ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Jun 18 15 7:35 AM
Failure to reform National Security Administration spying programs revealed by Edward Snowden could be more economically taxing than previously thought, says a new study published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The study suggests the programs could be affecting the technology sector as a whole, not just the cloud-computing sector, and that the costs could soar much higher than previously expected. Even modest declines in cloud computing revenues from the revealed surveillance programs, according to a previous report, would cost between $21.5 billion and $35 billion by 2016. New estimates show that the toll “will likely far exceed ITIF’s initial $35 billion estimate.” “The U.S. government’s failure to reform many of the NSA’s surveillance programs has damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. tech sector and cost it a portion of the global market share,” a summary of the report said. Revelations by defense contractor Snowden in June 2013 exposed massive U.S. government surveillance capabilities and showed the NSA collected American phone records in bulk, and without a warrant. The bulk phone-record revelations, and many others in the same vein, including the required complacency of American telecom and Internet companies in providing the data, raised questions about the transparency of American surveillance programs and prompted outrage from privacy advocates. The study, published this week, argues that unless the American government can vigorously reform how NSA surveillance is regulated and overseen, U.S. companies will lose contracts and, ultimately, their competitive edge in a global market as consumers around the world choose cloud computing and technology options that do not have potential ties to American surveillance programs. The report comes amid a debate in Congress on what to do with the Patriot Act, the law that provides much of the authority for the surveillance programs. As of June 1, authority to collect American phone data en masse expired, though questions remain as to whether letting that authority expire is enough to protect privacy. Supporters of the programs argue that they provide the country with necessary capabilities to fight terrorism abroad. A further reform made the phone records collection process illegal for the government, and instead gave that responsibility to the telecom companies.
Failure to reform National Security Administration spying programs revealed by Edward Snowden could be more economically taxing than previously thought, says a new study published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The study suggests the programs could be affecting the technology sector as a whole, not just the cloud-computing sector, and that the costs could soar much higher than previously expected.
Even modest declines in cloud computing revenues from the revealed surveillance programs, according to a previous report, would cost between $21.5 billion and $35 billion by 2016. New estimates show that the toll “will likely far exceed ITIF’s initial $35 billion estimate.”
“The U.S. government’s failure to reform many of the NSA’s surveillance programs has damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. tech sector and cost it a portion of the global market share,” a summary of the report said.
Revelations by defense contractor Snowden in June 2013 exposed massive U.S. government surveillance capabilities and showed the NSA collected American phone records in bulk, and without a warrant. The bulk phone-record revelations, and many others in the same vein, including the required complacency of American telecom and Internet companies in providing the data, raised questions about the transparency of American surveillance programs and prompted outrage from privacy advocates.
The study, published this week, argues that unless the American government can vigorously reform how NSA surveillance is regulated and overseen, U.S. companies will lose contracts and, ultimately, their competitive edge in a global market as consumers around the world choose cloud computing and technology options that do not have potential ties to American surveillance programs.
The report comes amid a debate in Congress on what to do with the Patriot Act, the law that provides much of the authority for the surveillance programs. As of June 1, authority to collect American phone data en masse expired, though questions remain as to whether letting that authority expire is enough to protect privacy. Supporters of the programs argue that they provide the country with necessary capabilities to fight terrorism abroad. A further reform made the phone records collection process illegal for the government, and instead gave that responsibility to the telecom companies.
Former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden on Monday marveled at the puny nature of the surveillance reforms put in place two years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a vast expansion of intrusive U.S. government surveillance at home and abroad. Hayden mocked the loss of the one program that was reined in — the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata information about domestic phone calls — calling it “that little 215 program.” And he said if someone had told him two years ago that the only effect of the Snowden revelations would be losing it, his reaction would have been: “Cool!” Here is the video and the full text of his remarks: If somebody would come up to me and say “Look, Hayden, here’s the thing: This Snowden thing is going to be a nightmare for you guys for about two years. And when we get all done with it, what you’re going to be required to do is that little 215 program about American telephony metadata — and by the way, you can still have access to it, but you got to go to the court and get access to it from the companies, rather than keep it to yourself” — I go: “And this is it after two years? Cool!” Hayden was speaking at the annual meeting of the Wall Street Journal CFO Network, an event hosted “by the Journal’s senior editors” for “an invitation-only group of more than 100 chief financial officers of the world’s largest companies.” Asked if he thought Snowden was a foreign agent, Hayden said: “I’ve got my suspicions,” although he acknowledged, “I’ve got no evidence.” Some opponents of massive government surveillance hailed the passage, earlier this month, of the USA Freedom Act. And it did, in fact, mark the first time that Congress has limited the executive branch’s surveillance authority over four decades of explosive growth.
Former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden on Monday marveled at the puny nature of the surveillance reforms put in place two years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a vast expansion of intrusive U.S. government surveillance at home and abroad.
Hayden mocked the loss of the one program that was reined in — the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata information about domestic phone calls — calling it “that little 215 program.”
And he said if someone had told him two years ago that the only effect of the Snowden revelations would be losing it, his reaction would have been: “Cool!”
Here is the video and the full text of his remarks:
If somebody would come up to me and say “Look, Hayden, here’s the thing: This Snowden thing is going to be a nightmare for you guys for about two years. And when we get all done with it, what you’re going to be required to do is that little 215 program about American telephony metadata — and by the way, you can still have access to it, but you got to go to the court and get access to it from the companies, rather than keep it to yourself” — I go: “And this is it after two years? Cool!”
Hayden was speaking at the annual meeting of the Wall Street Journal CFO Network, an event hosted “by the Journal’s senior editors” for “an invitation-only group of more than 100 chief financial officers of the world’s largest companies.”
Asked if he thought Snowden was a foreign agent, Hayden said: “I’ve got my suspicions,” although he acknowledged, “I’ve got no evidence.”
Some opponents of massive government surveillance hailed the passage, earlier this month, of the USA Freedom Act. And it did, in fact, mark the first time that Congress has limited the executive branch’s surveillance authority over four decades of explosive growth.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/17/hayden-mocks-extent-post-snowden-surveillance-reform-2-years-cool/
On the second anniversary of his historic act of civil disobedience, we review what has changed (and what has not) Two years ago this month, a 29-year-old government contractor named Edward Snowden became the Daniel Ellsberg of his generation, delivering to journalists a tranche of secret documents shedding light on the government’s national security apparatus. But whereas Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers detailing one specific military conflict in Southeast Asia, Snowden released details of the U.S. government’s sprawling surveillance machine that operates around the globe. On the second anniversary of Snowden’s historic act of civil disobedience, it is worth reviewing what has changed — and what has not. On the change side of the ledger, there is the politics of surveillance. For much of the early 2000s, politicians of both parties competed with one another to show who would be a bigger booster of the NSA’s operations, fearing that any focus on civil liberties risked their being branded soft on terrorism. Since Snowden, though, the political paradigm has dramatically shifted. The most illustrative proof that came last month, when the U.S. Senate failed to muster enough votes to reauthorize the law that aims to allow the NSA to engage in mass surveillance. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s prominent role in that episode underscored the political shift — a decade after the GOP mastered the art of citing 9/11-themed arguments about terrorism to win elections, one of the party’s top presidential candidates proudly led the fight against one of the key legislative initiatives of the so-called war on terror. There has also been a shift in public opinion, as evidenced by a new ACLU-sponsored poll showing that almost two thirds of American voters want Congress to curtail the NSA’s mass surveillance powers. The survey showed that majorities in both parties oppose renewing the old Patriot Act. Monumental as those congressional and public opinion shifts are, though, far fewer changes are evident in the government’s executive branch. For example, the Obama administration is celebrating the two-year anniversary of Snowden’s disclosures by intensifying its crackdown on government whistleblowers. After prosecuting more such whistleblowers than any previous administration, Obama’s appointees are specifically moving forward a rule that the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight says would deny “federal employees in ‘sensitive’ positions the right to appeal a termination or demotion” when they expose wrongdoing. In practice, writes POGO’s Elizabeth Hempowicz, the rule would make “whistleblowers who hold these positions particularly vulnerable to retaliation.” The Obama administration has also not stopped its selective enforcement of laws against those who mislead Congress or leak classified government information. Take the issue of perjury. After prosecuting pitcher Roger Clemens for allegedly lying to Congress, the Obama administration has not similarly prosecuted National Intelligence Director James Clapper for insisting to Congress in 2013 that the government does not collect data on Americans. Clapper’s claim was wholly debunked by Snowden’s documents.
Two years ago this month, a 29-year-old government contractor named Edward Snowden became the Daniel Ellsberg of his generation, delivering to journalists a tranche of secret documents shedding light on the government’s national security apparatus. But whereas Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers detailing one specific military conflict in Southeast Asia, Snowden released details of the U.S. government’s sprawling surveillance machine that operates around the globe.
On the second anniversary of Snowden’s historic act of civil disobedience, it is worth reviewing what has changed — and what has not.
On the change side of the ledger, there is the politics of surveillance. For much of the early 2000s, politicians of both parties competed with one another to show who would be a bigger booster of the NSA’s operations, fearing that any focus on civil liberties risked their being branded soft on terrorism. Since Snowden, though, the political paradigm has dramatically shifted.
The most illustrative proof that came last month, when the U.S. Senate failed to muster enough votes to reauthorize the law that aims to allow the NSA to engage in mass surveillance. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s prominent role in that episode underscored the political shift — a decade after the GOP mastered the art of citing 9/11-themed arguments about terrorism to win elections, one of the party’s top presidential candidates proudly led the fight against one of the key legislative initiatives of the so-called war on terror.
There has also been a shift in public opinion, as evidenced by a new ACLU-sponsored poll showing that almost two thirds of American voters want Congress to curtail the NSA’s mass surveillance powers. The survey showed that majorities in both parties oppose renewing the old Patriot Act.
Monumental as those congressional and public opinion shifts are, though, far fewer changes are evident in the government’s executive branch.
For example, the Obama administration is celebrating the two-year anniversary of Snowden’s disclosures by intensifying its crackdown on government whistleblowers. After prosecuting more such whistleblowers than any previous administration, Obama’s appointees are specifically moving forward a rule that the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight says would deny “federal employees in ‘sensitive’ positions the right to appeal a termination or demotion” when they expose wrongdoing. In practice, writes POGO’s Elizabeth Hempowicz, the rule would make “whistleblowers who hold these positions particularly vulnerable to retaliation.”
The Obama administration has also not stopped its selective enforcement of laws against those who mislead Congress or leak classified government information.
Take the issue of perjury. After prosecuting pitcher Roger Clemens for allegedly lying to Congress, the Obama administration has not similarly prosecuted National Intelligence Director James Clapper for insisting to Congress in 2013 that the government does not collect data on Americans. Clapper’s claim was wholly debunked by Snowden’s documents.
Read more @ http://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/america_hates_its_whistleblowers_the_tortured_legacy_of_edward_snowden_partner/
Read more @ http://www.geektime.com/2015/06/14/edward-snowden-to-speak-at-challengers-conference-in-barcelona/
Who needs the movies when life is full of such spectacular coincidences? On Thursday, David Anderson, the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, condemned snooping laws as “undemocratic, unnecessary and – in the long run – intolerable”, and called for a comprehensive new law incorporating judicial warrants – something for which my organisation, Liberty, has campaigned for many years. This thoughtful intervention brought new hope to us and others, for the rebuilding of public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. And it was only possible thanks to Edward Snowden. Rumblings from No 10 immediately betrayed they were less than happy with many of Anderson’s recommendations – particularly his call for judicial oversight. And three days later, the empire strikes back! An exclusive story in the Sunday Times saying that MI6 “is believed” to have pulled out spies because Russia and China decoded Snowden’s files. The NSA whistleblower is now a man with “blood on his hands” according to one anonymous “senior Home Office official”. Low on facts, high on assertions, this flimsy but impeccably timed story gives us a clear idea of where government spin will go in the coming weeks. It uses scare tactics to steer the debate away from Anderson’s considered recommendations – and starts setting the stage for the home secretary’s new investigatory powers bill. In his report, Anderson clearly states no operational case had yet been made for the snooper’s charter. So it is easy to see why the government isn’t keen on people paying too close attention to it. But then, when it comes to responding to criticism, the approach of the Conservative leadership has been the same for some time: shut down all debate by branding Snowden – or anyone else who dares question the security agencies – as an enemy of the state and an apologist for terror. It’s a technique we at Liberty have felt the full force of. In March, the discredited, and now largely retired, intelligence and security committee produced a report into the legal framework covering surveillance. This was the same toothless committee that failed to spot the dodgy dossier, expose extraordinary rendition or pick up on the sheer scale of blanket intrusion outside of the law – which Snowden did a great public service in revealing.
Who needs the movies when life is full of such spectacular coincidences? On Thursday, David Anderson, the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, condemned snooping laws as “undemocratic, unnecessary and – in the long run – intolerable”, and called for a comprehensive new law incorporating judicial warrants – something for which my organisation, Liberty, has campaigned for many years. This thoughtful intervention brought new hope to us and others, for the rebuilding of public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. And it was only possible thanks to Edward Snowden. Rumblings from No 10 immediately betrayed they were less than happy with many of Anderson’s recommendations – particularly his call for judicial oversight. And three days later, the empire strikes back! An exclusive story in the Sunday Times saying that MI6 “is believed” to have pulled out spies because Russia and China decoded Snowden’s files. The NSA whistleblower is now a man with “blood on his hands” according to one anonymous “senior Home Office official”.
Low on facts, high on assertions, this flimsy but impeccably timed story gives us a clear idea of where government spin will go in the coming weeks. It uses scare tactics to steer the debate away from Anderson’s considered recommendations – and starts setting the stage for the home secretary’s new investigatory powers bill. In his report, Anderson clearly states no operational case had yet been made for the snooper’s charter. So it is easy to see why the government isn’t keen on people paying too close attention to it.
But then, when it comes to responding to criticism, the approach of the Conservative leadership has been the same for some time: shut down all debate by branding Snowden – or anyone else who dares question the security agencies – as an enemy of the state and an apologist for terror.
It’s a technique we at Liberty have felt the full force of. In March, the discredited, and now largely retired, intelligence and security committee produced a report into the legal framework covering surveillance. This was the same toothless committee that failed to spot the dodgy dossier, expose extraordinary rendition or pick up on the sheer scale of blanket intrusion outside of the law – which Snowden did a great public service in revealing.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/edward-snowden-hero-government-scare-tactics
Hillary Clinton needs support from the progressive left. She may not need it to win the Democratic nomination for president, but she needs it to revive her uninspiring candidacy, buttress her sagging poll numbers, and, above all, prevail in the general election. Clinton's campaign kickoff rally Saturday at New York's Roosevelt Island was designed in large part to secure such endorsement. In a carefully orchestrated speech delivered before an estimated 5,500 flag-waving admirers, she promised to sponsor a bucket list of dearly held liberal policy initiatives, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and tax incentives for corporations that offer employee profit-sharing benefits. She also announced she would push for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, and that she would work to establish universal, automatic voter registration and early voting throughout the country.
Hillary Clinton needs support from the progressive left. She may not need it to win the Democratic nomination for president, but she needs it to revive her uninspiring candidacy, buttress her sagging poll numbers, and, above all, prevail in the general election.
Clinton's campaign kickoff rally Saturday at New York's Roosevelt Island was designed in large part to secure such endorsement. In a carefully orchestrated speech delivered before an estimated 5,500 flag-waving admirers, she promised to sponsor a bucket list of dearly held liberal policy initiatives, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and tax incentives for corporations that offer employee profit-sharing benefits.
She also announced she would push for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, and that she would work to establish universal, automatic voter registration and early voting throughout the country.
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-blum/dear-candidate-clinton-pardon-edward-snowden_b_7597390.html
His claims have been vindicated by the courts, Congress, and the US public. It’s time to bring him home. A federal criminal complaint filed against Edward Snowden on June 14, 2013, accused him of stealing and distributing government documents and classified information without authorization. Two years later, it is time for the US government to grant him an official pardon. Amnesty could require Snowden to admit to criminal offenses. But given the limitations on his ability to defend himself in a federal court and the strong likelihood that he would be convicted, I believe he would accept the deal. To understand what’s at stake for Snowden, it is helpful to remember what happened when Daniel Ellsberg leaked a top-secret study about US decision-making in Vietnam. Advising Ellsberg shortly after he took the Pentagon Papers and before he released them, I told him he would most likely be convicted and serve a long sentence in a maximum-security prison. Snowden got the same advice. During the trial that followed the leak of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was not allowed to testify that the government had acted wrongfully or that his motivations justified his release of the documents. Snowden also knows he could not testify as to his motives or the positive results of his actions. With Snowden, as with Ellsberg, government employees originally charged that both American foreign policy and US security had been severely damaged by the release of the classified information. That claim can no longer be seriously made with respect to either man. NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, for example, has claimed that Snowden’s revelations were causing “the greatest damage to our combined nations’ intelligence systems that we have ever suffered.” Similar arguments were made after the release of the Pentagon Papers. Nonetheless, The New York Times and other newspapers were permitted to publish them. Snowden’s information has also been released, and there is no supported claim that the country is worse off for it. Ellsberg’s case ended in a mistrial because of government misconduct. But there is no reason to believe Snowden’s trial would end the same way. Even though the case against him would be weak, there is good reason to doubt he would be acquitted. Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent statement on the floor in Congress, in which he referred to an Associated Press story that said “Snowden had won,” is beside the point. An official pardon would not just be about bringing Snowden home. It would also signal something important about the state of our democracy.
His claims have been vindicated by the courts, Congress, and the US public. It’s time to bring him home.
A federal criminal complaint filed against Edward Snowden on June 14, 2013, accused him of stealing and distributing government documents and classified information without authorization. Two years later, it is time for the US government to grant him an official pardon.
Amnesty could require Snowden to admit to criminal offenses. But given the limitations on his ability to defend himself in a federal court and the strong likelihood that he would be convicted, I believe he would accept the deal.
To understand what’s at stake for Snowden, it is helpful to remember what happened when Daniel Ellsberg leaked a top-secret study about US decision-making in Vietnam. Advising Ellsberg shortly after he took the Pentagon Papers and before he released them, I told him he would most likely be convicted and serve a long sentence in a maximum-security prison. Snowden got the same advice.
During the trial that followed the leak of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was not allowed to testify that the government had acted wrongfully or that his motivations justified his release of the documents. Snowden also knows he could not testify as to his motives or the positive results of his actions.
With Snowden, as with Ellsberg, government employees originally charged that both American foreign policy and US security had been severely damaged by the release of the classified information. That claim can no longer be seriously made with respect to either man.
NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, for example, has claimed that Snowden’s revelations were causing “the greatest damage to our combined nations’ intelligence systems that we have ever suffered.” Similar arguments were made after the release of the Pentagon Papers. Nonetheless, The New York Times and other newspapers were permitted to publish them. Snowden’s information has also been released, and there is no supported claim that the country is worse off for it.
Ellsberg’s case ended in a mistrial because of government misconduct. But there is no reason to believe Snowden’s trial would end the same way. Even though the case against him would be weak, there is good reason to doubt he would be acquitted.
Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent statement on the floor in Congress, in which he referred to an Associated Press story that said “Snowden had won,” is beside the point. An official pardon would not just be about bringing Snowden home. It would also signal something important about the state of our democracy.
Read more @ http://www.thenation.com/article/209649/amnesty-edward-snowden
Thanks to him, Americans know their communications are being monitored, writes Jacob Weisberg What is the responsibility of public servants who believe that the government is abusing its authority? In most cases, US law encourages them to expose wrongdoing. The Whistleblower Protection Act passed in 1989 protects “any disclosure” that an employee reasonably believes indicates the violation of laws or rules, “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety”. Edward Snowden’s revelation of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, including the bulk collection of phone records, would seem to conform to all of the criteria for whistleblowing. Did he expose violations of law? Check. Last month, a federal appeals court held that the phone records collection programme was illegal. Did he reveal abuses of authority? Check. The NSA’s inspector general has acknowledged dozens of incidents in which employees tracked phone calls and emails of former girlfriends, objects of romantic interest, or in one case an “unfaithful husband”. Did he point out gross mismanagement? Check. The mere fact that Mr Snowden was able to walk out with a treasure trove of top-secret information more or less proves the point. Did Mr Snowden bring to light the waste of public funds? Quite possibly, check again. The government has provided no evidence that the costly programme has prevented a single terrorist attack. Unfortunately for Mr Snowden, the Whistleblower Protection Act contains a major exception: it does not apply to people who work for intelligence agencies, including the NSA. The US justice department maintains that Mr Snowden’s actions fall under a very different kind of law, the draconian and anachronistic Espionage Act of 1917. The Whistleblower Protection Act protects you as long as you believe you are doing right in leaking information about government wrongdoing to the press — even if you are wrong. The Espionage Act treats you as a traitor even if you acted with patriotic intent, as Mr Snowden convincingly claims to have done — and even if you are right. The chasm between the government’s encouragement of some whistleblowing and its severe punishment of other whistleblowing constitutes the limbo in which Mr Snowden finds himself.
Thanks to him, Americans know their communications are being monitored, writes Jacob Weisberg
What is the responsibility of public servants who believe that the government is abusing its authority? In most cases, US law encourages them to expose wrongdoing. The Whistleblower Protection Act passed in 1989 protects “any disclosure” that an employee reasonably believes indicates the violation of laws or rules, “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety”.
Edward Snowden’s revelation of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, including the bulk collection of phone records, would seem to conform to all of the criteria for whistleblowing.
Did he expose violations of law? Check. Last month, a federal appeals court held that the phone records collection programme was illegal. Did he reveal abuses of authority? Check. The NSA’s inspector general has acknowledged dozens of incidents in which employees tracked phone calls and emails of former girlfriends, objects of romantic interest, or in one case an “unfaithful husband”. Did he point out gross mismanagement? Check. The mere fact that Mr Snowden was able to walk out with a treasure trove of top-secret information more or less proves the point. Did Mr Snowden bring to light the waste of public funds? Quite possibly, check again. The government has provided no evidence that the costly programme has prevented a single terrorist attack.
Unfortunately for Mr Snowden, the Whistleblower Protection Act contains a major exception: it does not apply to people who work for intelligence agencies, including the NSA. The US justice department maintains that Mr Snowden’s actions fall under a very different kind of law, the draconian and anachronistic Espionage Act of 1917. The Whistleblower Protection Act protects you as long as you believe you are doing right in leaking information about government wrongdoing to the press — even if you are wrong. The Espionage Act treats you as a traitor even if you acted with patriotic intent, as Mr Snowden convincingly claims to have done — and even if you are right.
The chasm between the government’s encouragement of some whistleblowing and its severe punishment of other whistleblowing constitutes the limbo in which Mr Snowden finds himself.
Read more @ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8fec9956-0ad9-11e5-98d3-00144feabdc0.html
As David Anderson QC’s report on the UK’s enormous body of surveillance laws is published, it’s right to remind ourselves that decisions on the extent of surveillance allowed in a democratic society must all reduce to one thing, and that is a risk assessment. How many will lose their lives if the government doesn’t get its way on the so-called snoopers’ charter – which will grant increased access to numerous authorities to data from everyone’s communications? Since Tony Blair’s second term as prime minister, we have listened to ministers intone that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. And who can argue with that? In less than a month we will mark the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks on London transport, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. But in the 10 years since those attacks we have lost just one person on British soil to a terrorist attack – Private Lee Rigby. That’s one life too many, and no doubt there would have been more without the work of MI5 and the counter-terrorist police. But think of that death in the context of other tolls. Since 2005 about 17,000 people have been killed on the UK’s roads, as many as a million people are estimated to have died prematurely from the effects of smoking and 300,000 from conditions related to obesity. That’s quite a casualty list. Yet in this context you never hear ministers talking about the primary duty of the state to protect life. There are campaigns to improve health and road safety, but they are not imposed with the strident absolutism of those who call for increased surveillance. The reason is obvious: terrorist attacks hold a particular horror for us and distort our sense of proportion. Fear overwhelms reflection about adding to the sweeping powers that the state already possesses, and what those might mean for democracy. One purpose of Anderson’s report is to return proportion to the debate and he has done so by carefully extolling the value of privacy, dismissing on the way the Silicon Valley mantra that privacy is dead. Privacy, he writes, enables the expression of individuality. “Without privacy, concepts such as identity, dignity, autonomy, independence, imagination and creativity are more difficult to realise and maintain.” Second, it “facilitates trust, friendship and intimacy: qualities that allow us to relate freely”. Third, it secures “other human rights, ranging from the freedom of political expression to the right to a fair trial”.
As David Anderson QC’s report on the UK’s enormous body of surveillance laws is published, it’s right to remind ourselves that decisions on the extent of surveillance allowed in a democratic society must all reduce to one thing, and that is a risk assessment. How many will lose their lives if the government doesn’t get its way on the so-called snoopers’ charter – which will grant increased access to numerous authorities to data from everyone’s communications?
Since Tony Blair’s second term as prime minister, we have listened to ministers intone that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. And who can argue with that? In less than a month we will mark the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks on London transport, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. But in the 10 years since those attacks we have lost just one person on British soil to a terrorist attack – Private Lee Rigby. That’s one life too many, and no doubt there would have been more without the work of MI5 and the counter-terrorist police. But think of that death in the context of other tolls.
Since 2005 about 17,000 people have been killed on the UK’s roads, as many as a million people are estimated to have died prematurely from the effects of smoking and 300,000 from conditions related to obesity. That’s quite a casualty list. Yet in this context you never hear ministers talking about the primary duty of the state to protect life. There are campaigns to improve health and road safety, but they are not imposed with the strident absolutism of those who call for increased surveillance. The reason is obvious: terrorist attacks hold a particular horror for us and distort our sense of proportion. Fear overwhelms reflection about adding to the sweeping powers that the state already possesses, and what those might mean for democracy.
One purpose of Anderson’s report is to return proportion to the debate and he has done so by carefully extolling the value of privacy, dismissing on the way the Silicon Valley mantra that privacy is dead. Privacy, he writes, enables the expression of individuality. “Without privacy, concepts such as identity, dignity, autonomy, independence, imagination and creativity are more difficult to realise and maintain.” Second, it “facilitates trust, friendship and intimacy: qualities that allow us to relate freely”. Third, it secures “other human rights, ranging from the freedom of political expression to the right to a fair trial”.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/uk-surveillance-debate-david-anderson-report
Claims that Russia and China have accessed documents stolen by Edward Snowden are a "smear" by "cowards" inside the UK government, a journalist who worked with the whistleblower says. The Sunday Times reported that Moscow and Beijing had "cracked" a secret cache of files taken by Mr Snowden. It said some Western intelligence agents had been removed from "hostile countries" because information leaked by Mr Snowden showed how they work. The Sunday Times stands by its story. Mr Snowdon's leaks in 2013 revealed surveillance carried out by US intelligence. Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped break the original stories, told the BBC there was "zero evidence" to support claims Russia and China had gained access to the documents. He criticised what he called "anonymous cowards in the British government" who had spoken to the Sunday Times. Mr Snowden, now living in Russia, left the US in 2013 after leaking to the media details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence. 'Zero evidence' His information made international headlines in June 2013 when the Guardian newspaper reported the US National Security Agency was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans.
Claims that Russia and China have accessed documents stolen by Edward Snowden are a "smear" by "cowards" inside the UK government, a journalist who worked with the whistleblower says.
The Sunday Times reported that Moscow and Beijing had "cracked" a secret cache of files taken by Mr Snowden.
It said some Western intelligence agents had been removed from "hostile countries" because information leaked by Mr Snowden showed how they work.
The Sunday Times stands by its story.
Mr Snowdon's leaks in 2013 revealed surveillance carried out by US intelligence.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped break the original stories, told the BBC there was "zero evidence" to support claims Russia and China had gained access to the documents.
He criticised what he called "anonymous cowards in the British government" who had spoken to the Sunday Times.
Mr Snowden, now living in Russia, left the US in 2013 after leaking to the media details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence.
His information made international headlines in June 2013 when the Guardian newspaper reported the US National Security Agency was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans.
Read more @ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33131173
Glenn Greenwald, a US journalist who published the first reports on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, says allegations in the British press that Russian and Chinese spies accessed Snowden’s documents are lies aimed at smearing the whistleblower. Greenwald, writing in the Intercept, said that reports by the BBC and the Sunday Times that claimed Chinese and Russian intelligence services had access to Snowden’s files is based on the false premise that he kept them. The Sunday Times cited a UK government source claiming that British agents in Russia and China had to be removed after Beijing and Moscow had gained access to Snowden’s top secret documents. "We know Russia and China have access to Snowden's material and will be going through it for years to come, searching for clues to identify potential targets," an intelligence source told the newspaper. Greenwald was one of the very first journalists to have met Snowden in 2013 at his hotel in Hong Kong, before the revelations on the US and its allies’ mass spying program were published by the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Glenn Greenwald, a US journalist who published the first reports on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, says allegations in the British press that Russian and Chinese spies accessed Snowden’s documents are lies aimed at smearing the whistleblower.
Greenwald, writing in the Intercept, said that reports by the BBC and the Sunday Times that claimed Chinese and Russian intelligence services had access to Snowden’s files is based on the false premise that he kept them.
The Sunday Times cited a UK government source claiming that British agents in Russia and China had to be removed after Beijing and Moscow had gained access to Snowden’s top secret documents.
"We know Russia and China have access to Snowden's material and will be going through it for years to come, searching for clues to identify potential targets," an intelligence source told the newspaper.
Greenwald was one of the very first journalists to have met Snowden in 2013 at his hotel in Hong Kong, before the revelations on the US and its allies’ mass spying program were published by the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Read more @ http://rt.com/news/267382-snowden-smear-sunday-times/
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major U.S. and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials — laundered through their media — as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting. We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article (behind a paywall: full text here) claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries “have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.” It continues: Western intelligence agencies say they have been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in U.S. history. Senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified. One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having “blood on his hands,” although Downing Street said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed.” Aside from the serious retraction-worthy fabrications on which this article depends — more on those in a minute — the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of Western journalism.
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major U.S. and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials — laundered through their media — as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.
We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article (behind a paywall: full text here) claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries “have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.” It continues:
Western intelligence agencies say they have been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in U.S. history.
Senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified.
One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having “blood on his hands,” although Downing Street said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed.”
Aside from the serious retraction-worthy fabrications on which this article depends — more on those in a minute — the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of Western journalism.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/
By hacking the NSA computers. So says security analyst Bruce Schneier. British surveillance functionaries placed a story over the weekend in the Sunday Times (London) claiming that the Russians and Chinese had gotten hold of the documents that Edward Snowden sneaked out of the NSA computers and had broken their encryption. As my colleague Scott Shackford points out the Sunday Times offered nothing more than the assertions of unnamed British spy agency sources as evidence. He noted that one of the Sunday Times' reporters actually admitted on CNN: "We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment."
British surveillance functionaries placed a story over the weekend in the Sunday Times (London) claiming that the Russians and Chinese had gotten hold of the documents that Edward Snowden sneaked out of the NSA computers and had broken their encryption. As my colleague Scott Shackford points out the Sunday Times offered nothing more than the assertions of unnamed British spy agency sources as evidence. He noted that one of the Sunday Times' reporters actually admitted on CNN: "We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment."
Read more @ http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/16/russians-and-chinese-got-snowden-documen
And some journalists are more than happy to let them. Can Edward Snowden have "blood on his hands" despite a subsequent admission that nobody has actually been harmed as a result of his leaks about the overbroad, privacy-destroying surveillance tactics of Western powers like the United States and the United Kingdom? Painting such a picture certainly appears to be the goal of a bunch of unidentified British "senior government sources" that told the Sunday Times (paywalled) in the United Kingdom that the Russian and Chinese governments have gotten their hands on the files that Snowden had copied from the United States and have cracked the encryption, allowing them to read (allegedly) millions of Western intelligence documents. To be clear, no actual sources are named in the story. No actual evidence is provided to show that this claim that the British government has had to pull agents out of the field to protect them from the Russians and the Chinese is true. And the newspaper seems happy to have just carried water for the government. There is no evidence they attempted to contact Edward Snowden (or even Glenn Greenwald, who reported the initial stories). In fact, the story even vaguely floats this unattributed, explosive claim:
Can Edward Snowden have "blood on his hands" despite a subsequent admission that nobody has actually been harmed as a result of his leaks about the overbroad, privacy-destroying surveillance tactics of Western powers like the United States and the United Kingdom?
Painting such a picture certainly appears to be the goal of a bunch of unidentified British "senior government sources" that told the Sunday Times (paywalled) in the United Kingdom that the Russian and Chinese governments have gotten their hands on the files that Snowden had copied from the United States and have cracked the encryption, allowing them to read (allegedly) millions of Western intelligence documents.
To be clear, no actual sources are named in the story. No actual evidence is provided to show that this claim that the British government has had to pull agents out of the field to protect them from the Russians and the Chinese is true. And the newspaper seems happy to have just carried water for the government. There is no evidence they attempted to contact Edward Snowden (or even Glenn Greenwald, who reported the initial stories). In fact, the story even vaguely floats this unattributed, explosive claim:
Read more @ http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/15/two-years-after-snowdens-revelations-wes
I do not believe this story……
Twitter will ‘tip off’ terror suspects and criminals if the security services ask for information about them, a bombshell report reveals. The social media giant will keep an investigation secret only if compelled to do so by a court, Britain’s terror watchdog found. It is one of a string of US tech companies which have decided that – in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks – customer ‘privacy’ and protecting their ‘brand’ takes priority.
Twitter will ‘tip off’ terror suspects and criminals if the security services ask for information about them, a bombshell report reveals.
The social media giant will keep an investigation secret only if compelled to do so by a court, Britain’s terror watchdog found.
It is one of a string of US tech companies which have decided that – in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks – customer ‘privacy’ and protecting their ‘brand’ takes priority.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3120571/Twitter-tip-criminals-Edward-Snowden-leaks-scandal.html
An independent review of the UK’s mass surveillance system might not make online libertarians happy, but lands somewhere in the middle by criticising the broad, unregulated nature of the GCHQ’s surveillance. It comes at a good time, too — close to when new legislation will potentially expand surveillance powers. The review, conducted by QC David Anderson, supports the practice of mass surveillance — provided there are sufficient checks to the system in place, and they are sufficiently transparent. While this isn’t the win that internet security advocates would be hoping for, it still brands the current system as one of reckless overreach. Crucial to the recommendation is that every interception should require a warrant, authorised by a newly created government body. The report also specifies when metadata should be used, and calls for tighter definitions on what targeted surveillance will be used for, to minimise language loopholes that effectively allow operators to surveil whatever they want.
An independent review of the UK’s mass surveillance system might not make online libertarians happy, but lands somewhere in the middle by criticising the broad, unregulated nature of the GCHQ’s surveillance. It comes at a good time, too — close to when new legislation will potentially expand surveillance powers.
The review, conducted by QC David Anderson, supports the practice of mass surveillance — provided there are sufficient checks to the system in place, and they are sufficiently transparent. While this isn’t the win that internet security advocates would be hoping for, it still brands the current system as one of reckless overreach.
Crucial to the recommendation is that every interception should require a warrant, authorised by a newly created government body. The report also specifies when metadata should be used, and calls for tighter definitions on what targeted surveillance will be used for, to minimise language loopholes that effectively allow operators to surveil whatever they want.
Read more @ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/uk-review-recommends-checking-mass-surveillance-powers-with-mandatory-warrants/
Edward Snowden says we should support Apple’s newly emphasized commitment to privacy rather than a business model driven by personal data collection, whether or not Tim Cook is being genuine. Snowden spoke over video conference during the Challenge.rs conference in Barcelona today. I asked Snowden his thoughts on Cook’s recent acceptance speech for an Electronic Privacy Information Center award, saying: “CEO Tim Cook recently took a stand on privacy and Apple’s business, saying “some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information. They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.” Do you think Cook’s perspective genuine and honest, and how do you think it will play out long-term with regards to it hurting or helping Apple’s business, or whether Apple will keep this promise to privacy?” Snowden responded: “I think in the current situation, it doesn’t matter if he’s being honest or dishonest. What really matters is that he’s obviously got a commercial incentive to differentiate himself from competitors like Google. But if he does that, if he directs Apple’s business model to be different, to say “we’re not in the business of collecting and selling information. We’re in the business of creating and selling devices that are superior”, then that’s a good thing for privacy. That’s a good thing for customers. And we should support vendors who are willing to innovate. Who are willing to take positions like that, and go “You know, just because it’s popular to collect everybody’s information and resell it..to advertisers and whatever, it’s going to serve our reputation, it’s going to serve our relationship with our customers, and it’s going to serve society better. If instead we just align ourselves with our customers and what they really want, if we can outcompete people on the value of our products without needing to subsidize that by information that we’ve basically stolen from our customers, that’s absolutely something that should be supported. And regardless of whether it’s honest or dishonest, for the moment, now, that’s something we should support, that’s something we should incentivize, and it’s actually something we should emulate. And if that position comes to be reversed in the future, I think that should be a much bigger hammer that comes against Apple because then that’s a betrayal of trust, that’s a betrayal of a promise to its customers. But I would like to think that based on the leadership that Tim Cook has shown on this position so far, he’s spoken very passionately about private issues, that we’re going to see that continue and he’ll keep those promises.
Edward Snowden says we should support Apple’s newly emphasized commitment to privacy rather than a business model driven by personal data collection, whether or not Tim Cook is being genuine. Snowden spoke over video conference during the Challenge.rs conference in Barcelona today.
I asked Snowden his thoughts on Cook’s recent acceptance speech for an Electronic Privacy Information Center award, saying:
“CEO Tim Cook recently took a stand on privacy and Apple’s business, saying “some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information. They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”
Do you think Cook’s perspective genuine and honest, and how do you think it will play out long-term with regards to it hurting or helping Apple’s business, or whether Apple will keep this promise to privacy?”
Snowden responded:
“I think in the current situation, it doesn’t matter if he’s being honest or dishonest. What really matters is that he’s obviously got a commercial incentive to differentiate himself from competitors like Google. But if he does that, if he directs Apple’s business model to be different, to say “we’re not in the business of collecting and selling information. We’re in the business of creating and selling devices that are superior”, then that’s a good thing for privacy. That’s a good thing for customers.
And we should support vendors who are willing to innovate. Who are willing to take positions like that, and go “You know, just because it’s popular to collect everybody’s information and resell it..to advertisers and whatever, it’s going to serve our reputation, it’s going to serve our relationship with our customers, and it’s going to serve society better. If instead we just align ourselves with our customers and what they really want, if we can outcompete people on the value of our products without needing to subsidize that by information that we’ve basically stolen from our customers, that’s absolutely something that should be supported. And regardless of whether it’s honest or dishonest, for the moment, now, that’s something we should support, that’s something we should incentivize, and it’s actually something we should emulate.
And if that position comes to be reversed in the future, I think that should be a much bigger hammer that comes against Apple because then that’s a betrayal of trust, that’s a betrayal of a promise to its customers. But I would like to think that based on the leadership that Tim Cook has shown on this position so far, he’s spoken very passionately about private issues, that we’re going to see that continue and he’ll keep those promises.
Read more @ http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/but-bring-the-hammer-if-it-betrays-us/#.64qabt:zxd2
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/edward-snowden-supports-apples-pledge-to-protect-user-privacy-2015-6
In the neocon journal Commentary, Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published an op-ed by Edward Snowden. Boot’s objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a “traitor.” In objecting, Boot made these claims: Oddly enough nowhere in his article — which is datelined Moscow — does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host, Vladimir Putin, which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as Kim Philby. . . . But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to. It’s much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB’s thugs. The only mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform. It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice. Unlike Snowden — who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs — the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself. All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it’s of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. But it’s so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden’s NYT op-ed today:
In the neocon journal Commentary, Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published an op-ed by Edward Snowden. Boot’s objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a “traitor.” In objecting, Boot made these claims:
Oddly enough nowhere in his article — which is datelined Moscow — does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host, Vladimir Putin, which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as Kim Philby. . . .
But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to. It’s much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB’s thugs. The only mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform.
It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice. Unlike Snowden — who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs — the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself.
All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it’s of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. But it’s so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden’s NYT op-ed today:
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/05/max-boot-commentary-magazine-lie-edward-snowden-decide/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/582338/Edward-Snowden-Argentina-Cristina-Kirchner-Falklands-Falkland-Islands
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.com/edward-snowden-discussed-us-surveillance-argentine-president-russia-1955699
US counter-intelligence expert, Keith Lowry, who led investigations into intelligence stolen by Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, is in Australia advising business and government on insider threats reports Christopher Joye. In 2009 a senior Treasury official, Godwin Grech, triggered a political crisis when he claimed one of the Prime Minister's advisers had emailed him demanding special assistance for a friendly car dealer. Yet harnessing investigative software produced by a little-known Australian technology firm, Nuix, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and The Australian Federal Police established that the email was in fact a forgery created by Grech that had never actually been sent. The US Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, INTERPOL, the United Nations, Australia's Department of Defence, and our Independent Commission Against Corruption all use the same technology. The "Nuix Engine" is an ultra-fast data processing and analysis platform that enables organisations to investigate the life-cycle of "unstructured data" produced on any machine or network, including information originating from emails, images, Microsoft products, local or cloud-based storage systems, and other applications. It's like fusing Google with a tracking device on every bit and byte and is understood to have been used by ASIC in interrogating the activities of the National Australia Bank and Australian Bureau of Statistics employees who made $7 million in insider trading profits and by the Australian Taxation Office in its "Project Wickenby" battle against international money laundering.
In 2009 a senior Treasury official, Godwin Grech, triggered a political crisis when he claimed one of the Prime Minister's advisers had emailed him demanding special assistance for a friendly car dealer. Yet harnessing investigative software produced by a little-known Australian technology firm, Nuix, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and The Australian Federal Police established that the email was in fact a forgery created by Grech that had never actually been sent.
The US Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, INTERPOL, the United Nations, Australia's Department of Defence, and our Independent Commission Against Corruption all use the same technology.
The "Nuix Engine" is an ultra-fast data processing and analysis platform that enables organisations to investigate the life-cycle of "unstructured data" produced on any machine or network, including information originating from emails, images, Microsoft products, local or cloud-based storage systems, and other applications.
It's like fusing Google with a tracking device on every bit and byte and is understood to have been used by ASIC in interrogating the activities of the National Australia Bank and Australian Bureau of Statistics employees who made $7 million in insider trading profits and by the Australian Taxation Office in its "Project Wickenby" battle against international money laundering.
Read more @ http://www.afr.com/technology/snowden-investigator-briefs-aussie-government-and-business-on-insider-threats-20150615-ghmmng
Government lawyers fear that mentioning the mass surveillance whistleblower in Adel Daoud’s case could bias jurors against prosecution evidence Prosecutors want a federal judge in a Chicago terrorism case to prohibit the defence from mentioning Edward Snowden at a 21-year-old suspect’s upcoming trial. The government filing is in Adel Daoud’s case. He has pleaded not guilty to trying to set off a bomb outside a Chicago bar. An appeals court in 2014 denied a defence request to go through foreign intelligence surveillance court (Fisa) records on Daoud. The defence had argued the records could help with trial preparation. It was Snowden who disclosed how that court secretly approved expanded US surveillance methods.
Government lawyers fear that mentioning the mass surveillance whistleblower in Adel Daoud’s case could bias jurors against prosecution evidence
Prosecutors want a federal judge in a Chicago terrorism case to prohibit the defence from mentioning Edward Snowden at a 21-year-old suspect’s upcoming trial.
The government filing is in Adel Daoud’s case. He has pleaded not guilty to trying to set off a bomb outside a Chicago bar.
An appeals court in 2014 denied a defence request to go through foreign intelligence surveillance court (Fisa) records on Daoud. The defence had argued the records could help with trial preparation.
It was Snowden who disclosed how that court secretly approved expanded US surveillance methods.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/04/terror-prosecutors-want-edward-snowdens-name-banned-from-trial
NYT op-ed also wags a finger at Canada, France and Australia for expanding surveillance powers after fatal terror attacks. Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new home, accusing Russia of ‘arbitrarily passing’ new anti-privacy laws. The sideswipe struck an odd note in an otherwise triumphant op-ed published in the New York Times Friday, in which Snowden celebrated recent moves by Congress and the U.S. courts to end the NSA’s call-tracking program, which Snowden said followed “nearly every phone call in the United States.”
NYT op-ed also wags a finger at Canada, France and Australia for expanding surveillance powers after fatal terror attacks.
Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new home, accusing Russia of ‘arbitrarily passing’ new anti-privacy laws.
The sideswipe struck an odd note in an otherwise triumphant op-ed published in the New York Times Friday, in which Snowden celebrated recent moves by Congress and the U.S. courts to end the NSA’s call-tracking program, which Snowden said followed “nearly every phone call in the United States.”
Read more @ http://fortune.com/2015/06/05/ed-snowden-just-took-a-dainty-little-bite-of-the-hand-that-feeds-him/
Haven’t they always done this anyway?
Police and intelligence agencies will turn to hacking in a bid to get round the use of strong encryption. Police will join intelligence agencies in deploying hacking techniques to get past the use of strong encryption by their targets, according to a report into the UK's surveillance powers. The report by the UK government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, is calling for a revamp of the patchwork of existing legislation around internet surveillance. The report also addresses the use of encryption - and law enforcement's desire to bypass it to further their investigations. The use of encryption to protect communications has been increasing recently - largely fuelled by NSA-contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations about the pervasive interception of private communications by surveillance agencies such as the NSA and GCHQ.
Police and intelligence agencies will turn to hacking in a bid to get round the use of strong encryption.
Police will join intelligence agencies in deploying hacking techniques to get past the use of strong encryption by their targets, according to a report into the UK's surveillance powers.
The report by the UK government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, is calling for a revamp of the patchwork of existing legislation around internet surveillance.
The report also addresses the use of encryption - and law enforcement's desire to bypass it to further their investigations.
The use of encryption to protect communications has been increasing recently - largely fuelled by NSA-contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations about the pervasive interception of private communications by surveillance agencies such as the NSA and GCHQ.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/hacking-by-police-inevitable-thanks-to-use-of-encryption/
During a recent interview with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed his thoughts on Edward Snowden and how a Paul presidency would handle the NSA whistleblower's return. Go here for the full interview. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic updates. Approx. 2.30 minutes. Edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg. This is a rush transcript. All quotes should be checked against the audio for accuracy. Reason: If on the day after inauguration, you get a phone call and it's Edward Snowden saying, "Alright, I'm ready to come back," what are you going to do? Rand Paul: You know, I think justice is about making punishment proportional to the crime. And I think his intentions were to reveal something that he felt like the people in government were lying about. And it turns out they were lying. The director of national intelligence committed perjury in front of the Senate committee. My understanding is it's about a five-year sentence, but instead of getting any kind of sentence, instead of getting a slap on the wrist, or instead of even being fired, he's been rewarded, and he's still in charge of intelligence. And I think he's done a great deal to damage trust. On the other side of the coin, can you let people who have sensitive data just make the decision to reveal it to the world? I think you have to have laws against that. So I think there have to be laws against what Snowden did. Did he do it for a higher purpose? Does he have a high moral ground? All of that I think history will judge. But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time. That's not a serious question, but I think it'd be an interesting debate they might have about liberty versus security.
During a recent interview with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed his thoughts on Edward Snowden and how a Paul presidency would handle the NSA whistleblower's return.
Go here for the full interview.
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic updates.
Approx. 2.30 minutes.
Edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg.
This is a rush transcript. All quotes should be checked against the audio for accuracy.
Reason: If on the day after inauguration, you get a phone call and it's Edward Snowden saying, "Alright, I'm ready to come back," what are you going to do?
Rand Paul: You know, I think justice is about making punishment proportional to the crime. And I think his intentions were to reveal something that he felt like the people in government were lying about. And it turns out they were lying.
The director of national intelligence committed perjury in front of the Senate committee. My understanding is it's about a five-year sentence, but instead of getting any kind of sentence, instead of getting a slap on the wrist, or instead of even being fired, he's been rewarded, and he's still in charge of intelligence. And I think he's done a great deal to damage trust.
On the other side of the coin, can you let people who have sensitive data just make the decision to reveal it to the world? I think you have to have laws against that. So I think there have to be laws against what Snowden did. Did he do it for a higher purpose? Does he have a high moral ground? All of that I think history will judge. But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time. That's not a serious question, but I think it'd be an interesting debate they might have about liberty versus security.
Read more @ http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/06/04/rand-paul-on-edward-snowden
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact