U.S. court hands win to NSA over metadata collection

A U.S. appeals court on Friday threw out a judge's ruling that would have blocked the National Security Agency from collecting phone metadata under a controversial program that has raised privacy concerns.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said there were not sufficient grounds for the preliminary injunction imposed by the lower court.

The ruling was a setback for privacy advocates but did not reach the bigger question of whether the NSA's actions were lawful. It means the massive program to collect and store phone records, disclosed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, can continue unaffected until it expires at the end of November.

Under the USA Freedom Act, which Congress passed in June, the program was allowed to continue for 180 days until new provisions aimed at addressing the privacy issues go into effect.

Read more @ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-usa-court-surveillance-idUSKCN0QX1QM20150828 

A US appeals court is dragging its heels on halting the NSA mass phone spying program

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court appeared reluctant on Wednesday to put an immediate halt to the federal government’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records, with the controversial spy program set to expire in November.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously found the program illegal in May, ruling that the Patriot Act did not authorise the National Security Agency to install such sweeping surveillance.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

At the time, the court noted that the relevant sections of the Patriot Act were set to expire on June 1 and declined to stop the program, saying Congress should have the opportunity to decide whether to permit it to continue.

Under the USA Freedom Act, which Congress passed in June, new privacy provisions take effect on Nov. 29 that will end the bulk collection, first disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.

Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nsa-mass-phone-spying-program-2015-9 

D.C. Federal Court To Hold Hearing On NSA Spy Case

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Almost two years ago, on December 16, 2013, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction barring the continued unconstitutional collection by the National Security Agency and other government defendants, including President Barack Obama, of telephonic metadata of not just plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charlie Strange, but in effect hundreds of millions of Americans (case number 13-cv-00851). This historic decision, the indirect result of the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden, was then appealed by the Obama administration. Last Friday, the federal appeals court vacated Judge Leon's preliminary injunction, which had been stayed in any event pending appeal, and sent the case back to Judge Leon, presumably to allow for discovery into the unconstitutional surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In his order of December 16, 2013, Judge Leon had called this spying "almost-Orwellian."

After the ruling came down from the D.C. Circuit, Judge Leon immediately set a hearing for this Wednesday, but the Obama Justice Department, seeking to again delay the case, asked for a postponement, which Judge Leon rejected just minutes after the government's motion was filed. It is thus clear that the court intends to move this case along to get to the bottom of the unconstitutional surveillance, and to move it to trial as soon as possible.

Coupled with this case are class actions which Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, has filed, asking not just for permanent injunctive relief but also large damages for all affected Americans. This too will be discussed at the hearing.

On the eve of the hearing, Klayman issued this statement:

"We are pleased that Judge Leon is moving quickly to address the continued Orwellian illegal surveillance of all Americans, not just my clients and me. Previously the Judge called our case the 'pinnacle of national importance,' and I could not agree with him more. Judge Leon is a courageous judge and we are hopeful that he will now implement a procedure to allow us to quickly seek and obtain justice."

Read more @ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dc-federal-court-to-hold-hearing-on-nsa-spy-case-300135778.html

Shows how much the German people are worth to the German government.... smiley: eyes

Germany trades citizens’ metadata for NSA’s top spy software

Spies keen to use XKeyscore, less keen to tell German government or citizens.

In order to obtain a copy of the NSA's main XKeyscore software, whose existence was first revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013, Germany's domestic intelligence agency agreed to hand over metadata of German citizens it spies on. According to documents seen by the German newspaper Die Zeit, after 18 months of negotiations, the US and Germany signed an agreement in April 2013 that would allow the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz—BfV) to obtain a copy of the NSA's most important program and to adopt it for the analysis of data gathered in Germany.

This was a lower level of access compared to the non-US "Five Eyes" nations—the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—which had direct access to the main XKeyscore system. In return for the software, the BfV would "to the maximum extent possible share all data relevant to NSA's mission." Interestingly, there is no indication in the Die Zeit story that the latest leak comes from Snowden, which suggests that someone else has made the BfV's "internal documents" available.

Unlike Germany's foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the domestic-oriented BfV does not employ bulk surveillance of the kind also deployed on a vast scale by the NSA and GCHQ. Instead, it is only allowed to monitor individual suspects in Germany and, even to do that, must obtain the approval of a special parliamentary commission. Because of this targeted approach, BfV surveillance is mainly intended to gather the content of specific conversations, whether in the form of e-mails, telephone exchanges, or even faxes, if anyone still uses them. Inevitably, though, metadata is also gathered, but as Die Zeit explains, "whether the collection of this [meta]data is consistent with the restrictions outlined in Germany's surveillance laws is a question that divides legal experts."

The BfV had no problems convincing itself that it was consistent with Germany's laws to collect metadata, but rarely bothered since—remarkably—all analysis was done by hand before 2013, even though metadata by its very nature lends itself to large-scale automated processing. This explains the eagerness of the BfV to obtain the NSA's XKeyscore software after German agents had seen its powerful metadata analysis capabilities in demonstrations.

It may also explain the massive expansion of the BfV that the leaked document published by Netzpolitik had revealed earlier this year. As Die Zeit notes, the classified budget plans "included the information that the BfV intended to create 75 new positions for the 'mass data analysis of Internet content.' Seventy-five new positions is a significant amount for any government agency."

Read more @ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/germany-hands-over-citizens-metadata-in-return-for-nsas-top-spy-software/

German spooks trade domestic data for use of NSA XKeyscore spy programme

The exposure of an intelligence-sharing agreement between the US National Security Agency (NSA) and German spy agency the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) shows that German spooks traded domestic data in exchange for the use of the XKeyscore spying programme.

Documents analysed by German publication Die Zeit revealed a secret deal set up with the NSA that allowed the use of XKeyscore to rapidly analyse the huge amounts of metadata collected by the German agency on the condition that no data on US citizens was kept.

The BfV, unlike the Bundesnachrichtendienst foreign intelligence agency, does not carry out so-called dragnet surveillance, instead having to go through parliament to get permission to collect metadata on individual citizens.

Metadata does not contain the content of communications, for example the recording of a phone call or the text in an SMS message, but includes the time, date and location of the content. This data is then collated to create a web of contacts and the communication patterns of a target.

The BfV's use of XKeyscore gives the agency the ability to sift through huge amounts of metadata, but it does not have access to the full programme that allows the NSA to collect information directly from the internet.

Die Zeit also reported that the deal was conducted without the knowledge of German officials.

"Neither Germany's data protection commissioner nor the Parliamentary Control Panel, which is responsible for oversight of the BfV, has been fully informed about the deal," the article stated.

"Nobody outside the BfV oversees what data is sent to the NSA in accordance with the 'Terms of Reference', a situation that remains unchanged today."

Instead, key government officials, including the data protection commissioner, became aware of the use of XKeyscore only after specifically asking the intelligence agency in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013.

The 2012 intelligence-sharing deal, in a document partially marked ‘for official use only', stated that "the BfV will to the maximum extent possible share all data relevant to NSA's mission".

Read more @ http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2423875/german-spooks-trade-domestic-data-for-use-of-nsa-xkeyscore-spy-programme

Data retention and the end of Australians' digital privacy

The digital privacy of Australians ends from Tuesday, October 13.

So, the fact that you visited a porn site or infidelity site Ashley Madison or 'jihadi' content sites, may in effect be discoverable without the need for a warrant. 

On that day this country's entire communications industry will be turned into a surveillance and monitoring arm of at least 21 agencies of executive government.

The electronically logged data of mobile, landline voice (including missed and failed) calls and text messages, all emails, download volumes and location information will be mandatorily retained by Australian telcos and ISPs.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies will have immediate, warrantless and accumulating access to all telephone and internet metadata required by law, with a $2 million penalty for telcos and ISPs that don't comply.

There is no sunset clause in the Abbott government's legislation, which was waved through parliament by Bill Shorten's Labor with only minor tweaks. The service providers are to keep a secret register of the agency seeking access to metadata and the identity of the persons being targeted. There is nothing in the Act to prevent investigative "fishing expeditions" or systemic abuse of power except for retrospective oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. That's if you somehow found out about an agency looking into your metadata - which is unlikely, as there's a two-year jail sentence for anyone caught revealing information about instances of metadata access.

Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/data-retention-and-the-end-of-australians-digital-privacy-20150827-gj96kq.html

National View: InsideSources — Is impact of new Snowden revelations diminishing?

Last Sunday’s New York Times published a front-page story with new revelations about the collaboration between the National Security Agency and leading American high-tech corporations — in this case the giant telecommunications company AT&T. The headline: “AT&T Helped U.S. Spy on Internet on a Vast Scale.”

The article, published in collaboration with ProPublica, stemmed from the seemingly endless supply of documents purloined by Edward Snowden, and leaked in strategically timed portions, since 2013.

Reuters picked up the story, and tech publications — PC World, Wired, Ars Technica — jumped on it. Further, privacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately decried the alleged new evidence of NSA trampling on the Fourth Amendment.

But what is striking is that so far the revelations have had not much impact or triggered the huge reaction and editorial comments elicited by the original Snowden documents or those that immediately followed. The lack of response no doubt betokens a numbness from the cascade of revelations that reached a dramatic crescendo throughout the closing months of 2013 and well into 2014. At this point, it is difficult to discern just what is new and what is old news — but here goes.

On the old news front, we have known from past revelations that U.S. companies — either willingly or through judicial coercion — have cooperated with U.S. intelligence agencies such as the NSA and CIA. Thus, the New York Times story’s revelation that AT&T has given the NSA access to metadata (dates, times, place, but not actual conversation) phone calls under various U.S. security laws and court orders is not news.


Read more @ http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150827/OPINION/150829547

The real problem with Hillary Clinton’s email server

There has been more smoke than fire when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

At the time she was using her personal email server there were no restrictions (let alone recommendations) for how high-ranking officials should indulge in emailing, texting, messaging or whatever. Washington just hadn’t caught up with the modern age.

Oh sure, they’ve always discouraged storing or sharing classified documents but so far the only sensitive emails Hillary received weren’t actually classified as secret at the time. They were retroactively classified as ‘secret.’

Granted, after she turned over thousands of emails a few months ago she had her e-minions try to wipe the rest of her server (which does sound a bit suspicious). Why would she want her server erased? What exactly was on there that she didn’t want anyone to find?

Like Tom Brady destroying his cellphone the day after deflate-gate came to light, you have to wonder what he (or Hillary) was trying to hide. You don’t just randomly destroy your cellphone or wipe your email server without a reason.

Related: AT&T - NSA lapdog

Now I don’t think that Hillary was trying to hide classified documents and I don’t think she was trying to hide intimate sexting messages or naked selfies sent to Bill (or some other secret lover). At the worst it was probably information about some shady real estate deals or emails soliciting illegal campaign contributions. But more likely it simply contained emails bitching about her political opponents or an exchange of racist jokes. Or it could be nothing more than Hillary making nasty comments about people she didn’t like – comments that might come back to bite her.

Read more @ http://www.tgdaily.com/web/133801-the-real-problem-with-hillary-clintons-email-server

Snowden: Hillary Clinton's use of private email server a ‘problem’

Former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor turned whistleblower and international fugitive Edward Snowden on Thursday expressed criticism of Hillary Clinton, who has been accused of mishandling classified data on a private email server she used while serving as U.S. Secretary of State, saying lower-level government employees would ‘not only lose their jobs,” but “would very likely face prosecution” for doing the same thing. 

Snowden, who told Al Jazeera's UpFront in an exclusive interview that it was not his “place to say” whether Clinton potentially endangered U.S. national security, did however call what Clinton did a “problem.”

“Anyone who has the clearances that the Secretary of State has or the director of any top level agency has knows how classified information should be handled,” Snowden told UpFront host Mehdi Hasan. “When the unclassified systems of the United States government — which has a full time information security staff — regularly get hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous.”

Clinton, who is considered the front-runner to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, has faced criticism for using a private email server to conduct government business. The FBI has said it’s treating the case as a potential criminal investigation. While she has dismissed critics for playing what Clinton has called “partisan games,” Clinton has also expressed regret over the email controversy. 

Read more @ http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/3/snowden-clinton-use-of-private-email-server-a-problem.html

Satire website publishes article saying Osama is alive - Read spoof on Snowden

Read more @ http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/satire-website-publishes-article-saying-osama-is-alive-read-spoof-on-snowden_1664959.html

Satire website publishes article on Osama bin Laden being alive quoting Edward Snowden

Read more @ http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/satire-website-publishes-article-on-osama-bin-laden-being-alive-quoting-edward-snowden-1058095.html

US pressured Norway to arrest & extradite Snowden, seize all devices – documents

The US repeatedly asked Norway to detain and deport whistleblower Edward Snowden if he tried to enter its territory in the aftermath of his leaks on mass US global surveillance, Norwegian media revealed citing formal requests.

Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs received the first letter from Washington shortly after the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor’s revelations went public when he was stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport. 

The note, dated June 27, 2013, was quoted by Norway’s NRK broadcaster: “We request that should US citizen Edward J. Snowden attempt to enter Norway through any means, the Government of Norway notify the Embassy immediately and effectuate the return of Mr. Snowden to the United States by way of denial of entry, deportation, expulsion or other lawful means.” 

On the same day, the FBI’s Scandinavia office followed up with another letter addressed to justice authorities in Norway, Sweden and Finland. It described Snowden as a criminal fugitive and urged them to notify American personnel if the whistleblower booked a flight to one of their countries from Moscow. 

Read more @ http://www.rt.com/news/313663-snowden-norway-us-pressure/

Tor and the deep web going mainstream

Amid new anti-privacy measures, “deep web” networks such as Tor – The Onion Router – are becoming more popular, and not just among law-breakers.

Three months ago, a clean-cut former Boy Scout by the name of Ross Ulbricht pleaded for clemency in front of a Manhattan Federal Court.

Ulbricht is a Silicon Valley start-up kid who loves his mum and plays the djembe, but he’s also the Dread Pirate Roberts, founder of the anonymous online market Silk Road, an enterprise that began in libertarian idealism and ended in a mess of six contracted murders but no actual deaths, Mormon drug runners, crooked cops and doublecrosses.  

More than 100,000 users traded more than $200 million in drugs and contraband on Silk Road until the FBI arrested Ulbricht in October 2013. In his pre-sentencing letter, Ulbricht wrote that “Silk Road was supposed to be about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, to pursue their own happiness, however they individually saw fit. What it turned into was, in part, a convenient way for people to satisfy their drug addictions.”

Read more @ https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2015/08/29/tor-and-the-deep-web-going-mainstream/14407704002293 

 

Will Data Law Isolate Russia Further? (Op-Ed)

Last year, approximately 20 countries adopted laws requiring the localization of the processing of their citizens' personal data. A similar law went into effect in Russia on Sept. 1. As that date approached, everyone wondered if it would mark the start of a new Iron Curtain. That law was passed back when the price of oil exceeded $100 per barrel, the ruble exchange rate stood no higher than 34 to the dollar and the authorities had great confidence in their actions.

Now everything has changed. Russia no longer speaks from a position of economic strength. Is it wise to exacerbate the current unenviable economic situation by introducing new restrictive measures?

No less than half of all Internet companies working in Russia have expressed their unwillingness to comply with the new law, and no doubt many more are simply holding their tongues. Such giants as Apple, Google and Facebook generally do not, in principle, localize their data.

With relations between Moscow and the West continuing to worsen and the value of the ruble plummeting, the Russian market is becoming less attractive for those companies. Russia is no China in terms of sales volumes. If the Russian authorities want to actually help those Western forces interested in isolating and marginalizing this country, then they are on the right path. Enforcing the letter of this new law would isolate the Russian Internet, or whatever remains of it.

The Communications and Press Ministry and communications watchdog Roskomnadzor have said little about how they would enforce the vaguely worded law, effectively giving freedom to officials to interpret it as they please. No doubt senior Kremlin officials will follow political considerations to set policy — concerning, for example, whether to prohibit Google and Facebook from operating in Russia — and hand down their decisions to the supervisory agencies ostensibly entrusted with that task.

Read more @ http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/will-data-law-isolate-russia-further-op-ed/529229.html

 

Russia delays showdown with Google, Facebook over new data rule

Russia is postponing a showdown with a handful of technology ­titans, including Facebook, over installing data centres on Russian soil, handing an interim victory to companies that have resisted a divisive new rule.

A law requiring companies to store and process data about Russian users within the country’s borders went into effect overnight, but Russian regulators have told companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter they did not plan to check until at least January whether the companies were in compliance, executives and Russian officials said.

The three companies have so far either told officials they won’t have new data centres on Russian soil in the immediate future or haven’t made clear whether they plan to comply, some of the executives said.

Russian officials provided a reprieve when they said these companies weren’t on the list of those the Russian communications regulator Roskomnadzor was planning to check before 2016.

“We understand that in transnational companies where offices are spread globally, it takes a while to make a decision,” said Vadim Ampelonsky, spokesman for the regulator, adding that checking on companies like ­Google would take resources the regulator doesn’t have.

“There’s only that much we can physically do.”

Read more @ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/russia-delays-showdown-with-google-facebook-over-new-data-rule/story-fnay3ubk-1227508218318

Putin vs. the Internet: The Laws That Matter

Staying safe on Russia’s Internet is a tricky business.

A new law in force in Russia from Sept. 1 is intended to force foreign Internet firms to maintain local servers to handle data on Russian citizens. 

Russia says it’s aimed at protecting the privacy of its people, but the law has been criticized by activists and rights groups as the latest squeeze on Internet freedom.

It’s the latest in a series of laws put into place since Vladimir Putin was re-elected president in 2012. Here are some of the other key pieces of legislation:

Read more @ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-01/putin-vs-the-internet-the-laws-that-matter

 

New Russian Internet Data Law Raises Questions About Privacy And Compliance

A controversial new Russian law on the retention of personal computer data has gone into force, raising questions about the possible impact on the world's largest Internet companies and the privacy of the customers they serve -- and whether the law can even be effectively enforced.
 
The law, which took effect on September 1, requires Russian and foreign companies to store data for customers who are Russian citizens on servers housed on Russian territory.
 
That has sparked concerns among privacy advocates who fear the law will further restrict speech in Russia, where the Internet has served as a freewheeling and largely unhindered forum for public debate, particularly compared with traditional media outlets.
 
Michael Sulmeyer, director of The Cyber Project at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center, said Russia isn't the first country to explore asserting more control over computer users' personal data.

Read more @ http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-internet-data-law-privacy-compliance/27222557.html

Yelp redux, NSA's balancing act, new cyber paradigms and more

GSA: Yelp is swell, but certainly not mandatory

A top social media adviser at the General Services Administration is trying to dispel some of the myths that have sprung up about how federal agencies can use social media apps to serve the public.

In an Aug. 29 blog post, Justin Herman, GSA's social media manager, explained the details of the agency's terms-of-service agreement with Yelp, the customer-satisfaction rating and recommendation platform that is best known for restaurant reviews. Federal agencies can now use Yelp to allow the public to review federal services, sites and operations.

Herman said Yelp is one of 80 third-party social media apps that GSA has made available to agencies. Other options for citizen feedback include UserVoice, SurveyMonkey, IdeaScale and Quora. Federal agencies can use such services through amended terms-of-service agreements as outlined in a 2013 Office of Management and Budget memo.

There has been an "outpouring of interest ... in response to Yelp's decision to amend their terms of service for official government use," Herman wrote. He stressed, however, that the development does not require agencies to use Yelp, or that GSA has endorsed it. "GSA pursued amended terms of service for Yelp based on expressed interest from some agencies, starting with an app from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration designed to save lives and prevent drunk driving over the holidays," Herman wrote -- adding that the process of negotiating such agreements is "wonky even by government standards."

Two years after Snowden, NSA still working on privacy-security balance

More than two years after former contractor Edward Snowden revealed the scope of the National Security Agency's collection of bulk metadata, the NSA is still wresting with how to balance privacy with its security mission, according to Chief Risk Officer Anne Neuberger. The agency has "been breaking down and trying to glean the principles from all those post-Snowden articles to understand how the American people think about their privacy," Neuberger said in an interview published by Homeland Security Today. "It is particularly challenging within the current threat environment, since many transnational threats -- counterterrorism, counter proliferation -- are using the same communications technologies that the average American is using."

Read more @ http://fcw.com/articles/2015/08/27/news-in-brief-august-27.aspx

NSA decision explains Trump phenomenon

Today, almost two years since U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon issued his historic decision preliminarily enjoining the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government defendants, including President Barack Hussein Obama, from spying on nearly all Americans through their access to the telephonic metadata of U.S. citizens, the federal appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), which was encharged to review the lower court's injunction, ruled that I and two other plaintiffs had not yet sufficiently proved standing and injury to pursue our claims. The claims included our alleging that the NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.

The three-judge panel that issued its tardy decision, going on two years after the preliminary injunction, which Judge Leon stayed pending appeal, is comprised of three Republican establishment judges: Judge David Sentelle, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, and Judge Steven Williams. Instead of affirming Judge Leon's ruling, they sent the case back to him for discovery to uncover whether the NSA had actually accessed Verizon cell phone telephonic records and whether we had sued the correct Verizon company, the one that controls cell phone communications. Judge Leon's original order had found standing based on sound factual reasoning and logic:

"The NSA has collected and analyzed [plaintiffs'] telephony metadata and will continue to operate the program consistent with FISC opinions and orders." The D.C, Circuit opinion says that Leon "infers from the government's efforts to 'create a comprehensive metadata database' that 'the NSA must have collected metadata from Verizon Wireless, the single largest wireless carrier in the United States, as well as AT&T, and Sprint, the second[-] and third-largest carriers.'"

That this three-judge panel of establishment, Republican-appointed judges waited this long to issue its decision, which was exceedingly short in length, and allowed our Constitution to be trashed for nearly two years is not only an outrage, but dishonest. An ill-informed first-year law student could have written as much in one day two years ago. Indeed, in the landmark case of United States v. Mills, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the D.C. Circuit itself found that one day of a constitutional violation, such as one occurring under the Fourth Amendment, was one day too much. As importantly, private parties such as myself and the other two plaintiffs, Charlie and Mary Ann Strange, the courageous parents of a fallen support personnel for Navy SEAL Team VI son, Michael Strange, who died in the tragic Chinook Helicopter attack by the Taliban just three months after Osama bin Laden was killed, is presumed to show a likelihood of success and thus the requisite injury necessary for standing just from the simple fact that constitutional rights have been violated. No more need be shown for a case to proceed.

What, then, helps explain today's decision of the D.C. Circuit's Republican panel? The only explanation for this bizarre and illegal ruling is that these judges, like the majority of federal judges these days when hot-potato, politically related issues are before them, weigh the political winds. Any judge who wishes to be considered for higher appointment likely considers the implications of bucking the establishment by ruling against its wishes. In the case of the NSA's wholesale surveillance of American citizens, the Republican establishment likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Chris Christie have publicly and proudly stated their view that the NSA's illegal conduct is just "peachy keen." Thus, these Republican judges have a proclivity, like many of their colleagues, save for the likes of Judge Leon and his colleague on the D.C. federal court, Royce C. Lamberth, to bend over to the Republican benefactors who got them their jobs.

Read more @ http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/150831

Politicole: Snowden, Surveillance And Banks Blinded By Policy

THE battle with certain Canadian banks in The Bahamas that are imposing unacceptable, unfounded policies on Bahamians continues.

#To the certain Canadian banks: is it not enough that you rape the people economically, now you have to rape them of their individual personal freedoms? Some may say that if you rape them of their money that is equivalent to the removal of personal freedom. That may be so.

#But, let’s recap the situation for those who didn’t catch it the first time.

#Scotiabank and First Caribbean International Bank have an inane policy of asking/telling you, the client, to remove your sunglasses before entering the bank. It’s been years now, but, lately, they have become more extreme. Here’s the latest. I walked into Scotiabank several weeks back, with my shades on. I passed by the security guard, in plain view, with my shades on. He seemed to want to tell me something but he did not. I waited on the line, got to the teller, where a very young man, not long ago a boy, asked me to take off my shades. Here we go again.

#“Why?” I asked. Because if he’s asking me this stupid question, he should at least know why, right? Well, his response was something about it being bank policy.

#Listen, buddy, I don’t give a crack about bank policy if it’s infringing on my personal freedoms. I refuse to remove my shades. And I tell him so. I say let’s get on with my business. He says he can’t serve me.

#“Why can’t you serve me?”

#“Because you won’t take off your shades.”

#“Well, I’m not moving; you better go find your bank manager because someone is serving me today.”

#He goes to the corner and makes a call then comes back and says his manager is coming. Eventually, she shows up behind me and beckons me to walk over to her office, hoping not to create a bigger scene. I go quietly with her under the gaze of other customers and staff, now resenting the fact that my five-minute transaction has turned into a 25-minute visit because of this ridiculous bank’s “no shades” policy.

#I go into her office. She’s a very pleasant, very professional woman. We discuss the problem. She tells me that this is a policy from “head office”. I tell her it’s a ridiculous policy and one they should seriously rethink. She tells me that other customers have complained and even closed their accounts. And though she doesn’t say it, I get the feeling that she agrees with me, at least in part. But, of course, she represents the bank, so she has to be stoic for their part of this argument.

#She tries to explain something to me that makes no sense. I tell her as much. On we go like this until she says the situation should never have got this far, because the security guard is supposed to stop me at the door. “Why?” I ask. “Do I look like a criminal?” Because that’s what you’re telling me … that, if your security guard thinks I look like a criminal, because he in all his wisdom gets to decide that, then he can deny me entry to the bank.

#Now, let’s be clear. I understand a few things about this situation.

#1) this is a private entity and it has its own rules. Fine.

#2) this is a subsidiary of a foreign entity in a jurisdiction twice removed from its origin, which operates under the laws of another country, and which, throughout its origin, does not impose the same inane policy.

#3) this entity is, presumably, concerned about securing its premises. Why so much, so sudden? Has there been a slew of bank robberies lately of which I’m not aware?

#4) in The Bahamas, this bank’s clients are primarily Bahamian.

#5) though they are few, and becoming all too similar as though in collusion with one another to milk their customers for every dollar they can get, we, the primarily Bahamian customers, have but a couple other banking options.

#My overarching issue with these banks is this:

#You are infringing upon the personal freedoms of the people you depend on to make your money, by enforcing a method of mass surveillance which profiles every single client of the bank on the basis of their physical appearance, with no scientific evidence that this is an effective measure of securing your premises or your clients. So, find another way to secure your premises and your clients, or provide me with the evidence that shows me how much safer I will be because you tell everyone to take their shades off when they enter your bank.

Read more @ http://www.tribune242.com/news/2015/sep/01/politicole-snowden-surveillance-and-banks-blinded-/

Plea deal unlikely for Edward Snowden

The window for former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to reach a plea agreement with the U.S. Justice Department is closing quickly.

That's what senior U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials tell us about the man whose leaks they call the worst in U.S. history. These officials say any momentum for these negotiations is gone; his lawyers have not even had conversations about such a deal for nearly a year with the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case. The officials say the chance that Snowden will be offered a plea deal in exchange for cooperation is now close to non-existent.

There are three main reasons. The U.S. intelligence community today believes it knows more about what Snowden took than it did in 2014. Back then, the intelligence assessments assumed that every piece of data Snowden's Web crawler programs scanned was also copied and downloaded to files he later took. U.S. intelligence officials tell us that a more accurate picture has emerged of what Snowden actually took, as opposed to what he just scanned.

Read more @ http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/aug/30/plea-deal-unlikely-for-edward-snowden-2/?f=opinion

Anchor Babies? What Really Matters in U.S. Presidential Race.

Want your business to appear in Entrepreneur magazine? Tell us how you're empowering employees, and you could be selected for a full-page promotion provided by Colonial Life.

Last week, Republican presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Jeb Bush mixed it up with the media over their use of the pejorative term “anchor baby.” Instead of debating the real issue – whether the 14th Amendment should grant citizenship to babies born to mothers who came here illegally – everyone’s fighting about what to call them.

The fracas does point to a far bigger issue, however: We’re so easily distracted by every phrase, video clip, or partisan controversy that scrolls across our Twitter feed or gets reported by any one of the countless 24/7 news aggregators that we’re not focusing on the critical issues confronting our nation.

Another example of this nonsense was the fiery exchange between Chris Christie and Rand Paul at the first GOP presidential debate. The dustup was over the NSA’s collection of phone metadata, which Paul seems to think violates the 4th Amendment. Actually, it doesn’t, as the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy explained so clearly way back in May.

Read more @ http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249833

 

Norway prize body to 'empty chair' Snowden

"It's final: he won't come to Norway on September 5 to receive the prize," Hege Newth Nouri of the Norwegian Academy of Literature and Freedom of Expression, which awards the Bjornson Prize, told AFP.

"Norwegian authorities could not guarantee that he could come without the risk of being extradited to the United States," she said.

The 32-year-old former intelligence contractor fled the US after leaking documents on vast US surveillance programs to journalists, and has been granted asylum in Russia.

Newth Nouri said prize organisers had not ruled out the possibility of giving him the prize one day at the Norwegian-Russian border in the far north.

On Thursday, Norwegian public broadcaster NRK revealed documents that showed the US had in 2013 asked Norway to arrest and extradite Snowden if he came to the Scandinavian country.

The Norwegian government said it had not responded to the diplomatic missives. Local immigration authorities had around the same time rejected an asylum request Snowden submitted to Norway, one of several countries where he sought refuge.

As in 2014, Snowden has been nominated -- along with 272 others -- for the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize, which is also awarded in Norway.

This year's announcement is due on October 9.

Read more @ http://www.thelocal.no/20150829/prize-body-to-empty-chair-snowden


"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."  ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~