ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Aug 5 15 8:09 AM
How the NSA Is a Servant of Corporate Power
Top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the U.S. is pervasive and wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. "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. At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of "trying to hack into everything that doesn't move in America." Clinton's hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the US deep state. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating "global war on terror," which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror. When discussing the NSA's surveillance programs, Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015, President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential "to keep the American people safe and secure." Never mind that decision-makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks. If US political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage, perhaps it would help if they didn't sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks, the entire world knows that US spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage - against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel. 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.
Top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the U.S. is pervasive and wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests.
"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.
At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of "trying to hack into everything that doesn't move in America." Clinton's hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the US deep state. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating "global war on terror," which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror.
When discussing the NSA's surveillance programs, Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015, President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential "to keep the American people safe and secure." Never mind that decision-makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks.
If US political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage, perhaps it would help if they didn't sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks, the entire world knows that US spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage - against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel.
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.
Read more @ http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-nsa-servant-corporate-power
Micah Lee remembers first emails he received from Snowden and explains why Internet privacy is everyone's business Micah Lee is the 21st-century power player—not a gray-haired politician in a Brooks Brothers suit, but a casual, slightly awkward technologist. As Lee is quick to point out, there’s one reason why that role has changed. “It’s all on the Internet,” he explains, “but… people just don’t understand how the Internet works.” According to Lee, people tacitly accept violations of their Internet privacy rights because they simply don’t understand what rights are being violated. “It’s very dysfunctional from a government reform standpoint,” Lee continues as he sips his Americano. “A lot of what the [National Security Administration] does with dragnet surveillance is very blatantly breaking the Fourth Amendment right of every American. But they have their own rules.” He shrugs. Lee looks like any Berkeley grad student stopping in at Café Yesterday before heading to campus. He’s tall, lanky, and sports a T-shirt, jeans and a canvas messenger bag. He could be any regular 29-year-old, but he’s not — he’s the technological brilliance behind First Look Media’s The Intercept and the initial contact for Edward Snowden’s 2013 intelligence leaks.
Micah Lee is the 21st-century power player—not a gray-haired politician in a Brooks Brothers suit, but a casual, slightly awkward technologist. As Lee is quick to point out, there’s one reason why that role has changed.
“It’s all on the Internet,” he explains, “but… people just don’t understand how the Internet works.” According to Lee, people tacitly accept violations of their Internet privacy rights because they simply don’t understand what rights are being violated.
“It’s very dysfunctional from a government reform standpoint,” Lee continues as he sips his Americano. “A lot of what the [National Security Administration] does with dragnet surveillance is very blatantly breaking the Fourth Amendment right of every American. But they have their own rules.” He shrugs.
Lee looks like any Berkeley grad student stopping in at Café Yesterday before heading to campus. He’s tall, lanky, and sports a T-shirt, jeans and a canvas messenger bag. He could be any regular 29-year-old, but he’s not — he’s the technological brilliance behind First Look Media’s The Intercept and the initial contact for Edward Snowden’s 2013 intelligence leaks.
Read more @ http://tinyurl.com/o7go8hystate/
White House Responds To ‘Pardon Edward Snowden’ Petition With Character Assassination
“Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country." The White House finally responded to a popular petition at WhiteHouse.gov urging President Barack Obama’s administration to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. However, the response is a bald-faced attempt to use the petition as a platform to assassinate Snowden’s character. First off, the petition to pardon Snowden had nearly 168,000 signatures. Only a few petitions responded to by the White House have more signatures (for example, address gun violence through gun control legislation and legally recognize the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group. The petition was posted on June 9, 2013, and was largely inspired by the revelation that the NSA was collecting the metadata of phone calls of millions of Americans, who have Verizon as their phone carrier. Nevertheless, it took the White House more than two years to respond to this petition. The response focuses on the “serious consequences” Snowden’s whistleblowing has had on “national security.” It includes a statement from Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. “Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it,” Monaco declares. “If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions,” Monaco adds. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.” Monaco concludes, “We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.” Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer for Snowden, a Justice Department whistleblower, and the director of the Government Accountability Project’s National Security and Human Rights Division, reacted to the White House’s response. “The government loves to fear-monger, but has failed to articulate any clear harm from Snowden¹s revelations,” Radack stated. “The closest it has come, ironically, is a fully-redacted Defense Intelligence Agency internal assessment.” “If the government were actually interested in a robust debate before Snowden, the government would not have shrouded its invasive surveillance programs in the deepest of secrecy, improperly classified them, denied FOIA requests about them, asserted “states secret privilege” in every court challenge to them, or prosecuted for espionage people like NSA’s Thomas Drake, who tried to blow the whistle through every conceivable internal mechanism,” Radack concluded. Radack agreed the White House appeared to have used this petition as a platform for assassinating Snowden’s character instead of addressing the specifics of hundreds of thousands of Americans support a pardon.
“Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country."
The White House finally responded to a popular petition at WhiteHouse.gov urging President Barack Obama’s administration to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. However, the response is a bald-faced attempt to use the petition as a platform to assassinate Snowden’s character.
First off, the petition to pardon Snowden had nearly 168,000 signatures. Only a few petitions responded to by the White House have more signatures (for example, address gun violence through gun control legislation and legally recognize the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.
The petition was posted on June 9, 2013, and was largely inspired by the revelation that the NSA was collecting the metadata of phone calls of millions of Americans, who have Verizon as their phone carrier. Nevertheless, it took the White House more than two years to respond to this petition.
The response focuses on the “serious consequences” Snowden’s whistleblowing has had on “national security.” It includes a statement from Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
“Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it,” Monaco declares.
“If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions,” Monaco adds. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.”
Monaco concludes, “We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.”
Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer for Snowden, a Justice Department whistleblower, and the director of the Government Accountability Project’s National Security and Human Rights Division, reacted to the White House’s response.
“The government loves to fear-monger, but has failed to articulate any clear harm from Snowden¹s revelations,” Radack stated. “The closest it has come, ironically, is a fully-redacted Defense Intelligence Agency internal assessment.”
“If the government were actually interested in a robust debate before Snowden, the government would not have shrouded its invasive surveillance programs in the deepest of secrecy, improperly classified them, denied FOIA requests about them, asserted “states secret privilege” in every court challenge to them, or prosecuted for espionage people like NSA’s Thomas Drake, who tried to blow the whistle through every conceivable internal mechanism,” Radack concluded.
Radack agreed the White House appeared to have used this petition as a platform for assassinating Snowden’s character instead of addressing the specifics of hundreds of thousands of Americans support a pardon.
Read more @ http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-house-responds-to-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-with-character-assassination/208053/
Read more @ http://www.wallstreetotc.com/white-house-rejects-pardoning-snowden/219726/
NSA whistleblower William Binney claims that the most prominent users of data collected by NSA are federal and international law enforcement agencies. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The most prominent users of data collected by the US National Security Agency (NSA) are federal and international law enforcement agencies, NSA whistleblower William Binney said during the Whistleblowers Summit in Washington, DC on Wednesday. “It is the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations] and the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] that are actually using this,” Binney said of the NSA database. Binney explained that US federal law enforcement agencies are the NSA’s “new customer,” and they are using the agency’s database to “investigate, retroactively, anyone they want.” In 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing the NSA employed a massive surveillance architecture, used to gather personal data on virtually every US citizen. The NSA, whose mission is to collect signals intelligence on foreign targets, collected vast amounts of US communications under programs such as Operation Stellar Wind that were exposed by Snowden. Binney noted the NSA database is outsourced both to US and international law enforcement, and added NSA is “sharing this data around the world with all the policing agencies around the world who they collaborate with.” Both US and international law enforcement agencies are able to query the NSA database for incriminating evidence “without oversight,” Binney warned. The NSA has repeatedly defended the agency’s intelligence collection programs as being in the interests of national security and within the scope of US privacy laws. In May 2015, a US federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone metadata was illegal and unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The most prominent users of data collected by the US National Security Agency (NSA) are federal and international law enforcement agencies, NSA whistleblower William Binney said during the Whistleblowers Summit in Washington, DC on Wednesday.
“It is the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations] and the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] that are actually using this,” Binney said of the NSA database.
Binney explained that US federal law enforcement agencies are the NSA’s “new customer,” and they are using the agency’s database to “investigate, retroactively, anyone they want.”
In 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing the NSA employed a massive surveillance architecture, used to gather personal data on virtually every US citizen.
The NSA, whose mission is to collect signals intelligence on foreign targets, collected vast amounts of US communications under programs such as Operation Stellar Wind that were exposed by Snowden.
Binney noted the NSA database is outsourced both to US and international law enforcement, and added NSA is “sharing this data around the world with all the policing agencies around the world who they collaborate with.”
Both US and international law enforcement agencies are able to query the NSA database for incriminating evidence “without oversight,” Binney warned.
The NSA has repeatedly defended the agency’s intelligence collection programs as being in the interests of national security and within the scope of US privacy laws.
In May 2015, a US federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone metadata was illegal and unconstitutional.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/us/20150729/1025193481.html
Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden leaked details about that program in 2013, which spawned an worldwide debate concerning the American surveillance apparatus and its capabilities that had previously been kept hidden from the public and subsequent scrutiny. Destruction of the bulk surveillance records, which the NSA retained for a five-year period, won’t be immediate, but the ODNI said it has determined that the NSA will not be allowed to maintain access to them. The National Security Agency will eventually delete the trove of millions of telephone records it controversially amassed under the Patriot Act, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Monday.
Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden leaked details about that program in 2013, which spawned an worldwide debate concerning the American surveillance apparatus and its capabilities that had previously been kept hidden from the public and subsequent scrutiny.
Destruction of the bulk surveillance records, which the NSA retained for a five-year period, won’t be immediate, but the ODNI said it has determined that the NSA will not be allowed to maintain access to them.
The National Security Agency will eventually delete the trove of millions of telephone records it controversially amassed under the Patriot Act, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Monday.
Read more @ http://www.dispatchtimes.com/nsa-ordered-to-destroy-phone-records-it-collected-illegally/22279/
When the USA Freedom Act passed earlier this summer, the NSA was pushed to stop collecting phone records in bulk. The question of what would happen to the massive amount of data it had already collected on people remained. That question was answered today: Those old troves of metadata are mostly going in the garbage. The NSA will purge some of the metadata it illegally collected from people under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. November 29, 2015 will be the last day employees will have access to the information to analyse it. Technical employees will have access until next February. Not everything will be scrubbed, however. The NSA isn’t deleting some of the metadata it collected that is now involved in civil litigations, though it pinkie-promises to delete it eventually: The telephony metadata preserved solely because of preservation obligations in pending civil litigation. [It] will not be used or accessed for any other purpose, and, as soon as possible, NSA will destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations. This is like someone squatting in your home for years, throwing parties and vomiting on every available surface, and then later offering to take out the trash only after they were court-ordered to vacate. Better than not taking out the trash (I guess?) but a hollow gesture that completely fails to mitigate the negative effects of the original wrongdoing.
When the USA Freedom Act passed earlier this summer, the NSA was pushed to stop collecting phone records in bulk. The question of what would happen to the massive amount of data it had already collected on people remained. That question was answered today: Those old troves of metadata are mostly going in the garbage.
The NSA will purge some of the metadata it illegally collected from people under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. November 29, 2015 will be the last day employees will have access to the information to analyse it. Technical employees will have access until next February.
Not everything will be scrubbed, however. The NSA isn’t deleting some of the metadata it collected that is now involved in civil litigations, though it pinkie-promises to delete it eventually:
The telephony metadata preserved solely because of preservation obligations in pending civil litigation. [It] will not be used or accessed for any other purpose, and, as soon as possible, NSA will destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations.
This is like someone squatting in your home for years, throwing parties and vomiting on every available surface, and then later offering to take out the trash only after they were court-ordered to vacate. Better than not taking out the trash (I guess?) but a hollow gesture that completely fails to mitigate the negative effects of the original wrongdoing.
Read more @ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/07/the-nsa-says-itll-destroy-some-phone-records-it-collected-illegally/
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.com.au/us-spy-agency-nsa-stop-examining-phone-records-citizens-sets-time-destroying-procured-records
Federal intelligence officials are promising to delete old records picked up under a controversial National Security Agency (NSA) program that was overhauled earlier this summer. Once the NSA ends its bulk collection and storage of tens of millions of Americans’ phone records later this year, it will also eliminate analysts’ access to the five years’ worth of old data, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said on Monday. The decision forestalls what would have been certain outrage from privacy advocates had the NSA decided to keep the old data, which one top court has ruled was gathered illegally. The change was prompted by the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June, which ended the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone “metadata.”
Federal intelligence officials are promising to delete old records picked up under a controversial National Security Agency (NSA) program that was overhauled earlier this summer.
Once the NSA ends its bulk collection and storage of tens of millions of Americans’ phone records later this year, it will also eliminate analysts’ access to the five years’ worth of old data, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said on Monday.
The decision forestalls what would have been certain outrage from privacy advocates had the NSA decided to keep the old data, which one top court has ruled was gathered illegally.
The change was prompted by the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June, which ended the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone “metadata.”
November 29 set as cutoff date for further collection The NSA has said it will delete its mountain of private telephone records belonging to millions of Americans – just as soon as people stop suing it for having done so. The agency's slurping of phone numbers, the times and dates of calls, and (in some case) the locations of cellphone calls, was exposed in the first-ever leak of classified documents by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. The NSA collected and stored the private data thanks to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This unabated blanket monitoring was supposed to stop after the passing of the USA FREEDOM Act in June 2015. In that same month, the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the NSA could continue to collect phone metadata as usual for another six months, at which point the the new USA FREEDOM Act comes into effect. That cutoff date – November 29, 2015 – is now set. After that date, Uncle Sam's agents must jump over a few minor hurdles to get copies of your private records, and can no longer pore over their treasure trove of previously collected metadata. Well, almost. For another three months, from November 30, some of its techies can check over the data. After that, the historical data is off limits to the agency, or so we're told. "NSA has determined that analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 (any data collected before November 29, 2015) will cease on November 29, 2015," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) explained on its Tumblr page.
The NSA has said it will delete its mountain of private telephone records belonging to millions of Americans – just as soon as people stop suing it for having done so.
The agency's slurping of phone numbers, the times and dates of calls, and (in some case) the locations of cellphone calls, was exposed in the first-ever leak of classified documents by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. The NSA collected and stored the private data thanks to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
This unabated blanket monitoring was supposed to stop after the passing of the USA FREEDOM Act in June 2015. In that same month, the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the NSA could continue to collect phone metadata as usual for another six months, at which point the the new USA FREEDOM Act comes into effect.
That cutoff date – November 29, 2015 – is now set.
After that date, Uncle Sam's agents must jump over a few minor hurdles to get copies of your private records, and can no longer pore over their treasure trove of previously collected metadata.
Well, almost. For another three months, from November 30, some of its techies can check over the data. After that, the historical data is off limits to the agency, or so we're told.
"NSA has determined that analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 (any data collected before November 29, 2015) will cease on November 29, 2015," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) explained on its Tumblr page.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/27/nsa_phone_metadata_latest/
Read more @ http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/07/nsa-purge-mass-surveillance-phone-data-collected/118624/
Read more @ http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17568
Spying could have stopped 9/11? It didn’t stop the Boston Bombings, and they were spying before 9/11 and from what I have read the spying is nothing to do with stopping terrorism…… The 50 something terrorist attacks on US soil it was supposed to have stopped turned out to be a lie. All the spying didn’t stop the Sydney Siege or the acts of terrorism in France, or the bombings in England.
Graham: "I can reset a world falling apart"
PORTSMOUTH – Lindsey Graham is running for the Republican presidential nomination, and he is making no bones his almost laser-like focus on national security. The U.S. senator from South Carolina also believes that, despite his nearly non-existent place in the polls, his national security and congressional experience will be what it takes to win the 20 percent needed in New Hampshire’s crowded First in the Nation Primary and eventually take on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. At a Monday editorial board meeting at Seacoast Media Group, the senator offered some of his positions and took questions from editors and staffers in a wide-ranging conversation. Graham sees the defeat of ISIL and radical Islam as well as the stabilization of the Middle East as fundamental elements not only of a safer, but more prosperous nation, connecting national security to the economy, energy independence and even the plight of debt-burdened college graduates. “I’ve learned from my mistakes, Bush’s mistakes and Obama’s mistakes and I believe I have a foreign policy that will be appealing to the American public,” Graham said. “I think that I can reset a world that’s falling apart.” Graham said he believes that if the National Security Agency’s metadata program had been in place years ago, there never would have been a September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, and that its data collection is merely putting together algorithms rather than eying the content of citizens’ phone calls and texts. Graham also considers NSA leaker Edward Snowden more of a traitor than a patriot. “Not in my book (is he a hero). He compromised lives,” he said.
PORTSMOUTH – Lindsey Graham is running for the Republican presidential nomination, and he is making no bones his almost laser-like focus on national security.
The U.S. senator from South Carolina also believes that, despite his nearly non-existent place in the polls, his national security and congressional experience will be what it takes to win the 20 percent needed in New Hampshire’s crowded First in the Nation Primary and eventually take on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
At a Monday editorial board meeting at Seacoast Media Group, the senator offered some of his positions and took questions from editors and staffers in a wide-ranging conversation. Graham sees the defeat of ISIL and radical Islam as well as the stabilization of the Middle East as fundamental elements not only of a safer, but more prosperous nation, connecting national security to the economy, energy independence and even the plight of debt-burdened college graduates.
“I’ve learned from my mistakes, Bush’s mistakes and Obama’s mistakes and I believe I have a foreign policy that will be appealing to the American public,” Graham said. “I think that I can reset a world that’s falling apart.”
Graham said he believes that if the National Security Agency’s metadata program had been in place years ago, there never would have been a September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, and that its data collection is merely putting together algorithms rather than eying the content of citizens’ phone calls and texts. Graham also considers NSA leaker Edward Snowden more of a traitor than a patriot. “Not in my book (is he a hero). He compromised lives,” he said.
Read more @ http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150803/NEWS/150809781
Recently, German prosecutors said that they were closing their investigation of allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile telephone. The chief prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The investigation was triggered when the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article citing documents from NSA leaker Edward Snowden. At the time, Chancellor Merkel said, “Spying among friends – that is simply not done.” According to an unnamed German official, the event created the biggest strain in U.S.-German relations since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. When the Snowden leaks began in 2013, many leaders joined Chancellor Merkel in expressing their outrage over the NSA’s collection of metadata about telephone calls. These expressions of displeasure included arguments that privacy rights had been violated, and that the NSA’s activities were illegal under international law and the domestic law of their countries. French officials described the NSA’s actions as “unacceptable” and “shocking.” During a speech at the United Nations, immediately preceding President Obama’s speech, Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, said, “Tampering . . . in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them . . . .” With regard to the domestic law of almost all countries, any form of spying – whether it is the NSA gathering signals intelligence or a trench-coated spy working with a foreign national to gain confidential information – is a violation of that country’s law. That is the nature of spying. If a Chinese spy living near the Pentagon cajoles an employee of the U.S. Department of Defense to provide design drawings of U.S. fighter planes, that Chinese spy is violating U.S. law. If a U.S. spy living near Tiananmen Square convinces someone from the People’s Liberation Army of China to provide war plans, the U.S. spy is violating Chinese law. So, to say that spying activities have violated a country’s domestic law is like saying seawater is salty. Both statements are true but not terribly enlightening.
Recently, German prosecutors said that they were closing their investigation of allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile telephone. The chief prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The investigation was triggered when the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article citing documents from NSA leaker Edward Snowden. At the time, Chancellor Merkel said, “Spying among friends – that is simply not done.” According to an unnamed German official, the event created the biggest strain in U.S.-German relations since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
When the Snowden leaks began in 2013, many leaders joined Chancellor Merkel in expressing their outrage over the NSA’s collection of metadata about telephone calls. These expressions of displeasure included arguments that privacy rights had been violated, and that the NSA’s activities were illegal under international law and the domestic law of their countries. French officials described the NSA’s actions as “unacceptable” and “shocking.” During a speech at the United Nations, immediately preceding President Obama’s speech, Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, said, “Tampering . . . in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them . . . .”
With regard to the domestic law of almost all countries, any form of spying – whether it is the NSA gathering signals intelligence or a trench-coated spy working with a foreign national to gain confidential information – is a violation of that country’s law. That is the nature of spying. If a Chinese spy living near the Pentagon cajoles an employee of the U.S. Department of Defense to provide design drawings of U.S. fighter planes, that Chinese spy is violating U.S. law. If a U.S. spy living near Tiananmen Square convinces someone from the People’s Liberation Army of China to provide war plans, the U.S. spy is violating Chinese law. So, to say that spying activities have violated a country’s domestic law is like saying seawater is salty. Both statements are true but not terribly enlightening.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249865-spying-the-law-and-hypocrisy
On July 23, the Constitutional Council, France’s highest authority on constitutional matters, approved with minor modifications a reactionary electronic surveillance law legalizing mass spying and data retention practices without authorization from a judge. The law, which sets up the surveillance infrastructure of a police state in France, was adopted despite broad criticism from human rights groups. After the surveillance law was adopted by the parliament on June 24, amid mounting criticisms that the law trampled basic democratic rights, President François Hollande took the unusual step of submitting the law to the council to ensure it would not be challenged as unlawful. It was the first time a French president had ever sent a law to the Constitutional Council for approval before even it was officially promulgated. The Council released a communiqué declaring the mass spying law to be constitutional. It stated, “The Constitutional Council has ultimately ruled that all the provisions of the administrative justice code overseeing controversial issues in the implementation of surveillance techniques are in conformity with the constitution.” On July 24, Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Europe, said: “France is on the brink of becoming a country where anyone’s communications could be spied on, anytime, anyplace, and without even the need for a judge’s approval. This law would be a major blow for human rights in France, at a time when it is becoming very clear to people around the world that mass surveillance must be stopped.”
On July 23, the Constitutional Council, France’s highest authority on constitutional matters, approved with minor modifications a reactionary electronic surveillance law legalizing mass spying and data retention practices without authorization from a judge. The law, which sets up the surveillance infrastructure of a police state in France, was adopted despite broad criticism from human rights groups.
After the surveillance law was adopted by the parliament on June 24, amid mounting criticisms that the law trampled basic democratic rights, President François Hollande took the unusual step of submitting the law to the council to ensure it would not be challenged as unlawful. It was the first time a French president had ever sent a law to the Constitutional Council for approval before even it was officially promulgated.
The Council released a communiqué declaring the mass spying law to be constitutional. It stated, “The Constitutional Council has ultimately ruled that all the provisions of the administrative justice code overseeing controversial issues in the implementation of surveillance techniques are in conformity with the constitution.”
On July 24, Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Europe, said: “France is on the brink of becoming a country where anyone’s communications could be spied on, anytime, anyplace, and without even the need for a judge’s approval. This law would be a major blow for human rights in France, at a time when it is becoming very clear to people around the world that mass surveillance must be stopped.”
Read more @ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/29/fspy-j29.html
Since the 1950s, America has slipped into more and more secrecy, a trend that was particularly exacerbated after Sept. 11. Of course, some government information is and should be secret. But far too much is classified as such and then kept this way for far too long. This shift undermines the pillars of American democracy. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence said governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the Federalist Papers, Madison said that, through voting, the people are the “primary control on the government.” If American democracy is to attain its aspirations, our consent and our vote must be informed. Similarly, Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, called for a new birth of freedom, so that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” But if government is to be by the people, necessary information cannot be hidden from the people. If it is, we become a democracy in the dark. Around 100 million documents per year are classified, a mind-boggling figure. Some reflect necessary secrets. Some hide illegality or embarrassment, and some are stamped secret for more banal reasons, including the need to be noticed. Conventional wisdom is that documents not stamped top secret (or higher) will never get read. So secrecy spawns more secrecy.
Since the 1950s, America has slipped into more and more secrecy, a trend that was particularly exacerbated after Sept. 11. Of course, some government information is and should be secret. But far too much is classified as such and then kept this way for far too long.
This shift undermines the pillars of American democracy. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence said governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the Federalist Papers, Madison said that, through voting, the people are the “primary control on the government.” If American democracy is to attain its aspirations, our consent and our vote must be informed. Similarly, Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, called for a new birth of freedom, so that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” But if government is to be by the people, necessary information cannot be hidden from the people. If it is, we become a democracy in the dark.
Around 100 million documents per year are classified, a mind-boggling figure. Some reflect necessary secrets. Some hide illegality or embarrassment, and some are stamped secret for more banal reasons, including the need to be noticed. Conventional wisdom is that documents not stamped top secret (or higher) will never get read. So secrecy spawns more secrecy.
Read more @ https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/07/27/opengov-voices-more-openness-less-secrecy/
Tribunal hears claims that GCHQ is unlawfully intercepting MPs' and peers' communications A two-day hearing at Britain’s top security court is set to test MPs' and peers' claims that the government is unlawfully intercepting parliamentary communications. Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Green Party member Jenny Jones, and George Galloway, the former MP for Bradford West, have brought the legal challenge in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). They say the government’s electronic intelligence gathering agency, GCHQ, has intercepted their email and phone communications in breach of the Wilson doctrine. The doctrine established by former prime minister Harold Wilson, and later extended by Tony Blair, protects MPs' email and phone communications from unjustified surveillance by the state.
A two-day hearing at Britain’s top security court is set to test MPs' and peers' claims that the government is unlawfully intercepting parliamentary communications.
Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Green Party member Jenny Jones, and George Galloway, the former MP for Bradford West, have brought the legal challenge in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).
They say the government’s electronic intelligence gathering agency, GCHQ, has intercepted their email and phone communications in breach of the Wilson doctrine.
The doctrine established by former prime minister Harold Wilson, and later extended by Tony Blair, protects MPs' email and phone communications from unjustified surveillance by the state.
Read more @ http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500250404/GCHQ-unlawfully-intercepting-Parliamentary-communications-tribinal-hears
Old phone-tap promise not being kept? The Wilson Doctrine, long believed to forbid Blighty's spooks from tapping the phones of British politicians, has been repudiated by a senior lawyer. Speaking to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is hearing the complaint of a trio of politicians against GCHQ's mass-surveillance activities, James Eadie QC claimed that the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies. As reported by the Guardian, Eadie told the IPT that excluding politicians from GCHQ's mass surveillance wasn't even feasible. Eadie declared that the doctrine has only a political, rather than a legal, effect. He explained that parliamentarians simply couldn't object to having their information slurped up with the rest of the civilian population, and claimed that "interception at that stage isn't in any event objectionable, if one stands back and takes a broad view of the Wilson doctrine: it isn’t intelligible at the point of interception." The IPT, which is the only judicial body with the power to investigate the spooks, has not itself ruled yet on whether the doctrine has force in law.
The Wilson Doctrine, long believed to forbid Blighty's spooks from tapping the phones of British politicians, has been repudiated by a senior lawyer.
Speaking to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is hearing the complaint of a trio of politicians against GCHQ's mass-surveillance activities, James Eadie QC claimed that the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies.
As reported by the Guardian, Eadie told the IPT that excluding politicians from GCHQ's mass surveillance wasn't even feasible.
Eadie declared that the doctrine has only a political, rather than a legal, effect.
He explained that parliamentarians simply couldn't object to having their information slurped up with the rest of the civilian population, and claimed that "interception at that stage isn't in any event objectionable, if one stands back and takes a broad view of the Wilson doctrine: it isn’t intelligible at the point of interception."
The IPT, which is the only judicial body with the power to investigate the spooks, has not itself ruled yet on whether the doctrine has force in law.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/the_wilson_doctrine_is_dead_your_mps_must_be_spied_on_says_qc/
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has written to David Cameron asking for assurances that MSPs' communication has not been intercepted by the intelligence agencies. Ms Sturgeon wrote a letter to the prime minister after reports were published that GCHQ is not applying the "Wilson doctrine" in relation to the devolved nations. This doctrine bans the interception of MPs' phone communication and was later extended to cover emails. Because it was introduced in 1966, it does not cover the communications of members of devolved parliaments and assemblies - because these bodies did not exist at the time. In her letter Nicola Sturgeon has sought "immediate confirmation" that the intelligence agencies will treat MSPs in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Although the Wilson doctrine was never officially extended to cover the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies when they were set up, representatives from these nations had previously been treated in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Reports now suggest that guidelines have been changed and that is no longer the case. 'Not consulted' In her letter to David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon says the Scottish Government has "not been consulted" about any new guidelines.
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has written to David Cameron asking for assurances that MSPs' communication has not been intercepted by the intelligence agencies.
Ms Sturgeon wrote a letter to the prime minister after reports were published that GCHQ is not applying the "Wilson doctrine" in relation to the devolved nations. This doctrine bans the interception of MPs' phone communication and was later extended to cover emails. Because it was introduced in 1966, it does not cover the communications of members of devolved parliaments and assemblies - because these bodies did not exist at the time. In her letter Nicola Sturgeon has sought "immediate confirmation" that the intelligence agencies will treat MSPs in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Although the Wilson doctrine was never officially extended to cover the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies when they were set up, representatives from these nations had previously been treated in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Reports now suggest that guidelines have been changed and that is no longer the case.
In her letter to David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon says the Scottish Government has "not been consulted" about any new guidelines.
Read more @ http://www.channel4.com/news/sturgeon-asks-for-assurances-msps-are-not-being-spied-on
Three British politicians took the government to court on Tuesday, alleging UK authorities have been illegally spying on MPs and peers through a program of “blanket surveillance.” The government faced accusations of illegal wiretapping of politicians in a rare public hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jones of Muolsecoomb of the Green Party demanded urgent clarification on the scope of the spying, which they claim breaches a doctrine banning surveillance of members of parliament. Former MP George Galloway joined them at the IPT. He has filed a separate case against the government, which has since been incorporated with that of Lucas and Jones. Lucas and Jones accuse the government of breaching the “Wilson Doctrine,” which forbids the interception of communications between MPs and their constituents by police or intelligence agencies.
Three British politicians took the government to court on Tuesday, alleging UK authorities have been illegally spying on MPs and peers through a program of “blanket surveillance.”
The government faced accusations of illegal wiretapping of politicians in a rare public hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).
Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jones of Muolsecoomb of the Green Party demanded urgent clarification on the scope of the spying, which they claim breaches a doctrine banning surveillance of members of parliament.
Former MP George Galloway joined them at the IPT. He has filed a separate case against the government, which has since been incorporated with that of Lucas and Jones.
Lucas and Jones accuse the government of breaching the “Wilson Doctrine,” which forbids the interception of communications between MPs and their constituents by police or intelligence agencies.
Read more @ https://www.rt.com/uk/310579-government-spying-politicians-surveillance/
POLITICIANS' case in secret court reveals how Westminster safeguards against eavesdropping are no longer in place for devolved assemblies. SPOOKS have changed top-secret rules so they are free to spy on MSPs, the Daily Record can exclusively reveal today. Explosive documents show that the UK’s electronic eavesdropping agency last month dumped guidelines which had constrained spies from tapping MSPs’ phones or hacking their emails. The revelations about GCHQ will spark fury at Holyrood and reignite conspiracy theories about the role of the security services in fighting the growth of pro-independence feeling. They are also likely to bolster fears the intelligence community were monitoring politicians’ and activists’ communications during the referendum campaign.
SPOOKS have changed top-secret rules so they are free to spy on MSPs, the Daily Record can exclusively reveal today.
Explosive documents show that the UK’s electronic eavesdropping agency last month dumped guidelines which had constrained spies from tapping MSPs’ phones or hacking their emails.
The revelations about GCHQ will spark fury at Holyrood and reignite conspiracy theories about the role of the security services in fighting the growth of pro-independence feeling.
They are also likely to bolster fears the intelligence community were monitoring politicians’ and activists’ communications during the referendum campaign.
Read more @ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snoopgate-scandal-brit-spooks-spying-6127095
Documents suggest guidelines have been changed to allow spying on AMs, MSPs and Northern Ireland assembly members but not MPs Carwyn Jones has demanded answers from Downing Street over claims the UK’s spies now have the power to eavesdrop on AMs. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister demanding answers over a report in Scotland’s Daily Record that the UK’s monitoring body GCHQ has altered guidelines to enable it to monitor communications involving AMs, Scots MSPs and members of Northern Ireland assembly. The Record’s story alleges that the Wilson Doctrine, which governs restrictions on spies powers, has been re-interpreted to exclude members of the devolved assemblies. First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones said: “We pride ourselves on being open and transparent and we would be concerned if there were any infringements to our privacy.
Carwyn Jones has demanded answers from Downing Street over claims the UK’s spies now have the power to eavesdrop on AMs.
The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister demanding answers over a report in Scotland’s Daily Record that the UK’s monitoring body GCHQ has altered guidelines to enable it to monitor communications involving AMs, Scots MSPs and members of Northern Ireland assembly.
The Record’s story alleges that the Wilson Doctrine, which governs restrictions on spies powers, has been re-interpreted to exclude members of the devolved assemblies.
First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones said: “We pride ourselves on being open and transparent and we would be concerned if there were any infringements to our privacy.
Read more @ http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ams-spying-gchq-carwyn-jones--9724561
Read more @ http://tinyurl.com/qy2gkr5
Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who in 2013 blew the whistle on several government-run surveillance programs, envisions an Internet that largely focuses on privacy. He urges leading group of engineers to weave an interweb that prioritises on people's privacy over anything else. At a meeting in Prague of the Internet Engineering Task (IETF), Snowden shed light on the existing communications network and revealed how we could make it harder for governments to spy on its citizens. "Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked the attendees at the event over a webcast. The Academic Award-winning documentary Citizenfour was screened during the session. Citizenfour showcases conversations between Snowden and several journalists including Glenn Greenwald who reported about the revelations to the world. Snowden expressed his concern over growing traction of credit cards on the Web. He says that it is being used as a measure to pinpoint people's identity. "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way," he said. "If it's creating more metadata, this is in general a bad thing." One way we could substantially improve the existing privacy on the Web is by implementing a new protocol, he said. He also desired for a Web that better encrypts everything taking place on it. Snowden further noted that our DNS queries should be encrypted. "People are being killed based on metadata," he shared. Snowden advised the engineers to implement SPUD, a new protocol that reduces the number of intermediaries -- through which data passes through -- by combining transport protocols. Protocols running in the backend should "follow users' intent" and both actual content and its meta data should be encrypted, he said. But why so much focus on the network protocols, if you may ask? The reason, as explained by Snowden himself, is that it is the place which is being exploited to glean information. Introducing SPUD protocol might not be enough, however. Snowden warned that it could create a new channel where users' metadata could get leaked.
Read more @ http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/snowden-describes-how-to-build-an-internet-focused-on-privacy-718635
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact