loop-holes galore in the "Freedom" Act. This is the Senate pretending to do their jobs. "Hey, you pretend to be against this to save face. We'll pretend to pass something that is 'different' and then we'll go on vacation again. People will think we 'do' stuff. Problems solved." But it's simply re-shuffling the paperwork, something the House, headed by the Orange Man, are experts at.
There's another story here today about FBI planes, registered under fake business identities, using Sting-Ray to scoop up all kinds of phone data from above... so... look over here! so you don't see what's going on over there! smfh
mcstowy DerekHaines 2 Jun 2015 18:07
During the McCarthy hearings, the easiest way to come under suspicion was to be "prematurely anti-fascist." You see "good Americans" (meaning the right-wing corporate elite) supported Hitler and Mussolini.
ID9492736 2 Jun 2015 17:50
The Most Transparent Administration In American History.
Even the sponges and mollusks are fainting from too much laughter.
Barry D. Lauterwasser wardropper 2 Jun 2015 17:29
It's amazing how a few people, and the internet can make such a difference. Throughout the annals of history, many have sacrificed much, even their lives, for the good of the nation. Like you, I'd like to see him come home and pardoned, but I'm sure his safety would be in jeopardy due to the fanaticals here. Someday, history will hopefully judge these brave souls that came forward to shed light on the things government does under the guise of "security." Time will tell...
madamefifi 2 Jun 2015 17:11
Not a week goes by without my thoughts (and I am just an ordinary joe with no political connections whatsoever) turning to Edward Snowden and the gross injustice he has and still is suffering. Please watch Citizenfour if you have not already done so, to understand the full magnitude of this injustice. I hope I will live to see this injustice corrected and hope this is a step forward in an inhumanely long process. Edward Snowden is one of the world's true heroes. I believe he deserves the Nobel peace prize or some other worldwide recognition for his sacrifice but sadly no prizes or freedoms are within my remit and never will be. Mr Snowden, this is all I can do and it might not count for much, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
TrueCopy 2 Jun 2015 16:59USA Freedom act is not what it is made to be. It has so many loopholes that makes it essentially irrelevant. For example to get records a subpoena need to be issued, but the subpoena doesn't need to be for one number or one individual, or even a roaming individual, they can issue a subpoena for Verizon and another for AT&T and another for Sprint and T-mobile, and pretty cover everyone. This is pretty much the same as what they were doing, but a little more cumbersome, which can be overcome by a few software applications. Rand Paul wanted to limit the subpoena to an individual living and breathing person or persons, rather than a telecom company which failed. So you know where this is going, the lawyers at NSA can argue because that amendment failed, the intent of congress was to allow them to subpoena phone company records.
Jbons990 2 Jun 2015 16:36Fantastic. The fact that the mass collection of telecommunication data was hidden from the public (and would have remained hidden were it not for a certain whistle blower) just demonstrates that the NSA and GCHQ will never tell us the truth. This shiny new surveillance reform is one giant metaphorical rug, for the NSA to sweep all attention underneath, before proceeding to collect everybody information again. Because that's America. And that's democracy. *cough* Bureaucracy.
freeandfair tbv954 2 Jun 2015 16:34Yep, the CIA were caught hacking into White House computers (about 6 months ago ? ) in order to see the information on torture. Anything happened after they were caught red-handed and lies about being caught under oath?
Nope. Just business as usual in the self-proclaimed shining city on the hill, the most democratic country on Earth.
|
|
|
Ian Welsh makes Fourteen Points on the World Economy as the US GDP Drops .7 Percent. He believes that the economy is again turning towards a global recession. This recession comes even as there has not been a real recovery from the last global economic crisis:
Let me put this another way: The developed world is in depression. It has been in depression since 2007. It never left depression. Within that depression, there is still a business cycle: There are expansions, and recessions, and so on. Better times and worse times.The business cycle is again turning down and is doing so sharply. Not only in the U.S. but also in Europe and Asia.
Every central bank has been throwing money at the local economies but that money finds no productive use. Why would a company invest even at 0% interests when nobody will buy the additional products for a profitable price? How could consumers buy more when wages are stagnant and they are already overburdened with debt taken up in the last expansion cycle? The central banks are pushing on a string while distorting normal market relations. This intensifies the original crisis.
My believe is that the global crisis we see is one of overproduction, an excess or glut of supplies and on the other side a lack of consumption. The exceptional cheap money created by the central banks makes investment in machines preferable over employment of a human workforce. The result: Manufacturing hub starts work on first zero-labor factory
Chen predicted that instead of 2,000 workers, the current strength of the workforce, the company will require only 200 to operate software system and backstage management.The (Central) bank gave Mr. Chen cheap money and at an interest rate of 0% a complete automation of his company may indeed be profitable. It is unlikely though that he would make the same move at an interest rate of 10%. But on the larger macro economic scale Mr Chen needs to ask this question: "How will the 1,800 laid off workers be able to buy the products my company makes?" Some of the laid off people may find marginal "service" job but the money they will make from those will likely be just enough to keep them alive. And over time flipping burgers will also be automated. And then?
Karl Marx described such overproduction crises. Their cause is a rising share of an economy's profits going to an ever smaller class of "owners" while the growing class of marginal "workers" gets less and less of the total pie. In the last decades this phenomenon can be observed all over the developed world. The other side of the overproduction crisis is an underconsumption crisis. People can no longer buy for lack of income.
While a realignment of central bank interest rates to historical averages, say some 6%, would help to slow the negative process it would not solve the current problem. Income inequality and overproduction would still increase though at a lesser pace. The historic imperialist remedy for local overproduction, capturing new markets, is no longer available. Global trade is already high. There is little land left to colonize and to widen the markets for ones products.
There are then two solutions to such an crisis.
One is to tackle the underconsumption side and to change the distribution of an economy's profits with a much larger share going to "workers" and a smaller share going to "owners". This could be achieved through higher taxes on "owners" and redistribution by the state but also through empowerment of labor unions and like means. But with governments all over the world more and more captured by the "owners" the chance that this solution will be chosen seem low.
The other solution for a capitalist society to a crisis of overproduction is the forced destruction of (global) production capabilities through a big war. War also helps to increase control over the people and to get rid of "surplus workers".
The U.S. was the big economic winner of World War I and II. Production capacities elsewhere got destroyed through the wars and a huge number of global "surplus workers" were killed. For the U.S. the wars were, overall, very profitable. Other countries have distinct different experiences with wars. In likely no other country than the U.S. would one find a major newspaper that arguing that wars make us safer and richer.
I am therefore concerned that the intensifying crisis of overproduction and its seemingly casual preference for war will, in years to come, push the U.S. into starting a new global cataclysmic conflict.
Neoconservatives like Victoria Nuland tried to goad Russia and the EU into a big war over Ukraine. The top lobbyist of the military industrial complex, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is trying to instigate a war between China and its neighbors over some atolls in the South China Sea. The U.S. is at least complicit in the rise of the Islamic State which will leave the Middle East at war for the foreseeable future.
Are these already, conscious or by chance, attempts by the U.S. to solve the problem of global overproduction in its favor?
Posted by: [email protected] | Jun 1, 2015 2:05:50 PM | 2
Marx's early writings, including the Communist Manifesto, did indeed focus on crises of overproduction. But, in Capital, he explained that falling rates of profit are the key dynamic. For a popular blog on these issues, see Michael Roberts:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
Of course, there is plenty of debate on these matters within Marxian political economy. The best academic source is the journal, Historical Materialism:
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/1569206x
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 1, 2015 2:38:15 PM | 5
I think you're right, b. The U.S. will not allow regional hegemons who are not clients let alone a global one to challenge its unipolar world. That's why we're seeing all these wars in various stages -- hot in the Middle East; hot and cold in Ukraine; cold in Southeast Asia. The U.S. prefers smashed failed states to anything remotely challenging its full-spectrum dominance.
The neoliberal prescription for low growth/no growth is the complete cannibalization of the state. Privatized health care is being exported to Europe, while in the U.S. public education is being devoured by corporations.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Jun 1, 2015 3:01:36 PM | 7
Since the subject is blacked out by corporate media, we have to decipher the news to try to figure what is actually happening. The only stimulus acceptable to the elite and their politicians is war. 2,300 Humvees seized by Islamic State. Instead of containment, ship thousands of anti-tank missiles to Baghdad; more money in the pocket of the Military Complex.
The problem is that it is psychotic. The Islamic State's end game is Mecca. The shutoff of 11% of the world's oil supply will collapse the world economy. Yet, this is not an aberration.
A civil war was started in Ukraine right on Russia's border; a nuclear power who has said they will use them if there is a shooting war with NATO.
The Greeks are being pillaged to pay debts that cannot ever be paid back. Unless the debt is written off, the Eurozone will splinter asunder.
The only description for this is greed. Get rich today; the hell with tomorrow and the rest of mankind.
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 1, 2015 3:57:03 PM | 9
The good news is that this U.S.-led neoliberal hegemony (what Tariq Ali calls the "Radical Center") is rapidly losing any popular legitimacy. Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Sinn Fein in Ireland, SNP in the UK, even Bernie Sanders in the U.S. His first day of campaigning last week in Iowa 700 hundred people showed up to hear him speak, compared to 50 for Martin O'Malley, another corporate shill.
Sanders is no antiwar crusader, but his basic ideas -- cutting military spending, breaking up the big banks, raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy, creating jobs by investing in infrastructure -- have proven the most popular, at least based on turnout, in Iowa of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, so far.
Posted by: tom | Jun 1, 2015 4:17:23 PM | 10
We have to look at the perspective of the class war too, where the corporate and elite class have growing contempt for the lower/middle classes more than they already do. So, how can one grow the economy, when the elite and corporate class are exploiting, growing inequality, and hate for us even more ?
Posted by: Bill | Jun 1, 2015 5:15:09 PM | 12
The prime vote holder of the IMF himself states the IMF has "served US National and economic interests" since it's inception, across Latin America, Europe and the world, and that "US Leadership" in the IMF is "critical".
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sobel_Testimony.pdf
The ideas behind the institutions that came out of Bretton Woods were already in the mind of FDR and Keynes long before the conference. One of FDR's key advisors was James Warburg whose father had funded Hitler as well as the USSR, and founded the Federal Reserve Bank.
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdfUS financiers funded Russian manufactured trucks which went to the North Vietnamese forces, and today BP hold stakes in Russian energy firms while Hilary Clinton sells Russia the US Uranium supply.
As Major General Smedley Butler said in 1935 "War is a Racket". All that has changed is the quality of the supporting propaganda.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 1, 2015 5:50:10 PM | 16
I think that it is not "overproduction", but the result of improved transportation, communication and more free trade. What is the advantage of paying wages in USA or Western Europe if you can put all labor consuming operations in China, where there is good infrastructure, or in countries where infrastructure is not as good but the labor much cheaper, like Bangladesh? The answer is that while some advantages do exists, there are less and less frequent. Even automation can be performed elsewhere.
Historically, in 16-th century The Netherlands were the chief European center of non-agricultural production, international trade and banking, and afterwards there was less and less production, but the country retained for a while its position in trade and banking. That cycle affected northern Italy earlier, and England, later. I think that one part of the solution would be a moderate, and yet effective, policy supportive of domestic production and domestic employment.
But there is also a bit of overproduction. Average American could perfectly well live in a smaller home, drive a smaller vehicle, buy fewer gadgets etc. with hardly decreasing the quality of life. Those below the average income can be out of luck, but they do not consume much anyway. Additionally, there is an excessive gap between "micro-economic" and "macro-economic" optimum behavior.
Most American household has so little savings that the suffer a crisis very easily, so it would be better for them to spend less, e.g. by cooking more and eating out less, cutting down impulse buying etc. However, the cut in demand is recessionary on a macro-scale. It would be sensible to have policies that would concentrate not on "growth" but on satisfaction of needs.
Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Jun 1, 2015 6:11:12 PM | 18
America is drowning in the sewer of the national political system. There is no candidate or incumbent in Washington, DC who serves the country. These elitists rape our liberties, steal our wealth, entice our grandchildren into killing people in foreign lands and subject the future of the nation to be slaves to the debt masters.
The American people must exercise the only peaceful option left to restore the federal republic which is rapidly being transformed into a unitary style government like much of Europe. On November 8, 2016, the nation must stay home and not give its consent to continue being abused by the plutocracy of puppets bribed by the global bankers, multinational corporations and foreign state lobbyists.
Abstinence is not benign as some would believe, it is a very powerful check on government when it becomes so infested with opportunists who pursue their own self-serving aggrandizement through the passage of law and regulation to benefit themselves and their criminal syndicate. Without a democratic mandate the cabal cannot hold power and therefore the legislative function of law making is extinguished. The bureaucracy remains in place until the fiscal budget ends in October of the following year which means social security payments will still be made, Medicare claims will still be processed and other central government functions will continue. During those 10 months, the people must demand from the governors of each of their respective States new elections with candidates who are independent of the two-party dogma that has corrupted Washington, DC.
An implied vote of 'No Confidence" or "None of the Above" is the only sensible way to end this long running nightmare of tyrannical fascism and nationalism that is destroying the country.
The motto of new liberty must be, "Dissolve it, start over!"
Posted by: chuckvw | Jun 1, 2015 7:26:53 PM | 19
So much for the surplus value of labor... All surplus and no labor... The global capitalist system has become bulimic.
Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jun 1, 2015 8:59:08 PM | 20
I remember in school in the early 1980's a teacher said something really disgusting to the class: "want to boost an economy, have a war" (clearly the powers that be have made sure that there propaganda gets fed to the public) another ugly thing a teacher tried to push was the notion that WWII's economic effect was some sort of special boost yet at the same time trying to obscure the basic fact that it was government spending that took us out of the depression so war was not needed at all. A lot of work has gone into pushing the manipulative propaganda which is meant to manipulate and sell the agenda of the powerful.
How it was presented was "FDR tried the New Deal but it took WWII to get us out of the Great Depression." The framing of it that way is intentionally manipulative in order to obscure the role government spending had in getting us out of the depression and it is phrased that way to sell war.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 1, 2015 9:08:58 PM | 21
in re 14 --
Nor did they suffer from overproduction of T-34's,, even though they cut cost and production time in half. But they still had sufficient to defeat Hitler, thank Ford! The Space Station is in trouble if there are shortages of Proton rockets. And the Federation is still enjoying some Union leftovers in education and healthcare, see Lisa Marie White's accounting of why American liberals are wrong about Russia.
For an artistic take on overproduction in capitalism, see Brave New World. Ending is better than mending!
Whatever happened to waste not, want not? Just a throwaway line....
Posted by: Copeland | Jun 1, 2015 9:12:41 PM | 22
Piotyr Berman @ 16
I think you're on the right track. Before capitalism ran amok and metastasized into a global zombie, there were guilds. I believe the Netherlands had a rich history of those organizations. These were created to protect the rights and privileges of members (to be sure); but they also preserved and improved the skills, and passed these on through apprenticeship. The obsession in consumerism is about having something brand new, and also relies on planned obsolescence, which needs to produce shoddy goods such as plastic footwear, that will be discarded as junk in a few months. Having things made which are durable enough to go through several cycles of repair, would moderate the overheated production.
If labor is expunged by automation-crazed corporations; then war or revolution, or even both at once, is possible. The cataclysmic outcome that b sketched out is then possible. Of course it's all very short-sighted; but I once read somewhere that at the onset of the 1930s Great Depression, the capitalists examined the option of reducing working hours for everyone so that workers might still muddle through.
On closer examination, capitalists calculated that dumping workers into the trash heap would add a few dollars more to the corporate bottom line, and be more agreeable to shareholders.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 1, 2015 9:46:47 PM | 23
@b
Since you mentioned Karl Marx, the exclusion of a very valid third option, revolutionary war/class struggle, makes itself evident. From the trend we witnessed after WWII, we cannot expect as you correctly noted, a redistribution of wealth out of the greedy and gluttonous transatlantic empire and its minions, since concentration, centralization and consolidation of capital has been the order of the day ever since. The other major trend after WWII has been imperial wars, either by proxy or direct intervention, fought against countries that followed the path to independence from colonial powers by means of revolutionary wars, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The potential for another period of revolutionary war is real, given the abject misery of the wretched of the earth, which have been left with nothing to lose but their chains. The main obstacle they face is the lack of a scientific tool to interpret their current predicament, and at the same time provide them with a vision of the social paradigm they aspire at, out of the ruins left of their societies. With its inherent limitations given by dogma, Marxism was that tool for Mao, Lumumba, Ben-Bella, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and many other African, Asian and Latin American leaders who took upon their shoulders to shake their peripheral dependency. Many of them were successful in their revolutionary endeavors, and were able to trace an independent path for their societies, even if burdened with all the problems typical of the "third world." Nevertheless, even before the fall of the Soviet Union, Marx and Marxism were thrown under a pile of dead dogs, even more after the fall, which was attributed to the utter failure of Marxism as a social science.
Marx and Marxism were part of the "end of history," a thing of the past, a post-Hegelian utopian philosophy whose ultimate results were the creation of dystopian societies…until the crisis of 2007, when suddenly everybody wanted to understand WTF is a cyclical crisis, and why do they happen. Das Kapital became a best seller in Germany and beyond; becoming a model for new works tailored after Marx's statistically saturated magnus opus, e.g. Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century, " and others. Despite all the intellectually gifted resisters to the empire, and the vast expansion of knowledge of the digital age, no new revolutionary theory has appeared, able to inspire the masses of dispossessed as Marxism did at the turn of the XIX c., one that changed the course of history forever during the XX c.
It is in this vacuum, a modern epistemological crisis, that the neocons, bastard children of Trotskyism, took ownership of Trotsky's "Theory of Permanent Revolution," and turned it into a counterrevolutionary instrument for their nefarious global domination purposes. Hence revolutions became bastardized, categorized by "colors" or "seasons" according to the whims of the vulgar ruling elites, and lost their power to change societies from the bottom up. This crisis of knowledge of their own socio-economic/political conditions are having a profound effect on the masses worldwide, who in many instances rise up against their oppressors, e.g. Egypt/Arab "Spring," without a leadership, without a clear vision of their goals, without a social agenda that guides their movements, and they end up getting crushed or coopted by the new rulers, toys for the empire games of regime change. These are the "Twitter" and "Facebook" so-called "revolutions," mass movements with no direction, no aim, and no strategy for social change. What kind of society did the Egyptians, Tunisians, et al want? Did they have a program for the society they wanted to build? Was there a clear strategy and tactics to achieve their goals? "Crisis," say Gramsci, that giant of Italian Marxism, "is when the old has not died and the new has not been born." Humanity is now facing an epistemological crisis of galactic proportions, in serious need of a new revolutionary theory that, like Marxism in the XIX/XX c., gives the masses a vision of a future to build with their own hands, and hope there is a better world other than sweat-shops, slavery, toiling without rewards, exploitation, misery, crime, and an ever-growing gap between the ruling elites and the working masses.
Posted by: Nana2007 | Jun 1, 2015 10:11:44 PM | 24
There could be a helicopter drop ala Ben Bernanke.
I like Gail Tverberg on diminishing returns/oversupply.
I like Andrew Kliman on the declining rate of profit.
Thanks for connecting the dots on this B.
Posted by: ruralito | Jun 1, 2015 10:11:54 PM | 25
@12, Sutton is an ass. He pushes the theory that Communism and Fascism are equally bad and what is needed is some mystical third way: Libertarians with their squirrel rifles hunkerin down behind cotton bales. So Wall St. offered Lenin free cash, and he took it! Well, duh!
Posted by: Nana2007 | Jun 1, 2015 10:19:49 PM | 26
The motto of new liberty must be, "Dissolve it, start over!"
PokeTheTruth@18- I tend to agree, with the caveat that plenty people need to be held accountable.
Texas might be getting that idea.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 1, 2015 10:44:18 PM | 27
PB @ 16, Copeland at 22
Historians of the United Provinces point out that Holland and her allied provinces lacked a sufficient population base to administer and defend the holdings she gained in her revolt against Spain ("The Eighty Years War"). With the loss of revenue, croqetten and circuses became less affordable. The House of Orange were elevated from elected Statholders to Kings, the thinking being a monarchy would better keep the lower classes down than a republic. This environment proved conducive to the spread of revolutionary ideas in the Low Countries after 1789.
Historian of the later Renaissance attribute the decline of the urban republics to several factors. The prevailing aristocratic values induced merchant families to move their capital from commercial and industrial operations to urban and rural real estate -- especially country tracts that came with patents of nobility. Failing that, you could, like the Medici, subvert the Republic with wealth and buy a title from the Papacy or Holy Roman Emperor. And a more mundane factor -- they ran out of good shipbuilding timber.
England for her part had a large population. It had plenty of timber -- North America was a shipwright's wet dream, and before this, measures prioritized available timber for maritime uses.
When elites think protecting domestic markets and workers will add to their bottom line, they will. But if the see money to be made in "outsourcing" and "off-shoring", well, away the factories, jobs, salaries, and purchases from suppliers go.
England began to lose her superiority in textiles and iron and steel to cheaper American and German production. And these two rivals took advantage of what Gershenkron has called "the advantage of the latecomer." The major industrial expansions of both took place in the Second Industrial Revolution, where steel, chemicals, and electrics were the new driving technologies, and both were leaders in these fields. After a rearguard action up to World War II, they accepted de-industrialization whole-hearted under Thatcher.
PTT at 18 -- The elite will be totally fine with abstention. Less voters to bribe. Not only will things continue as they were, we'll have to endure fools like David Brooks lecturing us on our lack of civic engagement.
Go to the polls. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the left(over) parties down the ballot, write in you favorite choice -- "none of the above" will do. And not just for President, do it for all the races. The rightists will bring more of the same, only with more Pharisee-style false piety or boring Ayn Rand novels. Friends don't let friends vote Tea Party.
Lone Wolf at 23 -- Time permits me only to say -- Gramsci Rules!
Posted by: meofios | Jun 1, 2015 10:55:26 PM | 28
I think the over-production we see is caused by zombie companies all around the world, that don't generate any profit, sustained by zero interest rate loans, over produce goods, causing a glut of products, and cause price deflation.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 1, 2015 11:58:39 PM | 29
RM@27
The 'elites' spend billions of dollars every election cycle to encourage or frighten people into the voting booth. Without that 'consent of the people' their minions have no mandate or legal right to rule over us. Throwing your vote away by voting for or against someone or even writing FU on the ballot is still supporting the corrupt system that they will continue to use to rule and if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
This doesn't mean that elections and voting may not someday be useful again but there is no possibility they can now be used to change our corrupt system.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 2, 2015 1:32:21 AM | 30
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 1, 2015 11:58:39 PM | 29I agree with that.
Lone Wolf @ #23's Gramisci perspective is on the money.Russell Brand, my favourite non-revolutionary revolutionary, makes the (laboured) point that a govt elected by less than 50% of eligible voters cannot claim legitimacy.
But Gramisci was righter than everyone else in pointing out that "Crisis is when the old has not died and the new has not been born."
It should be obvious to everyone, by now, that Twitter and Facebook "revolutions" aren't revolutions, or journeys, and have no useful or coherent destination.
Posted by: Chipnik | Jun 2, 2015 7:25:37 AM | 31
b
This is the 'atto-fox problem' in biology, addressed by the Lotka-Volterra equation in Brauer, F. and Castillo-Chavez, C., Mathematical Models in Population Biology and Epidemiology, Springer-Verlag, (2000), and many others, the bifurcation relationship allowing two mutually independent steady-state solutions, one with higher predation and lower prey population used to justify higher resource extraction rates, ...but it remains just a theory and requires a rigorous definition of who is the 'prey'.
Is the prey the poor and downtrodden? No, those are the losers.
We can all agree the 'prey' is ultimately the energy needed to continue surviving for another day, not the staid pedantic 19thC Marxist 'Das Kapital', but just the 'real' value of evolutionary currency and trade. We've transferred the value of energy into gold, then fiat paper today 1's and 0's, and now there's too many of them. They'really part of a non-viable fractional-reserve usury-based ecosystem that's running out of balance, Koyaanisqatsi.
The rich prey on the energy developed by the poor through usury and credit, but also, the socialist state preys upon the destitute as a source of $Bs public program, using public tax extraction to generate private wealth in much the same way as usury and credit. More rice tents!!
If we de-anthropomorphize the Marxist class-struggle dialectic, and the rabbinical Maker-Taker meme, the answer pops right out like a jujube: not overproduction, not QEn, not oligarchs and monopolies, but usury and taxes.
Wah-lah. Usury. Taxes. Same as it ever was. Que sera, sera.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 2, 2015 8:16:58 AM | 32
Wayout at 29 --
The standard line of us reds is that participation in elections is a useful tool for educating the masses and marshaling and mobilizing progressive forces. And that mass action, e.g., the general strike, is the real means of social change.
Bhagavan Chippy at 31 --
I'd stick to physics and Eastern mysticism.
Predation occurs between, not within species. Socialism is about the workers controlling the means of production that they service. Social welfare capitalism bought their birthright for "a mess of pottage" (Gen. 25: 29-34). But austerity is taking that off the table.
I find the overtones of the "rabbinical meme" and the emphasis on usury and taxes disturbing. See this handy comparative chart; fascism is "Strongly against international financial markets and usury." The Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party is recent spawn of that brood.
Our own home-grown TeaBaggers don't feel too good about it either.
You might consider a clarification or restatement of your position.
Posted by: paulmeli | Jun 2, 2015 8:28:43 AM | 33
"We've transferred the value of energy into gold, then fiat paper today 1's and 0's, and now there's too many of them"
Well, there's too much savings (accumulated financial wealth) but not enough spending. We know this because we have too much unemployment. Properly targeted spending cures unemployment.
Spending is a function mainly of money printing, existing money (previously created) mostly just earns interest and so is parasitic to the system in the net (economic rent), which leads to a paradox.
In the old days in the U.S. between 1933 and the mid-1960's the top marginal tax rate remained around 90% and then around 70% until Reagan was elected.
This maintained some sort of balance between money printing and saving. Now, money creation just piles up at the top which creates huge inequalities of power.
Posted by: geoff29 | Jun 2, 2015 9:24:35 AM | 34
It's simple to conclude that the "ruling class" and their spokes-people are if not absolutely greedy and mendacious, then at least criminally stupid.
But I think that's short-sighted. The financial crisis could be resolved in a moment's notice, since money is more or less an "imaginary" construct, especially now that it's just 1s and 0s, as was mentioned. The population is clamoring for "higher wages," but if we here were the small ruling class, we must know that "higher wages" means more mouths to feed from a growing population. Or, it means more disgruntled minions crying for "revolution" carrying pitch forks to the very gates of the gated communities and wilderness tracts where the very wealthy keep themselves concealed, when calamity strikes and food is scarce.
And the "ruling class" despite their equivocations, surely discusses amongst themselves the growing unsustainability of the ever encroaching environmental calamities, and dwindling resources, etc. What wars are being threatened between great powers, are are not about the resolution of world wide perils in terms of repairing the global over indulgence in carbon based technologies, in fact they seem to be based on increasing their use and further extracting scarce resources and more rapidly burning down the house.
Intelligent discussions are conducted here at MOA, it would be foolish to conclude that some semblance of intelligent discussions are not also held in the upper rooms and chambers of power, stripped of pretense and falsehood. If so, if one of us were sitting with those chosen few, I'm sure we would come to the conclusion that we were in a serious fix. And our backs are up against the wall. "Austerity" would be pushed to its extremities to decrease productivity and reduce the population through Urie's principle of immiseration.
Put yourself in the shoes of this ruling class, our primary MO would no doubt be self-preservation from the encroaching revolutions and chaos, and destruction, and a preservation of some kind of status quo. Otherwise, all that we had, were we sitting on the porch overlooking our estate, would be gone.
If nothing else works like the current financial immiseration to reduce the current state of affairs to a simpler and more manageable system where our ruling class rank and stature in society remained permanent and secure (because really our whole being has been reduced to measuring ourselves by our imagined sense of self-worth determined by our wealth, etc.) but the elimination of so many annoying minions through some kind of controlled burn, like a war, then certainly we would go about that?
I'm sure nothing pleases these folks more but for us to deride them constantly and poke fun at their ineptitude and call them all sorts of "evil," because that would just be so much more grist for the mill.
===
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 2, 2015 10:25:43 AM | 36
There is a famous anecdote about a General Motors executive showing off their newest automated assembly line to a United Auto Workers Union boss and remarking "Not one of them is a union member!"
To which the UAW boss replied, "And not one of them is a GM customer, either."
Posted by: Willy2 | Jun 2, 2015 11:15:49 AM | 40
There's a lack of demand worldwide because since say 1981 workers/employees have received wage increases below inflation. In that regard workers have seen their purchasing power being reduced for over 30 years. No wonder, households/workers aren't able or willing spend lots of money.
From 1981 up to 2008 households/workers were willing to increase their debtload. By going deeper into debt those households were able to keep their spending at a reasonable level.
But since 2008 households are reluctant to go deeper into debt and that has weakened the worldwide economy.
As long as workers don't get wage increases at or above inflation (levels) or are willing increase their debtloads (again) there's no chance for a economic recovery.
Posted by: HnH | Jun 2, 2015 11:23:22 AM | 41
b,
you normally publish highly insightful analyses and information nuggets that I have trouble finding elsewhere. On this topic, however, you jumped short.
Yes, we are struggling with overproduction and lack of consumption, but it is important to know where this development comes from. If you look at historical data, then you might realize that the purchasing power of people in the Western World started decreasing at the start of the 80s last century. The *growth* in purchasing power decreased since the 1960s. And debt is a significant, but small, part of it. The average growth in GDP has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s. Can you even remember a time, when the economy in one of the Western countries has been growing by more than 4% YoY? I don't. For Germany you have to go back to before the 70s oil crisis to find two years with a consecutive growth of 4% for more than one year. I wasn't even born then.
The main problem is this: We have to invest more and more energy to pump the same amount of oil, mine the same amount of ores and produce the same amount of food. And there are more and more people living right now.
This main problem, the diminishing returns, makes it that people have to spend more and more to afford the basic necessities. Corporations and enterprises react to their diminishing sales by cutting their costs to pay their loans. The easiest way to cutting costs is letting go of workers.
Since 2008, the crash happened after the crash of the oil price, Western Central Banks needed to keep their interest rates a 0%, because there was no growth. If they are ever crazy enough to raise interest rates, they will be blamed for the worst market crash in human history.
The reason is that we have reached the limits to growth. There is no more growth to be had for the industrialized civilization. That is over. For good. Unless we find an unlimited energy source that is very, very cheap. None is on the horizon so far.
Currently, a country can only produce growth, for a very short time, at the expense of others. That too will stop. Then, in a few years at the latest, global GDP will start to shrink. That is when the wars will start in earnest. That is when the killing and dying will start in earnest.
That killing and dying will not stop, until the world will have found a means to reduce its energy consumption to the physical and geological realities out there. That will take a while, and I have no clue how the world will look like.
Best wishes,
HnHPosted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Jun 2, 2015 11:38:36 AM | 43
Sorry, but I again disagree.
First of all, the robots in the example are there because there the Chinese labor pool has been growing slower than the economy for years now.
Secondly, robots need to be made by somebody. They cost lots of money. They have to be maintained and often upgraded. The physical operation of the plant might take 90% less workers, but the remaining workers are paid as much or more as the previous entire work force.
Thirdly, the production noted in the article isn't for China - at least, not yet. It is for the 1st world. Thus the "replacement" of the worker is a dynamic of cheaper labor elsewhere rather than actual replacement with mechanization.
As for economics: an entire series of fallacies.
a) Overproduction. While I will certainly agree that the 1st world can do with less, this is irrelevant. Every labor saving device ever created has ultimately had the labor savings spent on higher standards of living. There is nothing to indicate any change in this dynamic. Thus while we no longer have tens and hundreds of thousands of workers making automobiles, we now have tens and hundreds of thousands of workers doing other things like fracking oil and natural gas, servicing the cars via a nationwide array of repair, refueling, and upkeep (car washes, etc). Equally, we don't drive Model T's anymore. Ford used to be nearly entirely self sufficient outside of the metals - this is no longer true. Ford doesn't make computer chips or any of hundreds of parts in present day Fords.
b) Labor isn't the problem - consumption is. In terms of overall productivity, Americans as a whole are producing more than ever before. Hours worked has been inching down, but hours of work isn't what dictates the actual output - it is a function of productivity times hours worked, and that product continues to increase overall.
The primary difference between today and post World War II is that of the economic rewards. Americans who aren't in the managerial class get paid a smaller percentage of the overall production created than ever before. This also has been decreasing for decades.
Thus the problem isn't one of too much productivity or too much automation - the problem is one where the rich get all the money.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 12:08:31 PM | 44
Right on cue...
Why America's color revolution strategy of global domination is doomed to fail: the case of Egypt
Posted by: paulmeli | Jun 2, 2015 12:16:13 PM | 45
"The main problem is this: We have to invest more and more energy to pump the same amount of oil, mine the same amount of ores and produce the same amount of food."
This may well be true, but if one looks at the history of spending growth (or more accurately public investment) by the U.S. federal government one will see that spending growth suddenly dropped by 1/3rd in the early 1980's (around the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency). This can be observed visually very easily by looking at the FRED series FGEXPND on a log scale…the breakpoint is obvious and so is the one at around 2010.
U.S. federal spending has averaged 7% since WWII overall…about 9% through 1985 dropping to about 5% thereafter. Since 2010 growth has been an anemic 1.6%.
It's no wonder GDP growth has been on decline since the 80's, and it's no wonder we are experiencing a slowdown now.
Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 12:34:50 PM | 46
@43 ǝn⇂ɔ quote.. "Thus the problem isn't one of too much productivity or too much automation - the problem is one where the rich get all the money."
who is buying the produce ǝn⇂ɔ ?
Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2015 12:38:22 PM | 47
@46 A lot of money goes into remodelling. Look at the proliferation of home improvement stores.
Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 1:22:48 PM | 48
@47 dh.. the big money is in the mic/fic complex... chump change in most other areas relatively speaking.. i think the big money is coming from gov't spending.. it is a self sustaining vicious circle for everyone.. that's my simplistic rendition of it! who pays for those orange jump suits anyway?
Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2015 1:33:19 PM | 49
@48 Not everybody in the US is in jail or on food stamps. There is a lot of disposable income in the US. People buy new vehicles, improve their homes, upgrade their entertainment systems, send kids to college, go on trips. The trick is to keep interest rates low and keep printing money. So far it seems to be working.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 3:09:14 PM | 52
@geoff29 @34
And the "ruling class" despite their equivocations, surely discusses amongst themselves the growing unsustainability of the ever encroaching environmental calamities, and dwindling resources, etc.I am sure they discuss those and many other subjects under heaven, problem starts with their conclusions. Ever heard of the "smart idiot effect"?
(...)Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one's political party affiliation, one's acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one's level of education. And here's the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn't appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science-among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.
This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the "smart idiots" effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It's a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists-and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.(...)
I'm sure nothing pleases these folks more but for us to deride them constantly and poke fun at their ineptitude and call them all sorts of "evil," because that would just be so much more grist for the mill.
Well, their lack of awareness is legendary, and their indifference to their damage on the planet and the suffering of others is their trademark. They might laugh all the way to the bank, in total ignorance of the legacy their greed and possessiveness are leaving in their wake.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 3:52:00 PM | 53
From Cooperation to Competition -
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations
May 2015A Report on an Interdisciplinary Wargame conducted by the
U.S. Army War CollegeCarlisle, Pennsylvania
Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 4:04:04 PM | 54
@49 dh.. i know that but thanks for the reminder..almost zero interest rates is the name of the game and has been for some time.. if people had a different interest rate on their line of credit - the jig would be up.. for now it is 'free money' with anyone silly enough to not 'invest' in the wall st casino, or is in any way pragmatic financially - will watch what money they have devalue quicker then you can say 'quicksand'..and, i am always reminded of the racial divide when i think of the states - food stamps verses big brand new automobiles.. what a weird culture.. canada isn't a lot different in some regards.. it is and it isn't..Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 2, 2015 4:13:02 PM | 55
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/karl_marx_was_right_20150531
by Chris HedgesKarl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called "the bourgeois mode of production." He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies-think neoliberalism-were created to serve the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since "the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production" and "the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships … the relationships which make one class the ruling one." He saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse.
~~~
The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens.
~~~
The corporations that own the media have worked overtime to sell to a bewildered public the fiction that we are enjoying a recovery. Employment figures, through a variety of gimmicks, including erasing those who are unemployed for over a year from unemployment rolls, are a lie, as is nearly every other financial indicator pumped out for public consumption. We live, rather, in the twilight stages of global capitalism, which may be surprisingly more resilient than we expect, but which is ultimately terminal. Marx knew that once the market mechanism became the sole determining factor for the fate of the nation-state, as well as the natural world, both would be demolished. No one knows when this will happen. But that it will happen, perhaps within our lifetime, seems certain."The old is dying, the new struggles to be born, and in the interregnum there are many morbid symptoms," Antonio Gramsci wrote.
What comes next is up to us.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 2, 2015 8:18:47 PM | 57
lonewolf #52
Your comment reminds me of something once said by a retired law professor. "We spend considerable effort looking for bright young students for admittance into law school. Then we spend the next three years beating out their common sense".
Having been involved in graduate school education during my career that statement also applies to grad student education in English and Social Science departments.
|
|
|
May 31, 2015 | huffingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) appeared on track to succeed Sunday in forcing certain controversial provisions of the Patriot Act to expire, including the National Security Agency's sweeping data collection program. But the lapse isn't likely to last long.
Running down the procedural clock in a sensational emergency session Sunday night, Paul left the Senate in a stalemate on the House-passed USA Freedom Act. The bill would allow the NSA's controversial bulk data collection program, justified under the expiring Section 215 of the Patriot Act, to continue running while the intelligence community works with telecommunications companies to reform the program.
The legislation failed a last-minute vote in the Senate last week, leaving lawmakers with a mere eight hours in session before the Patriot Act provisions expired at the stroke of midnight.
NSA critics in the Senate praised the long-awaited end of the bulk data dragnet, saying it now forces a debate on the Hill over the agency's controversial programs.
"Congress now has the opportunity to build on this victory by making meaningful and lasting reforms to U.S. surveillance laws," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime NSA critic, said in a statement Sunday night.
|
|
|
May 29, 2015 | The Guardian
Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.
With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.
... ... ...
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists," Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed by a judge just like the constitution says."
... ... ...
"Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest of them – or a lot of the rest of them."
... ... ...
In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.
While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.
... ... ...
The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.
Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.
"At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.
At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another 9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.
"I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."
Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.
Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would resolve.
But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise on Friday.
"Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
See also:
Trenton Pierce -> phrixus 30 May 2015 21:18
He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police. He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches. He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?
Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14
Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get ready for your Democrat rule.
Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20
The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.
ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47
Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires. Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".
seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20
New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see these changes happening. Keep up the good work.
AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12
By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.
Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44
politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.
Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow in line.
I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.
EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22
Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.
Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.
Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13
"This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws."
This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say! They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong! Awesome!
|
|
|
May 07, 2015 | The Guardian
With the NSA's bulk surveillance ruled illegal, the debate on the Patriot Act should be reinvigorated – with Edward Snowden free to join in
... ... ...
The final debate is one that is unlikely to happen, but should: the US needs to start considering the privacy and freedom of foreigners as well as its own citizens. The US public is rightly concerned about its government spying on them. But citizens of countries around the world, many of them US allies, are also rightly concerned about the US government spying on them.
Considering Americans and foreigners alike in these conversations would be a great moral stance – but pragmatically, it should also help Americans. If the US doesn't care about the privacy of other countries, it shouldn't expect foreign governments to care about US citizens. There's something in this for everyone.
These are the debates we could be having, and should be having. The judiciary has spoken. The legislature is deliberating. The public is debating. And all of it is enabled thanks to information provided by Edward Snowden.
He should be free to join the conversation, in person.
ekkaman -> Kitty Grimnirs 8 May 2015 19:07
Maybe I spoke too soon, funny how two show up to make comments and it is almost word for word the same thing. One takes the Russians are bad okay stance the other that it is real life and he should not mess with the big boys. You guys are so easy to see right through it would make for a good comedy, you can call it "the government troll squad".
GKJamesq -> Isadore Stumrumple 8 May 2015 16:34
If Snowden "did good this time" (albeit "accidentally"), what makes him a "traitor"? Who decides whether he's in fact a traitor? What "whole lot of damage" has he done? What's the evidence for the assertion that he begged China for asylum? And what, exactly, makes him an "apparatchik" as opposed to, say, an IT professional who did work for the US government as a contractor?
GKJamesq -> Isadore Stumrumple 8 May 2015 16:23
DrKropotkin -> Kitty Grimnirs 8 May 2015 16:13
Thomas Drake tried the official channels, please read his story. Also, Hong Kong is not an enemy of the US.
He only ended up in Russia as his passport was revoked while he was in transit.
Daniel Bird -> Isadore Stumrumple 8 May 2015 16:13
NO COUNTRY can have low level apparatchiki determining what is right or wrong in a countries security."
That's the job of other organs of the democracy e.g. Congress, right? Except that NSA director James Clapper lied under oath to congress that NSA weren't collecting data on millions of US citizens.
DrKropotkin -> Isadore Stumrumple 8 May 2015 16:08The NSA and the politicians who support them have made a mockery of your constitution, they are the traitors. Mr. Snowden has given you the evidence and you turn on him. Please re-read your countries founding document and ask yourself again who needs to go to jail.
NYbill13 8 May 2015 15:36
Catch 22 Again And Again
"Catch 22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." That's how Joseph Heller puts it in his superb comic novel about World War II bomber crews.
And yes, it's a staggering coincidence that Snowden, a gunner on the main character's B-17, is the novel's premiere human sacrifice.
More pertinent to the real Snowden is the warning shouted to the main character, Yossarian, when he goes AWOL. To escape murderous lunatic commanders, Yossarian is prepared to row a rubber dinghy from Italy through the Strait of Gibraltar to Sweden.
As he runs for his raft, his pal cries out, "They'll bend heaven and earth to catch you."
Tragically, Mr. Edward Snowden, they will. Just as tragically, the rest of us probably won't be able to stop them.
Thank you again, Mr. Snowden. No kidding.
George Cantrell 8 May 2015 14:40As a U$A citizen, I am proud of Edward Snowden and consider him to be a true patriot. I wish more whistle-blowers would come forward with details/proof of illegal/unconstitutional acts being committed by supposedly 'public servants' against private citizens.
Unfortunately, so many of my fellow countrymen have been reduced to fear-mongered bed-wetters who engage in the religion/idolatry of flag worship/ultra-nationalism to the point of where they are blind to the principles/rights our country was founded on.
Isadore Stumrumple -> libbyliberal 8 May 2015 12:57
Are you actually equating the present atmosphere and reality of living in the US as the equivalent of Nazi Germany? If so then you understand neither.
Isadore Stumrumple ekkaman 8 May 2015 12:56
Americans feel proud? Last time I checked not everyone approves of his brand of Lone Ranger moralism. He not only outed the NSA, but also stole and shared much more sensitive information with this countries enemies in order to get asylum. That is no hero to any thinking person that really cares about their countries security. Any "good" that he did is far overshadowed by the damage he caused up to and including the lives of agents and operatives throughout the world. This is no game of Risk or cheesy adventure movie, this is deadly serious business.
Isadore Stumrumple -> GKJamesq 8 May 2015 12:52
and what evidence do you have for your assertions?
Isadore Stumrumple 8 May 2015 12:49
I'm relieved to hear that what snowden did was okay. Now every other low level twerp that disagrees with the way that the US keeps itself safe can also defect to another country. That is if they bring loads of other sensitive data to sweeten the pot and ensure that they have a place to lay their heads. Snowden was a traitor, is a traitor and needs to pay for his act of espionage. NO COUNTRY can have low level apparatchiki determining what is right or wrong in a countries security. He accidentally did good this time but also a whole lot of damage. Putin would have had him shot if he was a Russian attempting the same thing and the Chinese, whom he first went begging to for asylum, would have done the same.
NYbill13 8 May 2015 12:03
Let The Experiment Continue, Please
Rule by brute force has been the norm for a long, long time. No quibble there, right?
But during the stifling summer of 1789, a few ex-British colonists met in Philadelphia to codify a new type of government, one run by the people it governed.
Grabbing ideas from Europeans and some long-dead Greeks, those studious, entirely serious young men made impressive progress.
When slavery and obdurate financial power threatened to derail discussion, they were set aside. The colonies had to unite; Great Britain wouldn't be fighting France forever.
I can't think of anything more antithetical to the principles of self-government extolled in that first constitutional convention than today's all-powerful spook agencies.
With limitless finances, impenetrable secrecy and de facto immunity from all laws, they are now high-tech baronies, autonomous, self-isolated and profoundly opposed to popular sovereignty.
If the NSA, CIA or any of America's other spy dynasties had been around in 1787, those brilliant men in buckled shoes and stockings would never have made it home alive.
kalbus -> Kitty Grimnirs 8 May 2015 10:47
Everyone with any kind of heart and soul cares deeply for a good outcome for Mr. Snowden who has risked his life to reveal our fascist-becoming government.
GKJamesq -> Kitty Grimnirs 8 May 2015 10:37
Snowden tried to get the issue raised through the standard channels, with predictable results. As for your allegation that he "headed straight for America's enemies and tried to bargain with them," what evidence do you have?
Lafcadio1944 -> mike miller 8 May 2015 10:08
Snowden will never be allowed back in the USA the Empire will hound him to his grave.
Strong verifiable end to end encryption individually installed and open source. Some methods of protection are already starting to appear and more will come.
libbyliberal -> libbyliberal 8 May 2015 05:33
When I was a little girl and I heard how horrible Hilter was, I asked why people didn't overtake him when he went to sleep.
I was so naive and thought Hitler alone was evil and doing evil things and did not appreciate the massive collusion with his evil of so very many.
All the CRONYISM OF EVIL OF HIS PATRIARCHAL MILITARY AND ENABLING FROM STOCKHOLM SYNDROMED CITIZENRY. Many of the German people were enthralled with him, and convinced themselves his regime of massive evil was serving "exceptional" them as his beloved children
libbyliberal 8 May 2015 05:28
Authoritarian followers insist unethical laws be followed, and conscientious objectors to unethical laws be punished. Too bad these lemmings can't seem to grow a conscience no matter what evidence is presented to them of institutionalized mass murder and criminality. Stockholm syndrome mass pathology.
Aryu Gaetu 8 May 2015 05:20
Based on the premise that everything in the US, especially with politicians, is based on personal greed, if the NSA has the phone records of people, it must have the records of corporations. If the business or any of its officers makes an international call, then they can legally monitor the content of the call. I wonder how many billion$ that is worth to a competitor and if there is just 1 person in the NSA that can't resist that potential windfall from that information.
But, this just scratches the surface of the "Patriot Act". It was a secret set of laws, withheld from the general public. Imagine if everyone knew what is really in it. See… http://pharocattle.com/extrastuff/Misc/Rights_and_Freedoms_Lost.pdf
Will the last person to drop the Constitution into the shredder, please, water the plants and turn out the lights before you leave. Thank you.
Littlemissv 8 May 2015 05:00
The court of appeals judges very deliberately chose not to consider the constitutionality of NSA bulk surveillance programs, as such questions are currently before Congress...
The court simply wimped out. It should ruled them to be unconstitutional and demanded their immediate cessation.
Since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the judges on the secret (FISA) court, he is already an accessory before the fact in various constitutional felonies. The Supremes will rubber-stamp NSA, displaying all the wisdom and integrity that they did in Bush v. Gore (2000).
libbyliberal 8 May 2015 02:41
Excellent and inspiring article. Thank you!!
Jeffrey_Harrison -> David Edwards 8 May 2015 02:03
And your inane comment is exactly why governments must not be allowed to just make any old thing secret. They should not be able to make most of what they do make secret, secret.
Martin_C 8 May 2015 01:40
Laws that require the highest scrutiny of all are laws that benefit all politicians and government at the expense of the people they supposedly serve, because the intrinsic protections of the adversarial nature of politics breaks down. Normally, if a right-wing party tries to pass something overly right-wing, the left-wing party kicks up a stink and vice versa. The party opposing the legislation becomes the de facto advocate for the people being cheated, and the debate must then be carried on under the scrutiny of the people.
But when politicians pass legislation that enables all politicians to spy on all citizens, the citizens have no advocate. The pollies are all in on it. We can't even exercise our only faintly effective prerogative of changing our vote, because in this type of law change, all snouts are in the trough.
The Patriot Act was and is terrible legislation. Australia's recently passed East-German-style data retention bill: terrible legislation. Britain's pathetic attempts at forcing encryption keys to be yielded to the government: terrible legislation. No government should have tabula rasa permission to spy on its own citizens. These are our lives they are trying to spy on! We cannot throw that away for the 'safety' of living in a permanent mass surveillance state.
To prevent these dreadful laws being passed requires 1) principled lawmakers who can step away from the feeding trough; 2) vigorous, ethical and independent media; and 3) citizens willing to stand up and demand better from their elected representatives.
|
|
|
May 07, 2015 | NYTimes.com
There is a lot to praise in the powerful ruling issued by a three-judge federal appeals panel in New York on Thursday, which held that the government's vast, continuing and, until recently, secret sweep of Americans' phone records is illegal.
But perhaps the most important message the unanimous decision sends is a simple one: Congress could not have intended to approve a program whose true scope almost no one outside the National Security Agency fully comprehended - that is, until Edward Snowden leaked its details to the world.
In the nearly two years since those revelations shocked America and started a heated debate on the proper balance of privacy and national security, the N.S.A., which conducts the data sweeps, has defended its actions by contending that Congress knew exactly what it was doing when it reauthorized the Patriot Act in 2010 and 2011, after the collection program had begun.
At issue before the appeals panel was Section 215 of the act, which permits the government to collect information that is "relevant" to terrorism investigations. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, at the urging of the N.S.A., has interpreted "relevant" so broadly that it gives the government essentially unlimited power to collect all phone and other types of data.
In fighting this lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union immediately after the Snowden leaks, the government argued that Congress was apparently fine with this alarmingly broad interpretation.
The problem, as Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rightly pointed out in his 97-page opinion, is that "it is a far stretch to say that Congress was aware" of what the intelligence court was doing. To the contrary, Judge Lynch wrote, "knowledge of the program was intentionally kept to a minimum, both within Congress and among the public," and there was "no opportunity for broad discussion" about whether the court's interpretation was correct. Allowing the government to define "relevant" so loosely, he said, "would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans."
It is particularly galling that the government cannot even point to evidence that any terrorist attack has been thwarted by the collection of all this data. But even if it could, the panel said, "we would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate, and expressed in unmistakable language."
For too long that debate did not happen, nor could it, since the intelligence court operated in near-total secrecy. Now, thanks to Mr. Snowden (who still lives in exile in Russia), the debate is well underway, and not a moment too soon, since Congress is debating reauthorization of Section 215, which is scheduled to expire on June 1.
Bipartisan bills in both houses would amend the law to cut back on domestic phone-data sweeps, but they do not address bulk collection of overseas calls, which could include information about Americans, and they do not establish an advocate to represent the public's interest before the intelligence court.
Without such an advocate, Judge Robert Sack wrote in a concurring opinion, the court "may be subject to the understandable suspicion that, hearing only from the government, it is likely to be strongly inclined to rule for the government."
Unfortunately, even modest reforms face resistance from top Republicans, including the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who on Thursday called for the law to be renewed without change. In doing so, they ignored a ruling that is the most important rebuke yet of the government's abuses under that law.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 1 hour agoWe must never forget the government lied to us about spying on Americans before Snowden blew the whistle. Director of Intel James Clapper admitted he lied to the People when he testified under oath the NSA was not collecting data from American's calls. When he lied, Congress knew it, the President knew it and Clapper knew it.
Snowden exposed the lie and the government immediately indicted him while Obama expressed support for Clapper who lied to the public.
Why should we ever trust what the government tells us about surveillance programs? Why is James Clapper still receiving a taxpayer's check after lying to us? Why doesn't Pres. Obama get it -- you don't lie and get away with it?
Oh yah, Pres. Obama knew he was lying when he testified and was hoping he could get away with it.
Thank you Mr. Snowden for exposing the lies perpetrated on the public. In a just World, Clapper would be indicted and you would be welcomed home as a Patriot. But as you know first hand, we don't live in a just world.
Thank you Mr. Snowden for exposing the liars for who they are.
RC, is a trusted commenter MN 2 hours ago
Good editorial; the unconstitutional surveillance of all domestic communications, not just phone records, should now be addressed.
Holding the politicians who authorize and support unconstitutional surveillance accountable might help to end the massive wasting of taxpayer dollars on these inefficient activities, which diverts funds from more productive programs that would benefit the security of our country.
|
|
|
NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON - After more than a decade of wrenching national debate over the intrusiveness of government intelligence agencies, a bipartisan wave of support has gathered to sharply limit the federal government's sweeps of phone and Internet records.
On Thursday, a bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the so-called metadata surveillance exposed by Edward J. Snowden was overwhelmingly passed by the House Judiciary Committee and was heading to almost certain passage in that chamber this month.
An identical bill in the Senate - introduced with the support of five Republicans - is gaining support over the objection of Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who is facing the prospect of his first policy defeat since ascending this year to majority leader.
The push for reform is the strongest demonstration yet of a decade-long shift from a singular focus on national security at the expense of civil liberties to a new balance in the post-Snowden era.
Under the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called National Security Letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves, and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.
The legislation would also create a panel of experts to advise the FISA court on privacy, civil liberties, and technology matters, while requiring the declassification of all significant FISA court opinions.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2014| YouTube
Documentary Inside NSA - Discovery Channel
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 | youtube.com
A 36-year veteran of America's Intelligence Community, William Binney resigned from his position as Director for Global Communications Intelligence (COMINT) at the National Security Agency (NSA) and blew the whistle, after discovering that his efforts to protect the privacy and security of Americans were being undermined by those above him in the chain of command.
The NSA data-monitoring program which Binney and his team had developed -- codenamed ThinThread -- was being aimed not at foreign targets as intended, but at Americans (codenamed as Stellar Wind); destroying privacy here and around the world. Binney voices his call to action for the billions of individuals whose rights are currently being violated.
William Binney speaks out in this feature-length interview with Tragedy and Hope's Richard Grove, focused on the topic of the ever-growing Surveillance State in America.
On January 22, 2015: (Berlin, Germany) – The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is proud to announce that retired NSA Technical Director and GAP client, William "Bill" Binney, will accept the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award today in Berlin, Germany. The award is presented annually by the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) to a professional who has taken a strong stand for ethics and integrity. http://whistleblower.org/press/nsa-wh...
Would You Like to Know More?
Subscribe to the Peace Revolution podcast produced by Tragedy and Hope: http://www.PeaceRevolution.org
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2014 | YouTube
Jesselyn Radack is Edward Snowden's Attorney
Thomas Drake is an Former NSA Executive & Whistleblower
Bulletproof Coffee http://bit.ly/bulletprooflr
|
|
|
Apr 06, 2015 | Izvestia
... ... ..
The term "fascism" was initially defined as a local phenomenon - the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Later, the term changed its meaning and has become synonymous with Nazism (national socialism) of the Third Reich. During 1950-1990-Western political science began to call fascism any repressive regime and introduced the term "totalitarianism". This was done in order to combine Nazism and communism, those two social phenomenon were ideologically polar and has had a different social base despite using similar cruel methods.--[ I do not see much difference in enslavement via Gulag with ensavement via decration of undermench -- NNB] In one case, the the driving force was large industrialists and the middle class, in another - mostly the urban poor and part of intelligencia, especially Jewish intelligencia.
The theory of binary totalitarianism has no serious scientific status. The term "fascism" has now been returned to its historical meaning. It is a synonym of racism and all of its varieties - crops-racism (the idea of cultural superiority), the social racism (the idea of social inequality as the nature of this division of people into masters and slaves), etc.
Usually researchers try to distill the signs of fascism. For example, the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco counted 14. But this approach only blurs the subject. The myth of superiority is a key symptom. The rest is optional. Additional definitions are generated by the desire to "attach" to fascism more than that.
For example, "nationalism". Normal people are proud of their nation and its culture, but do not seek to destroy other peoples. This is the difference between nationalism and Nazism.
Or "traditionalism". If fascism were based in the traditions of the peoples, then some nations would have dwelt for centuries in the fascist state of fever. Tradition is the enemy of the "voice of blood", and there is no logic of exclusion of other people in traditions, while fascism lives this logic . Not coincidentally, he is associated with the Protestant line in Christianity and its idea of "chosen for salvation". Apart from the idea of exclusiveness, fascism is born with the spirit of renewal, the destruction of the weak and "unnecessary" for the sake of winning power, novelty and rationality. I repeat: tradition is the main enemy of fascism.
The idea of a strong state accompanies fascism, but does not define it. The Olympics of 1936, "Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl are symbols of a strong statehood. But Hitler's fascism was not defined by the Olympics, but by the Nuremberg racial laws, summary execution of Slavs, Jews and Gypsies, the plans of the colonization of the Eastern territories.
Yes, the war of 1941-1945 was the war between two authoritarian States, but only from the German side it was an ethnic war. There were no intentions to carry out the genocide of "inferior Aryans" in minds of Soviet soldiers or Joseph Stalin.
In Europe in recent decades, it was fashionable to talk about fascism as "a reaction to Bolshevism". Indeed, the growing influence of leftist ideas in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century caused activation of right-wing forces. But the roots of fascism are more ancient then Marxist and Bolshevik. Fascism arose as a justification for colonial expansion. Hitler didn't invent anything new. He just moved to the center of Europe bloody colonialist methods of the British, the French, the Spaniards, and made the destruction of people fast and technically perfect: gas chambers, mass graves. In a way fascism is application of colonial methods to the part of population of the country, internal colonization so to speak.
The regime of the 1930-ies in Germany is the legitimate child of the European liberal capitalism. But this conclusion is seriously injures European sense of identity. That's why this statement is a strict taboo in the West --[not really, the hypothesis of intrinsic connection of fascism with European (colonial) culture are pretty common --NNB]. But the truth eventually comes out. Authors from European left now more frequently touch this connection and try to develop this hypothesis.
Today we are witnessing a return to archaization of neoliberal society and slide of neoliberalism into "new barbarism." Hence the reasoning of the European politicians about Ukraine as an "Outpost of civilization". However, the assertion that Russia "does not meet democratic standards", those days unlikely will deceive anyone. Euphemisms is a product of distortion of the language, not political reality. This phrase marks Russia as a "defective" state, inhabited by "inferior" people - "watniks", "colorado bugs". Neo-fascist model within the framework of liberalism is often built by shifting the boundaries of tolerance. To some people tolerance applies, to other - no. The protection of the rights of one group in this case means the destruction of the rights of another.
Political myth about the deep opposition between liberalism and Nazism have always refuted by independent historians. Today this myth is completely discredited.
There are obvious interplay and close relationship between the two ideas - fascist and liberal - obviously. They both go back to the idea of natural selection, transferred to human society. In other words, the strongest must survive at the expense of the weakest. this doctrine is often called "Social Darwinism". Indeed, the principle of "preservation of the fittest races", transposed into social sciences, resulted in the adoption of the Nuremberg laws designed to protect the "purity of race and blood" - the "law of the citizen of the Reich" and "Law on the protection of German blood and German honor."
The return of fascism is a symptom of a certain historical tendencies. To such radical measures economic elites resort only for the postponement of the final world crisis. But in the end it is fascism that might again bring Western societies to the wedge of collapse.
|
|
|
October 27, 2014 | Crooked Timber
I've an article in the new issue of The National Interest looking at various liberal critiques of Snowden and Greenwald, and finding them wanting. CT readers will have seen some of the arguments in earlier form; I think that they're stronger when they are joined together (and certainly they should be better written; it's nice to have the time to write a proper essay). I don't imagine that the various people whom I take on will be happy, but they shouldn't be; they're guilty of some quite wretched writing and thinking. More than anything else, like Corey I'm dismayed at the current low quality of mainstream liberal thinking. A politician wishes for her adversaries to be stupid, that they will make blunders. An intellectual wishes for her adversaries to be brilliant, that they will find the holes in her own arguments and oblige her to remedy them. I aspire towards the latter, not the former, but I'm not getting my wish.
Over the last fifteen months, the columns and op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post have bulged with the compressed flatulence of commentators intent on dismissing warnings about encroachments on civil liberties. Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley have employed the Edward Snowden affair to mount a fresh series of attacks. They claim that Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and those associated with them neither respect democracy nor understand political responsibility.These claims rest on willful misreading, quote clipping and the systematic evasion of crucial questions. Yet their problems go deeper than sloppy practice and shoddy logic.Rich Puchalsky 10.27.14 at 11:03 pm
"Yet this does not disconcert much of the liberal media elite. Many writers who used to focus on bashing Bush for his transgressions now direct their energies against those who are sounding alarms about the pervasiveness of the national-security state."
It's not just the elite. I can't wait for the Lawyers, Guns, and Money get-out-the-vote drive. We'll have to see whether the slogan is "Vote, Stupid Purity Trolls" or "The Lesser Evil Commands". Maybe just two-tone signs labeling their target voters "Dope" and "Deranged".
Dr. Hilarius 10.27.14 at 11:44 pmAn excellent analysis and summation.
Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task. Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it's repetitive failures of analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.
Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent revelations about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers have no role to play.
Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than "your betters know best" and that the state's critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn't need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more.Collin Street 10.27.14 at 11:53 pm
Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task
Dunning-Kruger, innit. There are actually pretty good reasons to believe that strategic intelligence-gathering is pretty much pointless (because your strategic limitations and abilities by-definition permeate your society and are thus clearly visible through open sources), so you'd expect in that case that the only people who'd support secret strategic intelligence-gathering would be people who don't have a fucking clue.
[specifically, I suspect that secret strategic intelligence gathering is particularly attractive to people who lack the ability to discern people's motivations and ability through normal face-to-face channels and the like…
… which is to say people with empathy problems. Which is something that crops up in other contexts and may help explain certain political tendencies intelligence agencies tend to share.]
Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 12:03 am
This sentence is false and a willful distortion mixing legality and politics to elide the basic fact that the Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone who did not break the law:
The continued efforts of U.S. prosecutors to redefine the politics of leaking so as to indict journalists as well as their sources suggest that Greenwald had every right to be worried and angry.
Meanwhile, ever since Mark Felt blew the whistle on a psychopath and the result was the deification of Bob Woodward, the American elite has been utterly confused about the role of journalism in a democracy.
That your essay mixes Professor Wilentz with the father of #Slatepitch, and an archetypical "even the liberal New Republic…" journalist as if they all had the same job description is part and parcel of this ongoing inability to separate the job of selling newspapers from the job of public intellectual.
Glenn Greenwald is a "journalist" crank who is simply not in a category that overlaps with Daniel Ellsberg. Snowden is in the same category as Ellsberg, and Packer is right to note that he does not compare particularly well. But then Packer's analysis failed to explain why Snowden needed the judgment and gravitas of Ellsburg. And it was a side point in any case, because Packer's actual thesis was the sublimely stupid point that only "objective" journalism can be trusted to do leaks right.
The other unfortunate confusion I see in the essay is the mixing of domestic and foreign policy. There is not a single thing about the New Deal that informs opinion about Edward Snowden. Nothing. What does regulating poultry production have to do with killing Iraqis? What does the Civilian Conservation Core have to do with drone strikes in Pakistan? The Four Freedom speech was a pivot from domestic to foreign policy given in 1941. Freedom from Want was the New Deal. Freedom of Speech was about the looming conflict with fascism, not domestic policy.
Both confusions–the failure to recognize journalists as pawns selling newspapers and the failure to understand that foreign policy and liberalism do not have to be linked–result when the blind spots of the press and the academy overlap. In areas where journalists and the academy provide checks and balances to each other they tend to do well. Edward Snowden represents the apex of the overlap between academic and journalistic obsessions, and so no one is there to say: "Hey, the top freedom concerns of journalists and professors are not synonymous with freedom writ large or with liberalism.
Daniel Nexon 10.28.14 at 12:48 am
Liked the piece, even though we probably come down differently on some of the merits.
I wonder if the explanation isn't simpler. A number of what you term "national security liberals" have served in government and held clearances. Many of them - and here I include myself - took seriously that obligation. And so there's a certain degree of innate discomfort with the whole business of leaks, let alone those that don't seem narrowly tailored. Wikileaks was not. Snowden's leaks included par-for-the-course foreign-intelligence gathering (and this sets aside his escape to Hong Kong and subsequent decision to accept asylum from the Russia Federation).
I recognize that there's a larger argument that you've made about how the trans-nationalization of intelligence gathering - centered on the US - changes the moral equation for some of these considerations. I don't want to debate that claim here. The point is that you can be a civil-liberties liberal, believe that some of the disclosures have served the public interest, and still feel deeply discomforted with the cast of characters.
Rich Puchalsky 10.28.14 at 1:07 am
"still feel deeply discomforted with the cast of characters"
We need better leakers - leakers who honor their promises not to reveal inside information. Leakers who don't leak.
Not like that unsavory character, Daniel Ellsberg, who I hear had to see a psychiatrist.
Barry 10.28.14 at 1:09 am
" Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley …"
Kinsley is a hack who occasionally coins a good term. At 'Even the Liberal' New Republic, he was a biddable wh*re for a vile man, Peretz. At Slate, he took the same attitude, preferring snark to truth, and built it into the foundations.
Packer is not an intellectual, either. He's a cheerleader for war who has just enough give-a-sh*t to right a book explaining the problems, long after it was clear to others that things had failed.
I don't know much about Sean Wilentz, except that he's a long time 'cultural editor' at 'Even the Liberal' New Republic under Peretz, which is a strike against him. Heck, it's two strikes.
BTW, after Watergate, the press did know its role in democracy – the elites are really against it. IIRC, Whatshername the owner of the WaPo actually praised 'responsible journalism' not too long afterwards.
Sev 10.28.14 at 1:58 am#4 From a different era, the NYT story on use of Nazis by US spy agencies:
"In Connecticut, the C.I.A. used an ex-Nazi guard to study Soviet-bloc postage stamps for hidden meanings."
A certain skepticism, at least, than and now, seem fully justified.
Matt 10.28.14 at 2:48 amI don't think that even the most transparent, democratic, public decision making process among American citizens can legitimately decide that German or Indian citizens cannot have privacy. If in Bizarro World that makes me illiberal, then I will be illiberal.
Losing the capability to conduct mass electronic surveillance is akin to losing the capability to make nerve gas or weaponized anthrax spores. It's a good thing no matter who loses the capability, or how loudly hawks cry about the looming Atrocity Gap with rival powers. It would be a better world if Russia and China also suffered massive, embarrassing leaks about their surveillance systems akin to the Snowden leaks. But a world where there's only embarrassing leaks about the USA and allies is better than a world with no leaks at all. Better yet, the same technical and legal adaptations that can make spying by the USA more difficult will also make Americans safer against spying efforts originating from China and Russia. It's upsides all the way down.
John Quiggin 10.28.14 at 2:57 am
""I can see C as justified but not decamping to Hong Kong and Russia.""
Again, given the fact that the "right" people are immune from prosecution for any crimes they commit in the course of politics (other than sexual indiscretations and individual, as opposed to corporate, financial wrongdoing) this seems like a pretty hypocritical distinction. Those involved in torture, from the actual waterboarders up to Bush and Cheney, don't have to think about fleeing the US – indeed, the only (small) risk they face is in travelling to a jurisdiction where the rule of law applies to them.
For the wrong people on the other hand, there are no reliable legal protections at all. On recent precedent they could be declared "enemy combatants", held incommunicado, tortured and, at least arguably, executed by military courts. This would require a reversal of stated policy by the Obama Administration, but that's a pretty weak barrier.
bad Jim 10.28.14 at 4:31 am
It's far from clear that the massive expansion of surveillance has actually been of any use. The West hasn't faced any strategic threats since the end of the Cold War, and even the Soviet threat was almost certainly less than we feared. Someone once remarked of the intelligence-gathering efforts of that era, "It's difficult to discover the intentions of a state which doesn't know its own intentions."
We seem to have been surprised by recent developments in the Middle East and by Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine; more to the point, it's not necessarily clear how we can or should respond. It may be that the massive apparatus in place is unable to acquire the information we desire. It's not clear that better information would actually be useful.
dsquared 10.28.14 at 4:53 amI always thought it would be instructive to compare the views of the "national security liberals" with a test case. What, for example, do they have to say about the other North American government which operates a grisly system of unregulated political prisons in the island of Cuba, but tries to portray itself as progressive because of its (admittedly excellent) record of providing healthcare to the poor?
William Timberman 10.28.14 at 5:34 am
I think one point could be made a little more explicitly. Beginning in the late Thirties, without a great deal of serious concern for the possible consequences, the machinery of the social welfare state in the U.S., such as it was, was gradually repurposed to serve the national security state, and from 1947 or so to the present, the pace of that repurposing has rarely slackened. One can argue about how much of it was attributable to intent, and how much to circumstance, how much or how little bad faith it took to complete the conversion, but there's little doubt that it's now largely over and done with, and that the consequences are there to see for anyone who cares to look.
George Packer may think that the national security state is a perfectly admirable creation, but if so, I'd question whether or not he's really a liberal. By any definition of liberalism I'm aware of, it's odd liberal indeed who doesn't think Edward Snowden ought to be trusted with sensitive information, but doesn't at all mind leaving it in the custody of Keith Alexander.
maidhc 10.28.14 at 8:03 am
The CIA produced the Pentagon Papers under orders from LBJ. They produced a document blaming everything on the stupid politicians while the CIA was always right. Unfortunately no one could read it because it was secret. Hence it was leaked to the New York Times.
Woodward and Bernstein had intelligence backgrounds. The Washington Post was known to have close CIA ties. Everyone involved in Watergate was tied to the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. Nixon was taken down from the right.
If you look at those Cold War days, almost everything that was considered to be highly secret, the world would have been better off if it had been public knowledge. Major policy decisions on both sides were based on false information provided by intelligence services.That is not to say that things that happened back in those days are unimportant now. The career of Stepan Bandera, for example, is tied in very closely with today's headlines.
J Thomas 10.28.14 at 8:43 am
#12 Watson Ladd
I can easily imagine bribing Putin's butler to be an easy and effective way to get good information on both of those, and I can imagine that doing so openly would be catastrophic.
Whyever would you expect Putin's butler to know either of those?
But I find this plausible - Putin's butler goes to the secret police and tells them he's had an offer. They say "OK, take the money and tell them this:" and they give him a cover story to tell the spies.
Continuing the story, a top general's batman does the same thing, but the secret police do not coordinate well enough and he gets a different cover story.
Another top general's mistress does it and gets a third cover story to tell. The stories do not add up at all.
So then somebody in the CIA looks at all the conflicting data, and MAKES UP a story which makes sense, concentrating on estimates of capabilities, and estimates about what choices are likely based on internal politics etc.
The report reaches various people in the military with a need-to-know, who discount it and who make their mostly-mundane decisions about preparation on the basis of path-of-least-resistance. The report may even reach the President, who also discounts it.
Furthermore, plenty of information that isn't strategic in nature can be very useful. Knowing that in event of war, your fighter planes can outmatch theirs, is useful.
How would you find that out, except by testing it for real with their real pilots with real training, etc? Base it on the performance claims by US manufacturers versus the potential enemy's manufacturing claims?
So is knowing that they are planning to invade a country, or are actively collaborating with terrorist organizations.
The USA makes plans to invade other countries *all the time*. Often we publicly threaten to invade them for a year or more ahead of time, while we slowly build up supply dumps in nearby areas. It usually isn't hard to tell whether a nation is ready to invade some particular other nation. The hard part is predicting whether or when they actually do it. Chances are, they don't know themselves and nobody in the world can accurately predict that until shortly before it happens.
The USA and Israel actively cooperate with terrorist organizations *all the time*. It doesn't mean that much. Except we can use it for propaganda. "Our enemies actively collaborate with terrorist organizations! Our secret intelligence organizations have proof, but we can't show it to you because that would compromise our sources. Trust us."
Very little of this is likely to be reported openly, particularly from dictatorships.
Or from the USA. Or from anybody, really. We all like our surprises.
J Thomas 10.28.14 at 8:57 am
#19 Daniel Nexon
As I suggested above, albeit perhaps opaquely, it is perfectly possible to say "I can see C as potentially justified, but not D… G" and to say "I can see C as justified but not decamping to Hong Kong and Russia."* These strike me as categorically distinct arguments from "Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange aren't the 'right sort of people," even if those advancing that claim invoke some of the same warrants.
I don't understand this sort of claim. Normally, US citizens have basicly no information about what our expensive secret-creating organizations do. The basic argument is "Trust us. We're doing good, but it would be catastrophic if you knew.".
Now we have a more-or-less-random samples from Snowden and Manning. So my questions about their personal character center around two themes:1. Did they release false data, created by the US government to make cover stories to hide the real stuff that the US government does not want us to know?
2. Did they release false data, created by some foreign government and intended to discredit the US government?
3. Are there important discrepancies between them, that might indicate that at least one of them was doctored?
Apart from those, why are we talking about Snowden or Manning or Greenwald, instead of what we've found out about our government?
Barry 10.28.14 at 12:04 pmTony Lynch 10.28.14 at 4:30 am
"The persoanl animosity towards GG from, presumably, people with no personal relationship to GG, is weird. Whence this incessant personalism – not only from Kinsley et. al., but from those who claim more genuine liberal and left convictions? Why does it seem important to approach things by venting this personal animosity?"
Here are my thoughts:
1). Most of these elite journalists are leakers of classified information, and guilty of serious felonies. However, they are lapdogs of the establishment, and comparable more to Pravda than a free press. They don't like unauthorized leaks.
2). All three liberals mentioned eat a lot of right-wing sh*t, for actual liberals. Again, they are lapdogs, who occasionally criticize, but in a limited fashion. Heck, Kinsley played Buchanon's poodle on TV show. They therefore don't like people who actually oppose the establishment, moreso because it shows them up as the frauds that they are.
lvlld 10.28.14 at 1:17 pm
@39
Not quite.
MacNamara (politician) ordered his staff (Office of the Secretary of Defense) to carry out the study (they got some material from the CIA and State), out of a concern that the whole thing might be a huge mistake on the part of US policymakers – politicians and otherwise – from World World 2 on down. That was July, 1967. He resigned a few months later, the report was completed in late 1968.
Dan Ellsberg (Rand, ex-OSD) was involved in producing it, and was dismayed by the scale of the official deceptions and thought that yes, this was probably material in the public interest. He leaked it to the Times and the Post, the latter of which's decision to publish on June 18, 1971 was not made in consultation with its city beat reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 2:15 pm
So the following points are uncontroverted:
- Glenn Greenwald is a clown, but this fact has nothing to do with anything.
- Edward Snowden is a bit dim on how the world works, and this has had consequences good bad and otherwise.
- When white elites are forced to consider the criminal justice system they are shocked, shocked to find that prosecutors are arbitrary and vindictive assholes.
- Our vocabulary of politics is hopelessly confused to the point where a political science professor will assert that a fellow professor's support for the New Deal is in conflict with his position on the NSA.
- Elites insist on confusing the motives and morality of leakers with the motives and morality of journalists.
J Thomas 10.28.14 at 2:16 pm
#13 Andrew F
He claimed that the CIA might hire Chinese gangsters to murder him, or journalists associated with him, among other things. So to say that he has a "teenager's conspiratorial view of the world" is not to speak without some justification.
This minor point deserves some thought.
Do you have more access to CIA secrets than Snowden did?
If not, why do you believe that your understanding of what the CIA might do is better informed than his was?
Layman 10.28.14 at 2:23 pm
"I think it is perfectly fair to judge Snowden based on the totality of his actions. Isn't that how we're supposed to judge people? "
Why judge him at all, in the context of discussing his revelations and what they mean for civil liberties? It's perfectly clear that some people choose to judge Snowden in order to dismiss those revelations. Isn't that the point of the OP? Do you agree that your personal distaste for Snowden is irrelevant to the larger question? And that people who seek to distract from that larger question by focusing on Snowden's character are engaged in hackery?
Bruce Wilder 10.28.14 at 3:51 pm
Rich Puchalsky 10.28.14 at 3:57 pmDan Nexon @ 47
The apparatus of surveillance and the system of classification are both parts of a vast system of secrecy - aspects of the architecture of the secret state, the deep state.
I've had a security clearance, and so have some personal acquaintance with the system of classification and what is classified, why it is classified and so on, as well as experience with the effect classification has on people, their behavior and administration. I see people sometimes elaborate the claim that, of course the state must have the capacity to keep some information confidential, which is undoubtedly true, but sidesteps the central issue, which is, what does the system of classification do? what does the secrecy of the deep state do? What is the function of the system of classification?
From my personal acquaintance, I do not think it can be said that its function is to keep secrets. Real secrets are rarely classified. Information is classified so that it can be communicated, and in the present system operated by the U.S. military and intelligence establishment, broadcast. I suppose, without knowing as an historic fact, that the system of classification originated during WWII as a means to distribute information on a need-to-know basis, but that's not what goes on now. The compartmentalization that the term, classification, implies, is largely absent. That Manning or Snowden could obtain and release the sheer volume of documents that they did - not the particular content of any of them - is the first and capital revelation concerning what the system is, and is not. The system is not keeping confidential information confidential, nor is it keeping secrets; it is broadcasting information.
The very idea that a system that broadcasts information in a way that allows someone at the level of a Manning or Snowden to accumulate vast numbers of documents has kept any secrets from the secret services of China or Russia is, on its face, absurd. The system revealed by the simple fact of the nature of Snowden's and Manning's breaches is not capable of keeping secrets. Snowden was a contractor at a peripheral location, Manning a soldier of very low rank.
This comment thread is just as disgusting as the comment threads elsewhere, so I'll direct people to what I think is one of the best articles on all this: Bruce Sterling's.William Timberman 10.28.14 at 4:00 pmBruce Wilder @ 72Fox News for apparatchiks. Brilliant, especially since not even Keith Alexander in his specially-equipped war room had any idea how many apparatchiks there were, nor where they were, nor what they were up to when his panopticon was looking the other way.
Bruce Wilder 10.28.14 at 4:02 pmRich Puchalsky : If only the government could tell us the real story! Then we'd know that they aren't lying.
The system of classification is a system of censorship. It creates a system of privileged access to information that permits highly-placed officials to strategically leak information as a means to manipulate the political system.
It doesn't keep secrets from the enemies of democracy abroad; it creates enemies of democracy at home, placing them in the highest reaches of government.
J Thomas 10.28.14 at 4:14 pm
357 Layman
"I think it is perfectly fair to judge Snowden based on the totality of his actions. Isn't that how we're supposed to judge people? "
Why judge him at all, in the context of discussing his revelations and what they mean for civil liberties?
Judging Snowden is a very serious matter for everybody who has a security clearance.
If you have a clearance, then you have to consider whether or not you ought to do the same thing. On the one hand you swore an oath not to. You would be breaking your word. And you can expect to be punished severely.
On the other hand, there are the things you know about, that have destroyed American democracy. Do you have an obligation to the public? But then, you probably know that it's already too late and nothing can be done.
What should you do? In that context, deciding just how wrong Snowden was, is vitally important.
It's perfectly clear that some people choose to judge Snowden in order to dismiss those revelations.
Well sure, of course. If it's their job to patch things up, they have to use whatever handle is available.
But apart from the hacks, every single honest person who has a security clearance has to somehow find a way to justify that he has not done what Snowden did. If Snowden did it incompetently, he might have an obligation to do it better. Or maybe his obligation instead is to the power structure and not to the people.
Likely by now there is better technology in place to catch people who try to reveal secrets. We can't know how many people have tried to reveal secrets since Snowden, who have failed and disappeared.
Layman 10.28.14 at 4:15 pm
Bruce Wilder @ 72
Bravo! This view of classification as a mechanism for broadcasting information is exactly right, and a revelation, at least to me.
|
|
|
Personal details of world leaders accidentally revealed by G20 organisers Guardian. Schadenfreude alert.
Tor reportedly hires Verizon's PR firm to fight back against Pando's reporting Yasha Levine, Pando
Before leak, NSA mulled ending phone program Associated Press (furzy mouse)
NSA Tried to Roll Out Its Automated Query Program Between Debates about Killing It Marcy Wheeler
Obama's Intelligence Oversight Board a Corporate Lot PEU Report
|
|
|
www.zerohedge.com
Mar 28, 2015 | Zero HedgeIf, as one claims, one is innocent of i) using a personal email account to send out confidential information and/or to take advantage of one's political position to abuse opponents and ii) deleting said confidential emails against government regulations, what would one do when faced with a government subpoena demand? If one is the IRS' Lois Lerner, one would claim, against subsequently revealed facts, that a hardware error led to a permanent loss of all demanded emails, even though by email protocol definition, said emails are always stored on at least one off-site server. Or, if one is Hillary Clinton, one would just format the entire server.
This, according to the Hill, is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done as the recent clintonemail.com scandal continues to grow bigger and impair ever more the already frail credibility and decision-making skills of the former first lady and democratic presidential hopeful. According to the head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has erased all information from the personal email server she used while serving as the nation's top diplomat.
"We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.
What difference does it make if she deleted all her emails?
Apparently a lot.
The key question is when said server formatting took place. This appears to have taken place after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction of evidence. He said while it's "not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department."
What's worse, the evidence destroyed officially is US government property, since it was all created when Clinton was an employee of Uncle Sam.
Last week, Gowdy sent a letter to Clinton's attorney asking that the email server be turned over to a third party in the hopes that an investigation could recover about 30,000 emails that her team deleted before turning the rest over to the State Department.
Gowdy said "it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails."
"Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," Gowdy said.
Those intent on defending the former Secretary of State, such as the panel's top Democrat, Elijah Cummings may have their work cut out for them but that doesn't stop them from trying: Cummings said the letter the select committee received from Clinton's attorney detailing what happened the server proves she has nothing to hide.
"This confirms what we all knew - that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi," he said in a statement.
"It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now."
Clinton has maintained that the messages were personal in nature, but Gowdy and other Republicans have raised questions over whether she might have deleted messages that could damage her expected White House run in the process.
"I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department," Clinton said during a press conference in New York earlier this month.
Sadly, there is nothing but her word to go by at this moment: a word whose credibility has now been fatally compromised by her recent actions.
She said she had culled through more than 60,000 emails from her time at State and determined that roughly 30,000 of them were public records that should have been maintained.
Gowdy said given Clinton's "unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete" information, his panel would work with House leadership as it "considers next steps."
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Gowdy and other members of the Benghazi panel in the past have hinted that the full House could issues a subpoena for Clinton's server.
The Hill concludes by treating the population to the next upcoming kangaroo court: House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has suggested his panel could hold hearings over Clinton's use of private email, emphasizing his panel's jurisdiction over violations of the Federal Records Act.
Will anything change as a result? Of course not, because the real decision-maker has already hedged its bets. Recall Blankfein has already indicated that despite his strong preference for a democrat president, one which would perpetuate the Fed's policies, "he would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton presidency." Which in a country controlled and dominated by lobby interests, and which happens to be the "best democracy that money can buy" is all that matters.
Au Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LihB7ZoGf4c
All you need to know about this toxic duo right there.
|
|
|
March 28, 2015 | State of the Nation
Emails disclosed by a hacker show a close family friend was funneling intelligence about the crisis in Libya directly to the Secretary of State's private account starting before the Benghazi attack.
This story was co-published with Gawker.
Update, March 27, 6:48 p.m.: This story has been updated to include responses from the FBI and the State Department.
Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal's account.
The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya's civil war raged in 2011.
Blumenthal's emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into Blumenthal's account and have taken on new significance in light of the disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered by congressional investigators.
The contents of that account are now being sought by a congressional inquiry into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton has handed over more than 30,000 pages of her emails to the State Department, after unilaterally deciding which ones involved government business; the State Department has so far handed almost 900 pages of those over to the committee. A Clinton spokesman told Gawker and ProPublica (which are collaborating on this story) that she has turned over all the emails Blumenthal sent to Clinton.
The dispatches from Blumenthal to Clinton's private email address were posted online after Blumenthal's account was hacked in 2013 by Romanian hacker Marcel-Lehel Lazar, who went by the name Guccifer. Lazar also broke into accounts belonging to George W. Bush's sister, Colin Powell, and others. He's now serving a seven-year sentence in his home country and was charged in a U.S. indictment last year.
The contents of the memos, which have recently become the subject of speculation in the right-wing media, raise new questions about how Clinton used her private email account and whether she tapped into an undisclosed back channel for information on Libya's crisis and other foreign policy matters.
Blumenthal, a New Yorker staff writer in the 1990s, became a top aide to President Bill Clinton and worked closely with Hillary Clinton during the fallout from the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton family. She tried to hire him when she joined President Obama's cabinet in 2009, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly nixed the idea on the grounds Blumenthal was a divisive figure whose attacks on Obama during the Democratic primary had poisoned his relationship with the new administration.
It's unclear who tasked Blumenthal, known for his fierce loyalty to the Clintons, with preparing detailed intelligence briefs. It's also not known who was paying him, or where the operation got its money. The memos were marked "confidential" and relied in many cases on "sensitive" sources in the Libyan opposition and Western intelligence and security services. Other reports focused on Egypt, Germany, and Turkey.
Indeed, though they were sent under Blumenthal's name, the reports appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA's clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005. Since then, he has established a consulting firm called Tyler Drumheller, LLC. He has also been affiliated with a firm called DMC Worldwide, which he co-founded with Washington, D.C., attorney Danny Murray and former general counsel to the U.S. Capitol Police John Caulfield. DMC Worldwide's now-defunct website describes it at as offering "innovative security and intelligence solutions to global risks in a changing world."
In one exchange in March 2013, Blumenthal emailed Drumheller, "Thanks. Can you send Libya report." Drumheller replied, "Here it is, pls do not share it with Cody. I don't want moin speculating on sources. It is on the Maghreb and Libya." Cody is Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton family operative-his brother was an ambassador under Bill Clinton and his now-deceased sister is married to Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott-who was in close contact with Blumenthal. While it's not entirely clear from the documents, "Moin" may refer to the nickname of Mohamed Mansour El Kikhia, a member of the Kikhia family, a prominent Libyan clan with ties to the Libyan National Transition Council. (An email address in Blumenthal's address book, which was also leaked, was associated with his Facebook page.)
There's no indication in Blumenthal's emails whether Clinton read or replied to them before she left State on February 1, 2013, but he was clearly part of a select group with knowledge of the private clintonemail.com address, which was unknown to the public until
Gawker published it this year. They do suggest that she interacted with Blumenthal using the account after she stepped down. "H: got your message a few days ago," reads the subject line of one email from Blumenthal to Clinton on February 8, 2013; "H: fyi, will continue to send relevant intel," reads another.
The memos cover a wide array of subjects in extreme detail, from German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's conversations with her finance minister about French president Francois Hollande–marked "THIS INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE"-to the composition of the newly elected South Korean president's transition team. At least 10 of the memos deal in whole or in part with internal Libyan politics and the government's fight against militants, including the status of the Libyan oil industry and the prospects for Western companies to participate.
One memo was sent on August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before Islamic militants stormed the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. It cites "an extremely sensitive source" who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.
While the memo doesn't rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats, it portrays a deteriorating security climate. Clinton noted a few days after the Benghazi attack, which left four dead and 10 people injured, that U.S. intelligence officials didn't have advance knowledge of the threat.
On September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, Blumenthal sent a memo that cited a "sensitive source" saying that the interim Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf, was told by a senior security officer that the assault was inspired by an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S., as well as by allegations from Magariaf's political opponents that he had CIA ties.
Blumenthal followed up the next day with an email titled "Re: More Magariaf private reax." It said Libyan security officials believed an Islamist radical group called the Ansa al Sharia brigade had prepared the attack a month in advance and "took advantage of the cover" provided by the demonstrations against the video.
An October 25, 2012 memo says that Magariaf and the Libyan army chief of staff agree that the "situation in the country is becoming increasingly dangerous and unmanageable" and "far worse" than Western leaders realize.
Blumenthal's email warnings, of course, followed a year of Libyan hawkishness on the part of Clinton. In February of 2011, she told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that "it is time for Gaddafi to go." The next month, after having described Russian reluctance over military intervention as "despicable," Clinton met with rebel leaders in Paris and drummed up support for a no-fly zone while in Cairo. On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council voted to back Libyan rebels against Gaddafi.
It's this buildup, which Clinton still proudly recalled in her 2014 memoir, that Blumenthal appears to join in on 2011. In addition to the intel memos, his emails also disclose that he and his associates worked to help the Libyan opposition, and even plotted to insert operatives on the ground using a private contractor.
A May 14, 2011 email exchange between Blumenthal and Shearer shows that they were negotiating with Drumheller to contract with someone referred to as "Grange" and "the general" to place send four operatives on a week-long mission to Tunis, Tunisia, and "to the border and back." Tunisia borders Libya and Algeria.
"Sid, you are doing great work on this," Drumheller wrote to Blumenthal. "It is going to be around $60,000, coverting r/t business class airfare to Tunis, travel in country to the border and back, and other expenses for 7–10 days for 4 guys."
After Blumenthal forwarded that note to Shearer, he wrote back questioning the cost of the operation. "Sid, do you think the general has to send four guys. He told us three guys yesterday, a translator and two other guys. I understand the difficulty of the mission and realize that K will be repaid but I am going to need an itemized budget for these guys."
"The general" and "Grange" appear to refer to David L. Grange, a major general in the Army who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999. Grange subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence, security training, armament sales, and other services. The Osprey Foundation, which is a nonprofit arm of Osprey Global Solutions, is listed as one of the State Department's "global partners" in a 2014 report from the Office of Global Partnerships.'
Among the documents in the cache released by Lazar is an August 24, 2011, memorandum of understanding between Osprey Global Solutions and the Libyan National Transition Council-the entity that took control in the wake of Qadaffi's execution-agreeing that Osprey will contract with the NTC to "assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country" and train Libyan forces in intelligence, weaponry, and "rule-of-land warfare." The document refers to meetings held in Amman, Jordan between representatives of Osprey and a Mohammad Kikhia, who represented the National Transition Council.
Five months later, according to a document in the leak, Grange wrote on Osprey Global letterhead to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, introducing Osprey as a contractor eager to provide humanitarian and other assistance in Libya. "We are keen to support the people of Libya under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Finance and the Libyan Stock Exchange," Grange wrote. Shapiro is a longtime Clinton loyalist; he served on her Senate staff as foreign policy advisor.
Another document in the cache, titled "Letter_for_Moin," is an appeal from Drumheller to then-Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan offering the services of Tyler Drumheller LLC, "to develop a program that will provide discreet confidential information allowing the appropriate entities in Libya to address any regional and international challenges."
The "K" who was, according to Shearer's email, to be "repaid" for his role in the Tunisia operation appears to be someone named Khalifa al Sherif, who sent Blumenthal several emails containing up-to-the-minute information on the civil war in Libya, and appears to have been cited as a source in several of the reports.
Contacted by ProPublica and Gawker, Drumheller's attorney and business partner Danny Murray confirmed that Drumheller "worked" with Blumenthal and was aware of the hacked emails, but declined to comment further.
Shearer said only that "the FBI is involved and told me not to talk. There is a massive investigation of the hack and all the resulting information." The FBI declined to comment.
Blumenthal, Grange, and Kikhia all did not respond to repeated attempts to reach them. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton had no comment on Blumenthal's activities with Drumheller.
Whatever Blumenthal, Shearer, Drumheller, and Grange were up to in 2011, 2012, and 2013 on Clinton's behalf, it appears that she could have used the help: According to State Department personnel directories, in 2011 and 2012-the height of the Libya crisis-State didn't have a Libyan desk officer, and the entire Near Eastern Magreb Bureau, which which covers Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya, had just two staffers. Today, State has three Libyan desk officers and 11 people in the Near Eastern Magreb Bureau. A State Department official wouldn't say how many officers were on the desk in 2011, but said there was always "at least one" officer and "sometimes many more, working on Libya."
Reached for comment, a State Department public affairs official who would only speak on background declined to address questions about Blumenthal's relationship to Clinton, whether she was aware of the intelligence network, and who if anyone was paying Blumenthal. Asked about the Tunisia-Libya mission, the official replied, "There was a trip with the secretary in October of 2011, but there was also a congressional delegation in April, 2011. There were media reports about both of these at the time." Neither trip involved travelling via Tunis.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,In recent months, Facebook has been quietly holding talks with at least half a dozen media companies about hosting their content inside Facebook rather than making users tap a link to go to an external site.
The new proposal by Facebook carries another risk for publishers: the loss of valuable consumer data. When readers click on an article, an array of tracking tools allow the host site to collect valuable information on who they are, how often they visit and what else they have done on the web.
And if Facebook pushes beyond the experimental stage and makes content hosted on the site commonplace, those who do not participate in the program could lose substantial traffic - a factor that has played into the thinking of some publishers. Their articles might load more slowly than their competitors', and over time readers might avoid those sites.
- From the New York Times article: Facebook May Host News Sites' Content
Last week, I came across an incredibly important article from the New York Times, which described Facebook's plan to provide direct access to other websites' content in exchange for some sort of advertising partnership. The implications of this are so huge that at this point I have far more questions than answers.
Let's start with a few excerpts from the article:
With 1.4 billion users, the social media site has become a vital source of traffic for publishers looking to reach an increasingly fragmented audience glued to smartphones. In recent months, Facebook has been quietly holding talks with at least half a dozen media companies about hosting their content inside Facebook rather than making users tap a link to go to an external site.
Such a plan would represent a leap of faith for news organizations accustomed to keeping their readers within their own ecosystems, as well as accumulating valuable data on them. Facebook has been trying to allay their fears, according to several of the people briefed on the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were bound by nondisclosure agreements.
Facebook intends to begin testing the new format in the next several months, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. The initial partners are expected to be The New York Times, BuzzFeed and National Geographic, although others may be added since discussions are continuing. The Times and Facebook are moving closer to a firm deal, one person said.
Facebook has said publicly that it wants to make the experience of consuming content online more seamless. News articles on Facebook are currently linked to the publisher's own website, and open in a web browser, typically taking about eight seconds to load. Facebook thinks that this is too much time, especially on a mobile device, and that when it comes to catching the roving eyeballs of readers, milliseconds matter.
The Huffington Post and the business and economics website Quartz were also approached. Both also declined to discuss their involvement.
Facebook declined to comment on its specific discussions with publishers. But the company noted that it had provided features to help publishers get better traction on Facebook, including tools unveiled in December that let them target their articles to specific groups of Facebook users, such as young women living in New York who like to travel.
The new proposal by Facebook carries another risk for publishers: the loss of valuable consumer data. When readers click on an article, an array of tracking tools allow the host site to collect valuable information on who they are, how often they visit and what else they have done on the web.
And if Facebook pushes beyond the experimental stage and makes content hosted on the site commonplace, those who do not participate in the program could lose substantial traffic - a factor that has played into the thinking of some publishers. Their articles might load more slowly than their competitors', and over time readers might avoid those sites.
And just as Facebook has changed its news feed to automatically play videos hosted directly on the site, giving them an advantage compared with videos hosted on YouTube, it could change the feed to give priority to articles hosted directly on its site.
Let me try to address this the best I can from several different angles. First off, what's the big picture plan here? As the number two ranked website in the world with 1.4 billion users, Facebook itself is already something like an alternative internet where a disturbing number of individuals spend a disproportionate amount of their time. The only thing that seems to make many of its users click away is content hosted on other people's websites linked to from Facebook users. Other than this outside content, many FB users might never leave the site.
While this is scary to someone like me, to Facebook it is an abomination. The company doesn't want people to leave their site ever - for any reason. Hence the aggressive push to carry outside news content, and create a better positioned alternative web centrally controlled by it. This is a huge power play move.
Second, the New York Times righty asks the question concerning what will publishers get from Facebook for allowing their content to appear on the site seamlessly. Some sort of revenue share from advertisers seems to be an obvious angle, but perhaps there's more.
While Facebook isn't a huge traffic driver for Liberty Blitzkrieg, it isn't totally irrelevant either. For example, FB provided about 3% of the site's traffic over the past 12 months. This is despite the fact that LBK doesn't even have a Facebook page, and I've never shared a link through it. Even more impressive, Facebook drove more traffic to LBK over the same time period than Twitter, and I am very active on that platform. So I can only imagine how important FB is to website editors who actually use it.
This brings me to a key point about leverage. It seems to me that Facebook has all the leverage in negotiations with content providers. If you're a news website that refuses to join in this program, over time you might see your traffic evaporate compared to your competitors whose content will load seamlessly and be promoted by the FB algorithm. If a large percentage of your traffic is being generated by Facebook, can you really afford to lose this?
One thing that FB might be willing to offer publishers in return other than advertising dollars, is increased access to their fan base. For example, when I try to figure out through Google analytics who specifically (or what page) on Facebook is sharing my work, I can't easily do so. Clearly this information could prove very useful for networking purposes and could be quite valuable.
Looking for some additional insight and words of wisdom, I asked the smartest tech/internet person I know for his opinion. It was more optimistic than I thought:
This could be a huge shaper of news on the internet. or it could turn out to be nothing.
Other than saying that I don't really know how to predict what might or might not happen, and I sort of don't care much because it is in the realm (for now at least) of stuff that I don't read (mainstream news), on a site that I never see (Facebook). However, the one thing I wonder in terms of the viability of this is whether in the end it may drive people away from FB.
Back in the day, probably when you weren't so aware of the nascent net, there were two giant "services" on the Internet called Compuserve and America Online. They were each what you are thinking that Facebook is heading toward; exclusive, centralized portals to the whole net. They were also giant and successful at the time. Then people outside of them started doing things that were so much more creative and interesting. At the same time, in order to make everything fit inside their proprietary boxes and categories, they were making everything ever more standardized and boring. Then they just abruptly died.
Given the enormity of what Facebook is trying to achieve, I have some obvious concerns. First, since all of the leverage seems to reside with Facebook, I fear they are likely to get the better part of any deal by wide margin. Second, if they succeed in this push, this single company's ability to control access to news and what is trending and deemed important by a huge section of humanity will be extraordinary.
balolaloI think this shows how desperate both parties are. The MSM is dying. Facebook has plateued. However the risk is great to both parties. What happens when users hijack the message? And how do they control feedback? I think this will shoot both of them in the foot in the end. BLOWBACK BITCHEZ.Macchendra
Do you see any of your code on Facebook?
Did I use any of your code?
What? Match.com for Harvard guys?
You know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this.
If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook.
Macchendra
And honestly, the "goy" version of this, classmates.com, had been around for ages stinking up your spam folder. Thank God the MBAs didn't win this battle. They would have monetized it to death. And YOUR opinion has benefited. YOU have been given a voice.
GetZeeGold
The master plan is nothing new.
fudge
WordSmith2013What happens when users hijack the message?
Yes, this is all about control of the 'message'. They are loosing control, this is one option they've chosen and they'll attempt to vilify any and all alternate sources.
This attack on RT is another skirmish in the war for your minds , http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/244401-media-eu-nato-us/ , maybe lesser known sites will just be disappeared.
Who REALLY Controls The Mainstream Media?Taint Boil
Imagine FaceFuck controlling all the information delivered to the sheep on say ….hmmm, Russia for example.
doctor10
Burt Gummer"they" have lost control of the narrative. Can't even get a good game of cowboys and indians going anywhere in the world any longer.
When despite all their insane raving about him, even Putin comes off looking more of a statesman than anybody in the West, its obvious the stories no longer hold together into a believable story
I'm gonna twitter this shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCUCJNWimoPaveway IV"...With 1.4 billion users..."Yeah, and I account for a dozen of those. I can't remember the username or password or email account that I made up the last time I was forced to use it so I just make up another one. Which I promptly forget again because I never use it.
When you hear your teenage kids say, "Facebook?? Facebook SUCKS" you know it's over for them.
MSM want's to funnel their feces through FB? Hey - I'm all for it. More power to them. I would rather have ALL the knuckle-draggers self-confined to their own little cage somewhere on the periphery of the internet than wandering around loose and showing up on worthwhile sites. Like I would ever even bother to make up yet another fake account on Facebook to read somethign like the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Bussiness Insider, etc., etc., etc.
bag holder
This sounds exactly like America Online back in the 90s. They tried to create their own self-contained Internet, too. It didn't exactly end well.
in4mayshun
Half the people I know already ditched FB for Instagram. The other half were smart enough never to join FB..
|
|
|
October 1, 2014 | nixCraft
in Open Source, Security
Nowadays, privacy does not hold much value when it comes to the privacy of our data on our digital devices or on the internet. In the past few weeks, we learned that everyone who tries to maintain privacy on the net is under suspicion which is all the more reason to try to keep our data, contacts, communications, and whereabouts on the internet anonymous and hidden from prying eyes as much as possible. This holds true even more for people that are more exposed like human rights activists, journalists, lawyers, and even doctors. Some of the distributions that try to assist us with this build on the Tor network.
One of these distributions is Tails, based on Debian Testing. It had a formidable boost when whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed, that he used Tails to stay anonymous. The latest release is Tails 1.1 which was released on July 22. We are going to show you how to set it up on a device like a USB memory stick or a SD card. The term 'installing' is used by the Tails project in this context, but technically this is only partially correct. The easiest way of using Tails is to just copy the bootable image to the device using the linux command dd as opposed to real installations to USB devices. If you want a read-only device for anonymously surfing the internet, that will suffice. If you need a setup that you can also write to and save your work on, the setup is a little bit more complicated, as the Tails installer only works from inside Tails.
We will test both ways of 'installing' Tails.
|
|
|
March 26, 2015 | The Guardian
The European Commission has warned EU citizens that they should close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep information private from US security services, finding that current Safe Harbour legislation does not protect citizen's data.The comments were made by EC attorney Bernhard Schima in a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems, looking at whether the data of EU citizens should be considered safe if sent to the US in a post-Snowden revelation landscape.
"You might consider closing your Facebook account, if you have one," Schima told attorney general Yves Bot in a hearing of the case at the European court of justice in Luxembourg.
... ... ...
Schrems maintains that companies operating inside the EU should not be allowed to transfer data to the US under Safe Harbour protections – which state that US data protection rules are adequate if information is passed by companies on a "self-certify" basis – because the US no longer qualifies for such a status.
The case argues that the US government's Prism data collection programme, revealed by Edward Snowden in the NSA files, which sees EU citizens' data held by US companies passed on to US intelligence agencies, breaches the EU's Data Protection Directive "adequacy" standard for privacy protection, meaning that the Safe Harbour framework no longer applies.
Poland and a few other member states as well as advocacy group Digital Rights Ireland joined Schrems in arguing that the Safe Harbour framework cannot ensure the protection of EU citizens' data and therefore is in violation of the two articles of the Data Protection Directive.
... ... ...
Facebook declined to comment.
techcafe CompleteBullShit 27 Mar 2015 21:16read this: NSA poised to control the internet, by Julian Assange, 1996
techcafe, 7 Mar 2015 21:08
The European Commission has warned EU citizens that they should close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep information private from US security services…
unfortunately, facebook only allows you to 'deactivate' your account-but not delete it. in other words, with farcebook, you may check-out anytime you like, but you can never leave.
i 'deactivated' my facebook account a few years ago, and asked to have my account permanently removed, but facebook won't even respond to my repeated requests.
Loquito 27 Mar 2015 20:16
Facebook is the ultimate expression of the infantile, shallow and narcissistic approach a lot of people take to their lives nowadays. People who like to be watched and spied. People who thoroughly enjoy being stupid.
Raytrek 27 Mar 2015 19:53
I want to be spied on, the spies may learn a thing or two.
Joseph Jessup 27 Mar 2015 19:48
The EU is just a vassal for the US anyway, not sure why everybody is complaining here. The EU is pretty much controlled by the US in all aspects. "If the US says Bark, roll over", the EU does it faithfully, and demonstrates it daily in every sphere of foreign and domestic policy.
EU citizens have no right to complain until they start showing a little pride and independence, because now, it is is just a marionette.
CaptCrash -> BlancoDiabloMagico 27 Mar 2015 19:36
Oh... I filled in a form to close the account, with a reason of "duplicate account". Gone within 48 hours I think.
Zooni_Bubba 27 Mar 2015 19:16
This is the most of course story ever. The US government is breaking all sorts of laws, why would anyone put their information under in their domain. People should also not use any US based software products or email servers.
It is illegal to look through someones mail and therefore should be illegal to look through email, phone records, cookies etc.
GiovannidiPietro0714 27 Mar 2015 19:09
Leave Facebook . . .
more like leave planet earth, right?
That "Collect it All", "Process it All", "Exploit it All", "Partner it All", "Sniff it All" (tm) mindset, which by the way was started by U.S. IT companies, won't ever be abandoned by "freedom-loving" politicians and police.
... ... ....
Scott Gordon Scott Gordon 27 Mar 2015 17:39
www.businessinsider.com/25-cutting-edge-companies-funded-by-the-central-intelligence-agency-2012-8
Scott Gordon 27 Mar 2015 17:36
there is a story from a few years ago stating a cia agent helped fund facebook
ChristopherPrice Bob Howie 27 Mar 2015 16:23
There's a difference between secrecy and privacy. Having "nothing to hide" is good (which means you are likely a non-secretive, law abiding citizen), and it goes under the category of being transparent with regards to the rule of law. However, your ethical right to privacy is an entirely different discussion. Would you mind if the gov authorities placed a camera inside of your home and took pictures of your unclothed wife?
robertthebruce2014 27 Mar 2015 13:56
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management
.
(Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, pp. 135 / 136)egbertnosausage -> SusanTorveldtt 27 Mar 2015 13:51
You're being spied upon all the time.
Turn off location services and use on an as needed basis then turn off again.
You're phone is a walking microphone telling companies like Google where you go and who you meet.
Dunnyveg 27 Mar 2015 12:50
Europeans should be just as concerned with keeping their private information away from EU authorities. Both Washington and Brussels are controlled by the same liberals who have declared war on their own citizens.
Alan Tasman 27 Mar 2015 12:20
I agree with this assessment 100%
Loveable Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data, published IM (Instant Message) transcripts show. Zuckerberg has since admitted he made the comments.
Zuckerberg was chatting with an unnamed friend, apparently in early 2004. Business Insider, which has a series of quite juicy anecdotes about Facebook's early days, takes the credit for this one.
The exchange apparently ran like this:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
leveut2 27 Mar 2015 12:04
This is almost funny. More correctly put: "EU citizens that they should close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep information private".
Facebook's business plan is:
- get people to put as much as their personal information as possible on Facebook,
- figure out out to screw them over but good using that personal information, and
- screw them over but good.
By putting your information on Facebook you lose any right to complain about snooping by anyone.
uzzername 27 Mar 2015 10:48
Why don't the EU make Facebook put its server farms for European users within the territory of EU.
This way traffic from EU citizens won't leave its borders.
Kelly Trujillo 27 Mar 2015 10:48
So European nations have figured out that they don't want to be part of the U.S. nazification of the whole world. How long before the so called American "intellectual property" companies like Facebook become irrelevant?
BaffledFromBalham -> SirDemilo Brewer 27 Mar 2015 09:02Who cares if FB is spying on you; if you don't have anything to hide what's the problem?
What if you do have something to hide? What if you were a member of some protest group in your student youth but now wanted to go on holiday to the US ... maybe you might want not want the US government to see all of your old posts of "down with this sort of thing" in case they got touchy and banned you from entering the country.
BaffledFromBalham -> Mike Kelligan 27 Mar 2015 08:52
just look at the contract and what it stipulates
It's not just what's in the contract; the NSA were using the data sent over the wire to by these apps.
BaffledFromBalham -> amberjack 27 Mar 2015 08:48
If the spooks can just suck your data out of the wires, it doesn't really matter which social network you're on.
Indeed, that's why GCHQ were tapping into the undersea internet cables. I guess the only defence then is https.
ID8246338 27 Mar 2015 08:40
One would have to be very stupid to think that any on-line communication is 'safe' or 'private' unless one takes specific steps.
Security has been a concern since the internet started to develop. From the beginning hackers were beavering away to find ways of accessing government systems - many of them very successfully. Many of them became employees of the governments who they were once hacking.
Combine this with the resources available to governments around the world nowadays and the cooperation of social media giants and other providers and its not hard to understand the risks one takes by using the internet.
Although we may think that we are doing nothing that the authorities would be interested in, the fact is that those authorities like data. They can analyse it and do all kinds of projections and discover trends in society which may be a threat to their power. That is the reason - not as much of that analysis is related to crime as they say it is.
Its common sense not to put anything on the internet you do not want others to see - no matter how private you think it is.
Wharfat9 27 Mar 2015 08:05
The idea of spying, snooping, entering into ... is rather against the idea of ´private´. Of course, if a phenotype puts a photo of self, 3/4´s naked, and then starts to blab his/her intimacies ... considering the platform, he/she has somewhat unlatched the locks, cut the barbed wire and otherwise ´invited the world on in.´
We are, aren´t we? .. pretty exhibitionist creatures.
Where we want to ´be seen´ ´heard´ ... offers the silly putty of our little ego´s up for those who want to snoop.
The people at Bluffdale, NSA, FBI, CIA have never had it so good. The kind of data collection they get as freebie, swooping it up by the ton - from willing bedmates throughout the social networks - is the kind of data collection they could only have dreamed of .. if Hoxha could have had this, Albania might be poised to take on the world!
What happens if there comes a day when we just simply turn these things off? What would be gained? What would be lost? The ´puter .. as someone in the U.S. said to me, "can´t live with ´em, can´t live without ´em." Is that really the way it is?
There is lingering curiosity, too: why in the world do governments want to snoop so badly? Beyond simple, grade ´b´ perversity, what is it? The United States, my country, has had as close to zero-success in snooping as has any country in the world, free, unfree, or oblong.
What´s the deal?
.. millions of bucks, snooping .. failure after failure .. what´s the deal?
Everything that could have gone wrong vis-a-vis terrorism, has.
Maybe U.S. officials want to talk about the ´ones they thwarted.´
"Oh, if only you knew!"
.. that, children, would require a leap of faith that he who writes here is not willing to take-make.
Reading the great Malinowski, his investigation of the Trobriand Islanders, one notes a complete, integral society, at work, at play, celebrating, mourning, living. Less than a hundred years ago. The stunning clarity of his writing portrays an integral society. If the society is whole, the community - as sub-strata, is whole, as well. Or, at least, can be ...
One can´t get over the fact that the ones who took the flying lessons before whacking the WTC´s (if this is really how it went) went into small town ´flying schools´ .. being very foreign, and .. ? .. ! .. and, the terrible serial killer who lived next door, ´was such a quiet boy.´
If we have lost it, the integrity, the integral part .. the rest is left-overs, bits ´n pieces, bacon bits, halal. And spying is the least of us. Lord help us.
david wright 27 Mar 2015 05:33
The 'right to be forgotten' legislation, however well-mening, was drafted in fairly complete ignorance of various technical realities. It provides very litle - if any - meaningful protection, beyond a comforting illusion. Would you care to be protected in shipwreck by an illusory life-jacket? Thought not.
General point being that absent accurate, timely and clear technical briefing of lawyers and parliamentary draughters, such laws will be effective purely by chance.
Dave Butler 27 Mar 2015 05:05
As a UK citizen who is already spied on more than any other country in the world what can the Americans find out that GCHQ , the thousands of camera's and the tracking of my phone, plus following my fancy new bank cards purchases is not already in the public domain.
Of course if you have something worth hiding you may feel different......
dralion 27 Mar 2015 04:54
Never joined, it or any other of the anti social networks.
Still can't understand this need to spread its life all over the net to thousands of so called friends. Croaks (as opposed to tweets) are reliable news for many and decision are based on rumours, false information...
There is no need for any of this. People are no more than cattle for those companies, milked out of their money, their time, their liberty of thinking; drone consumers...
ID3547814 -> Khoryos 27 Mar 2015 04:51
Not even FB deleting your account removes everything, from that FB help page;
"Some of the things you do on Facebook aren't stored in your account. For example, a friend may still have messages from you even after you delete your account. That information remains after you delete your account."This means some incriminating posts you may have made will be stored on your FB friends accounts. Better still, you'll need to get all your friends to make a request to delete their FB accounts too, and their friends as well. Ad infinitum until the only account still using FB is Mark Zuckerburg's.
Денис Панкратов -> Khoryos 27 Mar 2015 04:44
Unfortunately, this is not quite true. By these actions, you can close your page for users, but not for US intelligence. But if you do not intelligence agent, not a politician, not a businessman, but simply communicate on the network, no need to worry. Special services are not interested in you. By the way, not only the "Facebook" is watching you. It is actively engaged in "Google", almost all social networks, file sharing, porn sites and sites for storing files.
The principle is the same: you want to keep confidential information, do not spread it to the network.
amberjack -> BaffledFromBalham 27 Mar 2015 03:54
Would you really trust a social media site set up by a governing organisation? Surely it would be way too tempting for them to fit backdoors for EuroPol to log in and search through all data, public and private.
That could be addressed by using a free open-source product like Diaspora. If everyone can see the code, back doors are easily detected and publicised. And it's a distributed system, so if you're really paranoid, you can install it on your own server and operate it on a peer-to-peer (pod to pod, in Diaspora jargon) basis.
The drawback is, of course, that as sdkeller72 and others have pointed out, once the information is transmitted between different pods/countries, it becomes vulnerable to third parties. If the spooks can just suck your data out of the wires, it doesn't really matter which social network you're on.
If you just don't like Facebook using your private information to pump you full of ads, though, a distributed, democratic system like Diaspora is the way to go.
monostatos 27 Mar 2015 03:44
has anyone found a way to delete a FB account in the real sense of 'delete' and not just abandon. I couldnt find a definitive answer in the comments. The offcial procedure on FB has very little effect on your data.
Its probably best to assume that anything ever uploaded to FB will exist forever right?
Khoryos NoahDiff 27 Mar 2015 03:39
You can delete it, they just make it as hard as possible to find -
https://en-gb.facebook.com/help/224562897555674NoahDiff 27 Mar 2015 02:57
So the EU is urging people to close their Facebook accounts if they are concerned with possible privacy breaches. Sounds reasonable enough. I agree.
There's just one gotcha. Currently, it seems, there is NO way to actually close your Facebook account. You can deactivate it, but that doesn't actually delete it. All deactivating does is makes your account invisible; all your data is still there.
The closest you can get is to delete every last bit of data in your Facebook account -- and that means sitting there and deleting perhaps years worth of posts to your wall and the like, contacts, and any other services you have used on Facebook. The deactivate it and hope you and no one else trips over it in the future.
If there is anything the EU could demand, it would be to require that FB provide a means to truly delete an account. I mean, it is ridiculous that this is not available, given that this is doable on virtually every other site on the web. Not just ridiculous, outright lazy and irresponsible.
ramacaida58 27 Mar 2015 02:49
Are people naive?
"Face Book" National security project made by National security agencies.
We all applauded well done you clever boy how did you come out with such clever ideas.
But this is democracy we do have the choice to "shut it down or keep it open". We, who are the peaceful ordinary citizens of this word. Have nothing to worry about. May be even it is good for our security. At the end most of us we have nothing to hide.
orag -> Cumming madeiranlotuseater 27 Mar 2015 02:48
No, Facebook is where people post news that the mainstream media are reluctant to publish. It was the first place, for example, where people were extensively warning about NHS privatisation, or about the terrible effects of benefit sanctions.
It's also great for finding links to really interesting science sites, or culture that you may be interest ted in.
argonauta -> madeiranlotuseater 27 Mar 2015 02:46
My dog has 12 friends on FB. She's popular among my friends. I have no FB but my dog loves me anyway. And I love her friends, because the friends of my dog are my friends, chiefly when they were my friends in the first place. It's a win-win-woof situation
Brian -> Haughan Ellenrocr 27 Mar 2015 02:44
We all need to use an instant messaging solution like Cribble where messages can only be decrypted by the intended recipient. That way it doesn't matter where the servers are located because the governments can't read your messages anyway.
John MacKenzie -> tempodulu 27 Mar 2015 02:43
One of Edward Snowdons revelations was never to use Dropbox, ever. Continously monitored apparently.
John MacKenzie 27 Mar 2015 02:40
Can I suggest that, if you want your privacy protected, download Ghostery and ZenMate. Ghostery blocks 'trackers,' essentially online ads and tracking apps that run in the background mining data. For example, at the moment, on the Guardian site, Ghostery is blocking the following -
Audience Science
Criteo (ads)
Double Click (ads)
Facebook Social Graph
Google Ads
Krux Digital (ads)
Net Ratings (analytics)
Outbrain (tracker)
Scorecard ResearchZenmate is a VPN.
Ghostery does make the internet so much better as the pages load faster. They don't need to load ads and trackers all the time.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
March 12, 2015 | In These Times
The hidden price of Google, Twitter and Facebook.Your decision to click-and even the amount of time you spend reading or watching-is a piece of data for which the advertiser will pay good money.
What are we prepared to give up in the name of convenience? Throughout Jacob Silverman's capacious study of the world we're in and the world we're making-or rather, allowing tech companies to make for us-it's demonstrated repeatedly that billions of us are happy to surrender our privacy to save a few keystrokes. Why not log in to that other website with your Facebook or Twitter or Google ID? Why not use your real identity and photograph, with a record of your movements, all across the web? You have it on Google's word that they're not "evil"; what could be the harm?
Silverman's new book, Terms of Service: Social Media and the Price of Constant Connection, does a thorough, if sometimes long-winded, job of explaining what the harm is and what it could become. He begins with an analysis of the philosophy, variously termed "techno-utopianism" or "cyber-libertarianism," that drives the major social media companies. The ideology should be familiar in essence, if not in name-we've been soaking in it for the past decade. Media theorists, long before the advent of Facebook, were calling it "the Californian ideology." It's what happens when youthful rebelliousness and a countercultural, anti-authoritarian spirit meets gobs of cash and untrammeled power. It's the myth-tirelessly peddled by optimistic tech, business and culture reporters and embraced by the customers who line up for new gadgets-that a corporation that calls its headquarters a "campus" and equips its offices with slides, snacks and free daycare is something other than a capitalist entity, with motives other than profit.
To be fair, the big tech companies-Google and Facebook are the stars here, with Twitter, Tumblr and LinkedIn singing backup - do have goals beyond their bottom line. They want to do the kinds of things that beauty-pageant contestants want to do: cure diseases, end terrorism, go to the moon. They share a disdain for government - Mark Zuckerberg is committed to the idea of "companies over countries" - but also share a zeal for surveillance.
For Silverman, the harm of social media is both specific and philosophical. It turns journalism into a clickbait race, for instance, but it also radically changes our concepts of privacy and identity. He considers the fate of those who are chewed up and spat out by the Internet's nano-fame cycle (nobody gets 15 minutes anymore), whose embarrassing or self-aggrandizing antics, captured on video, do the rounds and attract a quick, overwhelming torrent of derision or rage. But while we might shrug our shoulders at the fate of an Antoine Dodson or a Taylor Chapman (respectively a viral hero and villain), Silverman argues that we should be aware of the numbing and alienating consequences of the viral instinct. Not only does it frequently make clowns of those who are seriously disadvantaged, and destroy reputations and careers, it also molds the larger media world in its own image. Hate-watching a two-minute video of a reality show contestant's racist rant is a sign that you'll give attention to this kind of content-and the site that hosts the video, beholden to its advertisers, traffics in your attention, not your intelligence or humanity.
Headlines have always been composed to grab attention, but now they can gather intelligence too. Your decision to click - and even the amount of time you spend reading or watching-is a piece of data for which the advertiser will pay good money. As Silverman describes it, the urge to gather endless data about all of us - from our spending habits to the pace of our heartbeats - is a huge, lucrative industry, driven by the fantasy that correlation is causation, that because you did X activity, you'll buy Y product.
It may be foolhardy to make predictions about the fast-evolving tech world, but Silverman offers some chilling evidence that the world of "big data" is beginning to affect the choices available to us. Some healthcare companies will lower your premiums if you use a fitness-tracking app (and share that data, of course). Data about what you eat and buy is increasingly being used like your credit score, to determine if you are worthy of that job, that car or that home.
So what? A good citizen who eats her greens and pays her bills has nothing to fear! And if she worries that some misstep-glancing at an unsavory website, running a red light, suffering a computer hack-will damage her, she can just pay protection money to one of several companies that exist to safeguard their clients' online reputations. Silverman has no solution to these linked problems, of course, since there is far too much money driving this brave new world and far too little government will to resist. Mass surveillance is the present and the future. But if information-meaning data points-is corporate power, then knowledge and critical thinking may be citizen power.
Silverman is too cautious and self-conscious a thinker to inspire a revolution. Instead, he advocates a kind of lowlevel "social-media rebellion" - messing with, rather than rejecting, the digitally networked world in which we live. Putting up a cartoon monkey as your online avatar might not feel like much of a blow to the Facebook assault on privacy, but it's an annoyance to the booming facial- recognition industry-and perhaps a few million determined annoyances can disrupt the techno-utopia in favor of the common good.
Joanna Scutts is a freelance writer based in Queens, NY, and a board member of the National Book Critics Circle. Her book reviews and essays have appeared in the Washington Post, the New Yorker Online, The Nation, The Wall Street Journal and several other publications. You can follow her on Twitter @life_savour.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 | The Guardian
It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.
The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).
As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":
"FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) … reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country."
Verheyden-Hilliard points out the close partnering of banks, the New York Stock Exchange and at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI and DHS, and calls it "police-statism":
"This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement … These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America."
The documents show stunning range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of the FBI and a "Bank Fraud Working Group" met in November 2011 – during the Occupy protests – to surveil the group. The Federal Reserve of Richmond, Virginia had its own private security surveilling Occupy Tampa and Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information on activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized OWS activities under its "domestic terrorism" unit. The Anchorage, Alaska "terrorism task force" was watching Occupy Anchorage. The Jackson, Mississippi "joint terrorism task force" was issuing a "counterterrorism preparedness alert" about the ill-organized grandmas and college sophomores in Occupy there. Also in Jackson, Mississippi, the FBI and the "Bank Security Group" – multiple private banks – met to discuss the reaction to "National Bad Bank Sit-in Day" (the response was violent, as you may recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state's Occupy members' details to the Virginia terrorism fusion center. The Memphis FBI tracked OWS under its "joint terrorism task force" aegis, too. And so on, for over 100 pages.
Jason Leopold, at Truthout.org, who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the "longterm plans" of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the deterrent.
There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people's income streams and financial records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent.
Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed – because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of one's personal or business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an entity a "terrorist organization" and choke off, disrupt or indict its sources of financing.
Why the huge push for counterterrorism "fusion centers", the DHS militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.
• This article originally referred to a joint terrorism task force in Jackson, Michigan. This was amended to Jackson, Mississippi at 4pm ET on 2 January 2012
Cardigan 1 Jan 2013 09:57
@chadders -
"There is no left wing, no reds under the bed, no Marxists in positions of power in government or in the press."
You are obviously unaware of the Socialist International, (London HQ), of which the Labour Party is a member. The full list is here:
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931Hilary Benn is currently a member of the SI commission for a Sustainable World Society, (aka World Socialism). SI President is George Papandreou, look what a wonderful job he did in Greece. Neil Kinnock is a former vice-president and now honorary president, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have both been SI vice-presidents. Gordon Brown was replaced as a v-p by Harriet Harman.
Socialist International is also closely linked with the Fabian Society, (HQ in London), which in effect gave birth to the Labour Party. Around 80% of Fabian Socy members are also members of the Labour Party and the Fabian Society is affiliated to Labour. Father of the Miliband brothers, Ralph Miliband was a committed Marxist at the LSE.
Patt Reid Weatherel 1 Jan 2013 09:55
I'm seeing here so many speaking up that have completely missed the point of Occupy
1. the absence of a "leader" and hierarchy was deliberate. It was government by consensus
2. The primary focus was the control the banks had over our lives and futures, but with the recognition that "all our grievances are connected", this is why no list of demands.
3. You need to not be talking of OWS in the past tense. It's alive and well.We Americans live in a country where consistently the polling of the people calls for quality health care for all, higher taxes on corporations and the obscenely wealthy, no cuts to SS and Medicare, support education for all, stricter gun control etc. Just as consistently the government votes against every demand of we the people. If that does not tell you who's running things, then you need to wipe the cobwebs from your eyes.
Nancy Smith 1 Jan 2013 08:14democracy is a scam. it sounds good, almost works too, but the people who had the money (aka-land, slaves, etc) always call the shots, either thru their 'bestest buddies' or using 'the newspaper' to disseminate biased and targeted information. today, that is buried under tomes of legal writs, procedures, and agency 'pass through'. nothing shall change unless it 'adheres' to and provides support for the 'system' (aka a corrupt government in bed with the bankers) Obama has tapped into the system, with great help from others who know this.
Heretica -> Skropodopolis 31 Dec 2012 23:35
@Skropodopolis --- So you don't consider the fraudulent financial system with its issuance of gearing ratioed debt-money that can never be repaid other than by asset-stripping .... and the imperative which that debt-money imposes upon the public, of a treadmill of perpetual economic growth (inherently unsustainable) .... as the main threat against the people of the USA -- not only that, but the underpinning of most other threats and the corrupt corporatist Establishment's key power-base?
Not a situation unique to the USA; such a setup afflicts most other countries as well.
Heretica -> Skropodopolis 31 Dec 2012 23:19So keen to attack Naomi Wolf, you run rather close to appearing to be a "State Asset".
Heretica -> Wouter79NL 31 Dec 2012 23:15As soon as the system has collapsed (and it has to be with crazy people in power), and the faults are known (modern capitalism, the paradox of intentional self organisation) the danger will dissipate.
You seem to have forgotten that the Neocons' favoured mode of operation is one of "creative destruction".
Radleyman 31 Dec 2012 21:16
We have our "domestic extremists over here in the UK too. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/01/17/the-real-domestic-extremists/
At least the banks did not appear to be involved, but maybe they were? Certainly large companies were in cahoots with the police, and both were able to get access to law in a way that Joe Public never can. So Joe Public, who had a genuine grievance, worthy of protest, became a domestic extremist by virtue of the say-so of the large company, the police and the courts. Joe Public was not consulted.
Durable Brad -> maxie59 31 Dec 2012 18:28FIVE STEPS TO ACCESS THE FBI DOCUMENTS
1) Click on the highlighted link in the story above that reads: "reproduced here in an easily searchable format."
2) Scroll to the bottom of the web-page that opens from that link.
3) Click on the highlighted link that reads: "FBI documents."
4) Read the official FBI documents mentioned above.
5) Start using reasoning and deduction... even in Missouri.
sotek600 31 Dec 2012 18:27I'm no fan of Occupy or their goals, but there was something decidedly unsettling, even a little... Chinese, about the way the various authorities closed ranks to shut them down as quickly and fiercely as possible.
Durable Brad 31 Dec 2012 18:17
The U.S. government shills just can't resist commenting on stories like this one, because writers like Naomi Kline and Chris Hedges actually provide physical evidence of the currently metastisizing fascist state in our midst.
Just like the FBI accused the Peace Movement and Animal Rights Movement of being the top threats to U.S. domestic security in 2005, the same reactionary statist thugs are now glorying in their unwarranted surveillance powers... and newfound authority to arrest anyone, anywhere without charges or a trial, as per NDAA2012.
Anyone with a reasonable grasp of world history over the course of the past 150 years can easily draw the conclusion that Americans are fast approaching a totalitarian corporate state, which seeks to disarm the general populace, and sequester (economically, socially, and criminally) all whom would stand in opposition.
Rather than discuss the merits of the U.S. Constitution, and how the U.S. government, military agencies, and a (semi)civilian police force have succeeded in shredding that document over the course of the past two decades, these shills choose to attack the one voice, involving hundreds of thousands of concerned American citizens, which spoke out in absolute condemnation of such behavior last year.
The veil is torn, and there shall be no repair. The little man behind the curtain has been exposed for the treacheous coward he is, and there will be no quarter given to those who seek to deprive Americans of their life, liberty, and property... in the name of the national security state.
UKEXPATUSA 31 Dec 2012 17:40Unfortunately the corporate puppets that we currently call government in both the US and the UK prefer to protect their paymasters rather than the people they allegedly represent. This is obvious based on how fast they managed to pass legislation to ban protests in NYC etc.
Until we can and do elect government that deserves the title HONORABLE this will remain the status quo.
Judith Braun 31 Dec 2012 16:02
A suggestion:
I'd like to see some of the more obvious parallels to what Naomi is saying turn into common knowledge. The country has been here before. For instance, when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the entire world rose up against us, condemning us as a 'terrorist state,' 'we'd committed crimes against humanity,' broken centuries-old rules of war. yes yes in the breach but nevertheless... Targeting civilians: the central no-no.We were the good guys at Nurenberg.
Drones anyone?
The cover-up they say is worse than the crime. The only thing that ever changes in this scenario, our national groundhog day, is whose ass is on the line this time. And what crimes against humanity did he commit.
photonikcpu 31 Dec 2012 14:59
OWS == Student Loan Crisis
Excellent article! Education costs have soared 300% over last decade with zero
improvement in delivery methods and higher costs towards prep & enrollment.
Govt needs to eliminate or regulate private sector education financing since private sector financing has not proven to add any value over the long run other than increasing admin costs. It's the same calculus & relativity -- and explanations for some topics are actually worse (a friend who is a professor discussed this). Private universities have lost their mission and become appendages of their endowment hedge funds.trueglobalnews 31 Dec 2012 14:20
The western governments are becoming Nazi type rulers and this is because they've sold out and are so pathetic and weak they've accepted the devil in them.
We must return to a more libertarian type system of government if we stand any chance against the onslaught of Nazi-Fascist government "officials".
AntiFascisti AntiFascisti 31 Dec 2012 13:46
They seem to be moving them around. The one on killing OWS persons with sharpshooters is now on page 69.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
To: Jacksonville From: Jacksonville b7A
Re: 10/19/2011 b7E
b6of the Occupy Movement by
interested in developing a long--term plan to kill local Occupy leaders
via sniper fire.292l1kahO5ec.wpd
O0OFFICIAL USE ONLY
AntiFascisti 31 Dec 2012 13:37The documents [a small group of a much larger group NOT released] can be found here. http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html#documents
AntiFascisti tinalouiseUK 31 Dec 2012 12:34Exactly. I mentioned this exact page [26 on the original website] below. Why the hell is it not front page, lead story news on every media entity? Because they are nearly all owned by the same gangsters who 'run' the Politicians, Police, Intelligence Agencies et al.
They've been killing with impunity for years in so many ways and so many people.....at times whole nations, leaders of nations, progressive leaders, people who know too much inconvenient truths, and those just whom they consider 'useless eaters'. So many 'suicides' of progressives are false-flag murders and so many 'accidents' are not, at all. Having watched the USA Oligarchy kill JFK, RFK, MLK, the Native Americans, Black Panthers, and millions around the world, it doesn't surprise me one bit. What horrifies me is that such news doesn't/didn't start a Revolution. America is LONG overdue for one!....way over the line of Corporate/Bankster Intelligence/police state Fascism now....way over!
tinalouiseUK 31 Dec 2012 12:16There is FOI evidence now of a plan to kill 'Occupy leaders' - I am one of the people who camped outside St Paul's in London and there was nothing dangerous about us - other than information sharing:
" [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles. (Page 61)It remains unclear as to who or what this report is referring to, yet the FBI decided to disclose it under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Partnership For Civil Justice Fund – the document is on page 61.
...complete article on Firedoglake here: http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/31/fbi-report-mentions-plot-to-kill-occupy-protesters/
TheRealCmdrGravy AntiFascisti 31 Dec 2012 12:06
@AntiFascisti - If you're going to get that worked up about something it's usually a good idea to understand what you're getting worked up about first.
In this case you have clearly misunderstood the document. The sniper threat against OWS does NOT come from the Police or FBI but from some other group of protesters/terrorists/whatever. The document clearly shows the FBI working to protect Occupy rather than anything else.
Whit Blauvelt longshireman 31 Dec 2012 11:18
Did Occupy fail? Or was it the reason we aren't about to have President Romney? Many Democrats ran on Occupy themes; while Republicans found their usual lies less effective because undercut by a fresh focus on their toadying to the richest.
When Elizabeth Warren was featured at the Democratic Convention, giving a speech out of Occupy's handbook, much of the press viewed it as risky and foolish. She was predicted a loser who would take Obama down with her. And what happened?
Granted, this was Obama's government in collusion with the bankers against Occupy. Irony, like the poor, and like corruption among the rich, will never leave us. Still, Occupy Sandy has demonstrated itself the most effective relief organization in New York. Occupy still has much good to accomplish, and it will.
direct 31 Dec 2012 11:17
a PPP - public private partnership - at work. Now why would the author of this report be surpürised of what she reports. Remember this is happening in the USA where everyone is considedered a terrorist.
Ronald Farber -> HarryTheHorse 31 Dec 2012 10:36
More an embarrassment than the vanguard of the People.
Occupy made the concept of wealth inequality visible. It was almost never discussed in the mainstream before they coined the concept of the 99%. That was a monumental achievement.
Anyone expecting a grassroots movement to act as a vanguard is going to be disappointed. It's not meant to be the Russian revolution, with a revolutionary group that claim to know what's best for the rest of the us.
It was about the people that are affected by decisions, making those decisions. It was about taking back the public space to do this, in system where participation is not encouraged.
The Occupy people have moved off to work in many areas: they haven't gone away. One recent example is Hurricane Sandy relief.
HarryTheHorse -> oxfordlawyer 31 Dec 2012 07:56
with regards the FBI organising a response to the Occupy Movement I would suggest that this might well have been justified, not to peaceful protest of course, but the occupy movement did not stop at peaceful protest there was splinter groups who did threaten and target the corporate buildings of institutions such as banks these threats themselves constituted criminal offences
So where is the evidence that the FBI restricted its operations to those "splinter groups"? We all know that the FBI targeted Martin Luther King despite his avowed and sincere commitment to lawful and non-violent protest, so I find your excuses for the FBI in this respect to be naive at best.
HarryTheHorse 31 Dec 2012 06:51
Once again "small state" conservatives prove to be nothing of the sort when they approve of the use of big government federal agencies infiltrating protest groups they disapprove of. But then conservatism is not noted for its consistency or intellectual honesty.
Personally I found Occupy to be amateurish and shallow in its analysis of the political situation. More an embarrassment than the vanguard of the People. Which makes the waste of public money in infiltrating it even harder to justify.
None of this bothers conservatives of course and they love thieving other peoples' money and spending it on their own hobby horses.
HarryTheHorse -> Weatherel 31 Dec 2012 06:42
@Weatherel - If fundamental rights required courage occupy wouldn't have been exercising them. Occupy supplanted courage with self parody. Occupy were the comedy department of the rank amateur political spectrum.
Even if that assessment is true, it does not justify the involvement of the FBI.
BrotherPhil urakook 31 Dec 2012 06:10
Ok then. can I have your bank details and your email login details, and of course your logins for any social networking sites. Also, we'd like you to put webcams in every room of your house, at your own expense, of course.
Still happy to share?
StabbyMcMurderson rotifer 31 Dec 2012 04:02
Capitalism can't be reformed. It's natural trajectory is simply a race to the bottom. The only hope is a revolution, destroy it, along with it's despots, burn it and throw it in the dustbin of history. Even serfs had their own plot of land to till. In capitalism, unless you're born with the proverbial silver spoon, you must compete with other humans for your mere survival, compete for jobs to feed and home yourself, and even these days with a job it is becoming exceedingly difficult to keep one's head above water. This unnatural competitiveness fosters fear and lack of empathy. Humans are naturally co-operative. However, I think that if you factor in what is actually required for a successful global revolution, we're doomed. The policies of capitalism and the societal fall-out will ensure a scorched earth. People, in general, just do not give a shit. Look at America. Banks that caused the homelessness of millions of people get rewarded by the government for doing so, and the Americans really only get shouty when someone wants to take away their machine guns. The tories are getting away with blue murder. They must be sitting around sneering about how easy it's been to get away with it.
Lote 31 Dec 2012 03:59
Ah The Power of Dollaracy!
StabbyMcMurderson 31 Dec 2012 03:46
Anyone that thinks Occupy was a failure is mistaken. It was not intended to really change anything, as a revolution is needed for that, but Occupy was like a huge classroom. Solidarity was shown for the movement in many other countries, each with their own Occupy encampment, and many people coming together and talking about many key issues that affect all of our lives. There were food kitchens set up to feed ALL, libraries, workshops, volunteers that had training in medical emergencies and people that were not part of the encampment could come down and donate food and discuss political issues/differences with the Occupiers. This in and of itself is a success, learning lessons for the inevitable future struggles, and the crackdown on Occupy showed exactly just what happens when you attempt to get all uppity and reject the policies of the psychopathic death machine that is modern capitalism.
creeksneakers2 -> AntiFascisti 31 Dec 2012 03:12
@AntiFascisti - Read the document again. Its page 61 here.
http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
They are reporting a threat made against OWS leaders. They are not planning assassinations and there is nothing about police in Florida because the focus is Texas.
Your concerns and fears about me are unfounded. I am not against free speech. I'm left of center. Perhaps you could find help for your irrational fears.
UrsusIndomitus -> Chris Lynch 31 Dec 2012 02:17
The bank and non government money organizations run the WORLD, little one.
AntiFascisti -> Canonman 31 Dec 2012 02:14
Quite simply because the MainStream Media are owned by and report the 'news' as wished to be presented by the .01%. They are some of the main propaganda tools in the kit. Those who control the Police and the Intelligence apparatus, control the MSM too. Occupy challenged every one of those tentacles - even the body of the Beast. There will also be no debates nor 'investigations' about this in Parliament nor, more aptly, in Congress. It didn't happen. Shut up Little Man [and Woman] and 'go shopping'....... America is a post-fascist state. Sadly, most Americans haven't a clue. The UK is only a step behind on the same path, IMHO.
Chris Lynch 31 Dec 2012 02:12
Doesn't surprise me, the banks run America. We the people, don't.
RJSteele -> NeverMindTheBollocks 31 Dec 2012 02:00
mikedee MaximusG , 31 Dec 2012 01:15@NeverMindTheBollocks - To what hyperbole/myths of OWS are you referring? You don't say. But, there is at least one ridiculous myth in which you believe deeply. That is the myth that the Occupy movement doesn't have legitimate grievances. That the disparities in income, education, housing, etc. in our country are primarily--if not solely--the fault of the great unwashed masses themselves, who simply lack the gumption to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
That America is controlled now by a cabal of extremely powerful, interwoven factions--corporate, governmental, financial and military--that decides who dances and who doesn't, has not seemed to have seeped into your consciousness quite yet.
@Cyprover @MaximusG -"There is no class war anymore in the West, you will never change things pretending there is."
Really? No class war you say. According to the US census there are 46 million Americans living in poverty. This is the highest rate in 20 years.
Further, inequality is now so high according to Forbes magazine it is threatening to damage the US economy. They state "The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the bottom 80% fell." You criticize the notion of a class war as if it is a political invention. Look at the facts. Look at the statistics. It isn't an invention of political ideologues, it is demonstrably true that the gap between rich and poor has risen over the last three decades.
Further, the evidence points to rising inequality being linked to real social harms. Wilkinson and Picket's groundbreaking research in this area shows a clear correlation between greater inequality and higher mental health rates; higher crime rates and higher mortality rates. This isn't speculation, this is documented research.
It is easy to cast aspersions without evidence. There seems to be good evidence that both inequality and poverty are at very high levels in the West now compared to the last few decades, and this is correlated with real social harms.
creeksneakers2 30 Dec 2012 21:50
The documents referred to in this story don't support the wild conclusions of this writer. The documents are generally just routine passing on of threat infomation. The threats generally weren't from Occupy but other groups. Occupy is repeatedly described as peaceful. There is almost no follow up. Law enforcement is left entirely up to locals, unless they request assistance.
All the threat information comes from public web sites except one E-mail somebody received and in another case a protester went to the feds about individuals considering disrupting the Iowa caucuses.
Monitoring websites is not intrusive and understandable when a group names themselves "Occupy." Occupation is a hostile criminal act. "Occupy" is a threat.
The documents: http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
DavidinSantaFe -> RobRay 30 Dec 2012 21:42
@RobRay -
I do not advocate turning anyone over to the police. The point is that it is impossible to know who is a provocateur and who isn't, therefore it is a waste of time to try and figure it out in the moment. Rather, a clear line has to be drawn which can't be crossed.
Have you ever heard of a provocateur trying to incite protesters to be more peaceful? No, they always try to push things to the extreme.
norecovery 30 Dec 2012 20:41
Remember which branch of the govt the FBI and NSA belong to? The Executive Branch and the Department of Defense, respectively. They are under the command of the President. The buck stops there. Notice also the crackdown on whistleblowers under Obama? All part of the same neo-fascist program that HE coordinates.
GaladrielofEast 30 Dec 2012 20:12
'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State'.
Funnily enough this was realised by the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.
We call it 'Ideology' these days.....
rivelle 30 Dec 2012 20:04
"There are only two ways out of the real dilemma involved in this structural crisis. One is to establish a non-capitalist authoritarian world-system which will use force and deception rather than the "market" to permit and augment the inegalitarian world distribution of basic consumption. The other is to change our civilizational values.
In order to realize a relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian historical system in which to live, we do not need "growth" but what is being called in Latin America buen vivir. What this means is engaging in continued rational discussion about how the whole world can allocate the world's resources such that we all not only have what we really need to survive but also preserve the possibility for future generations to do the same.
For some parts of the world's populations, it means their children will "consume" less; for others, they will "consume" more. But in such a system, we can all have the "safety net" of a life guaranteed by the social solidarity that such a system makes possible.
The next twenty to forty years will see an enormous political battle, not about the survival of capitalism (which has exhausted its possibilities as a system) but about what kind of system we shall collectively "choose" to replace it – an authoritarian model that imposes continued (and expanded) polarization or one that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian."
from Immanuel Wallerstein, "Austerity- At Whose Cost?"
RideAPaleHorse -> Jan-Kamil Rembisch 30 Dec 2012 19:50@Jan-Kamil Rembisch - Hey Jan, god kväll, thanks for the detailed comment. I really hope some of what you are saying is not true - because, if it is, it means that you are in a dangerous situation and a difficult one. I am sorry that these things are taking place in your life, it must be very heavy and hard to deal with. My advice is this, I know the information you know or have is very important, but believe me if you are on your own and not protected then it is best to leave all this stuff for another time. Please, don't jeopardise everything. In the long run it is not worth it, especially if you have a child.
It's very easy to come onto a website like this and say loads of things and most of it, I think, doesn't really leave much of an impression on anyone. OK, it does provide a forum where we can find solidarity and also collect some new ideas and information, but, I think a place like the Guardian acts like a trawler, collecting identities and IP addresses which is useful for the database age!!
As you said:
"And you my friend must know writing here is like putting your name in the files of the old KGB."
Whatever you decide to do, my advice is to try and be good to yourself and avoid getting into any further trouble. I wish you a happy new year, man!!
Jan-Kamil Rembisch -> RideAPaleHorse 30 Dec 2012 19:40
@RideAPaleHorse -
YOu now I like and respect you for your ideas and support of the cause of humanity. But even though notihng changed Obama's election WAs very important. THe best election of my life (51). It wsas the deaeth of the KKK Party: Outbred, quite simply.
And the people of the shave far more power than the passive beaten submissive UK serfs. And they have guns and yes it matters. ALso having AIPAC and many defeated Billionaires gt for once told NO alos matters.
I very much agree with your overall point and attitude and yes Obama ais the enemy but even we 'Republicans' (in US terms radical liberal/lefties) are better off with a temporary Emporer like Claudius over Nero (Romney) even while working ot overthrow the Empire.
Romney mean't more fascist in the Supreme Court to vote for 'states of Emergencies'; corporate vs People speach and instant wars for Israel (Iran Syria). In these areas and in the area of Austerity politics O is to the left of the Clintosn and of Course the UK whose economic policies he has opnely and correctly labelled misguided and destructive.
But O is an imperial servant, All true
Jan-Kamil Rembisch -> BellumSeIpsumAlet 30 Dec 2012 19:26
In feeble England where the 'people' say shaft me deeply while i gaze into Kates lovely face.
But in the US it took open beating's, 'invented evidence', Agent provocateurs, gas, Faked evidence, purgery, sodomy, ehanced interrogations and the odd dissapearance as well as an organised continent wide police coordination; along wi the fool on the Right who stupidly bury thir own 'Liberty' by not seeing that, what ever their many real differances, they have far more important thing in common when it comes ot the right to speak up (some Righties and lefties are starting to get it; ala Ron Paul who get left and right support).I beleive ironically ; as it is the US that is the heart of the beast, that only in the US does democracy stand a chance as the racists are being outbred. And once the righties get used to the idethat the GOP can only survive WITH atholic conservative support a permanant change will have finally arrive. The end of racsim as the driving force of politics. This will force a realignemt as the left will need to refocus on liberty as well as redistribution.
And no matter what bad laws the US passes, they unlike European ones will be overturned by the Supreme Court. just as when NY's Supreme Court nullified Giulian's law arresting the homesless.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You bet!willie48 30 Dec 2012 18:37
Suppression of protest aggravates unredressed grievance, and amplifies the alienation of self reliant, self governing humans.
It's no wonder the ruling elite want to suppress the people's right to assult rifle ownership . The credable threat of revolution afforded by assult rifles , threatens the easy harvesting of a world's resource, and the autonomy of the peoples's mind and labors.
Learnt helplessness must be enforced ; creativity and self reliance must be bannished. The ruling class can't help it ; their psychosis is intrensic to their character , to their sub specie. This is just how planetary parasites consume their host ; bequeathing to future generations not the traditions of a more viable civilization, but a sea of puss in the carcass of a dead world.
RideAPaleHorse -> bargepoled 30 Dec 2012 18:33
General Smedley Butler was hired to lead a fascist coup in the United States in the 1930's but he basically went along with it to find out who the hell was behind it all before going before Congress and the American people with the truth.
"When the corporate powers and the military powers combine into the military industrial complex all you have is state fascism...
...Mass propaganda, state controlled and co opted media and the illusion of a democratic choice are its hall marks."
Well said. Perfectly sums it up. Apparently it's inevitable that the pursuit of vested interests will ultimately come at the disadvantage of the masses and consequently result in authoritarianism in varying degrees.
Graihwing 30 Dec 2012 18:18
Here is my tour of Camp Occupy San Francisco, filmed just before the eviction:
http://youtu.be/lqYqXifDaAQ
And for this we need the FBI?
lupin54321 30 Dec 2012 17:54
In the western world, Truth, Justice and Reason have been demolished.
Maggie, Murdoch, Bush and Blair have destroyed centuries of progress.
The Dark Ages that follow are their legacy.
The Methusalahs will Rule.
mypipsranout 30 Dec 2012 17:47
This co-ordination between corporate interests and police and national security has been going on in usurped western democracies for some time now. In the film The Corporation is a psychopath Marc Barry states:
I was invited to Washington D.C. to attend this meeting that was being put together by the National Security Agency called, "The Critical Thinking Consortium". I remember standing there in this room and looking over on one side of the room and we had the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, Customs, Secret Service. And then on the side of the room we had Coca-Cola, Mobile Oil, GTE and Kodak. And I remember thinking, "I am like in the epicenter of the intelligence industry right now". I mean, the line is not just blurring, it's just not there anymore. And, to me, it spoke volumes as to how industry and government were consulting with each other and working with each other.
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/quotes
Hopefully 2013 will be the year the world wakes up and says enough is enough, as we are going to have to fight back sooner or later, or we will end up living enslaved in a global corporate fascist state.
samedaymadness 30 Dec 2012 17:24"The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request." - They Seems they have no shame; no principles, no shame.
Pathetic fear-based methods and modes of control only expose certains for what they are - weak, frightened bullies who are terrified of positive change, decency and fairness. These unnecessarily aggressive and violent tactics used to 'manage' protesters are signs of weakness and the lack of genuinely decent motivation - not to mention a sign of utterly lacking basic American rights and values. We should not ignore or allow the reality and criminality of tyrannical suppression in OUR home. Crackdowns like this come from the spiritless and insipid. OWS movt is mostly 'terrifying' to those the OWS movt is confronting, naturally.
bargepoled 30 Dec 2012 15:30
and we are surprised by this because of what?The USA has been a neo fascist state since the day after the 2nd world war finished.
When the corporate powers and the military powers combine into the military industrial complex all you have is state fascism.
Its not as overt as Mussolini or Hitler, that lesson was learnt during the 2nd world war but its fascism in all but name. Mass propaganda, state controlled and co opted media and the illusion of a democratic choice are its hall marks.
marinated 30 Dec 2012 15:20This is why I am increasingly suspicious of of the dismissive use of the term paranoid 'conspiracy theorists'-
Because more and more frequently its used to deflect attention from corrupt exploitative organisations/goverments/individuals involved in CONSPIRACIES.
Obviously discernment has to be used - Im not talking about Lizard people, Mr Icke
Joe Anbody 30 Dec 2012 14:35
In Portland Oregon the police were seen [undercover] at a Portland Occupy meeting as early in the year as 9.30.11 ... they were 'outed' which prompted them to leave the meeting: http://youtu.be/XcerdvfjD-o [short video clip of undercover cops at Portland Occupy]
LostAngeles 30 Dec 2012 14:15To those who make claims viz. Occupy itself -you totally miss the point. It's not the specific message of the protest per se, it's that organized protest of any fashion will be smashed under the auspices of the "anti-terror" police state apparatus built by 12 years of proto-fascism. As bad as Bush was, Obama has been as bad or worse (signing the NADA New Year's Eve last year, the final nail in the civ liberties coffin). Talk about freaky...last summer they had US Military training operations with swooping pitch-black helicopters zooming around Downtown LA one night last summer, also Boston (YouTube it...), and the message is clear - we are in TOTAL control, don't makes waves or we'll brand you "terrorist" and you might just get a two AM door knock. The only high-profile political figures that speak truth to this insidious power (albeit from quite differing vantages), Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, are summarily given the MSM smear job. When the shit really hits the fan and both the Occupy folks and the Tea Party folks realizes they've fallen for the divide-and-conquer routine and have the same interests to blame (Wall St-DC circle jerk of corruption and swindle) things could get interesting indeed. Or more likely the US Army hits the streets and people meekly line up for a bowl of gruel...
ramsalita 30 Dec 2012 13:19
I find it utterly bizarre that anyone could read this article and make their response about the rights, wrongs, hygeinic standards and so on of the Occupy Movement. This article and the FOI request which provoked it demonstrate collusion between Corporations and State institutions to surveil and suppress non violent dissent. This is corporate-statism and political policing. It's demonstrated the truth to what Occupiers were saying throughout the period and were laughed at as loonies for saying so....that democracy is threatened by the co-opting of state institutions by private interests.
If you support this because you think Occupy are a bunch of hippies, then you should take pause. Democracy is not about defending the freedom of assembly, speech and so on ONLY for people who agree with you and vice versa. It is about us all having freedom to dissent non violently from government policy, corporate behaviour and anything else that we so choose, as free citizens. If this story doesn't stir you to question the direction of policy, of policing, of definition then you need to read a few history books...or perhaps one on critical thinking.
One other paradox I've noticed in the trolling comments is this 'well done FBI for sorting out those pointless unwashed hippies'. This view that people are simultaneously ineffectual, and worthy of the full force of the legal apparatus in response....seems a tad inconsistent. Either Occupy is a pointless bunch of no hopers whinging.....or they are a serious, credible threat to...something. Which are they? And how far will you go with this line of thinking....? Shall we send the FBI into debating club now? Those people and their IDEAS!
No....if you are genuinely committed to democracy, then dissent is central. If you don't like that, then quit classing yourself as pro-democracy. You aren't.
RicardoFloresMagon -> BandB 30 Dec 2012 12:41
@BandB -
What did Occupy have to say that was so worrying to the powers that be?
Occupy said many things, much of it contradictory, because it was thousands of people, all with different backgrounds and viewpoints, some of which overlapped, some of which didnt.So I dont think it was particularly something that "Occupy had to say", rather than what it was: a massive place for communication and political discussion outside of the established framework of controlled and managed debate.
People talking to each other about fundamental issues like how economics, politics and society is structured without the mediation of the major parties or the corporate media must have scared the sh-t out of them.
This may not be it, and the authorities may have just fundamentally misunderstood what Occupy was about, and simply freaked out. But given the US govt history with regards to social movements, this response was not that surprising. At least nobody got assassinated in his sleep in a hail of bullets, like in '69.
BrooklynGrange 30 Dec 2012 11:35Ready...Set...Civil Lawsuit!
Violent and other methods for crushing dissent have long been the rubric of corpo-statists inside and outside the U.S. Government. "Enemies: A History of the FBI" by Tim Weiner, is an accessible source of information.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/aug/16/master-hate/?pagination=false
Although the actions of the FBI with OWS are clearly standard operating procedure, there is also a long history of those procedures being rejected as unconstitutional by federal courts; it will take a decade or more to find out, however.
The good news is that it might be harder for Obama's justice department (of which the FBI is an agent) to hide behind the "state secrets" and "national security" excuses deployed in courts by the CIA questioned about torturing and assassinating U.S. citizens and others they secretly declare to be terrorists.
When the book is finally written on Hopey Changey's government it will be clear to all that the only thing he accomplished was being the nation's first African-American president. Woopee! And it wasn't even Obama who accomplished that, it was the U.S. electorate.
Soon, we'll find the "courage" to let a woman violently crush the populace...then someone of asian descent...then a homosexual can order his or her fellow citizens jailed, surveilled, beaten or killed. Oh, how terribly progressive we are!
Tingler -> exreader 30 Dec 2012 11:32
@exreader - sick isnt it?
iPad reading about operation gladio and the strategy of tension recently - (western security services sponsoring terrorism such as baader meinhof etc to keep lefties down and out)
The Wikipedia entry for gladio lists major EU countries - except Britain is conspicuously absent. I suspect we agreed to stuff security and police with fascists or fascist sympathisers, and in the event of WW3 we would have culled the enemy within.
Trouble is, it takes 40 years from recruitment to retirement. So all those who were recruited in the run up to the Berlin Wall coming down have still got another 10 years in them. So it kinda explains why EDL/BNP/NF/c18 etc all get an easy ride - but attend a peace rally or peaceful protest against a runway, and the full force of the state is brought to bear.
What's truly scary is that china may be about to surpass us for human rights - when something goes wrong the locals riot and the authorities subsequently address the issue. Here, the courts act on politically motivated advice to send people to prison for stealing a £1 bottle of water. Here 1m people can protest about an illegal war and nothing changes, and individual protesters get photographed and risk being kettled etc. at least china is moving in the right direction - whereas we're moving in the right wing police state fascism direction.
RideAPaleHorse -> Owenbevt 30 Dec 2012 11:15
@Owenbevt - That mercenary bit is right on. I know an ex-Royal Marine. He's now a private mercenary. He'd kill anyone he was told to. Hell, the guy has murdered and killed and he laughs about it. He didn't even know who half the people were that he turned to 'pink mist' (his words) in Afghanistan nor did he care. In fact, his opinion of the Afghanis was the most vile and repugnant that I have ever heard. He's shot fishermen in the Indian ocean believing they were pirates and nothing happened to him!!
Men like him are out there in there hundreds of thousands. They would kill will no qualms at all. As long as the money and rewards were right. The system relies on men like him.
Look at the School of Americas. Been training militia and paramilitary for decades in the art of killing, intimidation, torture, insurgency etc.
catsrose 30 Dec 2012 11:04
"The price of freedom is constant vigilance." The USA had the opportunity to become the best educated, most politically astute, well-finaced and socially sophisticated country in the world. Instead, we sat in front of the TV with beer and chips, became fat and semi-literate, bought guns,videos,MacMansions and gift shop clutter. To the extent we now live in an Orwellian tyranny financed by corporate greed, we have no one but ourselves to blame. Those who are in power, political, military, financial, are those who had ambition, who worked to achieve that status. Of course they want to hold on to it. And while the rest of the country zoned out and spent, they entrenched themselves. Now, neither the paranoid wishy-washy left nor the paranoid gun-toting poor white trash have power. When you hand over the keys to the kingdom, don't be surprised when you are locked out.
Mark Heidenreich 30 Dec 2012 10:43
I think that the current US capability to crush protests of citizens is indeed an abomination of liberty. When the PATRIOT act was signed into law under Bush, I stated that DHS and the consolidation of power will be the tools used by a dictator to take over America. I never saw Bush as the dictator, just as a bad president. Remember, no dictator allows for a mass arming of their fellow countrymen and Bush was the first president since Kennedy to recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. I did not like Bush, but he was not a dictaror.
OWS was on the receiving end of a crackdown indeed. However I think they deserved it. OWS is a nihilistic leftist operation. Their proposals to destroy bankers were backed by plans to create a communist style system. Communism was a disaster and oppressed far more people than our current central bank system. Central banks are controlled by the government. They are facist entities. Communism is no solution. I hope OWS goes away and never comes back. If you don't want to be oppressed, switch to Capitalism. Free markets and a free banking system would prevent messes like the current recession/depression. Under Capitalism, there would be no bailouts but remember if you have your money in a bank and it fails you lose your money. This was the reason to create the fed to begin with so with freedom comes the responsibility to own the risk.
Remember that before the US Fed came into existence, there were localized booms and busts, but the banking system at the time (~1865-1907) allowed for rapid corrections to these problems. Only after the fed was introduced did we get such economic disasters as the great depression and now the greater depression (it isn't over yet). This is all a biproduct of central planning (like OWS calls for) vs independent market participants working in their own interest.
Destroy the fed but replace it with a private banking system. OWS was wrong.
Jan-Kamil Rembisch -> SoberReflection 30 Dec 2012 10:43
Fascists are always happy at their regimes 'efficiancy' in 'responding' to 'troublemakers's. They always talk about law and order but they don't actually belive in the law at all; as you prove once again here.
The one thing really better about the US IS the American Constitution and intense respct Americans (as opposed to most Europeans) have for the importance of Liberty. Most Europeans prefer to be told what to do, what to think and how to think. I respect even the Tea Partiers; if only for their motivations when it comes ot keeping Goverment off their backs. OWS share that as do Amnesty International; Civil Rights Activists and other 'wretched troublemakers'; a word used as much by Putin; Morsi, Assad; The Chinese Communist Party et al: I love the US ; warts and all.
You love oppression which makes you either a very rich sadist or a very sado/masochistic untermensch. Either way; sober or not your reflections (lack of in fact) represent the very values that mad me leave Britain. A nation of wanna be Serfs. Nothing makes you and other like you ('Your having a Laugh') happier than watching good people, trying to fight injustice, being illegally harrased and tormented.Following your logic they could go further; like in the US and arrest you for burning your own flower. Liberty indeed! And yes right below my coming comment: Another fascist who thinks democracy ends at the election. No civil rights; no legal boundaries for police harassment.
Like I said a nation of Serfs! How sad for the wonderful minority of brave people wo are not. The only nation of people I know more less interested in politics and knowledge is Sweden; the nation of ultimate passivity. But at least they have a culture and lifestyle that gives them something to be overly self satisfied: like hope and some future.YOu lot are like the cowards in the English Private schools who cheer on the same bullies who bully them; just getting kicks watching other get beaten up. How do I know? Duh; I went to Clifton Collage in the 1970's and 3 boys there in my time (74-79) as the direct result of this type of bullying: No prosecution; no inquiries as all the boys were 'our nations future leaders'. So you ; *Shirley NotMe' (below) and *Yourhavingalaugh' are all in good mutual company!
globeprober -> englishrose45 30 Dec 2012 10:29
I look at the 'writeoff' of Occupy the same way I look at the 'writeoff' of the left-revolutionary hacktivist areas of Anonymous - as a bunch of talking heads crossing off things they never comprehended to begin with. Those looking from the outside in are never really able to be authoritative on what will survive and what won't. Again I raise the examples of the generals who told the world the Viet Cong was being beaten, or the French military who thought they had so deftly defeated the Algerian rebels. Hell, look at the apartheid governments who thought they had defeated the ANC and the other anti-racist forces. You can't defeat an idea unless the idea itself is rotten. Occupy's thought and action is wonderful, so it can't be defeated or permanently suppressed. And Anonymous is just generally badass and I cheer every time a big corporate player or government gets its e-butt handed to it and is forced to 'write off' its own smug grin for a bit here and there. For that matter, enough name-dropping, left-activism as a whole is wonderful and I love that they are my friends and allies. The right really misses out, focussing all the time on money, power, and accumulation. No wonder such people all seem to die of heart attacks at 50 or look like ghosts at 80.
Marysue5252 30 Dec 2012 08:59
"It was more sophisticated than we had imagined" she wrote. We are just too damn gullible. We had mega-clues: the proliferation of rightwing propaganda outfits like the Fraser Institute which undermine real science regarding our environmental collapse. 'McEconomics' professors like Friedman perverted economic policies which made the rich richer at the expense of the rest of us and the environment we all live in. Millions of people are slaves. Our newspapers, radio and TV news were corrupted by Conrad Black, then Asper and Black in Canada. Even teachers are brainwashed. People need to THINK for themselves, to ask themselves, "Who benefits from NAU?
Who benefitted from the 9/11 events in NYC? Munitions companies? Big Oil? How did democracy deteriorate? What part did the corporate media play? We assume that things we see on the news is real. Maybe it isn't. Special effects can make us believe things that aren't true. We should question everything.
By the way, there sure are a lot of trolls commenting here--paid corporate stooges and/or insentient?
AgileCyborg 30 Dec 2012 08:49The heavy-handed and partially-blind authoritarian obedience rat will chuckle heartily and explain that the process is unfolding as expected, "Law enforcement's jez doin' itz job" as this empty-headed klutz pats its massive ego and miniature brain.
Problem is, Mr. Moron, the planet has a sordid and disturbing history you likely are aware of but choose to keep buried under a clever muck of an indignant indifference.
We've had centuries of horror and atrocity committed on humanity through governmental dictatorship and tyranny and this same repetitive evil keeps clawing its way back through various forms- ONE of which is the seed of a powerful homeland security apparatus with practically zero accountability to the citizenry and an entity that operates in shadowy disregard of ethics and the tenants of human liberty.
The draconian ilk that clings to the righteous leg of the fist-heavy state tend to be the very kneeling and submissive subjects that laud the impressive federal and state muscularity. These spineless twits only embolden bureaucratic lust for untapped political and social dominance.
Fact is, human liberty is under heavy assault and only a few seem to be aware that freedom is best enjoyed with the least amount of oppression while millions upon millions of other mislead and apathetic embarassments-to-freedom's-cause will only understand what freedom is when they've LOST IT!
PollitoIngles -> AhBrightWings 30 Dec 2012 08:39
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
― George Orwell, 1984
hominoid 30 Dec 2012 07:35
"It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you".
I have to agree 100% as an ex soldier of many years ago and a retired Police officer, read these words and inwardly digest. When what we have now is lost it isn't coming back soon, and its almost gone.I genuinely believe its to late for America, they have turned a corner and cant stop.We don't have to follow them but I think we will.Their despotism is unmistakable,their objective a mystery.
rivelle -> OneWorldGovernment 30 Dec 2012 07:25
@OneWorldGovernment -
The Tea Party were a bunch of far-right astro-turfed fundamentalist Christian and gun-totting shills of the Establishment with a certain amount of Fox News "dissident" chic thrown in.That's why they were embraced by the GOP, the corporate media and left well alone by the state security forces. American State policing was set up to protect the "republic of property" - read the writings of James Madison et al. That is, the police and army were set up to serve, protect and further the interest of the White Christian property owners, (slave-owners very much included) i.e. the modern day Tea partiers.
This is why the Tea Parties were all gun nuts and Flag, Bible and Military wankers. "War is a Racket" as Smedley Butler pointed out.
Tea Party religious mental Illness was also clearly on display when one saw at their rallies and marches groups of adults all dressed up in utterly bizarre frock-coats and cravats.
If you are pro-violence, pro-gun, pro war and destruction, suffering from severe religious mental illness and anti-health care, anti education, anti-environment, anti-science and reason - in short anti-life -, then that's about as close as it's possible to get to the very definition of Evil.
rivelle -> DreShelby 30 Dec 2012 06:53
Good comment.
Especially the point about Davos. Immanuel Wallerstein is worth reading if you haven't read him already.
http://www.iwallerstein.com/intellectual-itinerary/
In his writings, he posits an opposition between the "spirit of Davos" and the "spirit of Porte Allegre" (where the first meetings of the World Social Forum were held) as the dialectical conflict of forces which will determine the essential political battle lines of the 21st century.
See Wallerstein's "Utopistics: Historical Choices for the 21st Century"
Only problem that I have with it is why do you speak about about a "cultural" elite, as opposed to a more general - and more potent - *power* elite as one finds in, for example, C. Wright Mills?
Mike5000 30 Dec 2012 06:13
Hoover's FBI used to protect racketeers and bookies.
Today's FBI protects money launderers and foreclosure fraudsters.
The only difference is that today's FBI director doesn't wear dresses.
zendancer 30 Dec 2012 06:04
White elite in USA see their "empire crumbling, not even having 1/5 of economy designed to keep military capacity of US ahead of Rest of the World is enough and worst of all the Hispanics are on the rise, the Bush Dynasty next prospective candidate, is Jeb Bush's son who has a Hispanic wife.
When an "empire " starts to implode there is always a resort to violent oppression by forces of Law and Order.
Might is Right should be on the President's calling card when he visits other countries although the BRIC's are challenging America's authority in the Global Economy and in Nuclear/Military power so ,yes , expect another President to be assassinated in the future for failing to prevent the "fall of the elite" as America's debt becomes the "albatross hanging round it's neck ".
JohnSawyer -> SkepticLiberal 30 Dec 2012 04:53
SkepticLiberal: you say "while I do not accept any level of police abuse there had to be a strong police presence to maintain order." The police engaged in countless incidents of abuse during their anti-Occupy efforts. It's not simply "a strong police presence" when the police are using pepper spray in ways that aren't allowed in the written procedures they're supposed to follow; nor is is just a "presence" when the police are firing rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at people who are simply walking through a neighborhood, which happened both to peaceful protesters and to people who simply lived in those neighborhoods trying to get back home. Nor is is merely a show of strength when the police beat on people with their batons simply as a method to get crowds to move in directions the police preferred.
Are you sure you don't accept any level of police abuse?
PatriotActVctms 30 Dec 2012 04:52
You don't even have to protest, the Department of Homeland Security pursued former employee Julia Davis as a "domestic terrorist" in retaliation for embarrassing her bosses by reporting negligence to the FBI as per procedure.
Federal agencies arbitrarily declare any target to be a domestic terrorist in order to invoke powers under the Patriot Act (its very name is blatant propaganda) to write their own search warrants and otherwise bypass constitutional protections. Obviously it is highly likely that NDAA indefinite detention provisions will be used against any target, if they haven't already.
JohnSawyer 30 Dec 2012 04:46
Cointelpro, all grown up. And it's amazing the number of people who say that a group that they think is just a bunch of loud ineffective broke people, should nevertheless be the target of physical assaults coordinated on a scale rarely seen before, is amazing.
Starukkiwi 30 Dec 2012 04:15
When will people realise that facism is the state (police/FBI/CIA/MI5/MI6) and multinational corporations collude, it is called facism - the right wing organizations are a diversion - the facism goes to the heart of every government, (insert your country here)
dalaine00 30 Dec 2012 04:08
This is a truly terrifying article. I was at a few Occupy marches because I want to see prosecutions of people at Wall Street banks who caused the financial meltdown. As an American citizen, I have the Constitutional right to protest and demand justice from the government. I pay for our government with my taxpayer dollars. I gave 13 years of military service during the Cold War and Desert Storm. This is just outrageous! Law breakers at banks are getting away with crimes and when citizens demand justice, we are targeted as terrorists? It's surreal.
JP1110105 30 Dec 2012 03:45
More evidence of America's dissent into an Orwellian Bankster-Corporate-Mainstream Media-Government controlled totalitarian police state.
If you watched the 9/11 cover up documentary, AE911Truth Experts Speak Out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 , you know there is nothing these sociopaths won't do to retain power and control.
George Carlin was right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSOv3ADWXXw
monstrous -> Michael Banks 30 Dec 2012 03:42
the USA is fast becoming, or already is, a fascist state
if your definition of fascism is an economic one, ie corporate state, then the the seamless intermeshing of big business and government began many decades ago. Ditto many of the other attributes of the classic definitions of fascism.
rivelle 30 Dec 2012 03:05
"COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counterintelligence Program) was a series of covert, and at times, illegal,[1] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.
The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[2]
COINTELPRO tactics have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination."
Stieve 30 Dec 2012 02:00
There is no doubt that Western societies have become increasingly unfair in the last 30 years or so. The gains of the '60s & '70s are being systematically reversed. People are being fed the view that those who are succesful are the only ones who matter, that it is in some way reasonable for those who have put people out of a job to slander those very people as lazy for being unemployed. It is a systematic re-positioning of blame by those who have sold our rights and economies down the river for their own profit, to those who have borne the brunt of it.
The defining aspect of these last few years seems to be the use of tactics and a polemic which a generation ago would have been considered beyond the pale. Now those with vested interests act without conscienceGadfly01 30 Dec 2012 01:57
Unbelievable. As Hunter Thompson wrote back in the 1970s I don't ever want to hear the word "paranoid" again. This is as big, evil and corrupt a corporate / government conspiracy as you could imagine.
Also it is appalling to see some of the idiotic comments by people in this discussion. Do people have no clue about Occupy?! Have they been living in a cave? These people would sell their mother down the river if it made them feel good and it probably would.
Some people are just clueless, helpless, etc. and the least they could do, if they are not going to get a clue, is keep their stinkin' opinions to themselves.
The mainstream media in the U.S. ought to cover this story on the front page and as the lead story.
Naomi how do we get them to do that?!
Many thanks,
Mark in Northern California
WarriorRedArmy2 30 Dec 2012 01:24
The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens
Wa.... I heard many times that Russia is not democratic country.. and Putin is a dictator .... I've read this article and understood the USA is the same "democratic" contry... And "socialist" Obams is not better... But the USA also likes to teach others how to be democratic... and also give money for this aim some persons in some countries... Wa... It is good to create such democracy in its image and similarity.. :-)
Karl Marx wrote that the term "democracy" is class term.... Democracy always serves the ruling class.. he distinguished for example terms "capitalist"and "socialist" democracy...This article shows Marx was right.... WRA
wildworms -> palsimon 30 Dec 2012 01:01
Not suspected of terrorist activity (that implies probable cause and an actual, serious crime) but secretly accused of being within six degrees of separation of unilaterally designated enemies, without evidence and without judicial review-- for up to one year, and then only reviewed by what may end up being a rubber-stamp tribunal.
It overturns the centuries-old principle of habeus corpus, which is an important foundation of rule by law. Democracies don't do arbitrary detention. It's a big disappointment to the many people who expect the US to set the standard for constitutional democracy. If the US doesn't stick to principles, who in the world will?
I haven't heard of anyone being detained under the NDAA ... yet ... but it sets an awful precedent that is almost certain to be abused some time in the future.
AvidMerion 29 Dec 2012 23:50
And the main tool used to control people - the mainstream media. Stop watching tv and reading newspapers and start living your life as a human being and their power goes as you can no longer be manipulated.
Everyday on the news share prices and stock markets are promoted as if without this society wouldn't function (a great marketing coup when the deal was struck to show market trends at the end of every news broadcast. Why, how many people are affected and active involved in the stock exchanges that it needs to be reported on daily to the whole nation?).
Without the fear of terrorism, murder, rape, recession, pedophilia etc mercilessly force fed to us by the news most people would start to behave in a co-operative and civilised way and would probably start thinking for themselves. Once this happens we become much harder to control and start to use our own instincts and behave as communities, not just resources for large corporations to harvest revenue from.
A simple solution that is virtually impossible to implement. A catch 22. The thing we think gives us our democracy and freedom is actually the thing that controls us and is stopping us from being civilised human beings. Some people have realised this and fight back by protesting. Unfortunately it is the people who don't even know they are being manipulated and therefore do nothing that make it easy for the FBI to stifle the few that do.
wildworms -> JohannaFerrour 29 Dec 2012 23:38
@JohannaFerrour
I would like to see some reporting on the level of grass-roots involvement in Occupy among blue collar and unemployed Americans. I have a hunch that there was more involvement than that shown in the MSM.
There was. As an outside observer who visited one of the sites and spoke with several of the participants afterwards, I can assure you that people of all ages and all parts of society were involved. The protestors were a lot more diverse than reported in the media.
The only exception I can think of right now is that African-Americans were relatively under-represented. An African-American occupier at the site complained afterwards that African-Americans were "like flecks of pepper in a sea of salt".
Because of the nature of the protest, a lot of unemployed people joined the camp, along with a lot of homeless people, especially homeless families.
Most of the full-time occupiers who weren't unemployed or homeless seemed to be from a blue-collar background.
Even some of the police officers patrolling the site voiced their heartfelt support for occupy, off the record of course (though some other officers were hostile). I think this was genuine, not "good cop/bad cop".
Gordon Hilgers 29 Dec 2012 23:14
What's plain is that Occupy Wall Street is the only group to go straight to the real power center in America, and that's why there was such a cluster of activity within law enforcement surrounding its appearance. It's obvious: Those with the money hold the keys, and surprise, they're not letting go of the keys for any reason under the sun, not freedom, not justice, not fairness--nothing but money and power make any sense at all to this "new boss in town". It's not as if we haven't been warned. It was plainly evident that, by 1980, the corporations the Federal government grew in order to combat the spread of Communism had grown too big for their britches. The change occurred around then, and now that the private sector is in charge, well, no wonder we've got NDAA, Wall Street fraudsters running free, a state apparatus that has been so defunded it's ridiculous. When you consider, for example, that a Federal agency wanting to take-on the real power structure is going to be outgunned, both in terms of money and in terms of the power it implies, at a ratio of 20 to 1, you can easily see why the police fought relatively peaceful protesters to protect what we might as well go out and call by name: a shadow government, a corporatism, a quasi-fascist entity that doesn't give a crap about our rights.
TroubleCameCalling -> Weatherel 29 Dec 2012 22:56Occupy was largely a symbolic gesture. The fact that it was overwhelmingly non-violent for example.
The authoritarian state hand-in-hand with corporate capitalism had defeated this movement before it began. Chants, placards, teach-ins and bongos are no match for a secret police intent on subverting the protesters civil rights and a paramilitary police granted license to do with them as they wish.
Under the pressure of events however symbols give way to gestures made in deadly earnest, phoney wars become real ones.
If the forces Occupy sought to counter are not checked then there may come a time when the turds who applauded the cracking of skulls have cause to look back on this movement and the dead freedoms it sought to exercise with nostalgia.
Or may be not.
Reading some of the above posts one can only conclude that slavery is some peoples natural state.
ReluctantDissident -> roachclip 29 Dec 2012 21:36
@roachclip: you under-estimate the threat of totalitarianism. Imagine a world in which influential men of the people decide which businesses may or may not operate in 'their' towns, where a 'bad' business can be occupied by passive resistance, encouraging the good citizens to make the right choices for the sake of their social standing. ''We are the 99%'' they cry. Who can argue with that?
How healthy an environment might that be for a young idealistic anti-semite with a gift for public speaking, a boundless passion and commitment and a knack of getting people to do the things he wants?
I put it to you that evil would adore such a world. If we want Hitler kept on his chain, we'd better not pretend he only flourishes when our enemies have the upper hand. It's surprising how quickly he becomes the friend of our friend when he wants to crush us and throw us out once and for all.
elmondo2012 29 Dec 2012 21:32
Just found this site:
http://www.projectcensored.org
I am becoming increasingly worried about the US government. Having said that it is not surprising, just look at what the US Government, FBI, Justice Department (what a joke) did during the 1950's and 1960's.
I am actually pro-gun control but sometimes when I read about the insidious increase of government influence/control, I can sometimes see where the hard-core 2nd ammendmenters are coming from.
Romberry 29 Dec 2012 20:24
The banks say jump and the Obama admin's FBI asks "How high?" The banksters and other large corporate/monied interests are in control. They effectively own the government. We had a president at one time who knew what to call this condition:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. " -Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"
Yup. The F-word. I went there.
roachclip -> finnkn 29 Dec 2012 19:35@finnkn -
I'm not sure we'd ever agree on "what motivates them", though. I'd assume there's as many motivations as there are politicians.In normal circumstances you would be right, but when governments are not free to act independently, when their actions are dictated by international capital (like now), the individuals in those governments tend to abandon their individual motivation in deference to group think. They all say and do the same thing (like now).
kingharvest 29 Dec 2012 19:26
When the Wikileaks cables were first released the mighty powers that be immediately deferred discussion away from the contents of the cables to the man who had released them.
It is a simple but effective course of action, especially when you have a citizenry who are largely too stupid or too afraid to ask real questions.
The same thing has happened with OWS. You can see the same ploy here with nitwits blaming the movement for being monitored by civilian and governmental agencies.
Again, it is so simple. And simple-minded. No one who can count above ten and/or is not employed by the same powers could even begin to state that this sort of monitoring is anything short of astounding.
Sadly, by the time they realize that the machine has turned midstream and bitten their asses and those of their children it will be too late. Or perhaps it already is too late.
Danny Draper 29 Dec 2012 19:06Remember the internet is completely intercepted so remember that to makes comments here is to choose your side. Good short book by Julian Assange Cypherpunks outlining this. In this there is a brilliant desciption of what the govenment will use to censor the internet, namely, the Four Horseman of the 'Info-apocolypse' which are: Terrorism, Child Pornography, Money Laundering and the War on Some Drugs. In this case OWS has been lablled a Terrorist.
"There is only one choice, that between power, priviledge and truth, justice" - Rise like lions, Documentary on OWS. available on filmsforaction.org. Watch as part of the list 10 documtaries that outline why the Occupy Movement exists.
YouTube Stormcloudsgathering
This man has it mostly right and makes you think too!
DavidinSantaFe -> Dan B. Underhill 29 Dec 2012 18:46In San Francisco during an Occupy march, Black Bloc were smashing windows of locally owned businesses in the Mission district while the police stood by and watched. The next day this was all the news talked about, and pretty much set the tone of the coverage from then on out.
Any protester who advocates violence or property damage must be considered an agent provocateur.
Clarese Portofino 29 Dec 2012 18:36I would like to thank the FBI and the other "law enforcement" agencies for showing their true colors for who they really protect. I was a one time flag waving patriot, and now I will never fly the stars and stripes. My flag is black and or black and red. I don't see law enforcement as part of the solution, i see them as the strong arm to the problem. Economic justice will be dealt, the movement isn't dead. You can't kill an idea. With any luck we have what happened in Iceland happen here. Google it, it is truly inspiring.
finnkn DavidinSantaFe 29 Dec 2012 18:24@DavidinSantaFe - Worth a read (if you haven't already) -
The Paranoid Style In American Politics
Funny how aspects of this essay apply equally to the US Government and many who support the Occupy movement...
DavidinSantaFe finnkn 29 Dec 2012 17:45@finnkn -
From the NYTimes: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation used counterterrorism agents to investigate the Occupy Wall Street movement, including its communications and planning, according to newly disclosed agency records."
I think you need to think things through a little. Why should the FBI be collaborating with the banks against Occupy Wall Street? Wouldn't the resources of the FBI be better served investigating the numerous criminal acts undertaken by the banks, acts which plunged the world economy into a deep recession, and have caused global instability? Who are the "terrorists" here?
hyperlink 29 Dec 2012 17:37In uncertain times a truncheon on the head of a vaguely discontent citizen is a very comforting thing for those in uniform. They actually thrive on the discordance doing their 'duty' causes in society. It gives them and their fellow workers in the security industries at the very least a feeling of job security, feelings of worth and dare I say it 'job satisfaction'
Adam Curtis' documentary series 'The Power Of Nightmares' made for the BBC in 2004 tried to forewarn us this rising tendency. Might be worth another look.
heatherselkie 29 Dec 2012 17:23I was skeptical of 'occupy' from the get go. Preaching to the converted and all, I saw no point in standing around in a mucky damp park. I knew that protesting like that was a bad idea, it would get quashed, and everybody would end up on lists. The establishment have pretty much made protesting impossible because the consequences down the road will mean you may not be able to get jobs in your chosen field, denied things and the like. Canada has a mask ban going through that will make it illegal to wear masks at protests so your face can be seen! This came out of the red protests in Quebec which got everybody involved and in the following provincial elections, the separatist party won after years out of power, they halted the tuition fee hikes that started it all. So, in different circumstances, change can still happen, but the Red protests had a strong mandate. Occupy did not. What I saw was disregard for public space and parks, they made a bloody mess which cost taxpayers money to clean up, workers who did not have the choice to leave work and protest had to clean up-the lowest paid and marginalized city cleaners. The mess angered alot of people who should have been on Occupy's side. I also had to work, like most people, could not afford to prance off to protest. Coworkers watched Democracy Now every day and swooned over their 'activist superstars', people who are financially well off, come from 'good families'/prestige and do not know what it is like to be poor, marginalized, homeless or nearly homeless. One particular superstar whom I personally know to be well off appeared at the Vancouver occupy protests....and yet we who work HARD to serve said person had to work and never take part in the protests even if we wanted to. This changed my perspective on whom has the right to speak for the 99%, and it certainly isn't most of the 'activist superstars'.
Nobody should be surprised that Occupy was shut down so quickly, and forgotten. I recently read "Days of Destruction, Days of Despair" which came out earlier this year, but the final chapter on occupy seemed so out of date it was laughable. Great book though!
Another must read is a book by Chrystia Freeland "Plutocrats the rise of the super rich and the fall of the rest of us". The USA is run by plutocrats and they do not want union, labour to regain a strong hold in the US or anywhere.
They want us to be reduced to low wage conditions. Of course they would call for a clamp down on this messy Occupy movement. Occupy had the potential to be far reaching and effect change, especially in the US where people have really felt the effects of the financial disaster and continue to do so. The plutocrats of the US banking system encouraged the financial meltdown once they knew there would be a bail out for THEM. The auto companies were filled with glee when they got their bail out...but the rest of us?
A new movement is underway in Canada which the Guardian should pay attention to. Idle no more was started very recently by the Indigenous people of Canada who realized changes in the Indian Act and environmental protection under a huge unfathomable omnibus bill will have devastating effects and are angry. I'm not sure how long it will last, but they mean business. The most marginalized in Canada have woken up.
zeenazee23 29 Dec 2012 16:54Sorry for being slow on the uptake....
But as part of my studies, I've been reading Cain and Hopkins' work on the history of Gentlemanly Capitalism from 1688 to the C20th.
But it would appear you moaning lefties are right.
We are fucking living in a transnational dictatorship of global finance, aren't we?
How the fuck?
I mean, given that we supposedly have free and fair elections with universal suffrage, how the fuck have we let this happen?
In the last 20-odd years, I've studied our history from the reformation to 1945 at various levels, and have studied the politics of 1945 to present. So I should know.
But how the fuck that they got away with it?
Divide and rule? Media manipulation? ffs we're got half the country hunting "disabled scroungers" like they're paedos while the richest 1,000 have see their wealth grow more than the entire current deficit since 2008.
US companies say they'll build prisons as long as they're guaranteed 90% occupancy.
How the fuck can these tiny number of leeches get away with sucking up all the cash for themselves?
Again, how the fuck?
I feel physically sick
RideAPaleHorse -> chrigid 29 Dec 2012 16:46"The OWS failed because 99% of this country did not sympathize or
agree with their movement."Yep, 33% apathy, 33% idiocy and 33% ignorance means that we all remain enslaved to a monetarist tyranny governed by a shallow and corrupt political class.
Just the way I want a democracy to function!!
natron10 29 Dec 2012 15:26
Whether you like Occupiers or think they are stinky and useless, I don't see how details of collusion between state and corporate power aren't chilling. In the US, right-wingers blame everything on the government and many (although fewer) lefties blame corporate interests. But what if they are the Same Thing, colluding in secret while assholes like us fight each other in a war that distracts us from this bigger truth?
Secondly, this whole "the Occupy accomplished nothing" claim is ridiculous. Find me any major, lasting change in the course of human politics that didn't -- like rights for African-Americans, women, workers, gays – take a few decades of struggle to make a difference. That why they are "revolutionary" changes – because some sort of establishment opposes them.
Finally, anti-Occupy commentators make the point that the movement actually did accomplish something when they belittle the "99%" label. The movement's ability to embed that phrase in everyday speech is a huge accomplishment, because it frames things as "almost everybody whose wages have remained stagnant over the past 3 decades despite rising productivity" against "the people making countless millions by gaming the system without actually producing anything." Check out the movie "Inside Job" to see how top university economists were bought off by corporations to serve as the "experts" that made everyone feel good as the economy was deregulated and hurtling towards a massive crash. CEOs know that controlling the dialogue is the most powerful element in a revolution.
OneWorldGovernment TheIneffableSwede 29 Dec 2012 15:02@TheIneffableSwede -
We were talking about surveillance of groups. Both were monitored because they were newly formed movements and the task of the FBI is to gather intelligence about these domestic movements.
To address your point, can you find me one Tea Party gathering where they were breaking the law with their assembly? The OWS protests that were broken up because their protests spilled into illegal activities (camping out on private property, sitting down in public streets for indeterminable amount of time, etc.). There is a difference between private property and public property. If you noticed, none of the protests or speeches made on public property by the OWS protestors were broken up or interrupted. Despite the fact that the Tea Party rhetoric is as ignorant as the OWS rhetoric, one group actually respected the law while certain elements of the OWS (many OWS protests did comply and were not broken up) did not. Hence, the difference in reaction by the local police.
The OWS failed because 99% of this country did not sympathize or agree with their movement. The Tea Party quickly peaked and is losing momentum fast because the majority of this country does not agree with their politics or rhetoric. Of course, typical of the OWS mentality, blame must be placed elsewhere instead of introspection into the failure of a movement that appealed to very few people.
DreShelby 29 Dec 2012 14:49It seems clear the scope and complexity of agency cooperation would have been impossible had it gotten underway in response to the financial crisis. Such cooperation requires contact people to be designated, resources identified that are to be shared, and protocols established. All of that takes a lot of time and meetings that involve administrative level personnel. If all of that preparation was in place, then OWS was only a early forerunner of an expected rebellion. The response to OWS was disproportional because a much broader and aggressive rebellion was expected. That may seem distasteful to many, but there may be supporting evidence.
Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel Prize winning economist) had said the intention of the cultural elite in pressing for dramatic reduction in government social services and a reduction in the taxation of the wealthy was a preemptive move against a possible 'New Deal' from a new FDR type leader.
A possibly related development was the construction of series of new (and nice) federal prisons just north of the Mexican border. Officially it was said the prisons were intended for drug traffickers. If so they remain well below capacity population. Others have said the new prisons were really intended for those instigating or contributing to social unrest.The austerity measures promoted by the cultural elite of Europe, the United States, and other Western powers, will, if implemented, enrich the cultural elite and destroy the middle class in the countries that adopt that economic strategy. That the strategy has been promoted aggressively in Europe and the United States would indicate a consensus probably developed at Davos.
Will the cultural elite have their way? If we look at the ruins of countries and cultures that were once powerful and dominant we find a common thread. Each believed itself to be the carrier of absolute truth. Each became more inhumane and more tyrannical as its social and political dominance declined.
TheIneffableSwede 29 Dec 2012 14:41Why shouldn't the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local government act under the command of the banks? The bankers own the government. Those are their servants, and servants take orders.
The message has been sent out to the American people: if your protest actually inconveniences or troubles the bankers, they will send their goons to break your skull. You'll end up dead or crippled for life.
Now shut up and get back to buying iPhones and wondering how you're going to pay your rent since your boss just cut your salary 10% and gave himself a bonus for reducing payroll costs.
DexterDoolittle kb39remember 29 Dec 2012 13:47Big Brother is already watching you.
It is way past 1984.
|
|
|
Drutten, March 13, 2015 at 8:38 amSo Obama doesn't use a smartphone:marknesop , March 13, 2015 at 4:54 pm…For obvious reasons, for instance it's childsplay to spy on them.
Now, remember this:
http://time.com/35932/ukraine-russia-putin-spies-kgb/
In Putins case, the very same thing is called "technophobia" and "KGB maskirovka" and what not.
Obama uses a Blackberry made by Canada's Research In Motion (RIM), because he knows full well that the NSA has access – via a software implant called "Dropout Jeep", to every IPhone 5. Also, leaked documents from the NSA revealed back in 2013 that the agency was monitoring online orders for laptops, and rerouting some, perhaps all of them to have spyware installed on them prior to delivery to the customer. There is no such thing as too much information where the NSA is concerned, and it unabashedly snoops on everything.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2015 | The Guardian
The National Security Agency want to be able to hack more people, vacuum up even more of your internet records and have the keys to tech companies' encryption – and, after 18 months of embarrassing inaction from Congress on surveillance reform, the NSA is now lobbying it for more powers, not less.NSA director Mike Rogers testified in front of a Senate committee this week, lamenting that the poor ol' NSA just doesn't have the "cyber-offensive" capabilities (read: the ability to hack people) it needs to adequately defend the US. How cyber-attacking countries will help cyber-defense is anybody's guess, but the idea that the NSA is somehow hamstrung is absurd.
The NSA runs sophisticated hacking operations all over the world. A Washington Post report showed that the NSA carried out 231 "offensive" operations in 2011 - and that number has surely grown since then. That report also revealed that the NSA runs a $652m project that has infected tens of thousands of computers with malware.
And that was four years ago - it's likely increased significantly. A leaked presidential directive issued in 2012 called for an expanded list of hacking targets all over the world. The NSA spends ten of millions of dollars per year to procure "'software vulnerabilities' from private malware vendors" – i.e., holes in software that will make their hacking much easier. The NSA has even created a system, according to Edward Snowden, that can automatically hack computers overseas that attempt to hack systems in the US.
Moving further in this direction, Rogers has also called for another new law that would force tech companies to install backdoors into all their encryption. The move has provoked condemnation and scorn from the entire security community - including a very public upbraiding by Yahoo's top security executive - as it would be a disaster for the very cybersecurity that the director says is a top priority.
And then there is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa) the downright awful "cybersecurity" bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week in complete secrecy that is little more than an excuse to conduct more surveillance. The bill will do little to stop cyberattacks, but it will do a lot to give the NSA even more power to collect Americans' communications from tech companies without any legal process whatsoever. The bill's text was finally released a couple days ago, and, as EFF points out, tucked in the bill were the powers to do the exact type of "offensive" attacks for which Rogers is pining.
While the NSA tries to throw every conceivable expansion of power against the wall hoping that something sticks, the clock continues to tick on Section 215 of the Patriot Act – the law which the spy agency secretly used to collect every American's phone records. Congress has to re-authorize by vote in June or it will expire, and as Steve Vladick wrote on Just Security this week, there seems to be no high-level negotiations going on between the administration and Congress over reforms to the NSA in the lead-up to the deadline. Perhaps, as usual, the NSA now thinks it can emerge from yet another controversy over its extraordinary powers and still end up receiving more?
Chad Castellano -> Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:58
Actually it doesn't matter if it is an American phone or computer. The NSA actually has no laws stopping them from doing this to foreign companies. The tens of thousands of computers they hacked in this article are computers outside US jurisdiction. And they have put hardline taps on companies overseas. So right now the only computers or phones with any legal protections are the ones in the U.S. The rest of the world is a legal target for the NSA. Always have been.
What we need is to disband the NSA and replace it with a 100% transparent agency not made up of megalomaniacs.
Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:46After reading this article , you need to ask yourself...
Anybody want to buy an American computer ?
How about an American phone ?
No ?Hmm...I see an economic problem here ...
Mike5000 21 Mar 2015 13:34
The West has transitioned from democracies and republics to criminal empires run by spook gangs.
With total information comes total blackmail capability. Lawmakers and judges are puppets.
Fictional 007 was licensed to kill. Real spook gangs get away with murder, kidnapping, torture, blackmail, commercial espionage, narcotics, and arms trafficking.
ondelette -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 12:29
Do tell. And when did stopping teenagers from joining ISIS become a problem of analyzing vacuumed foreign intelligence data? Do you really want the government to be the party making decisions for teenagers and sorting them out into ones who should be changed and ones who are safe the way they are? Based on surveillance?
The purpose of the government isn't to act as in loco parentis in place of idiots who don't know what to do with a child once it's not a cute baby anymore.
thankgodimanatheist -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:41
You are assuming that the real powers in the world want to stop Daesh (ISIS) and other groups like that.
What if it is all a drama (a bizarre disgusting TV reality show) to keep us (the 99.9999999%) scared (terrorized) so we allow them to spend more money on arms (including more money for the NSA) and forget about real issues such as the fact that in the USA the net worth of the 6 children of Sam Walton is more than that of 50% of us (while our real incomes goes down every day - for the 95% of us) and in the world 80 people's net worth is more than that of 50% of the world population.
Be afraid, don't think, be very afraid...
That's their mantra!Gary Paudler 21 Mar 2015 11:18
Not that surprising, when was the last time the Department of Defense did something that wasn't entirely offensive on some other country's soil?
mikedow -> Delaware 21 Mar 2015 11:15
You can left-click on that pop-up and nuke it if you have Adblocker. I had fun with Rusbridger's Coal Divestment Promo, by blasting it.
Eric Moller 21 Mar 2015 11:02
Why discuss anything .. The GOP has already shown a willingness to hand the NSA illegal powers under the table so to speak .. and even if the deadline for section 215 of the ( Benedict Arnold Act) expires it's not a problem ..
One thing Obama and Congress can agree on is the Continuation of our Tax dollars being spent on our Government spying on us .. The People .. They seem to be in lock step on that illegality .. Kinda like the Hitler High step ..
Quadspect -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:00Theoretically, NSA, in all its cyber-omniscience, watched arms smuggling by various governments into countries with factions that wanted to kill each other, watched the increasing justifiable fury at being droned and bombed and politically and economically interfered with that caused formation of terrorist groups --- Hardly an institution bent on protecting the 99 percent. NSA is up to Something Else Other Than National Security.
zelazny 21 Mar 2015 09:58
The NSA has learned that despite its ability to vacuum up massive amounts of data, it lacks the intelligence to sort it out and analyze it. Garbage in, garbage out.
Take for example the inability of the GCHQ or the NSA to stop teenagers, including teen age girls, from attempting, and actually succeeding, in joining ISIS and other groups.
They may have everyone's information, but they can't sort out the "good" guys from the "bad" guys.
So instead, they will do what the USA always has done -- attack the innocent to make sure they pose no threat, even if they never would pose a threat.
robtal 21 Mar 2015 09:40
Let the NSA do all the hacking they want if your so out of it you put sensitive stuff anywhere on a computor your loss.
Eccles -> whatdidyouexpect 21 Mar 2015 09:25
Using the standard US definition of terrorism they have had them for some decades. Using them, for example, to program missile targets, control drones, communicate, and hack fellow UN diplomats.
And your point is?
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2015 | RT News
However, a group of Harvard professors depicted a much more grim Orwellian world, AFP reported on Thursday.
"Privacy as we knew it in the past is no longer feasible... How we conventionally think of privacy is dead," said Margo Seltzer, a professor in computer science at Harvard University.
Sophia Roosth, a Harvard's genetics researcher, said: "It's not whether this is going to happen, it's already happening... We live in a surveillance state today."
Depicting a terrifying world, where mosquito-sized robots fly around stealing samples of people's DNA, she said, "We are at the dawn of the age of genetic McCarthyism," referring to "witch-hunts" during Second Red Scare in the 1950s in America.
Goedelite Kurt 5 hours ago
Yoni D
Just like 50 years ago people couldn't always afford a tv but now everyone does. The expensive today is trash...more...
Take 50 from 2015: 1965. I was 33yo then. As I recall, that was just about the high point of the middle-class in the US, before the inflation caused by the US aggression in southeast Asia hit us. Almost everyone who had a job - and unemployment was low - could afford a TV. Not only could they afford it, but I believe it offered viewers far better entertainment and journalism. I don't own a TV today, because mainstream TV news is untrustworthy.Eric Blair 18.02 17:48
Eric Schmidt is not even close on this call. Go back and reread what he said about:
"so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with that you won't even sense it, it will be part of your presence all the time," he explained. "Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room."
No one will be able to afford this technical world that he is describing, and which in some degree is coming, but not to every man.
The system is headed to a cashless system where you will be compelled to trade the time in your life to multinational corporations, that will offer you something on the line of "Employee Purchasing Compacts" in lieu of compensation, which enable you to select a list of corporations that are bundled, with fixed prices, for the duration of your term contract. This is how you will be compensated and enslaved to the plutocracy.
You will be able to select from categories that include food, clothing, automobiles, electronics, goods and services. You will be locked into term contracts for the benefit of the corporations and controlled supply and demand.
This is what is being heralded as "Austerity". Each man and woman will only be able to purchase those things which they can afford. So, Schmidt is way off on this one~
Samanta Power
The internet will disappear but the net (NSA) will remain.
0040 14.02 21:50
I think the Harvard guys have it right. The computer, Internet, and cell phone age has done nothing positive for humanity. With the worlds economic and political systems all being neo-liberal and capitalistic, these devices are used to manipulate people for profits and taxes of a sort and on a scale not possible without them. It also puts all a countries infrastructure and resources into the hands of the few.
|
|
|
March 10, 2015 | RT USA
Researchers working for the CIA were involved in a "multi-year, sustained effort" to crack security measures and undermine encryption on Apple devices, The Intercept reports, citing top secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden.
The documents were presented at one of clandestine annual security conferences known as the "Jamboree." The CIA-sponsored forums took place annually for nearly a decade, while the leak covers the period of 2006 to 2013.
Though the report does not provide the details of any successful operations waged against Apple, the documents describe several methods US intelligence officers were using to attempt to infiltrate the tech giant's products.
One of the most egregious revelations detailed by The Intercept was an attempt to create a dummy version of Xcode - the tool used to create many of the apps sold the Apple App Store. If successful, this could allow spies to insert surveillance "backdoors" into any app created using the compromised development software.
The docs also claim that the CIA was actively working to crack encryption keys implanted into Apple mobile devices that secured user data and communications.
The news has spurred backlash amongst security experts on Twitter and will likely prompt heighted security audits from Apple developers. The revelations are expected to strain already tense relations between the company and the US government.
A spokesperson for Apple pointed to previous statements by company CEO Tim Cook on privacy, but did not comment further on the breach.
"I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services," Cook wrote last year. "We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."
Previously Apple was said to have cooperated with the US government's Prism program, a legal backdoor which allowed the NSA and other security agencies to obtain user information.
However, following the first batch of Snowden revelations about NSA surveillance, Apple said it ramped up its efforts to protect user privacy aiming to restore user trust. Last fall, the company changed its encryption methods for data stored on iPhones, a move it said meant it had no longer had a way to extract user data, even if ordered to with a warrant.
Security researchers warned that the tactics would set a dangerous precedent for mobile privacy.
"Every other manufacturer looks to Apple. If the CIA can undermine Apple's systems, it's likely they'll be able to deploy the same capabilities against everyone else," Matthew Green, a Johns Hopkins cryptographer, told The Intercept. "Apple led the way with secure coprocessors in phones, with fingerprint sensors, with encrypted messages. If you can attack Apple, then you can probably attack anyone."
US President Barack Obama as well British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed disapproval at such measures, cautioning that increased privacy for users may prevent governments from tracking extremists planning attacks.
|
|
|
Mar 08, 2015 | The Guardian
captainjohnsmith 2015-03-07 18:06:55
Questions, questions. Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? Wouldn't that have turned up Hillary's private scheme? And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely.
kgb999again -> BeckyP
Hillary Clinton was not serving as a politician. She was serving as a high official in a non-elected office of the U.S. Government. She is required by law to maintain accessible records within the government of every meeting and communication she conducted - for both accountability and historic legacy reasons.
If she wanted to behave as a politician, she shouldn't have accepted the role of Secretary of State.
macktan894
The basic question is still: why would she do such a thing? Why would she insist that all her email and that of her principal staff be handled by this private server?
And I guess I would also wonder how this could go undetected and unscrutinized for so long? Why would not anyone receiving email from the Clinton people wonder why they were getting email from an account that was non government in its address?
I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process?
I recall when Obama won the nomination in 2008, he had a meeting with Clinton re her appt to sec of state. He was surprised when she turned up with a "contract" that listed items she needed him to agree to if she were to join his administration. Was this server business in that contract?
Why do I have these questions but reporters do not?
thegradycole -> macktan894
Why does anybody do it? Jeb Bush used a personal server while he was governor of Florida and then handed over 275,000 emails, of course just like Clinton he didn't release those that he determined were of a personal nature. Kerry is the first SOS to use the official .gov server.
The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. But I always thought that nothing could really be deleted. If they have the server don't they have everything?
This whole thing better be more than the usual it-looks-bad-but-we-can't-find-anything. It gets to the point where the appearance of impropriety becomes a conspiracy, they add "gate" to it and it has a life of its own. If there's something there let's see it. Scott Walker and Chris Christie have similar problems as their emails are part of criminal investigations.
Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost).
BradBenson -> chiefwiley 8 Mar 2015 06:48
Well yes, in theory. In actual practice Freedom of Information Requests were always treated with disdain by the agencies. Since I left Government in 1999, it has gotten much worse.
You are absolutely correct that she should not be mixing official and private business or the servers, which carry them. All of her official correspondence should have been retained in a Government Server.
Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives.
FloodZilla 8 Mar 2015 06:43
The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS!
Anne Vincent 8 Mar 2015 03:19
If she was too insecure to utilize the US Government's own computer system, then she is too insecure to reside in the White House or to work as a US Government official. She needs to "move on".
Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was.
David Egan 7 Mar 2015 22:34
Mayer added that speculation that Clinton had created a "homebrew" internet system was "plainly inaccurate", at least when talking about the current configuration of the service.
Newsflash!!! Hillary had no business, legal or otherwise, to create her own network!!
This way she has total control over the e-mails that she wants to make public.... GET IT.....??
David Egan -> anthonylaino 7 Mar 2015 22:28
I agree!!! The elitist one percent have made billions and knowingly sent tens of thousands of people to their deaths, just for a buck (ok, well, lots of bucks) and to further their jack boot on the throat of the average citizen from any country...
Financial Bondage For Everyone!!!!
Zooni_Bubba 7 Mar 2015 20:58
Maybe Clinton had security and maybe she didn't. It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. When someone under investigation gets to decide what to supply, they not the authorities control the evidence.
Stephen_Sean 7 Mar 2015 20:25
Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook?
Dems better start looking for an alternative. Hillary isn't the one you want answering the phone at 3am.
Trixr -> Miles Long 7 Mar 2015 19:54
From a technical point of view, saying it's a 'high security' system is cobblers. Anti malware is the LEAST you can do for email security in a corporate system. Having a domain registered in one location and traffic coming from another means absolutely nothing in these days of shared hosting and dynamically-provisioned server farms. No-one puts their personal details on a WHOIS these days. I don't, and I just have a dinky little personal domain.
The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour.
The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse.
And this 'expert' is an idiot, or not giving the full story.
John Hemphill -> imipak 7 Mar 2015 19:12
Just curious if know by chance, how did the State Department do in their last couple ot FISMA audits ?
Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception.
ElmerFuddJr -> MakeBeerNotWar 7 Mar 2015 18:37
"Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena.!.
MakeBeerNotWar -> ElmerFuddJr 7 Mar 2015 18:48
- yes but one risks the label of misogynist by her many followers. Cheney is a true psychopath tho and Clinton could reach being one thus why the Dems who really care about our country need to find an alternate candidate so HRC will not be given the chance to start another idiotic fraud war that benefits Wall $t, I$rael and the MIC.
GuardianIsBiased127
What a bunch of liberal spin by ABC. I've run mail servers for 20 years. Scanning for viruses etc is trivial and every email provider does it. Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign.
macktan894 -> GuardianIsBiased127
Agree. Saying that her system scanned for viruses and was therefore "secure" is a laugh. My computer scans for viruses, too, as do most computers. We all know that does not equate with topnotch security. I also use an Apple. Still, the NSA or any other cyberterrorist can easily hijack my computer if that's the goal.
ludaludaluda
"internap" is not a good company by any measure -- my company has been a client for years.
If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise.
bbuckley
Look, let's be clear. People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING.
Where's the email that has Hillary wanting these poor people being brought back to work. Hillary has in the past spoken of the danger of using a private domain.
This is once again the rules don't apply to Clintons. And I'm going to tell Ya all something: the investigators will be going to gmail, or yahoo, or whoever, and making 100% sure they get it all. I truly do not care for this woman. I find her to be a shifty giant egoed elitist. However, I'm not ready to yell guilty. Decency and fair play require that I see the pudding before I declare the truth. But, she damn well knew the rules, so why hide the emails? It won't be a mystery lover, that's for sure. She didn't want them seen, there's gotta be a reason for that.
Danish5666
The ruling elite plays by their own rules.
Kelly Kearns -> Miles Long
Actually, the rules were there before.
12 FAM 544.2 Automated Information System (AIS)
Processing and Transmission
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)November 4, 2005 above.
Kelly Kearns -> imipak
"12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
a. It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The Department's authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the Department's management control. "
|
|
|
March 5, 2015 | alternet.org
A White House-backed bill would give the corporate elite control over how our data is used.
Editor's note: The following is the latest in a new series of articles on AlterNet called Fear in America that launched this March. Read the introduction to the series.The Internet and our digital media are quietly becoming a pervasive and manipulative interactive surveillance system. Leading U.S. online companies, while claiming to be strong supporters of an open and democratic Internet, are working behind the scenes to ensure that they have unlimited and unchecked power to "shadow" each of us online. They have allied with global advertisers to transform the Internet into a medium whose true ambition is to track, influence and sell, in anever-ending cycle, their products and political ideas. While Google, Facebook and other digital giants claim to strongly support a "democratic" Internet, their real goal is to use all the "screens"we use to empower a highly commercialized and corporatized digital media culture.
Last Thursday was widely viewed as a victory for "Internet Freedom" and a blow to a "corporatized" Internet as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) endorsed a historic public utility framework for Network Neutrality (NN). It took the intervention of President Obama last year, who called for "the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," to dramatically transform the FCC's plans. Its chairman, Thomas Wheeler, a former cable and telecom lobbyist, had previously been ambivalent about endorsing strong utility-like regulations. But feeling the pressure, especially from the president, he became a "born again" NN champion, leading the agency to endorse "strong, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet."
But the next day, the Obama White House took another approach to Internet Freedom, handing the leading online companies, including Google, Facebook, and their Fortune-type advertising clients, a major political victory. The administration released its long-awaited "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" legislation. The bill enables the most powerful corporations and their trade associations to greatly determine what American privacy rights will be. By giving further control over how data are gathered and used online, the administration basically ceded more clout to a corporate elite that will be able to effectively decide how the Internet and digital applications operate, today and in the near future.
How do privacy rules impact the openness of the Internet, and the ability to promote and sustain progressive and alternative perspectives? While much of the public debate on pervasive data mining has focused on the role of the NSA and other intelligence agencies that were exposed by Edward Snowden, there has not been as much discussion on the impact of the commercial data system that is at the core of the Internet today. Google, Facebook, and others use our data as the basis of an ever-expanding global system of commercial surveillance. This information is gathered from our mobile devices, PCs, apps, social networks, and increasingly even TVs-and stored in digital profiles. These far-reaching dossiers-which can be accessed and updated in milliseconds-can include information on our race/ethnicity, financial status, health concerns, location, online behavior, what our children do, whom we communicate with on social media, and much more.
The major online companies are continually expanding their commercial data gathering practices. They now merge and use our online and offline data (what we do online and information collected from store loyalty cards, etc.); track us across all the devices we use (PCs, mobile, etc.); and amass even more data about us supplied by a vast network of data broker alliances and partnerships (such asFacebook with its myriad of data partners, including Acxiom and Epsilon). A U.S. digital data industry "arms race," with companies vying to own the most complete set of records on every consumer, has also led to a wave of mergers and acquisitions, where companies that have already compiled huge datasets on Americans (and global consumers) being swallowed up by even larger ones.
Leading corporations are investing vast sums to harvest and, in their own words, make "actionable" information we now generate nearly 24/7. So-called "Big Data" technologies enable companies to quickly analyze and take advantage of all this information, including understanding how each of us uses online media and mobile phones. A score of "Math Men and Women"-led advertising-technology companies have pioneered the use of super fast computers that track where we are online and, in milliseconds, crunch through lots of our data to decide whether to target us with advertising and marketing (regardless of whether we use a PC or mobile device and, increasingly, using our geolocation information).
These machines are used to "auction" us off individually to the highest bidder, so we can be instantly delivered some form of marketing (or even political) message. Increasingly, the largest brands and ad agencies are using all this data and new tactics to sell us junk food, insurance, cars, and political candidates. For example, these anonymous machines can determine whether to offer us a high-interest pay day loan or a lower interest credit card; or an ad from one political group versus another.
But it's not just the ability to harvest data that's the source of increased corporate clout on the Internet. Our profiles are tied to a system of micro-persuasion, the 21st century updating of traditional "Madison Avenue" advertising tactics that relied on "subliminal" and cultural influence. Today, online ads are constructed by connecting our information to a highly sophisticated digital marketing apparatus. At places like Google's BrandLab, AT&T's Adworks Lab, or through research efforts such as Facebook IQ, leading companies help their well-heeled clients take advantage of the latest insights from neuromarketing (to deliberately influence our emotions and subconscious), social media monitoring, new forms of corporate product placement, and the most effective ways to use all of our digital platforms.
The online marketing industry is helping determine the dimensions of our digital world. Much of the Internet and our mobile communications are being purposely developed as a highly commercialized marketplace, where the revenues that help fund content go to a select, and largely ad-supported, few. With Google, Facebook, major advertisers and agencies all working closely together throughout the world to further commercialize our relationship to digital media, and given their ownership over the leading search engines, social networks, online video channels, and how "monetization" of content operates, these forces pose a serious obstacle to a more democratic and diverse online environment.
One of the few barriers standing in the way of their digital dominance is the growing public concern about our commercial privacy. U.S. companies have largely bitterly opposed proposed privacy legislation-in the U.S. and also in the European Union (where data protection, as it is called, is considered a fundamental right). Effective regulations for privacy in the U.S. would restore our control of the information that has been collected about us, versus the system now in place that, for the most part, enables companies to freely use it. But under the proposed Obama plan, Google, Facebook and other data-gathering companies would be allowed to determine the rules. Through a scheme the White House calls a "multi-stakeholder" process, industry-dominated meetings-with consumer and privacy groups vastly outnumbered and out-resourced-would develop so-called self-regulatory "codes of conduct" to govern how the U.S. treats data collection and privacy. Codes would be developed to address, for example, how companies can track and use our location information; how they compile dossiers about us based on what we do at the local grocery store and read online; how health data can be collected and used from devices like Fitbit; and more. This process is designed to protect the bottom line of the data companies, which the Obama White House views as important to the economy and job growth. (Stealing other people's data, in other words, is one of America's most successful industries). Like similar self-regulatory efforts, stakeholder codes are really designed to sanction existing business practices and enable companies to continue to accumulate and use vast data assets unencumbered. The administration claims that such a stakeholder process can operate more effectively than legislation, operating quickly in "Internet time." Dominated by industry as they are, stakeholder bodies are incapable of doing anything that would adversely impact their own future-which currently depends on the ability to gather and use all our data.
The administration's bill also strips away the power of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which now acts as the leading federal watchdog on privacy. Instead of empowering the FTC to develop national rules that enable individuals to make their own privacy decisions, the bill forces the agency to quickly review (in as little as 90 days) the proposed stakeholder codes-with little effective power to reject them. Companies become largely immune to FTC oversight and enforcement when they agree to abide by the self-regulatory policies their lobbyists basically wrote. In a rare rebuke to the administration, the FTC, leading Congressional Democrats, and the majority of consumer and privacy organizations rejected the White House's privacy plan. But the administration does not appear to be willing, for now, to change its support for the data companies; and as we know, Silicon Valley and their business allies have strong support in Congress that will prevent any privacy law from passing for now.
To see how the online lobby has different views on Internet Freedom, compare, for example the statements of the "Internet Association"-the lobbying trade organization that represents Google, Facebook, Amazon and dozens of other major online data-gathering companies-on last week's two developments. It praised the FCC NN decision for creating "strong, enforceable net neutrality rules … banning paid prioritization, blocking, and discrimination online." But the group rejected the Administration's privacy proposal, as weak as it was, explaining that "today's wide-ranging legislative proposal outlined by the Commerce Department casts a needlessly imprecise net." At stake, as the Internet Association knows, is the ability of its members to expand their businesses throughout the world unencumbered. For example, high on the agenda for the Internet Association members are new U.S. brokered global trade deals, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which will free our digital giants from having to worry about strong privacy laws abroad.
While the NN battle correctly viewed Comcast, Verizon, and other cable and phone giants as major opponents to a more democratic digital media environment, many of the online companies were seen as supporters and allies. But an "open" network free from control of our cable/telco monopolies is just one essential part for a more diverse and public interest-minded online system. Freedom must also prevent powerful interests from determining the very structure of communications in the digital age. Those companies that can collect and most effectively use our information are also gatekeepers and shapers of our Internet Future.
The NN victory is only one key step for a public-interest agenda for digital media. We also must place limits on today's digital media conglomerates, especially their ability to use all our data. The U.S is one of the only "developed" countries that still doesn't have a national law protecting our privacy. For those concerned about the environment, we must also address how U.S. companies are using the Internet to encourage the global public to engage in a never-ending consumption spree that has consequences for sustainability and a more equitable future.
There is ultimately an alignment of interests between the so-called "old" media of cable and the telephone industry with the "new" online media. They share similar values when it comes to ensuring the media they control brings eyeballs and our bank accounts to serve them and their advertising clients. While progressive and public interest voices today find the Internet accessible for organizing and promoting alternative views, to keep it so will require much more work.
Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy ( www.democraticmedia.org).
|
|
|
Mar 06, 2015 | The Guardian
Hillary Clinton has been on the defensive this week over the revelation that she exclusively used a private email account while serving as secretary of state. The presumptive 2016 presidential candidate has tried to douse the flames, but key questions about the controversy remain unaddressed.
Where are the missing emails?
Two months ago, a team of Clinton people combed through a vast stack of her emails – from the period covering 2009 to 2013, when she served as America's top diplomat. Having reviewed the emails, they handed over 55,000 pages to the State Department.
... ... ..
That begs the question: how many pages did she not hand over? More importantly, what did they contain?
... ... ...
But we still don't know who those advisers were, and whether they had any training in the art of preserving official records.
So: who vetted the Clinton emails? Why should they be trusted to preserve something as precious to the nation as its historic records?
... ... ...
Why was email vetting even permitted?
The question of who vetted Clinton's emails before their transfer to the State Department raises another question: why was this allowed in the first place?
Since 2009, US government rules have been very clear on this subject. The National Archives and Records Administration stated categorically in that year – the first of Clinton's term as secretary – that "agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
Alas: why did senior State Department officials allow Clinton to override clear official rules? What role did Clinton herself play in circumventing the regulations?
Was the secret server secure?
We now know that Team Clinton set up its own domain name, ClintonEmail.com, shortly before Hillary Clinton took up the job as secretary of state. It was linked to a "homebrew" server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.Given that Clinton was dealing with highly sensitive diplomatic issues, and that President Obama has declared cybersecurity a top priority for the nation, one might have expected additional protection.
But simple tests conducted by experts suggest that the server's security shield was not particularly sophisticated – though neither was that of the State Department.
What was done to protect Clinton's private server from hacking attacks? Were any vulnerable loopholes cut off? Were state secrets at risk?
Republicans accuse Clinton of 'scheme to conceal' emails from public view
State Department officials do not expect 50,000 pages of email to be released for several months, as Clinton – a lone tweet aside – chooses to stay silentWhy did she do it?
Perhaps the most intriguing question that still hangs in the air – and one that the public may never have satisfactorily answered, much to the chagrin of Benghaziphiles – is the simplest: why would Hillary Clinton decide, in effect, to privatise her own official emails? Was it an innocent move made for the sake of convenience – one which Clinton supporters have emphasised was made by her predecessors and by leading Republican politicians?
Or: were the private emails a conscious manoeuvre? As watchdogs at the Sunlight Foundation put it: "There is shock at what Secretary Clinton did because the most likely explanation of her intent seems clear – she created a system designed to avoid accountability, potentially in violation of the law."
jebhanson986
TheMediaSuxHillary Clinton behaves very strangely on the background of Obama's statements about cybersecurity. We are used our authorities and special services are watching us through internet. FBI and other may read our e-mails, look through our accounts in social networks.
Actions of Hillary are too unpatriotic against the background of her applications for participation in presidential elections 2016. It is already known fact she was sponsored by foreign residents. It is crime.
Anyway she has something to conceal. I don't want Hillary to become our president. I know believe her as well as Obama. They have too many skeletons in the closet.
"Perhaps the most intriguing question that still hangs in the air" - "why would Hillary Clinton decide, in effect, to privatise her own official emails?"
That's also the easiest question to answer. And my five year old nephew figured it out: so people won't find out what was in the emails.
Theodore Svedberg -> osprey1957
It is not just the right that is alarmed over Hillary's actions but also many progressive Democrats. This is definitely not a manufactured scandal created by the Republicans but one created by Hillary herself. It reflects on her character and her belief she is above the rules that the rest of us must obey.
macktan894
These are the basic questions I have. Should all elected and appointed govt officials have the right to privatize govt business, in effect removing it from the sunlight that democracy requires? I really don't understand why she would do something like this, why she thought conducting business using secure govt servers would be such a bad idea. Nor do I get how she got away with making govt records her personal property.
Additionally, wouldn't John Kerry have needed to review the communications of his predecessor? Typically when one starts a new job,reviewing the files of one's predecessor is the way you get up to speed.
Is anyone able to ask her these questions?
GrammaW -> macktan894
How soon we forget...bush (aka Karl Rove) used a private account for gov bus, and somehow 100s were 'lost'. Have they been found and turned over yet?
AistheWay -> macktan894
I agree with you about the gov't privatizing what should be public and transparent dealings. This issue is a major concern that requires immediate legislation. For example the outsourcing of prison "care". I have spoken to ex-inmates who have served time in these private correctional facilities and to my disgust found out that they (private prison company) basically denied inmates, of most if not all, of the rights mandated by federal/state statutes regarding prisoner treatment.
Under the guise of budget savings and tax cuts our politicians are once again attacking citizen's rights.
macktan894 -> AistheWay
Don't get me started on the criminal justice system. I'll just say here that what's going on in Ferguson is happening all over the country, mainly to poor people no matter the race. And it is disgusting. I suggest emergency donations to the ACLU since the govt clearly has no inclination to correct this injustice.
SteveLight
This is not analysis -- this is muck raking.
Was the secret server secure?
I'd say it was a far sight more secure than a government server. Frankly, I would not trust a government server. The more we know about cyber intrusions, the more I would argue government emails are at risk.
Besides -- the first thing Hillary detractors would do is look for quotes they could take out of context.
Besides -- given Snowden's revelations -- if we were tapping Merkel's phone, NSA probably has all of Hillary's emails. They may not want to divulge that fact but I will bet dollars to doughnuts that her emails are under government wraps right now.
terrible analysis -- is Guardian slipping? I don't see the Guardian in the same high regard as I did, say 12 month ago. Who left?
macktan894 -> SteveLight
It's not her decision to make. She may have some political fears about her job, but if her fears were that great, then she shouldn't have taken the job. She cannot privatize sensitive govt records. They aren't her property. If she's that fearful, she should just stay retired and not work for an open govt such as ours.
MaxBoson -> SteveLight
The muckrakers-the most famous of whom was Sinclair Lewis-were early twentieth-century American journalists who exposed corrupt politicians and robber-baron industrialists.
So If you want to call Ed Pilkington a muckracker, go ahead, it's a compliment I'm sure he will appreciate, even if he hasn't raked in any mud yet- the New York Times did that when it published the e-mail revelations. What the author has done is pose some very interesting questions, which, by your choice of the word "muckraking," you seem to think pose a danger to Hillary Clinton. I think they do, too.
Corinne Marasco
Incredibly lazy reporting.
The server is not in Chappaqua. It is a service provided by Optimum, which offers both website and e-mail hosting. And, you can use any e-mail domain you like. http://www.ip-tracker.org/locator/ip-lookup.php?ip=24.187.234.187
Climb off the Edward Snowden Gravy Train, Guardian. Get back to doing real reporting.
macktan894 -> Corinne Marasco
Well, that's even worse. A Secretary of State shopping for a website and email hosting service to manage the govt.'s official records. Was this company certified by the govt as secure to handle the govt.'s sensitive official records?
chiefwiley -> macktan894
If people got personal, political, State Department, and Clinton charitable e-mails all from a single non-government account, that would deliver an interesting hidden message, too. It's all intermingled and interconnected with the Clintons.
Elton Johnson -> Corinne Marasco
"The server is not in Chappaqua."
I didn't realize they searched her home to determine this. Do you have a link to the story where they did?
JJHLH1
Now it makes sense why Hillary continued to receive all those foreign contributions during her time as Secretary of State. She could make deals via e-mail and then destroy the evidence and nobody would know.
And her homebrew e-mail server was guarded by Secret Service agents using taxpayer dollars.
This story has larger implications other than severely harming her 2016 prospects. A home server is much more vulnerable to security attacks compared to one run by professionals with experience. As Sec. of State her emails would contain sensitive information. Her behavior places the U.S. at risk. Not a bright move on her part, but then again she failed the D.C. Bar exam so I guess it's not unexpected.
Elton Johnson
Those emails are not hers. They belong to all of us. Stop apologizing for her.
MillbrookNY
You couldn't be involved in this many blunders and scandals unless you were trying.
Regardless of how smart HRC may be, she is a magnet for scandals and blunders. If you are always having to explain why what you didn't isn't technically wrong, you're doing the wrong things. Stop expecting to get a pass every time, HRC.
en again she failed the D.C. Bar exam so I guess it's not unexpected.
Elton Johnson MillbrookNY
Her "intelligence" is a myth. She wants to be President yet she can't even come out and speak to the people on this matter?
She can't even manage her own mess, how can she be entrusted to manage the country?
JJHLH1 Elton Johnson
Hillary isn't very bright. Just look at all the gaffes she makes like saying they left the White House "dead broke".
She failed the D.C. Bar exam in 1973. Over 2/3 pass it. That's why she ended up in Arkansas.
williamdonovan
I'll bet that Obama & Kerry where recipients of email from her account. Of course there is a cover story and cover up. Here it is in Black and White. (It is a felony)
Title 18 §641. Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 108–275, §4, July 15, 2004, 118 Stat. 833.)
Homeland security? Start by looking inside Government where a the real criminals hide.
The biggest threat to our Republic is the very people who swore to serve it.
NSubramanian 12h ago
"Why was email vetting even permitted?"
Yes. In the context of Obama's desire for Net security, this is a crucial question and it deserves an honest reply.
However, where Hillary Clinton goes, the question seems to follow: "Was the vetting permitted? "Was the vetter authorised to vet?", destined never to be answered.
During her 2008 campaign for nomination, Hillary Clinton claimed greater fitness to be Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces because as the First Lady, she had fielded those dreaded 3 ' O Clock calls on the Red Phone which always meant nothing but trouble, apparently to vet them for seriousness before passing on the call to the President.Neither Hillary nor her team chose to answer the logical question which an incredulous America asked "Who had authorised the First Lady to answer calls which came on the Red Phone?"
Husband Bill chose wisely to stay out of it.
AmericanGruntShe and her minions are obviously trying to hide how easy it was for she and her sisters (Rice, Power and Albright) to lie their way to an unprovoked war against Libya simply by baiting really dumb men always eager to have their military go destroy stuff and kill people. That war was initiated with nothing but a UN resolution specifying only an intent "to protect innocent life" from something that "might" happen, but was in fact intended from the very beginning to effect violent "regime change" by US military force (along with the usual British and French co-conspirators) under a phony "NATO" cover.
These women were able to circumvent the US Constitution and the US Congress based on an "emergency human rights" excuse that was entirely bogus. They did it solely to get a free ride on the naïve "Arab Spring" bandwagon and give Ms Clinton a "foreign policy accomplishment" for her planned 2016 presidential campaign. The only way to get the resolution passed by the UN Security Council - solely to establish a "humanitarian no-fly-zone" - was for those women and their minions to boldly lie to the American people, to the UN Security Council, to the Russians and to the Chinese, and then misuse the American people's military for their own self-serving domestic political agenda.
As soon as the resolution was passed, France and the UK, along with the US, went on the direct attack against Libyan forces trying to maintain some semblance of order in their own country, and killed far more people than those Libyan forces "might" have. It was indeed "clever" to attack a country only AFTER it had given up its weapons of mass destruction and was essentially defenseless against the far superior forces of "NATO" – which sent a powerful message to both Iran and North Korea about what happens AFTER you give up your nukes, what happens AFTER you play by all the rules demanded by the Americans.
And a whole range of "macho" men, even eager to send their military forth to destroy stuff and kill any suspicious people in sight, stupidly took the bait and joined the bandwagon like the predictable fools they are. All the "Four Sisters" had to do was toss some red meat over the kennel fence. And just behold the death and destruction they wrought with their bombs and the totally lawless playground for fanatical crazies they created right at Europe's underbelly. With zero adult consideration to "what comes next", it was all entirely predictable, thoroughly shameful, and completely self-defeating emotional nonsense by people trying to operate far beyond their competence levels.
How can a guy like Vladimir Putin witness the ignominious death of Gadhafi in a sewer pipe and NOT wonder if he and his own country are next? How can he not consider that it was a "defensive" anachronism still called "NATO" that relentlessly attacked another sovereign country for eight months – the same "NATO" ever eager to push its arrogantly offensive nose right up to the Kremlin gate? Why would he sit and wait for it to come, especially after being so shamefully lied to by those American women? The main thing that a single super-power status does for the women who own it is obviate the need for them to think.
There probably won't be a lot of people interested in pouring over THOSE embarrassing e-mails. Far too much potential for EVERYONE to get egg all over their own faces, the same people who for generations have reveled in righteous indignation over the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor. It all makes me ashamed to be a professional American soldier.
Theodore Svedberg AmericanGrunt
Very good set of reasons why Hillary should never be President.
harryboy
In 2007 as a Senator she thought differently - Hillary Clinton Bashes Bush Officials for Secret Email Accounts
WeThePeople harryboy
Maybe she's also been secretly trying to start another war for arms profiteering, oil grabbing and Empire like the Bush Officials did...
harryboy -> WeThePeople
Or maybe shes just a hypocrite
WeThePeople -> harryboy
Your right, she is a hypocrite… but at least she's not responsible for a few hundred thousand dead humans and 5 million refugees not to mention the countless maimed and many tortured like the Bush Officials. Yet.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 | NYTimes.com
Gemalto, a French-Dutch digital security company, said on Wednesday that it believed that American and British intelligence agencies had most likely hacked into the company's networks in an attempt to gain access to worldwide mobile phone communications. But it said that the intrusions had only limited effect.
Gemalto said that the attacks had occurred over two years, starting in 2010, but that the National Security Agency of the United States and its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, had failed to gain wholesale access to the company's SIM card encryption codes.
The company is the world's largest producer of cellphone SIM cards - the small chips that hold an individual's personal security and identity information - and its networks could have given American and British intelligence agencies the ability to collect mobile voice and data communications without the permission of governments or telecommunications providers.
This hacking was first reported last week by the website The Intercept based on documents from 2010 provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor whose leak of agency documents has set off a national debate over the proper limits of government surveillance.
"At the time, we were not able to identify the perpetrators of the attacks," Patrick Lacruche, Gemalto's head of security, said at a news conference in Paris on Wednesday. "We now think that they could have been linked to the GCHQ. and N.S.A. operation."
The leaked documents from Mr. Snowden suggested that millions of SIM cards could have been affected. Olivier Piou, Gemalto's chief executive, disputed that claim, but he declined to provide an exact figure.
"At the very most, very little," said Mr. Piou when questioned by reporters about how many SIM cards were potentially infiltrated.
... ... ...
The revelations are the latest in a series of suspected hacking activities by American and British intelligence agencies that were made public by Mr. Snowden.
Targets of the surveillance programs have included high-profile figures like Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, whose cellphone conversations American intelligence agencies are suspected of monitoring. The services of a number of the world's largest tech companies, including Google and Facebook, were also infiltrated, according to the Snowden leaks.
The tapping of people's online communications has led to widespread criticism of what is perceived as overreaching by American and British intelligence agencies.
"Trust in the security of our communications systems are essential for our society and for businesses to operate with confidence," Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, an advocacy group based in London, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The impact of these latest revelations will have ripples all over the world."
Gemalto said in a news release that it had experienced many attacks in 2010 and 2011 and that it detected "two particularly sophisticated intrusions which could be related to the operation." But it said that the attacks "only breached its office networks and could not have resulted in a massive theft of SIM encryption keys."
In June 2010, an unknown third party, which Gemalto said it now believed was either an American or British intelligence agency, had tried to spy on its communications network. A month later, Gemalto said, emails containing malware were sent to some of its customers, many of which are the world's largest cellphone carriers. The emails had pretended to come from Gemalto's employees.
"We immediately informed the customer, and also notified the relevant authorities both of the incident itself and the type of malware used," Gemalto said, adding that it had detected several attempts to gain access to its employees' computers during that time.
The company said that its SIM encryption codes and other customer data had not been stored on the networks that were targets of the attack, and that it had upgraded its internal security software beginning in 2010 to limit the impact of future hacking.
Gemalto did admit, however, that the hacking attempts in 2010 may have given some access to SIM cards based on outdated telecom technology, known as 2G.
American and British intelligence agencies are suspected of targeting SIM cards used by carriers in hot spots like Afghanistan, Iran and Yemen, which still mainly used 2G SIM cards in 2010, according to the leaked documents. This technology did not offer the same security protection as the SIM cards that are typically used in Western countries, Gemalto warned.
"If the 2G SIM card encryption keys were to be intercepted by the intelligence services," Gemalto said, "it would be technically possible for them to spy on communications when the SIM card was in use in a mobile phone."
Mark Scott reported from London, and Aurelien Breeden from Paris.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2015 | slashdot.org
Advocatus Diaboli writes with this excerpt from The Intercept's explanation of just how it is the NSA weaseled its way into one important part of our communications: AMERICAN AND BRITISH spies hacked into the internal computer network of the largest manufacturer of SIM cards in the world, stealing encryption keys used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe, according to top-secret documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.The hack was perpetrated by a joint unit consisting of operatives from the NSA and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ.
The breach, detailed in a secret 2010 GCHQ document, gave the surveillance agencies the potential to secretly monitor a large portion of the world's cellular communications, including both voice and data.
aberglas (991072)
Re:A big surprise (Score:3)
Actually it is surprising. Many if not most large government IT projects are appallingly run. Vast amounts of money wasted on useless consultants that end up producing very little if anything at all.
As the NSA's budget grows and grows, I suspect this will happen to them. Lots of MBAs that can only organize their own careers, while the crypto-nerds are pushed into the background.
tekrat (242117) on Thursday February 19, 2015 @05:39PM (#49091493)
NSA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we all just agree that the NSA is the most nefarious hacking group, the most dangerous and out of control? That they make all the other so called "black hats" look like innocent little babies?
I think we all need to work together to get rid of this terrible, nasty, unpredictable hacker group -- for the sake of national and international security. They represent a clear and present danger to the future of this country.
Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19, 2015 @06:12PM (#49091593)
We are the global village bully (Score:1, Interesting)
Veterans Today on February 11, 2015
Why the United States Always Loses Its Wars [veteranstoday.com]
We are the global village bully that's hated by much of the world.
America loses all its wars because it seems we've always been on the wrong side of history. Morally nor legally should any nation have the right to invade and occupy another sovereign nation, much less believe it can achieve victory in long, protracted wars.
Yet in violation of all ethical precepts and all international laws, the sole global superpower citing its impunity through exceptionalism hypocritically insists it can maintain its moral high ground in its relentless pursuit of regime changes anywhere it so chooses on earth. We are the global village bully that's hated by much of the world.
And it's pure self-aggrandizing bullshit to perpetrate the myth that America is hated because of our "freedom," another rhetorical brainwashing lie. We now live in a fascist totalitarian police state run by a globalized crime syndicate of the central banking cabal. As of last April per a Princeton-Northwestern study the US has officially been designated an oligarchy.
Last year after a group of ethnic Russians living in Crimea voted to become part of Russia, the Russian military claimed control over its own naval base there that the US-NATO had been lusting to steal after the unlawful overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected sovereign government.
Ever since it's been nonstop lies and propaganda propagated to demonize Putin as the aggressor when in fact all along it's the American Empire that's been recklessly pushing what could end up World War III against nuclear powered Russia. With US-NATO missiles installed on Russia's doorstep in virtually every former Soviet eastern bloc nation, hemming Russia in, who's really the aggressor here?
The WMD lie that was the repeated mantra used as prewar drum beating propaganda to launch a war against humanity in Iraq a dozen years earlier is now being replayed as deja vu all over again to amnesic, dumbed down Americans. Despite defeats in both Iraq and Afghanistan still being dragged out as America's longest running wars in its history, the US-NATO war machine is once again prepping for yet more war raging now in Eastern Ukraine.
The US government's rush to war hit a minor snag the other day when various European nations like France and Germany announced their opposition and refusal to send arms to the Ukraine government, wanting to give peace talks with Russia a chance. Today's headlines state that Obama has been forced to pause in his arms rush, not unlike the world turning against his rush a year and a half ago for air strikes in Syria after the false flag chemical weapons attack that was actually launched by US backed rebels.
So it may not be full speed ahead for US Empire to ship its heavy weaponry to the eastern warfront after all. It is being reported that mercenaries speaking American English, Polish, French and Flemish are fighting for the Kiev government in Eastern Ukraine against ethnic Russians who are fighting for their independence, their home and their very survival. And with their backs up against the wall, recently the eastern Ukrainians have beaten back the Ukrainian government forces. Again, the US has a knack for being on the wrong side of history.
No true victor can emerge from any war on either side. The incessant US aggressor boasting superior firepower as the most deadly, expensive military force on the planet (spending more than the next ten nations combined), America has little to show for itself as it has not won a single war in seventy years!
Neo-colonialism cloaked in imperialism, balkanization, economic exploitation, debtors' theft, indentured servitude and enslavement can never be justified as the spoils of war. It's a losing proposition in every imaginable way, not only for the aggressive American Empire that keeps starting and losing war after war, but especially for the ravaged nations it devastates and turns into demolished failed states with the King Midas in reverse touch.
There is only one winner in all this evil business of war making – the oligarchs that own and control both the US and the failed state nations. As Marine Corps General Smedley Butler wisely pointed out way back in 1933:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it isabout. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Fortune 500 companies win bigger profits sucking up the last precious, nearly tapped oil reserves and other diminishing natural resources off the face of the earth. This nonstop predatory practice of using, abusing and plundering smaller Third World countries is good for no one but the thieving transnational war profiteers and the oligarchs who own and control them.
This month's Atlantic has a well written, thought provoking feature article called "The Tragedy of the American Military" authored by James Fallows. Though on the cover the question is asked, "Why Do The Best Soldiers in the World Keep Losing?" the article never quite delivers the answer.
Instead it laments how the US fighting machine consisting of just two million (both active and reserved) out of more than 316 million Americans has created a cultural chasm of "out of sight, out of mind" convenience for a civilian population that disingenuously pays only lip service to "support our troops" while repeated Empire wars (and defeats) fought half a world away never cease.
Meanwhile, despite costing US taxpayers up to six trillion dollars and counting in Iraq alone and another trillion so far in Afghanistan in this age of increasing austerity, the albeit detached reverence for the US military and its abysmal losing war record fail to draw much notice or reflection, much less any real criticism or troubleshooting that might correct the same pattern of mistakes being repeated indefinitely.
Another article in the same issue calls for resurrecting the draft as the feeble answer, something my ex-West Point roommate-former Afghan Ambassador-retired general and current Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Karl Eikenberry has also publicly advocated. They are all missing the point, unwilling or unable to address the pink elephant in the global room.
Respected author-activist David Swanson wrote an incisive rebuttal also confronting the Atlantic article for not answering the obvious question of why America loses at war. He makes the excellent point:
The U.S. has killed huge numbers of men, women, and children, made itself hated, made the world more dangerous, destroyed the environment, discarded civil liberties, and wasted trillions of dollars that could have done a world of good spent otherwise. A draft would do nothing to make people aware of that situation.
But Swanson merely glides over as a passing fact that the ruling elite is the only entity that stands to gain from war. He fails to emphasize that it is the elite's power, money and influence that both initiates, but then by calculated design, willfully sabotages the chance of any US military victory after World War II. The reason is simple. If the US triumphed in war it would only delay the totalitarian New World Order from materialization. Only a weakened United States would expeditiously promote a one world government.
Some analysts with a micro-filter would blame inept planning and decision making by civilian commanders-in-chief and their equally inept civilian counsel. Both the Bush and Obama regimes come readily to mind, and before them the Johnson administration during the Vietnam War.
Historically the chickenhawk elite as behind the scene war proponents have been represented by members of the Counsil on Foreign Relations in advisory roles that in effect have shaped and controlled every single US president's foreign and war policy along with key Congressional warmongers always promoting the self-interests of the military industrial complex that outgoing President Eisenhower warned us about over and above the interests and well-being of the American people.
Other critics like Thomas E. Ricks in recent years have been quick to point the finger at the poor military leadership. As a West Point graduate who went to school in the same regiment with surge man himself former CIA Director and General David Petraeus, NSA Big Brother architect Keith Alexander and current Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, I can attest to the inferior brand of leadership cranked out of the academy brass factory over the last half century.
West Point trains and teaches robotic followers in the form of sycophantic, self-serving bureaucrat-politicians, not dynamic, caring, humanitarian leaders. Entrepreneurial, innovative, creative instincts are drummed out of cadet and officer corps by a failed, punch-your-ticket to seniority system that breeds a range of incompetence from run-of-the-mill mediocrity to highly toxic leadership.
The unprecedented soaring rates at which the most gifted, strongest leaders have been leaving the military services in droves the first chance they get upon completion of their 5-year post academy commitment calls into question the dubious worth of a half million dollar taxpayer-funded price tag of an elitist academy education.
With the bland bureaucrat-politicians left in charge as generals leading the US Empire forces in war, then throw in the sobering reality that the military system fails to hold its own poor leadership accountable, it's really no wonder the United States keeps losing every time out.
But all this plausible rationalization and blame-game excuses to explain away why the US persists in its streak of disastrous war defeats fails to address the fundamental reason why.
Bottom line, no war is justified when humans and all life forms on this planet always stand to lose, especially when the only winners are the war profiteers who in my opinion are not human. Without a conscience and totally devoid of their humanity and compassion, they're simply greed-driven, psychopathic predators feeding off the lifeblood of other humans and nations that must suffer immeasurable and unspeakable harm at their singular gain.
During this last century alone it's been this same line of globalists working overtime, primarily through the CFR (since 1921), the Pentagon and other elitist "think tanks" that have been pulling the puppet strings of all US presidents, busily creating one false flag after another to start every single war America ever fights.
Nearly every president has been a card carrying CFR member, and those few who haven't were surrounded by CFR in key cabinet roles. Since the 1947 National Security Act established the cabinet office of the Secretary of Defense, every man who has held that key position in the US government has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Since 1940 every Secretary of State has been a CFR plant.
For the last 80 years virtually every National Security Advisor been a CFR insider as have been all the top generals like my West Point ex-roommies Eikenberry and the longest running Afghanistan and Iraq War commander General Abizaid as well as the aforementioned Class of 1974 grads Petraeus and Dempsey.
Let's examine how key insiders with their one world government vision have made war at will through false flag lies blaming their designated enemies contributing to America's long history of nonstop war for over 91% of its years in existence (218 out of 239 years).
As a brief historical review tracing events from the dawn of the twentieth century, media mogul Randolph Hearst used the false flag of the Spanish American War to "remember the USS Maine" sinking in the 1898 Havana harbor as its deceitful justification to ruthlessly, violently colonize Cuba and the Philippines, committing ethnic cleansing with estimates as high as near a half million dead Filipinos in that bloodbath.
Then it was the "great" English statesman Winston Churchill who plotted the sinking of the Lusitania killing nearly 1200 of his own British citizens (along with 128 Americans) as the baited sacrifice secretly carrying arms to ignite the First World War that was supposed to end all wars.
This in turn led to the first NWO effort toward globalized government in the League of Nations that several decades later materialized into the United Nations, a huge globalist milestone on its march toward one world government. As is custom, globalist money busily finances both sides in every war, in this case militarizing German Kaiser Wilhelm and Lenin's revolutionary rise to red power during World War I and then a few years later Hitler's ascendancy to initiate World War II. HW Bush's father was actually arrested for funding the Nazi enemy.
Pearl Harbor was the sinister false flag machination that carried the deadly sacrifice of over 2500 slaughtered Americans as Roosevelt's chickenhawk "excuse" to enter WWII. The real purpose of the so called last "justified war" was to eclipse the British Empire and usher in the imperialistic reign of the emerging American Empire and its subsequent cold war that's still raging dangerously stronger than ever to this day.
Then several years later the US encouraged South Korean incursions into Communist North Korea in order to manipulate North Korea into responding in kind. Guaranteeing South Korea full UN support, when the baited North Koreans retaliated by moving two miles inside the South Korean border, that June 1950 "transgression" immediately became the false pretense used to initiate the Korean War.
After that conflict ended in a stalemate, a mere decade later as the imperialistic cauldrons of cold war grew hotter, in August 1964 President Johnson lied to the American people with the bogus claim that a US Navy ship was attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin to launch America's longest running war in history (that is until this century's everlasting war of terror). That false flag cost near 60,000 American lives and over 3 million dead Southeast Asians, in addition to being the first US humiliating war defeat in its history, marking the first of many consecutive losses.
The smaller, less intensive military campaigns of Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua and El Salvador, the First Gulf War, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were all jingoistic saber rattling manipulations of imperialistic Empire overpowering far weaker opponents to take down former US allied dictators (or in the case of Saddam Hussein a preliminary step to the father-son neocon tag team), balkanizing a divide and conquer strategy for global hegemony and imperial war profiteering from the always lucrative drug trafficking trade.
The actual reason America has been losing all its wars for seven decades now is simply because the oligarchs want it that way. The fact is we were never meant to win any war after WWII. Over and over again the most powerful army in the world has been defeated by much smaller ill equipped forces that are far less armed, modern and funded. Yet fighting on their turf against the imperialistic occupying Goliath-like oppressor, they always win.
Like everything major that goes down on this earth, it's all part of the ruling elite's diabolical plan – by design, the US as the constantly warring nation should keep losing war after war. American soldiers and their families always suffer the heaviest losses, only surpassed by the millions of people whose homelands become targeted US Empire battlefields.
The shrinking US middle class at home bearing the brunt of the burden financing exorbitant costly wars also loses big time. But then of course this grave calamity and human tragedy is all by sinister design. Because the ruling class no longer has a need for America's middle class, it's become the latest war of terror casualty.
Meanwhile, the only true winners of all wars is the oligarch owned and controlled central banking cabal and its Wall Street 500. Once American Empire wreaks military havoc to achieve another ravaged failed state, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, a second invasion that becomes the permanent occupation arrives in the form of IMF and World Bank loans.
When the war destroyed nation cannot pay the bankster cabal's loan shark extortion, privatization through transnational corporations rapidly descends as economic hit men-vultures move in for the final kill. The game's been rigged, set up so no one but the filthy, gluttonous, bloodthirsty, psychopathic vampires comprising the ruling elite can possibly win from all this rigged warring death and destruction.
The Zionist neocon creation with a little help from their Saudi-Israeli evil axis friends pulled off the coup of the century on 9/11, massacring 3,000 Americans as their sacrificial lambs, setting into motion the fabricated war on terror masking their actual war on Islam to ensure that a constant fresh supply of made-by-the-USA enemy materializes to justify permanent global violence.
During the near ten years that Americans fought in Iraq near a half million Iraqis lost their life, mostly innocent civilians. That toll has only since risen with war still raging. The Islamic State jihadists that the US-Saudi-Israeli unholy alliance secretly created, trained, armed and has funded (just as it did al Qaeda for decades) invaded Iraq last June and is currently in control of more area in Iraq than the weak US puppet government in Baghdad with no end of sectarian violence in sight.
Afghanistan looks no better with the puppet Kabul government holding less territory than the surging Taliban that has been waiting for the US military exodus by December 2014 leaving 10,800 US military advisors still remaining behind. A million Afghan citizens died during the decade long war with the Soviet Union in the 1980's, then hundreds of thousands more during the ensuing civil war afterwards.
With the death toll doubling in 2014 from the previous year, upwards of 30,000 civilians have died during America's longest war in history in the graveyard of empires. The human costs for Americans killed on these two warfronts for both the US soldiers and civilian contractors are about 6,800 each as of April 2014. Three quarters of the American casualties in Afghanistan died on Obama's watch.
The proxy wars leaving Libya as a corrupt and lawlessly violent failed state and Syria a stalemated quagmire with Islamic State mercenaries our not-so-secret friendly boots on the ground still unable to topple and remove Assad from power. Meanwhile, near a quarter of a million people have died in the war in Syria and an astounding 6.5 million have been displaced in that colossal human tragedy supported and caused by the United States. Syria at no time was a threat to US national security.
Yet for years now the US has been determined to bring down Syria on its way to the ultimate regime change prize of Iran, the last of the seven sovereign nations to be taken down in the Middle East and North Africa within the designated five years on that notorious neocon list that retired General Wesley Clark learned in 2001 had already been in existence even prior to 9/11.
Ever since Korea and Vietnam the ruling elite in its New World Order agenda will not allow the most lethal fighting force in the world to win another war. And as shown, the King Midas touch in reverse that has every nation the US intervenes plummeting into flames as failed states, totally vulnerable as easy pickings for the predatory oligarch sharks to feast on whatever precious natural resources are left, boots on the ground or not.
While the entire planet loses, this endless, spilled blood for oil end game remains a win-win proposition only for the pedophiliac, incest-infested, demonically ruled ruling class that's been systematically creating and profiting from war for countless centuries.
Ralph Wiggam (22354)
Re:How is this even remotely legal? (Score:2)
Gemalto is in the Netherlands. It's entirely legal for the NSA and GCHQ to do anything they want outside of their home countries. They were both chartered 60+ years ago to spy on foreign communications. You can certainly argue that this attack was unethical, or a bad idea, and it was definitely illegal under Dutch law- but it was legal under British and American law.
retroworks (652802) on Thursday February 19, 2015 @06:42PM (#49091677)
Counting Alarmist Sheep (Score:2)
Here's how I see this. For the average person, if an actual NSA person was paid to follow them or look at them, the NSA would get tied up and bored to death. There are far too many people using Sim cards than there are government employees.
So second, could this private information be used by a rogue NSA employee, say an old college boyfriend to stalk or "peep" into private correspondence? Snowden has absolutely demonstrated that risk, that any of us could be somewhat randomly spied on. But the odds of any single one of us being examined is still as low as previously stated. Annoying but low actual risk.
Could a dictator use this access to information to cow us into subservience? Seems a stretch. In the USA example, if a Democratic/Republican president let slip they were using this info collected by the NSA for political means, the opposing party would hang them with it.
So the most likely use is, as NSA claims, to catch bad guys. Saw John Doe used porn, saw Jane Doe was in AA, but no time or interest in that, they are looking for Bin Laden.
The second most likely use would be a politically active person trying to change the status quo. Like Martin Luther King. If FBI Director J.Edgar Hoover had his hands on this kind of access, the USA would have been screwed. But then again, they assassinated King, and today it would be much harder to cover that up. The FBI directors now have to worry about a Snowden in their midsts, which should keep them more honest.
Mathematically, I'm extremely unlikely to be affected by Bin Laden... the mathematical of terrorist threats is smaller than getting hit by a car (for now). And the likelihood I'd be targeted by a college stalker or NSA agent is also very small. So is the risk that my social security number will be picked off of dropbox. The risk here is that a true intellectual agent of change will be targeted, or that Al Quaeda or ISIS will screw the international banking system so bad that the entire world economy is screwed up and people panic and break into stores and start killing each other. So I sleep at night hoping NSA is as concerned about the latter as much as I am, and hope to God they also fear and realize the precedent set by J. Edgar Hoover.
In the final analysis, I hope people with liberal arts degrees choose to go work for the NSA. The one former employee of NSA that I know personally had a liberal arts degree, and I hope she's not alone. I hope people who care about and worry about the things I worry about are working there, and sometimes I fear the reaction to the NSA is similar to the reaction of hippies in the 60s to business and capitalism... all the agents of conscience were afraid to get their consciences dirty, refused to go into business management, and we had 2-3 decades of business management dominated by assholes.
We want more Snowdens in the NSA, and hyperbolizing the agency's "evil" is perhaps the greatest risk.
|
|
|
Slashdot
Soulskill on Saturday January 31, 2015 @12:38PM
An anonymous reader sends word that the UK Army is establishing a dedicated unit for fighting wars in the information age. The 77th Brigade will specialize in non-lethal, psychological operations that involve the internet and social media. The army says it's learned through its operations in Afghanistan that there are fights to be won not just on the battlefield, but online as well. "In some senses it's defensive - trying to present the case from this side against opponents who hold many of the cards. We've seen with Islamic State, its incredible capability on the net, Facebook, Instagram and all the rest."
The new unit will "try to influence local populations and change behavior through what the Army calls traditional and unconventional means." The army also stressed that they're looking for ways that citizens with the right skills could work alongside the 77th Brigade.
iggymanz (596061) on Saturday January 31, 2015 @12:46PM (#48947249)
already have it (Score:2)
psyops is old; but we don't need soldiers screwing around with social media when they should be putting ammo on target. Look what decades of screwing around by the CIA brought us.
|
|
|
By BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale
The Army says it's learnt valuable lessons from Afghanistan - not least that it can't win wars using pure military force alone.
The brigade will be made up of warriors who don't just carry weapons, but who are also skilled in using social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and the dark arts of "psyops" - psychological operations.
They will try to influence local populations and change behaviour through what the Army calls traditional and unconventional means.
Civilians with the right skills will work alongside regular troops and reservists and could be sent anywhere in the world to help win hearts and minds.
It can be seen as proof that the Army is adapting to modern asymmetric warfare, and that it remains relevant at a time when there are fears within the British military of more cuts after the election.
'Rebranding attempt'
Paul Rogers, a professor of international security at the University of Bradford, said the announcement represented a "big expansion" of the Army's psychological operations and was an "attempt to rebrand and update" this area of its work.
"We had so much difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's about trying to learn the lessons of how these groups are using social media," Prof Rogers explained.
He added: "In some senses it's defensive - trying to present the case from this side against opponents who hold many of the cards.
"We've seen with Islamic State, its incredible capability on the net, Facebook, Instagram and all the rest."
A former Army officer involved in psychological operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, Simon Bergman, predicted it would help build "the Army for the future".
"For example, 77 brigade have a large component of civil affairs soldiers who'll be operating in populations, working with them, achieving military effects - and a broader effect, because as we know from Afghanistan, the military doesn't work in isolation. It works as a component of government."
The Lone Gunman
Note to the Army:
Twitter and Facebook are for immature teenagers and people with an excess of vanity. They are a waste of time.
Can we please have more sniper teams, tanks crews, parachute regiments and people who do what armies are supposed to do?
All for All
Argent Pur @288
"no different to fascism"
When you write 'democracy', what you refer to is 'sham democracy', that state of domination by fear & greed & corruption, the dictatorship - frank or subtle - as to-date across all of the world made inevitable, in material conflict of interest, by what some might see as the ungodly worship of Mammon, others simple rejection of equal partnership, of good.
happyjack
Good lies ok becuase we tell good lies, bad lies not ok because the enemy tells bad lies. 9/11 truths hidden. CIA lies r good lies because they protect America.
The real truth behind the invasion of the ME countries fr their oil assets. Syria's Assad attacked because he wouldn't play the game. Secret deals with the IRA. Infiltration of the unions by MI6, special branch. Watergate. Secret courts.
jerseylily
So we copy the Israelis "Hasbara" on line warfare units, where students and people are paid to go on line and present a certain viewpoint. No chance of free speech. Seems we are becoming a police state what with the police voting for carrying tazers.
Argent Pur
To those thinking this unit will be set up to use facebook & twitter to attack ISIS has already been converted by the PsyOps the Government has been using since WW2. They control the media, to shift and shape your opinions, to ensure your kept in your place as they go about their business of getting rich, starting illegal wars, covering up child abuse & assisting the financial terrorists in banks.
quietoaktree
Officer --" Corporal Jones !"
Corporal--" Yes SIR !"
Officer -- " 30 ´dislikes´on Facebook, 10 BBC
´Referrals´and 5 ´Removals´for breaking the House Rules --just isn´t good enough to protect this country on your 4 hour shift !"Corporal --" Sorry sir, but 2 contributions WERE accepted."
Dragonwight
The question is should a modern democratic govt be engaging in the dissemination of information which is essentially propaganda designed to influence or mislead people.
While it may be desirable to mislead a clearly identified enemy, I'm assuming here they use more than just a Facebook page, how do we know they wont try to mislead us the people. By dissemination of false info & rumors. Safeguards?
Argent Pur
PsyOps
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering - 1946
Don't think for one minute the War On Terror is any different, our democracy is no different to fascism.
.neutral
246 TQ2 boys - yes, people are upset with their corrupt governments and wasted taxes and demanding cjange, but they are demanding a change to progress humanity and advance people beyond war games, petty traditions/laws and prejudice, they are NOT looking to turn time back 1000 years and return us all to living like barbaric, deity worshipping cavemen that ritually subjugate woman out of insecurity
The real prophet
we shall fight on facebook,
we shall fight on twitter,
we shall fight in the forums and mumsnet,
we shall fight in HYS;
we shall never re tweetvexed voter
This is not any thing new. During the cold war the Royal Signals had specifically trained troops to eavesdrop on transmissions from potential enemies. This helped to pin point individual units and personnel and assess any possible actions.
This type of unit will only be of use in a war, are we about to start one? Expanding the SAS/SBS would bring better results gathering intelligence.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 | slashdot.orgtimothy January 29, 2015 @05:12PM
schwit1 writes Scientists showed they can identify you with more than 90 percent accuracy by looking at just four purchases, three if the price is included - and this is after companies "anonymized" the transaction records, saying they wiped away names and other personal details. The study out of MIT, published Thursday in the journal Science, examined three months of credit card records for 1.1 million people."We are showing that the privacy we are told that we have isn't real," study co-author Alex "Sandy" Pentland of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in an email.
|
|
|
January 28, 2015 Slashdot
Advocatus Diaboli writes
Canada's electronic spy agency sifts through millions of videos and documents downloaded online every day by people around the world, as part of a sweeping bid to find extremist plots and suspects, CBC News has learned. Details of the Communications Security Establishment project dubbed 'Levitation' are revealed in a document obtained by U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden and recently released to CBC News.
Under Levitation, analysts with the electronic eavesdropping service can access information on about 10 to 15 million uploads and downloads of files from free websites each day, the document says.
|
|
|
British and Canadian spy agencies accumulated sensitive data on smartphone users, including location, app preferences, and unique device identifiers, by piggybacking on ubiquitous software from advertising and analytics companies, according to a document obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The document, included in a trove of Snowden material released by Der Spiegel on January 17, outlines a secret program run by the intelligence agencies called BADASS. The German newsweekly did not write about the BADASS document, attaching it to a broader article on cyberwarfare. According to The Intercept's analysis of the document, intelligence agents applied BADASS software filters to streams of intercepted internet traffic, plucking from that traffic unencrypted uploads from smartphones to servers run by advertising and analytics companies.
Programmers frequently embed code from a handful of such companies into their smartphone apps because it helps them answer a variety of questions: How often does a particular user open the app, and at what time of day? Where does the user live? Where does the user work? Where is the user right now? What's the phone's unique identifier? What version of Android or iOS is the device running? What's the user's IP address? Answers to those questions guide app upgrades and help target advertisements, benefits that help explain why tracking users is not only routine in the tech industry but also considered a best practice.
For users, however, the smartphone data routinely provided to ad and analytics companies represents a major privacy threat. When combined together, the information fragments can be used to identify specific users, and when concentrated in the hands of a small number of companies, they have proven to be irresistibly convenient targets for those engaged in mass surveillance. Although the BADASS presentation appears to be roughly four years old, at least one player in the mobile advertising and analytics space, Google, acknowledges that its servers still routinely receive unencrypted uploads from Google code embedded in apps.
For spy agencies, this smartphone monitoring data represented a new, convenient way of learning more about surveillance targets, including information about their physical movements and digital activities. It also would have made it possible to design more focused cyberattacks against those people, for example by exploiting a weakness in a particular app known to be used by a particular person. Such scenarios are strongly hinted at in a 2010 NSA presentation, provided by agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and published last year in The New York Times, Pro Publica, and The Guardian. That presentation stated that smartphone monitoring would be useful because it could lead to "additional exploitation" and the unearthing of "target knowledge/leads, location, [and] target technology."
The 2010 presentation, along with additional documents from Britain's intelligence service Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, showed that the intelligence agencies were aggressively ramping up their efforts to see into the world of mobile apps. But the specifics of how they might distill useful information from the torrent of internet packets to and from smartphones remained unclear.
Encrypting Data in Transit
The BADASS slides fill in some of these blanks. They appear to have been presented in 2011 at the highly secretive SIGDEV intelligence community conference. The presentation states that "analytics firm Flurry estimates that 250,000 Motorola Droid phones were sold in the United States during the phone's first week in stores," and asks, "how do they know that?"
The answer is that during the week in question, Flurry uploaded to its own servers analytics from Droid phones on behalf of app developers, one phone at a time, and stored the analytics in their own databases. Analytics includes any information that is available to the app and that can conceivably help improve it, including, in certain instances with Flurry, the user's age and gender, physical location, how long they left the app open, and a unique identifier for the phone, according to Flurry materials included in the BADASS document.
By searching these databases, the company was able to get a count of Droid phones running Flurry-enabled apps and, by extrapolating, estimate the total number of Droids in circulation. The company can find similar information about any smartphone that their analytics product supports.
Not only was Flurry vacuuming sensitive data up to its servers, it was doing so insecurely. When a smartphone app collects data about the device it's running on and sends it back to a tracking company, it generally uses the HTTP protocol, and Flurry-enabled apps were no exception. But HTTP is inherently insecure-eavesdroppers can easily spy on the entire digital conversation.
If the tracking data was always phoned home using the HTTPS protocol-the same as the HTTP protocol, except that the stream of traffic between the phone and the server is encrypted-then the ability for spy agencies to collect tracking data with programs like BADASS would be severely impeded.
Yahoo, which acquired the analytics firm Flurry in late 2014, says that since acquiring the company they have "implemented default encryption between Flurry-enabled applications and Flurry servers. The 2010 report in question does not apply to current versions of Flurry's analytics product." Given that Yahoo acquired Flurry so recently, it's unclear how many apps still use Flurry's older tracking code that sends unencrypted data back to Yahoo's servers. (Yahoo declined to elaborate specifically on that topic.)
The BADASS slides also use Google's advertisement network AdMob as an example of intercepted, unencrypted data. Free smartphone apps are often supported by ads, and if the app uses AdMob then it sends some identifying information to AdMob's servers while loading the ad. Google currently supports the ability for app developers to turn on HTTPS for ad requests, however it's clear that only some AdMob users actually do this.
When asked about HTTPS support for AdMob, a Google spokesperson said, "We continue our ongoing efforts to encrypt all Google products and services."
In addition to Yahoo's Flurry and Google's AdMob, the BADASS presentation also shows that British and Canadian intelligence were targeting Mobclix, Mydas, Medialets, and MSN Mobile Advertising. But it's clear that any mobile-related plaintext traffic from any company is a potential target. While the BADASS presentation focuses on traffic from analytics and ad companies, it also shows spying on Google Maps heartbeat traffic, and capturing "beacons" sent out when apps are first opened (listing Qriously, Com2Us, Fluentmobile, and Papayamobile as examples). The BADASS presentation also mentions capturing GPS coordinates that get leaked when opening BlackBerry's app store.
In a boilerplate statement, GCHQ said, "It is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight." Its Canadian counterpart, Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSEC, responded with a statement that read, in part, "For reasons of national security, CSE cannot comment on its methods, techniques or capabilities. CSE conducts foreign intelligence and cyber defence activities in compliance with Canadian law."
Julia Angwin, who has doggedly investigated online privacy issues as a journalist and author, most recently of the book "Dragnet Nation," explains that "every type of unique identifier that passes [over the internet] unencrypted is giving away information about users to anyone who wants it," and that "the evidence is clear that it's very risky to be throwing unique identifiers out there in the clear. Anyone can grab them. This is more evidence that no one should be doing that."
Building Haystacks to Search for Needles
The BADASS program was created not merely to track advertising and analytic data but to solve a much bigger problem: There is an overwhelming amount of smartphone tracking data being collected by intelligence agencies, and it's difficult to make sense of.
First there are the major platforms: iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and BlackBerry. On each platform, a range of hardware and platform versions are in use. Additionally, app stores are overflowing; new apps that track people get released every day. Old apps constantly get updated to track people in different ways, and people use different versions of apps for different platforms all at once. Adding to the diversity, there are several different ad and analytics companies that app developers use, and when those companies send tracking data back to their servers, they use a wide variety of formats.
With such an unwieldy haystack of data, GCHQ and CSEC, started the BADASS program, according to the presentation, to find the needles: information that can uniquely identify people and their devices, such as smartphone identifiers, tracking cookies, and other unique strings, as well as personally identifying information like GPS coordinates and email addresses.
BADASS is an an acryonym that stands for BEGAL Automated Deployment And Survey System. (It is not clear what "BEGAL" stands for, in turn.) The slideshow presentation is called "Mobile apps doubleheader: BADASS Angry Birds," and promises "protocols exploitation in a rapidly changing world."
Exploiting Protocols in a Rapidly Changing World
Analysts are able to write BADASS "rules" that look for specific types of tracking information as it travels across the internet.
For example, when someone opens an app that loads an ad, their phone normally sends an unencrypted web request (called an HTTP request) to the ad network's servers. If this request gets intercepted by spy agencies and fed into the BADASS program, it then gets filtered through each rule to see if one applies to the request. If it finds a match, BADASS can then automatically pull out the juicy information.
In the following slide, the information that is potentially available in a single HTTP request to load an ad includes which platform the ad is being loaded on (Android, iOS, etc.), the unique identifier of the device, the IMEI number which cell towers use to identify phones that try to connect to them, the name and version of the operating system that's running, the model of the device, and latitude and longitude location data.
Similar information is sent across the internet in HTTP requests in several different formats depending on what company it's being sent to, what device it's running on, and what version of the ad or analytics software is being used. Because this is constantly changing, analysts can write their own BADASS rules to capture all of the permutations they can find.
The following slide shows part of the BADASS user interface, and a partial list of rules.
The slideshow includes a section called "Abusing BADASS for Fun and Profit" which goes into detail about the methodology analysts use to write new BADASS rules.
By looking at intercepted HTTP traffic and writing rules to parse it, analysts can quickly gather as much information as possibly from leaky smartphone apps. One slide states: "Creativity, iterative testing, domain knowledge, and the right tools can help us target multiple platforms in a very short time period."
Privacy Policies That Don't Deliver
The slides also appear to mock the privacy promises of ad and analytics companies.
Companies that collect usage statistics about software often insist that the data is anonymous because they don't include identifying information such as names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the users that they're tracking. But in reality, sending unique device identifiers, IP addresses, IMEI numbers, and GPS coordinates of devices is far from anonymous.
In one slide, the phrase "anonymous usage statistics" appears in conspicuous quotation marks. The spies are well aware that despite not including specific types of information, the data they collect from leaky smartphone apps is enough for them to uniquely identify their targets.
The following slides show a chunk of Flurry's privacy policy (at this point it has been replaced by Yahoo's privacy policy), which states what information it collects from devices and how it believes this is anonymous.
The red box, which is present in the original slides, highlights this part: "None of this information can identify the individual. No names, phone numbers, email addresses, or anything else considered personally identifiable information is ever collected."
Clearly the intelligence services disagree.
"Commercial surveillance often appears very benign," Angwin says. "The reason Flurry exists is not to 'spy on people' but to help people learn who's using their apps. But what we've also seen through Snowden revelations is that spy agencies seek to use that for their own purposes."
The Web has the Exact Same Problems
While the BADASS program is specifically designed to target smartphone traffic, websites suffer from these exact same problems, and in many cases they're even worse.
Websites routinely include bits of tracking code from several different companies for ads, analytics, and other behavioral tracking. This, combined with the lack of HTTPS, turns your web browser into a surveillance device that follows you around, even if you switch networks or use proxy servers.
In other words, while the BADASS presentation may be four years old, and while it's been a year and a half since Snowden's leaks began educating technology companies and users about the massive privacy threats they face, the big privacy holes exploited by BADASS remain a huge problem.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2015 | RT UK
The increased use of encryption technologies, particularly in everyday services such as email, will lead spy agencies to commit "ethically worse" behavior, such as hacking individual computers, a former GCHQ boss has warned.Speaking at the London School of Economics (LSE), Sir David Omand said increasingly secure encryption technologies, which currently allow users to message and email in private, mean agencies are unable to intercept mail, and could be forced into more direct spying methods, report the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Following evidence leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, both GCHQ and its US counterpart were found to be spying on millions of people's private data. The revelations caused public outcry, leading to calls for web firms to make data more secure.
Apple and Google have begun introducing more sophisticated methods of encryption, and have signaled their unwillingness to pass user data to government agencies.
Security agencies can use "network exploitation" or direct hacking to get around encryption technologies, which currently support WhatsApp and iMessenger, and monitor the messages as they are written.
Sir David, who was GCHQ director from 1996 to 97, said: "One of the results of Snowden is that companies are now heavily encrypting [communications] end to end.
"Intelligence agencies are not going to give up trying to get the bad guys. They will have to get closer to the bad guys. I predict we will see more close access work."
The surveillance technique of "close access" usually means the agent has to be within a certain level of physical proximity to the subject. It could be bugging, direct hacking of phones or computers, or even physical observation.
Sir David said this would lead to "ethically worse" problems for the intelligence agencies.
"You can say that will be more targeted, but in terms of intrusion into personal privacy – collateral intrusion into privacy – we are likely to end up in an ethically worse position than we were before."
The former GCHQ boss further defended the work of the agency, saying it was not all "offence," but that they were also responsible for defending the UK from cyber-attacks.
This point faced rebuttal from Gus Hosein, executive director at NGO Privacy International, who claimed GCHQ was putting less time and effort into the defense than they had previously done.
Hosein said the British security agency was responsible in the past for informing tech companies about glitches and flaws in their system, but "they're not going to do that anymore."
"They're going to harvest these vulnerabilities, treat them like arms, pull them out and use them in a widespread manner that will not necessarily be targeted," he added.
Prime Minister David Cameron plans to ban encrypted messaging services WhatsApp and Snapchat were greeted with outrage, with critics accusing him of "Chinese" levels of public censorship.
The outrage, however, is countered by the threat of extremist groups, many of which use social media to communicate and recruit members.
It was revealed on Friday that despite being banned in the UK, two Islamist groups were still flouting the law on Twitter and YouTube.
READ MORE: Cryptic cross words: Cameron ban on encrypted messages sparks 'China-style' comparison
|
|
|
RT News
The turmoil gripping the Middle East is a direct result of the provision of cash, weapons and surveillance to Israel by the US, the latest Snowden leak illustrates. Obama's "helpless detachment" is just for show, the Intercept's Glenn Greenwald writes.In a bold examination, the former Guardian journalist reveals the amazing contrast between what the United States says publicly, and what it does behind the curtain. This involves President Barack Obama's apparent heartbreak over the Middle Eastern region, as well as the American love for publicly listing Israel as a threat to regional peace at a time when billions of dollars' worth of its weaponry and intelligence were being supplied to the Jewish state since the 1960s.
Greenwald has published his analysis of the latest leaked Edward Snowden document of April 12, 2013, wherein it's explained just how false the notion that the US is a bystander to the Middle Eastern crisis really is.
In fact, "the single largest exchange between NSA and ISNU is on targets in the Middle East which constitute strategic threats to US and Israeli interests," the leaked paper reveals.
"The mutually agreed upon geographic targets include the countries of North Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and the Islamic republics of the former Soviet Union. Within that set of countries, cooperation covers the exploitation of internal governmental, military, civil and diplomatic communications; and external security/intelligence organizations."
One of the "key priorities" of this cooperation is "the Iranian nuclear development program, followed by Syrian nuclear efforts, Lebanese Hizbullah plans and intentions, Palestinian terrorism, and Global Jihad." The paper talks about "targeting and exploiting" these.
It goes on to show that both intelligence services have liaison officers in each other's embassies, enjoy a "cryptanalytic" partnership, and that Israel has direct access to the highest American military technology. Greenwald supplements this with proof of millions in emergency US funds stockpiled in the Middle East, which Israel can use for its own strategic purposes by simply writing a request.
Over the last decade, Greenwald writes, the NSA has upped the ante greatly on surveillance technology, funding of operations and weapons to its Israeli counterpart, the SIGINT National Unit. A bulk of this assistance has been used to fight its battles with occupied Palestine – including the Gaza operation, as well as other regional players.
On at least one occasion, a covert transaction of a massive payment in cash to Israeli operatives was carried out as part of the American initiative of using Israel and other US-sponsored actors (including Arab monarchies) to do its surveillance on Palestinian targets for it.
"The new documents underscore the indispensable, direct involvement of the US government and its key allies in Israeli aggression against its neighbors. That covert support is squarely at odds with the posture of helpless detachment typically adopted by Obama officials and their supporters," Greenwald bluntly states.
That is despite the US president's statement on how "heartbreaking" it is to see the Gaza crisis unravel, "as if he's just a bystander, watching it all unfold", wrote Corey Robin, a Brooklyn College Professor. "Obama talks about Gaza as if it were a natural disaster, an uncontrollable biological event."
Greenwald goes on to list the occasions on which the US has been exposed as supplying arms to Israel; the last such occasion was just before the start of the operation in Gaza, wherein a $1 billion stockpile of ammunition the US stored in Israel specifically for situations like these was used. The origins of this particular stockpile date back to the 1990's, when the US European Command allegedly stocked it there for future use.
What was not known to many is that Israel only had to make an emergency request to have access to it. One such case was the 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Further support involved multiple UN resolutions shielding Israel from international condemnation and enabling it – something Greenwald sees as peculiar, given the American media's shocked reaction at how the Middle East situation supposedly takes on a life of its own, despite everyone's best efforts.
"The new Snowden documents illustrate a crucial fact: Israeli aggression would be impossible without the constant, lavish support and protection of the US government, which is anything but a neutral, peace-brokering party in these attacks. And the relationship between the NSA and its partners on the one hand, and the Israeli spying agency on the other, is at the center of that enabling," Greenwald writes.
Numerous evidence of this includes the Guardian's September 2013 disclosure of American "routine" sharing of raw intelligence with Israel without bothering to remove data on US citizens. But the new Snowden leak, published this Monday by the Intercept, details also how the "NSA maintains a far-reaching technical and analytical relationship with" Israeli intelligence, involving all types of data from communications intercepts to targets, language and analysis.
Israeli defense intelligence and Mossad are exposed as key partners in this relationship, under which access to "geographic targets [that] include the countries of North Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and the Islamic republics of the former Soviet Union" is freely provided by the US.
Further to that, Israel's intelligence has access to advanced American military technology and equipment for use against what Israel candidly calls "Palestinian terrorism."
And this cooperation dates back to the late 1960s, while expanded greatly in 2003.
It is therefore unclear to Greenwald how the NSA then lists Israel among the number of threats to Middle Eastern regional security. The public statements made by American and British officials are in stark contrast to what the latest Snowden leak reveals.
|
|
|
Obamacare creates the Federal Data Services Hub. It will contain a file on each person containing how much money they make, their savings, immigration status, criminal record and health information. The database will be maintained by HHS. I am not sure who will have access to the database, which is pretty eerie to me.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2011 | youtube.com
Alternative Views
540. THE COMPANY AND THE COUNTRY: A CONVERSATION WITH PHIL AGEE (PART I)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternat...
http://tinyurl.com/dnyeflFormer CIA officer and best selling author Agee discusses his history in the
CIA, and the CIA harassment of him after he quit the agency and decided to
write his first book, "CIA Diary: Inside the Company." He also discusses
current events and other CIA operations.Philip Agee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Company-...
http://www.amazon.com/Run-Philip-Agee...
http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Work-CIA-...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA...
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/27...
http://www.archive.org/details/dn2005...
http://www.democracynow.org/2003/10/2...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/9/...
http://www.philipagee.com/
http://leftbooks.com/store/product232..."George Bush's father (GHWB) came in as C.I.A. director the month following the Welch assassination. As director he presided over the agency as they mounted a campaign throughout western Europe trying to make me appear to be a security threat, a traitor, a Soviet agent, a Cuban agent. All those sorts of things which led to my expulsion from five different NATO countries in the late 1970's. In fact it was in all based on lies, and to think that I was responsible for the death of any C.I.A. people for their exposures is absolutely false. No one as far as I know of all those people who were exposed as C.I.A. people along with their operations was ever even harassed or threatened. What happened was, their operations were disrupted and that was the purpose of what we were doing. We were right to do it then, because the U.S. policy at the time, executed by the C.I.A., was to support murderous dictatorships around the world, as in Vietnam, as in Greece, as in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil. And that's only to name a few. We opposed that use of the U.S. intelligence service for those dirty operations. And I'm talking about regimes now that tortured and disappeared people by the thousands."
~ Former CIA case officer Philip "Phil" Agee on Democracy Now! on October 02, 2003
Recorded November, 1995
Copyright December, 1995This movie is part of the collection: Alternative Views
Producer: Frank Morrow
Production Company: Alternative Information Network
Audio/Visual: sound, color
Language: EnglishCreative Commons license: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States
Category License Source videosredeemedwench -> marco calarco
It's much more than labor and resources. And it's not just the United States that benefits from this. Actually, the U.S. people are enslaved by a fascist government, and we are taxed on our labor by a tax that isn't even legal, to pay the interest on the debt our government got us into. So those in power all over the world may benefit from this, but the people of the U.S. do not. We are looked at as cattle.
marco calarco -> ujisx
There's capitalism in theory and capitalism in practice. Two different things. USA has savage capitalism. It thrives on war and keeping other nations down (for cheap labor and cheap resources) via the IMF and world bank. See also Pilger documentaries.
LivelysReport
Yea, 3 billion a year, but lets count all the drug money from all your drug running and all the opium in Afghanistan where all our troops are guarding the poppy fields.. and its not a new thing, you were doing that long long ago even in Nam and Cambodia.. if there is a dirty way of getting money for black ops for the CIA, the CIA has their hands into it!! And you can pretty much do whatever you want with dirty money and not be held accountable for it when you did not get the funds from budget!
starmanskye
Over 60 yrs America's Deep State has superceded & replaced citizen-rule behind an elaborate mass-media-generated facade of free & honest elections in which a criminal syndicate of special interests, corporations, high finance/banks, MIC & Intel/Security establishment secretly control institutions of gov & society within the borders of a paramilitarized Police State, its most diabolical & ruthless policies funded by long-con scams, thefts & frauds, esp. exploiting the sabotage of Peace & Justice.
|
|
|
January 05, 2015 | slashdot.org
schwit1 writes with news about the impact of government surveillance on authors and their work worldwide . A survey of writers around the world by the PEN American Center has found that a significant majority said they were deeply concerned with government surveillance, with many reporting that they have avoided, or have considered avoiding, controversial topics in their work or in personal communications as a result. The findings show that writers consider freedom of expression to be under significant threat around the world in democratic and nondemocratic countries.
Some 75 percent of respondents in countries classified as "free," 84 percent in "partly free" countries, and 80 percent in countries that were "not free" said that they were "very" or "somewhat" worried about government surveillance in their countries. The survey, which will be released Monday, was conducted anonymously online in fall 2014 and yielded 772 responses from fiction and nonfiction writers and related professionals, including translators and editors, in 50 countries.
Google matched content |
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: March, 01, 2020
