The Color of Surveillance

What an infamous abuse of power teaches us about the modern spy era.

The FBI has a lead. A prominent religious leader and community advocate is in contact with a suspected sleeper agent of foreign radicals. The attorney general is briefed and personally approves wiretaps of his home and offices. The man was born in the United States, the son of a popular cleric. Even though he’s an American citizen, he’s placed on a watchlist to be summarily detained in the event of a national emergency. Of all similar suspects, the head of FBI domestic intelligence thinks he’s “the most dangerous,” at least “from the standpoint of … national security.”

Is this a lone wolf in league with foreign sponsors of terrorism? No: This was the life of Martin Luther King Jr. That FBI assessment was dated Aug. 30, 1963—two days after King told our country that he had a dream.

We now find ourselves in a new surveillance debate—and the lessons of the King scandal should weigh heavy on our minds. A few months after the first Edward Snowden revelation, the National Security Agency disclosed that it had itself wiretapped King in the late 1960s. Yet what happened to King is almost entirely absent from our current conversation. In NSA reform debates in the House of Representatives, King was mentioned only a handful of times, usually in passing. And notwithstanding a few brave speeches by senators such as Patrick Leahy and Rand Paul outside of the Senate, the available Senate record suggests that in two years of actual hearings and floor debates, no one ever spoke his name.  

There is a myth in this country that in a world where everyone is watched, everyone is watched equally. It’s as if an old and racist J. Edgar Hoover has been replaced by the race-blind magic of computers, mathematicians, and Big Data. The truth is more uncomfortable. Across our history and to this day, people of color have been the disproportionate victims of unjust surveillance; Hoover was no aberration. And while racism has played its ugly part, the justification for this monitoring was the same we hear today: national security.

The FBI’s violations against King were undeniably tinged by what historian David Garrow has called “an organizational culture of like-minded white men.” But as Garrow and others have shown, the FBI’s initial wiretap requests—and then–Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s approval of them—were driven by a suspected tie between King and the Communist Party. It wasn’t just King; Cesar Chavez, the labor and civil rights leader, was tracked for years as a result of vague, confidential tips about “a communist background,” as were many others.

Read more @ http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/what_the_fbi_s_surveillance_of_martin_luther_king_says_about_modern_spying.html

 

America’s hangover from hope: A look back at the historical state of the Obama presidency

Excerpt:

One cannot help but think of the optimism that Obama’s election brought seven years ago, and the many letdowns that have come since. As Obama discussed last week the various problems that also have helped Senator Sanders become a major force in the Democratic primaries, it was hard not to feel disappointed that, after seven years, economic inequality has steadily risen, the big banks have grown only bigger, hardly any villains of the financial crisis have been prosecuted, political spending has gotten more out of control, mass surveillance has become even more omnipresent, and the Obama administration has virtually waged a war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. As Sasha Abramsky writes in The Nation:

“Obama was elected in the wake of a catastrophic housing market and broader financial collapse. He spoke of big and bold reforms, and voters presented him with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact systemic change. He could, and should, have broken up the big banks. At a time when there was double-digit unemployment, he could, and should, have used his podium to push a Democrat-controlled Congress to enact public-works programs on a scale far larger than that envisioned by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He could, and should, have used the moment for healthcare reform to argue the case for a single-payer system.”

After almost two terms, there are many things that Obama could and should have done, but did not. Contrary to what many right-wingers still (incredibly) believe, Obama was never a leftist or socialist or even democratic socialist, and since entering office in 2009, he has governed like a centrist, preserving the status quo and keeping special interests relatively happy. (Many forget that some of Obama’s biggest contributors were Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, JP Morgan & Chase and Citigroup.) True, following two years of having majority control of both the Senate and House at the beginning of his term, Republicans have made governing increasingly difficult, and Obama would have no doubt accomplished more had he had support from Congress. But there is little reason to think that his administration would have been overwhelmingly progressive.

Read more @ http://www.salon.com/2016/01/18/americas_hangover_from_hope_a_look_back_at_the_historical_state_of_the_obama_presidency/

 

Has Cruz been got at?

 

Cruz Shifts on Snowden: 'Now Clear' He's a 'Traitor'

Texas senator Ted Cruz now says Edward Snowden is a "traitor" who should be "tried for treason." Cruz told the New York Times in a statement his current view on the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked the details of a classified surveillance program.

" It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason," he said, according to the Times.

That's a shift from Cruz's position in 2013 after Snowden went public about the NSA's program. Asked in June 2013 if Snowden was a traitor or a patriot, Cruz declined to answer:

"I don't know if what Mr. Snowden has said is true or false," Cruz said during an event hosted by TheBlaze in Washington. "We need to determine that. We need to determine what his motives were, whether he was telling the truth."

He continued, "If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light."...

"If Mr. Snowden has violated the laws of this country, there are consequences to violating laws and that is something he has publicly stated he understands and I think the law needs to be enforced," Cruz said.

Cruz also urged caution and against a "rush to judgment" on Snowden and the NSA program while speaking on Fox News in 2013.

Read more @ http://www.weeklystandard.com/cruz-shifts-on-snowden-now-clear-hes-a-traitor/article/2000568

 

Defense IG to audit NSA’s post-Snowden security measures

The audit is one of a series ordered in a classified annex to the 2016 Intelligence Authorization Act.

The Pentagon inspector general will audit a series of network and personnel security measures put into place by the National Security Agency following the mega-leak of top-secret documents by contractor Edward Snowden, according to an announcement Monday.

“Our objective is to determine whether initiatives implemented by the National Security Agency are effective to improve security over its systems, data, and personnel activities,” the inspector general’s office says in a memo.

The audit will zero in on measures put in place to prevent the kind of abuse of system administrator privileges that allowed Snowden in 2013 to scrape hundreds of thousands of the NSA’s most secret documents from its servers and smuggle them out of the Hawaii facility where he worked on a thumb drive.

“Specifically,” the memo continues, “we will determine whether National Security Agency processes and technical controls are effective to limit privileged access to National Security Agency systems and data and to monitor privileged user actions for unauthorized or inappropriate activity.”

The memo states that the classified annex accompanying the 2016 Intelligence Authorization Act “contained a Department of Defense Inspector General classified reporting requirement,” and adds that “[t]his audit is the first in a series.”

Read more @ http://fedscoop.com/defense-ig-to-audit-nsas-post-snowden-security-measures-1

 

Putin Says Sheltering Assad Would Be Easier Than Snowden Asylum

President Vladimir Putin said giving refuge to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad would be much easier than it was for Russia to grant asylum to former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, though he dismissed the idea as “premature” in an interview with German newspaper Bild.

If presidential elections in Syria are held democratically under a United Nations-sponsored peace plan, “then Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all,” Putin told Bild, according to a transcript of the interview provided by the Kremlin. “And it is not important whether he stays as president or not.”

Read more @ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/putin-says-sheltering-assad-would-be-easier-than-snowden-asylum

 

Moderator: "Why Increase Immigration?" Rubio: "Look, Edward Snowden! Crop Insurance!"

Finally, someone asked about the central question of immigration policy: How many? Here's what Maria Bartiromo asked of Rubio in Thursday night's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina:

Under current law, the U.S. is on track to issue more new permanent immigrants on green cards over the next five years than the entire population of South Carolina. The CBO says your 2013 immigration bill would have increased green cardholders by another 10 million over 10 years.

Why are you so interested in opening up borders to foreigners when American workers have a hard enough time finding work?

Unfortunately, Rubio dodged and weaved and brought up every other issue he could think of rather than answer. And he got away with it.

First, he suggested terrorist penetration of our immigration system wasn't a problem in 2013, when he served as the public face of Chuck Schumer's amnesty/immigration-surge bill:

The issue is a dramatically different issue than it was 24 months ago. Twenty-four months ago, 36 months ago, you did not have a group of radical crazies named ISIS who were burning people in cages and recruiting people to enter our country legally. They have a sophisticated understanding of our legal immigration system and we now have an obligation to ensure that they are not able to use that system against us.

Okay, but 24 months ago we had a group of radical crazies named al Qaeda who had a sophisticated understanding of our legal immigration system. My CIS colleague Steve Camarota published a report 164 months ago detailing "How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001". Spoiler alert: Most of them used our legal immigration system.

And freelance immigrant terrorists existed way back in 2013 too. In fact, Rubio and Schumer introduced their bill just two days after the Boston Marathon bombing; regarding immigration and terrorism, Rubio said at the time, "We should really be very cautious about using language that links these two things in any way." He also tweeted:

#BostonBombing not excuse 4 inaction on #immigrationreform.But disagree with Sen.Leahy,if it exposed flaws in system we need to know & fix.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 22, 2013

In the debate, Rubio followed this bogus diversion by making the legitimate point that Cruz had also backed increases in immigration (a position Cruz has renounced more recently). That should have led to a discussion of numbers but instead, Rubio proceeded to, as Cruz put it, dump his opposition research folder on the debate stage, talking about Cruz's views on crop insurance and Edward Snowden. There's a reason he launched this attack then, and not during their earlier discussions over, say, tax policy – Rubio knows he’s extraordinarily vulnerable on the immigration issue, especially on his continuing desire to double legal immigration (and triple H-1B visas), and he'll do or say anything to avoid discussing it.

Read more @ http://www.cis.org/krikorian/moderator-why-increase-immigration-rubio-look-edward-snowden-crop-insurance 

 

Jeb Bush supports putting NSA in charge of civilian data and cybersecurity

Bush declared during GOP debate that Obama administration ‘failed us completely’ on security as Rubio and Cruz traded barbs on Edward Snowden

Jeb Bush has openly declared his support for putting the National Security Agency (NSA) in charge of civilian data, corporate cybersecurity and the internet, in what would amount to a major expansion of the national intelligence apparatus.

 

In the Republican presidential debate hosted by Fox Business Network in North Charleston, South Carolina, on Thursday, the candidates debated surveillance as part of a wider focus on national security.

After declaring that the Obama administration “failed us completely” in regards to cybersecurity, Bush said: “We need to put the NSA in charge of the civilian side of this, and we need more cooperation. You have to keep asking to decrypt messages.”

On a subject that raised passions among the seven men on stage and the audience watching, Marco Rubio of Florida attacked another serving senator, Ted Cruz.

Rubio said: “I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said that he had done a public service for America.”

Attacking the Texan for voting for the USA Freedom Act to rein in government surveillance, Rubio charged Cruz with praising Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who in 2013 leaked documents on NSA surveillance to media outlets, including the Guardian.

Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/republican-debate-jeb-bush-nsa-cybersecurity-edward-snowden

 

Why Ted Cruz Is (Accidentally) Right About Edward Snowden

Ted Cruz 2013: “…I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service…” 2016: “…Snowden is a traitor…” https://t.co/4lZyL8bZSs

— The Weekly Standard (@weeklystandard) January 14, 2016

At first glance, the above quotes appear to be a clear case of Ted Cruz vs. Ted Cruz on Snowden. It’s likely that Marco Rubio will bring up his flip flop at the GOP debate tonight. And I have little doubt Cruz, like all candidates running for the presidency, are capable and willing to shift positions for expediency.

It’s plausible that Cruz was offering conservative voters what he believed they wanted to hear in each of these cases. You’ll recall that in 2013 there was still a lot of talk about a Republican shift towards libertarianism.

But, technically speaking, one can believe both of those statements are true simultaneously.

Cruz tells the New York Times that “it is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason.” By adding “now,” Cruz gives himself the space needed to contend that evidence has changed his perspective on Snowden. In The Blaze interview from 2013, Cruz also left open the possibility with, “We need to determine…”

Read more @ http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/14/why-ted-cruz-is-accidentally-right-about-edward-snowden/

 

Infamous Edward Snowden bust heading to a show at the Brooklyn Museum

You may recall the kerfuffle last year when a portrait bust of Edward Snowden was surreptitiously planted on a pedestal making up part of the Prison Ship Martyrs Monument in Brooklyn’s Fort Greene Park. The stunt turned out to be the handiwork of a pair of artists, Jeff Greenspan and Andrew Tider, who had commissioned the bust from West Coast sculptor Doyle Trankina. Within hours of its installation, park workers covered the tribute to the NSA whistleblower with a blue tarp, and the NYPD confiscated it shortly thereafter. Greenspan and Tider were fined $50 dollars for the stunt, a nice price for a million dollars worth of free publicity.

 Read more @ http://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/infamous-edward-snowden-bust-heading-to-a-show-at-the-brooklyn-museum-011216

 

This Brooklyn Museum Exhibit Shows Edward Snowden's Artistic Side -- And The Perils Of Political Art

On the morning of April 6, 2015, visitors to Brooklyn’s Fort Greene Park spotted an unexpected update to a monument erected in 1908. Atop one of the pillars of the long-neglected memorial to Revolutionary War patriots appeared a monumental bust of Edward Snowden.

The four-foot-tall sculpture was expertly wrought in a material that resembled antique bronze, but it didn’t last long. Shortly after dawn, police covered the bust with a tarp and took it to the local precinct, where it remained in custody until it was reclaimed by a couple local artists. (The NYPD fined them fifty dollars for being in the park after hours.)

Jeff Greenspan (American, born 1970) and Andrew Tider (American, born 1979). Prison Ship Martyrs Monument 2.0, 2015. Galvanized steel, Hydrocal FGR 95, latex, enamel, oil paint, powdered gold, 48 x 24 x 34 in. base circumference 24 in. Fabricated by Doyle Trankina. Collection of the artists, New York. (Photo: Aymann Ismail)

Next month the bust returns to Brooklyn under less furtive circumstances. The sculpture of Snowden – which was conceived by Jeff Greenspan and Andrew Tider and fabricated by Doyle Trankina – will be included in the second installment of a three-part exhibition of political art at the Brooklyn Art Museum.

The show includes both historical and contemporary examples of what the curators describe as “art projects devoted to social change”. Works range from early-Soviet agitprop by Alexander Rodchenko to Tina Modotti’s ’30s photographs of laborers in Mexico to recent initiatives by Futurefarmers and the Yes Men. Within this broad range can be seen the diversity of political art, and also the challenge of grouping it as such: Political art has become so nebulous as a genre that preserving the category is becoming counterproductive.

Read more @ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2016/01/14/this-brooklyn-museum-exhibit-shows-ed-snowdens-artistic-side-and-the-perils-of-political-art/#4a5e1d3f51dcb1a0b1e51dcd

 

Edward Snowden speaks at Consumer Electronics Show disguised as a robot

The whistleblower made a virtual appearance at Las Vegas tech convention through Suitable’s Beam, a screen-on-wheels robot with subversive potential

There are lots of people pitching fancy gadgets at the Consumer Electronics Show this week here. Add to that list: Edward Snowden.

The former National Security Agency contractor, famous for handing over western government secrets to the Guardian and other publications, made a virtual appearance at the Suitable Technologies booth here. This was possible because Snowden was speaking from Suitable’s Beam, a sort of roaming screen on wheels used for remote commuting and virtual meetings.

But Beam isn’t just another piece of office technology, Snowden said. Rather, it can be used to subvert governments.

“This is the power of Beam, or more broadly the power of technology,” he said in an onstage interview with Peter Diamandis, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. “The FBI can’t arrest a robot.”

Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/07/slug-edward-snowden-ces-future-robot-suitable-technology-beam

 

Edward Snowden makes an appearance at CES

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden can’t come to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week because he would probably be arrested by the United States government for leaking thousands of classified documents to the press about the NSA’s various spying programs, but he did manage to make an appearance of sorts without actually being there. Snowden talked at the event this week via telepresence. Snowden appeared at the booth of Suitable Technologies Inc., maker of the Beam telepresence device, where he was interviewed by Peter Diamandis.

Snowden spent a fair amount of time discussing technology and government spying, noting at one point in the interview that “Technology is both a tool for oppression and a tool for liberation.”

Snowden also talked about the leaps in technology like virtual reality and other emerging technology that can help people do new and exciting things, but he spent a fair amount of time talking about how governments of the world continue to collect data on their citizens and how this can make people afraid to engage in free speech.

He is concerned that innocent citizens will curb their public speech for fear that the government would someday use their words against them.

“It can create a chilling effect,” Snowden said.

Read more @ http://gamepolitics.com/2016/01/11/edward-snowden-makes-an-appearance-at-ces/

 

Australians join international protest against government 'backdoors' in encryption

Nearly 200 experts, companies and civil society groups from more than 40 countries — including Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Australian Privacy Foundation and Australian Lawyers for Human Rights — are asking governments around the world to support strong encryption and reject proposals that would undermine the digital security it provides.

"The internet belongs to the world's people, not its governments. We refuse to let this precious resource become nationalised and broken by any nation," Brett Solomon, executive director of Access Now, the online advocacy group that organised the open letter, said in a news release.

The letter, released online in 10 languages at SecureTheInternet.org, marks an escalation of a debate over encryption — a process that scrambles data so that only those authorised can decode it. The fight has been brewing for more than a year, prominent in Australia and the United States but also spreading everywhere from the United Kingdom to China.

Encryption is widely relied upon to keep e-commerce and many of the websites people use every day safe from the prying eyes of cybercriminals. But the spread of the strongest forms of encryption, those which companies themselves cannot unlock, into products from major tech companies has drawn criticism from some law enforcement officials who argue that it may allow criminals and terrorists to "go dark."

Tech companies, the officials have argued, should make sure that they are able to provide access to encrypted content for law enforcement when faced with a court order. However, technical experts say building ways for that access into products — commonly called a "backdoor" — would undermine digital security as a whole by giving hackers a new target. And civil liberties experts worry that there's nothing to stop repressive governments from pushing for the same access.

Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/australians-join-international-protest-against-government-backdoors-in-encryption-20160111-gm3rsa.html

 

Open letter rejects government crackdown on encryption

Australian organisations join effort to defend access to encryption tools

More than 130 NGOs and advocacy organisations from around the world have signed an open letter calling on governments to reject policies that undermine the use and effectiveness of encryption.

“Encryption tools, technologies, and services are essential to protect against harm and to shield our digital infrastructure and personal communications from unauthorized access,” states the letter published online at Securetheinternet.org.

A number of Australian organisations have signed the letter, including the Australian Privacy Foundation, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), Future Wise, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and Blueprint for Free Speech.

Other signatories include Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Human Rights Watch and the Tor Project.

“We encourage you to support the safety and security of users by strengthening the integrity of communications and systems,” the letter states.

Read more @ http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/591985/open-letter-rejects-government-crackdown-encryption/

 

The debate over government ‘backdoors’ into encryption isn’t just happening in the U.S.

Nearly 200 experts, companies and civil society groups from more than 40 countries are asking governments around the world to support strong encryption — and reject proposals that would undermine the digital security it provides.

“The internet belongs to the world’s people, not its governments. We refuse to let this precious resource become nationalized and broken by any nation," Brett Solomon, executive director of Access Now, the online advocacy group that organized the open letter, said in a news release.

The letter, released online  in 10 languages Monday at SecureTheInternet.org, marks an escalation of a debate over encryption — a process that scrambles data so that only those authorized can decode it. The fight has been brewing in the United States for more than a year, but has also spread everywhere from the United Kingdom to China.

Read more @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/01/11/the-debate-over-government-backdoors-into-encryption-isnt-just-happening-in-the-u-s/

 

Cyber activists from 42 countries issue open letter against software 'backdoors'

Nearly 200 experts, companies and advocacy groups urge governments to end efforts to ‘mandate insecure encryption’ amid surveillance concerns

Amid a sustained push by world governments to undermine secure digital communications, campaigners from more than 42 countries are making a concerted push to defend encryption.

An open letter issued on Monday, three days after senior Obama administration officials huddled with Silicon Valley titans to revive a relationship damaged by revelations of mass surveillance, demanded an end to global government efforts to compel the insertion or use of software flaws in encryption protocols called “backdoors”.

“Users should have the option to use – and companies the option to provide – the strongest encryption available, including end-to-end encryption, without fear that governments will compel access to the content, metadata, or encryption keys without due process and respect for human rights,” reads the open letter, signed by 195 experts, companies and civil-society organizations.

The letter, an initiative of the digital-rights group Access Now and posted to SecureTheInternet.org, urges governments not to “ban or otherwise limit user access to encryption in any form or otherwise prohibit the implementation or use of encryption by grade or type”.

It rejects government efforts to “mandate insecure encryption algorithms, standards, tools or technologies”.

Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/cyber-security-open-letter-software-encryption-backdoors

 

200 experts line up to tell governments to get stuffed over encryption

Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/11/experts_defend_encryption/

 

Facebook, Google, and Microsoft criticised the UK's proposed spying laws

Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/facebook-google-and-microsoft-criticise-ip-bill-2016-1?r=UK&IR=T

 

Internet giants join forces to oppose ‘dangerous’ surveillance powers bill

Tech giants have condemned the government’s Investigatory Powers Bill, which will allow security services to hack anyone’s device and access their web history, branding the legislation “very dangerous.”

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo have joined forces to oppose the Bill, known to its detractors as the ‘snoopers’ charter’. It was proposed by Home Secretary Theresa May in November.

The bill requires telecommunications agencies to hand over data to security services and gives police, GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 unfettered access to the records of Britons’ web use.

Domestic communication providers would also be required to help police to hack into suspects’ computers and phones.

The bill has attracted criticism from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), civil liberties groups and the UN’s privacy chief.

Read more @ https://www.rt.com/uk/328295-surveillance-bill-internet-dangerous/

 

EFA signs open letter demanding governments enshrine encryption

Safety, privacy, human rights, and national security all depend on encryption, according to an open letter signed by Electronic Frontiers Australia as well as dozens of organisations worldwide.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has come out in support of encryption as being necessary to ensure national security and human rights, rejecting any legislation that could ban or undermine encryption by requiring a backdoor to access unencrypted communications.

EFA joined organisations, companies, and individuals from more than 35 countries in signing an open letter to governments worldwide, urging them to abandon any plans to legislate on the issue.

"Calls to undermine encryption in the name of 'national security' are fundamentally misguided and dangerous," EFA executive officer Jon Lawrence said.

Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/efa-signs-open-letter-demanding-governments-enshrine-encryption/


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