ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Sep 5 15 6:29 PM
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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....
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."
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/
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".
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Read more @ http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/satire-website-publishes-article-saying-osama-is-alive-read-spoof-on-snowden_1664959.html
Read more @ http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/satire-website-publishes-article-on-osama-bin-laden-being-alive-quoting-edward-snowden-1058095.html
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.
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/
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.”
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
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.
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 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.”
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
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:
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
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
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."
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."
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
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.
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-/
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.
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
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.
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
Edward Snowden will be represented by an empty chair next week when he is honoured with a freedom of expression prize in Norway, as he fears extradition to the US, organisers said Friday. Snowden warned Norway he faced death in US (28 Aug 15)Snowden may get freedom prize at border (28 Aug 15)"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.
Edward Snowden will be represented by an empty chair next week when he is honoured with a freedom of expression prize in Norway, as he fears extradition to the US, organisers said Friday.
"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 ~
Interact
Sep 5 15 10:58 PM
FORMER US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden says he has "no regrets" about disclosing mass surveillance programs that forced him into exile, as he received a Norwegian freedom of speech prize. "WE will honour you as the most important whistleblower of our times," said Hege Newth Nouri, head of the board of the Bjornson Academy, on Saturday. The Bjornson Prize award is worth 100,000 kroner ($A17,122). Nouri said she hoped Snowden would be able to receive his diploma and statue next year - in Norway. She said an empty chair on the stage in Molde, western Norway, symbolised that the organisers had failed to secure guarantees Snowden would not be arrested and possibly be extradited to the United States. In its citation, the jury said Snowden had "shown how the electronic integrated information world can be a threat to personal integrity, and also might pose a threat against freedom of expression". Snowden, who has asylum in Russia, is wanted by the US government on espionage charges for exposing extensive telephone and internet data-collection programs used by the US National Security Agency. In an interview conducted via videolink from Russia, Snowden said he loved the United States and his actions were not anti-American. "I knew the consequences of my actions when I took them," he said. "I honestly never expected to be free today, I expected to be in prison, I didn't expect to get awards, I expected my reputation to be ruined because a number of incredibly powerful officials around the world were personally embarrassed because of these revelations."
FORMER US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden says he has "no regrets" about disclosing mass surveillance programs that forced him into exile, as he received a Norwegian freedom of speech prize.
"WE will honour you as the most important whistleblower of our times," said Hege Newth Nouri, head of the board of the Bjornson Academy, on Saturday.
Sep 7 15 11:45 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/national/article/FBI-spied-on-Burning-Man-music-festival-6485427.php
Sep 8 15 10:43 PM
THEY say that if you haven’t got anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about. But that sort of argument doesn’t fly with the civil libertarians among us ... and neither will the tax man’s latest power grab.The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) could soon have tough new powers allowing it to access stored phone calls, emails and text messages, under a proposal to plug a potential budget black hole.The proposal aims to claw back a portion of the billions of dollars hoarded by high-level tax cheats, The Australian reports.There is, of course, nothing to stop the ATO from using those powers, in its annual crackdowns, on select Joe Bloggs workers and small business owners, be they tradies, teachers or taxi drivers. A parliamentary joint committee yesterday gave the proposal the thumbs-up, arguing the extra powers were needed to protect the public purse from “serious criminal activities” and recommended they be approved “with appropriate safeguards, including adequate privacy and oversight arrangements”.
THEY say that if you haven’t got anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about.
But that sort of argument doesn’t fly with the civil libertarians among us ... and neither will the tax man’s latest power grab.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) could soon have tough new powers allowing it to access stored phone calls, emails and text messages, under a proposal to plug a potential budget black hole.
The proposal aims to claw back a portion of the billions of dollars hoarded by high-level tax cheats, The Australian reports.
There is, of course, nothing to stop the ATO from using those powers, in its annual crackdowns, on select Joe Bloggs workers and small business owners, be they tradies, teachers or taxi drivers.
A parliamentary joint committee yesterday gave the proposal the thumbs-up, arguing the extra powers were needed to protect the public purse from “serious criminal activities” and recommended they be approved “with appropriate safeguards, including adequate privacy and oversight arrangements”.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/big-brother-is-watching-and-reading-your-emails/story-fnkji35w-1227518119384
Sep 12 15 10:15 PM
It’s being called a ‘revolt’ by intelligence pros who are paid to give their honest assessment of the ISIS war—but are instead seeing their reports turned into happy talk.More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned. The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence. “The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.That complaint was supported by 50 other analysts, some of whom have complained about politicizing of intelligence reports for months. That’s according to 11 individuals who are knowledgeable about the details of the report and who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity.The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.
More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.
The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.
That complaint was supported by 50 other analysts, some of whom have complained about politicizing of intelligence reports for months. That’s according to 11 individuals who are knowledgeable about the details of the report and who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity.
The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.
Read more @ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html
Sep 19 15 5:26 PM
Federal law enforcement officials decrying the proliferation of strong encryption said Tuesday that the only reason they lack actual examples of how often it shields criminals is that they’ve done a “bad job” of collecting them. “I will be the first person to tell you that we’ve done a really bad job collecting empirical data. We need to do a much better job of that,” said Amy Hess, the FBI’s assistant executive director of science and technology, at an encryption debate hosted by Passcode, a new security and privacy blog from the Christian Science Monitor. Asked how often investigations are stymied by encryption, Kiran Raj, a senior counsel of the Department of Justice, responded with a non-answer. “It is an important point that you make, that we have to provide the sense of a scale,” he said. Neither Hess nor Raj said what they planned to do about it. Hess said that data currently available on investigations, including the annual wiretap report indicating that agents encountered encryption only a handful of times during the course of the year, is simply wrong. “The fallacy that that data is built on,” she said, is that “if [agents] think an individual is going to use some sort of encrypted device, they’re not going to pursue it” any further. Raj said that requests for the content of phone communications — text messages, emails, and more — only come at the end of a very exhaustive list of less intrusive methods. “We call it an investigative technique of last resort,” he said. But when pressed on why there’s no evidence of the number of times agents hit this final wall, he simply said that these are “hard issues.” Previous examples provided by FBI Director James Comey in October to illustrate the dangers of “going dark” turned out to be almost laughable. Comey acknowledged at the time that he had “asked my folks just to canvas” for examples he could use, “but I don’t think I’ve found that one yet.” Then he immediately added: “I’m not looking.” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. cited one possible example in an August New York Times op-ed — where an encrypted mobile phone may have stymied a murder investigation in Illinois — but that seems to be pretty much all anyone has come up with. The lack of evidence has hardly toned down the rhetoric. “The pendulum has swung so far post Snowden that we’re continuing to see society as a whole where more and more people are going to be operating above the law,” Hess said Tuesday. The question that we need to answer, she said, is “are we comfortable with that as a society?”
Federal law enforcement officials decrying the proliferation of strong encryption said Tuesday that the only reason they lack actual examples of how often it shields criminals is that they’ve done a “bad job” of collecting them.
“I will be the first person to tell you that we’ve done a really bad job collecting empirical data. We need to do a much better job of that,” said Amy Hess, the FBI’s assistant executive director of science and technology, at an encryption debate hosted by Passcode, a new security and privacy blog from the Christian Science Monitor.
Asked how often investigations are stymied by encryption, Kiran Raj, a senior counsel of the Department of Justice, responded with a non-answer. “It is an important point that you make, that we have to provide the sense of a scale,” he said.
Neither Hess nor Raj said what they planned to do about it.
Hess said that data currently available on investigations, including the annual wiretap report indicating that agents encountered encryption only a handful of times during the course of the year, is simply wrong. “The fallacy that that data is built on,” she said, is that “if [agents] think an individual is going to use some sort of encrypted device, they’re not going to pursue it” any further.
Raj said that requests for the content of phone communications — text messages, emails, and more — only come at the end of a very exhaustive list of less intrusive methods. “We call it an investigative technique of last resort,” he said. But when pressed on why there’s no evidence of the number of times agents hit this final wall, he simply said that these are “hard issues.”
Previous examples provided by FBI Director James Comey in October to illustrate the dangers of “going dark” turned out to be almost laughable. Comey acknowledged at the time that he had “asked my folks just to canvas” for examples he could use, “but I don’t think I’ve found that one yet.” Then he immediately added: “I’m not looking.”
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. cited one possible example in an August New York Times op-ed — where an encrypted mobile phone may have stymied a murder investigation in Illinois — but that seems to be pretty much all anyone has come up with.
The lack of evidence has hardly toned down the rhetoric.
“The pendulum has swung so far post Snowden that we’re continuing to see society as a whole where more and more people are going to be operating above the law,” Hess said Tuesday. The question that we need to answer, she said, is “are we comfortable with that as a society?”
Source https://theintercept.com/2015/09/15/fbi-keeps-telling-purely-theoretical-encryption-horror-stories/
Sep 22 15 9:59 PM
Edward Snowden: hero or traitor? Lawmakers sound off 01:27 Story highlights James Clapper: The leaks would have been tolerable if related only to civil liberties and privacy concernsClapper says Edward Snowden's leaks compromised a critical program in Afghanistan; it was shut down Washington (CNN)The top U.S. intelligence official said Wednesday that Edward Snowden's leaks of secret government surveillance programs "forced some needed transparency." The comment by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was a stark contrast to the heavy condemnation top U.S. officials have levied on the former National Security Agency contractor until now. Clapper, however, also strongly criticized Snowden's leaks and the "huge damage to our collection capabilities" that he inflicted. Clapper explained that he perhaps could have "tolerated" Snowden's disclosures if they had related only to civil liberties and privacy concerns. Snowden's leaks "forced some needed transparency," Clapper said, "but he exposed so many other things that had nothing to do with so-called domestic surveillance or civil liberties and privacy in this country."
Edward Snowden: hero or traitor? Lawmakers sound off 01:27
Washington (CNN)The top U.S. intelligence official said Wednesday that Edward Snowden's leaks of secret government surveillance programs "forced some needed transparency."
The comment by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was a stark contrast to the heavy condemnation top U.S. officials have levied on the former National Security Agency contractor until now.
Clapper, however, also strongly criticized Snowden's leaks and the "huge damage to our collection capabilities" that he inflicted.
Clapper explained that he perhaps could have "tolerated" Snowden's disclosures if they had related only to civil liberties and privacy concerns.
Snowden's leaks "forced some needed transparency," Clapper said, "but he exposed so many other things that had nothing to do with so-called domestic surveillance or civil liberties and privacy in this country."
An online tool helps you find out if the NSA spied on you and then shared that data with the GCHQ. Curious if the NSA has ever spied on you? Privacy International launched a site so you can find out if Britain's GCHQ spied on you; put another way, GCHQ can access NSA data so if the NSA gobbled up your communications, then this is how you can find out and get that digital dirt destroyed. Privacy International wrote: Have you ever made a phone call, sent an email, or, you know, used the internet? Of course you have! Chances are, at some point over the past decade, your communications were swept up by the U.S. National Security Agency's mass surveillance program and passed onto Britain's intelligence agency GCHQ. A recent court ruling found that this sharing was unlawful but no one could find out if their records were collected and then illegally shared between these two agencies… until now! If you are an American and you are still wondering if this applies to you, it does; it applies to "everyone" in the world. After Privacy International's legal victory in February, the watchdog organization explained: Through their secret intelligence sharing relationship with the NSA, GCHQ has had intermittently unrestricted access to PRISM - NSA's means of directly accessing data and content handled by some of the world's largest Internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. GCHQ could also access the NSA's Upstream surveillance program. In fact, GCHQ's access to NSA material "makes up the large bulk of all surveillance material handled by the security services; some ex-GCHQ staffers estimated that '95% of all SIGINT [signals intelligence material] handled at GCHQ is American'." So the next step in Privacy International's "Did GCHQ Illegally Spy On You" campaign allows you to find out if you were spied upon. People need to make their own personal claims to be submitted to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The online tool offers options for individuals representing themselves, for individuals with representation such as attorneys or advocates, for organizations representing themselves, and for organizations with representation. The FAQ states, "This campaign will only tell you if the NSA shared your communications with GCHQ before December 2014, not if GCHQ shared communications with the NSA."
Privacy International wrote:
Have you ever made a phone call, sent an email, or, you know, used the internet? Of course you have!
Chances are, at some point over the past decade, your communications were swept up by the U.S. National Security Agency's mass surveillance program and passed onto Britain's intelligence agency GCHQ. A recent court ruling found that this sharing was unlawful but no one could find out if their records were collected and then illegally shared between these two agencies… until now!
If you are an American and you are still wondering if this applies to you, it does; it applies to "everyone" in the world. After Privacy International's legal victory in February, the watchdog organization explained:
Through their secret intelligence sharing relationship with the NSA, GCHQ has had intermittently unrestricted access to PRISM - NSA's means of directly accessing data and content handled by some of the world's largest Internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple.
GCHQ could also access the NSA's Upstream surveillance program. In fact, GCHQ's access to NSA material "makes up the large bulk of all surveillance material handled by the security services; some ex-GCHQ staffers estimated that '95% of all SIGINT [signals intelligence material] handled at GCHQ is American'."
So the next step in Privacy International's "Did GCHQ Illegally Spy On You" campaign allows you to find out if you were spied upon. People need to make their own personal claims to be submitted to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The online tool offers options for individuals representing themselves, for individuals with representation such as attorneys or advocates, for organizations representing themselves, and for organizations with representation.
The FAQ states, "This campaign will only tell you if the NSA shared your communications with GCHQ before December 2014, not if GCHQ shared communications with the NSA."
Privacy International launches latest online campaign Ever wonder whether the UK's listening post, GCHQ – the Government Communications Headquarters – was tuning in to your life a little too closely? Well, now you may be able to find out, thanks to an online campaign launched by spy-botherers Privacy International (PI). There is a bit of a catch, as you'll see. Just a bit of a catch. The charity has set up a webpage where you can provide personally identifiable information – your name, email address, IP address, MAC address and so on – and then submit a claim to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The IPT oversees the security services, and asks it to confirm whether your details are included in a vast database of information held by the UK security services. According to PI, the IPT is legally obliged to let you know if those details are included. The goal is to highlight just how broadly the GCHQ dragnet stretches – it's not just suspected terrorists that are subject to governmental spying. There are two caveats: one, it will be you filing a claim with the tribunal, not PI on your behalf, so be prepared to get involved in a lengthy process; and two, you should bear in mind that you would be providing the security services with personally identifiable information that can then be linked to you. This, ironically, would make it easier for them to spy on you in future. It's also in your interest to file as soon as possible, as the Tribunal will only search records that go back a year. And, since the UK government simply changed the law to make GCHQ's previously illegal activity legal, you will only get back information up to 5 December 2014. So if you file today on 14 September 2015, the search will only cover 14 September 2014 to 5 December 2014. Death by a thousand papercuts It's not the first time that PI has taken the mass paperwork approach to force greater transparency. Back in February, the charity encouraged people to send in their personal details in an effort to seek confirmation that their information had been covered up, most likely by the NSA, and sent on to GCHQ. That approach came following a ruling [PDF] by the IPT that said the huge sharing of information between the US and UK was illegal prior to 5 December 2014 because the rules for sharing that information were secret. In response, the UK government went to the IPT and argued that it did not need to tell people if their information was included in that now-illegal sharing of information. The Tribunal rejected that argument in a further decision [PDF], so now it is obliged to tell you if your details are included in that database. Cat and mouse This most recent effort to prise open the doors on GCHQ is just the latest in a cat-and-mouse game between the UK security services and Privacy International (among others).
Ever wonder whether the UK's listening post, GCHQ – the Government Communications Headquarters – was tuning in to your life a little too closely?
Well, now you may be able to find out, thanks to an online campaign launched by spy-botherers Privacy International (PI). There is a bit of a catch, as you'll see. Just a bit of a catch.
The charity has set up a webpage where you can provide personally identifiable information – your name, email address, IP address, MAC address and so on – and then submit a claim to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The IPT oversees the security services, and asks it to confirm whether your details are included in a vast database of information held by the UK security services.
According to PI, the IPT is legally obliged to let you know if those details are included. The goal is to highlight just how broadly the GCHQ dragnet stretches – it's not just suspected terrorists that are subject to governmental spying.
There are two caveats: one, it will be you filing a claim with the tribunal, not PI on your behalf, so be prepared to get involved in a lengthy process; and two, you should bear in mind that you would be providing the security services with personally identifiable information that can then be linked to you. This, ironically, would make it easier for them to spy on you in future.
It's also in your interest to file as soon as possible, as the Tribunal will only search records that go back a year. And, since the UK government simply changed the law to make GCHQ's previously illegal activity legal, you will only get back information up to 5 December 2014. So if you file today on 14 September 2015, the search will only cover 14 September 2014 to 5 December 2014.
It's not the first time that PI has taken the mass paperwork approach to force greater transparency.
Back in February, the charity encouraged people to send in their personal details in an effort to seek confirmation that their information had been covered up, most likely by the NSA, and sent on to GCHQ.
That approach came following a ruling [PDF] by the IPT that said the huge sharing of information between the US and UK was illegal prior to 5 December 2014 because the rules for sharing that information were secret.
In response, the UK government went to the IPT and argued that it did not need to tell people if their information was included in that now-illegal sharing of information. The Tribunal rejected that argument in a further decision [PDF], so now it is obliged to tell you if your details are included in that database.
This most recent effort to prise open the doors on GCHQ is just the latest in a cat-and-mouse game between the UK security services and Privacy International (among others).
Handy guide to complaining about illegal surveillance launched Civil rights NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) has launched a legal challenge to find out if its information was shared between the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The organisation is unhappy that a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in February did not reveal the full extent of intelligence sharing. Human Rights Watch, together with three individuals, has now lodged a new legal challenge. “Given the mass surveillance capabilities of the NSA and GCHQ, a huge number of people could have been affected by the unlawful spying,” said Human Rights Watch in a statement. For now, the organisation is focusing on those who handle the most sensitive information. In July it emerged that GCHQ had spied on Amnesty International, so HRW lodged a complaint on behalf of itself, a security research expert, an investigative journalist and a lawyer.
Civil rights NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) has launched a legal challenge to find out if its information was shared between the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).
The organisation is unhappy that a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in February did not reveal the full extent of intelligence sharing.
Human Rights Watch, together with three individuals, has now lodged a new legal challenge.
“Given the mass surveillance capabilities of the NSA and GCHQ, a huge number of people could have been affected by the unlawful spying,” said Human Rights Watch in a statement.
For now, the organisation is focusing on those who handle the most sensitive information. In July it emerged that GCHQ had spied on Amnesty International, so HRW lodged a complaint on behalf of itself, a security research expert, an investigative journalist and a lawyer.
Human Rights Watch continues to do its job PRIVACY GROUP Human Rights Watch (HRW) is challenging the grey area that surrounds exactly who had their details shared between GCHQ and the US National Security Agency (NSA). The area is grey despite a number of public legal cases, and HRW is trying to clear things up a bit. The sharing is known, and seen as unlawful, but the relevant courts have not yet clarified who was affected. The group wants to put that to bed. "Despite billions of records being shared every day between the NSA and GCHQ, and that historical sharing having been declared unlawful, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has not yet confirmed to any claimant that their communications were part of those unlawfully shared," HRW said. "Given the mass surveillance capabilities of the NSA and GCHQ, and that the agencies operate with an ‘extensive degree of sharing' between them, a huge number of people could have been affected by the unlawful spying." There is, and has been ever since the world met Edward Snowden, a very keen interest in which agencies do what, and how they take information, and the HRW effort follows something from peer outfit Privacy International that asked people to come forward and take part in a legal case. That was in February when people were concerned about the veil of silence from the authorities.
Human Rights Watch continues to do its job
PRIVACY GROUP Human Rights Watch (HRW) is challenging the grey area that surrounds exactly who had their details shared between GCHQ and the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The area is grey despite a number of public legal cases, and HRW is trying to clear things up a bit. The sharing is known, and seen as unlawful, but the relevant courts have not yet clarified who was affected. The group wants to put that to bed.
"Despite billions of records being shared every day between the NSA and GCHQ, and that historical sharing having been declared unlawful, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has not yet confirmed to any claimant that their communications were part of those unlawfully shared," HRW said.
"Given the mass surveillance capabilities of the NSA and GCHQ, and that the agencies operate with an ‘extensive degree of sharing' between them, a huge number of people could have been affected by the unlawful spying."
There is, and has been ever since the world met Edward Snowden, a very keen interest in which agencies do what, and how they take information, and the HRW effort follows something from peer outfit Privacy International that asked people to come forward and take part in a legal case.
That was in February when people were concerned about the veil of silence from the authorities.
A new legal challenge to U.K. intelligence agency surveillance practices has been filed in the U.K. by human rights organization Human Rights Watch and three unnamed individuals working in security research, investigative journalism and law. The action is aimed at ascertaining the scope of illegal data-sharing that took place between the NSA and GCHQ. The move follows a landmark legal ruling, back in February, when the IPT — the court which oversees the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agencies — ruled that prior to December 2014 GCHQ had acted illegally by receiving data from the NSA’s surveillance dragnets. It was the first time in the court’s 15 year history it had ruled against the agencies. The claims filed today with the IPT will “seek to establish whether GCHQ has spied on the claimants, whether their communications were part of those unlawfully shared between NSA and GCHQ, and how the Tribunal is interpreting intelligence sharing”, according to pro-privacy organization Privacy International, which was one of the groups which brought the earlier legal challenge. This June the IPT also found that GCHQ had acted unlawfully in handling intercepted communications data — although the court blamed “error” and “technical” failures for what it said were ‘breaches of internal policies’. That judgment also revealed that two human rights organizations’ communications had been targeted by the intelligence agencies — one of which, the IPT subsequently confirmed, was Amnesty International.
A new legal challenge to U.K. intelligence agency surveillance practices has been filed in the U.K. by human rights organization Human Rights Watch and three unnamed individuals working in security research, investigative journalism and law. The action is aimed at ascertaining the scope of illegal data-sharing that took place between the NSA and GCHQ.
The move follows a landmark legal ruling, back in February, when the IPT — the court which oversees the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agencies — ruled that prior to December 2014 GCHQ had acted illegally by receiving data from the NSA’s surveillance dragnets. It was the first time in the court’s 15 year history it had ruled against the agencies.
The claims filed today with the IPT will “seek to establish whether GCHQ has spied on the claimants, whether their communications were part of those unlawfully shared between NSA and GCHQ, and how the Tribunal is interpreting intelligence sharing”, according to pro-privacy organization Privacy International, which was one of the groups which brought the earlier legal challenge.
This June the IPT also found that GCHQ had acted unlawfully in handling intercepted communications data — although the court blamed “error” and “technical” failures for what it said were ‘breaches of internal policies’. That judgment also revealed that two human rights organizations’ communications had been targeted by the intelligence agencies — one of which, the IPT subsequently confirmed, was Amnesty International.
Intelligence chief says tough measures are necessary. The United States' top intelligence official has urged a congressional committee to take tough measures to counter the threat posed by Chinese hackers targeting American interests. Presenting a dire assessment of global online security risks, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also said that while China and Russia posed the most advanced online threats, Iran and North Korea could also cause serious disruptions. Clapper's latest comments come as the Obama administration is believed to be considering targeted sanctions against Chinese individuals and companies for attacks against US commercial targets. They also come just weeks before just Chinese President Xi Jinping makes an official state visit to Washington in late September. "Chinese cyber espionage continues to target a broad spectrum of US interests, ranging from national security information to sensitive economic data and intellectual property," Clapper said.
The United States' top intelligence official has urged a congressional committee to take tough measures to counter the threat posed by Chinese hackers targeting American interests.
Presenting a dire assessment of global online security risks, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also said that while China and Russia posed the most advanced online threats, Iran and North Korea could also cause serious disruptions.
Clapper's latest comments come as the Obama administration is believed to be considering targeted sanctions against Chinese individuals and companies for attacks against US commercial targets.
They also come just weeks before just Chinese President Xi Jinping makes an official state visit to Washington in late September.
"Chinese cyber espionage continues to target a broad spectrum of US interests, ranging from national security information to sensitive economic data and intellectual property," Clapper said.
At a Congressional hearing Thursday, officials stressed the need to develop clearer international norms to determine what's a tolerable amount cyberspying and what's unacceptable. Ever since Edward Snowden revealed widespread US surveillance and data gathering, US national security officials have been trying to manage the public relations fallout at home and abroad. Two summers later, they seem willing to concede similar intelligence-gathering efforts by foreign adversaries may fall within the realm of acceptable behavior. “I caution that we think about the old saw about people who live in glass houses,” James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on worldwide cyberthreats. “We should think before we throw rocks. These are very complex policy issues.”
At a Congressional hearing Thursday, officials stressed the need to develop clearer international norms to determine what's a tolerable amount cyberspying and what's unacceptable.
Ever since Edward Snowden revealed widespread US surveillance and data gathering, US national security officials have been trying to manage the public relations fallout at home and abroad.
Two summers later, they seem willing to concede similar intelligence-gathering efforts by foreign adversaries may fall within the realm of acceptable behavior.
“I caution that we think about the old saw about people who live in glass houses,” James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on worldwide cyberthreats. “We should think before we throw rocks. These are very complex policy issues.”
WASHINGTON— The lines between cybercrime and espionage are blurring, and unless the United States takes the lead in establishing international norms of online behavior, the frequency and sophistication of cyber hacking attacks will increase, according to leaders of the U.S. intelligence community. The directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies, speaking before the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, addressed the “cyber challenges” facing the United States and the international community. “Cyber threats to U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity of impact,” said James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, in his opening statement. “We foresee an ongoing series of low-to-moderate level cyber-attacks from a variety of sources over time, which will impose cumulative costs on U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.”
WASHINGTON—
The lines between cybercrime and espionage are blurring, and unless the United States takes the lead in establishing international norms of online behavior, the frequency and sophistication of cyber hacking attacks will increase, according to leaders of the U.S. intelligence community.
The directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies, speaking before the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, addressed the “cyber challenges” facing the United States and the international community.
“Cyber threats to U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity of impact,” said James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, in his opening statement.
“We foresee an ongoing series of low-to-moderate level cyber-attacks from a variety of sources over time, which will impose cumulative costs on U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.”
The actor describes the NSA leaker, whom he spoke to as part of his research for Oliver Stone's 'Snowden,' as "warm, kind and thoughtful." Oliver Stone’s Edward Snowden biopic may have been pushed back to next year and subsequently out of this year's Oscar race but that hasn’t stopped star Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays Snowden, from talking about meeting the whistleblower. "[Snowden] was in good spirits," the actor told The Guardian, describing him as "warm, kind and thoughtful."
Oliver Stone’s Edward Snowden biopic may have been pushed back to next year and subsequently out of this year's Oscar race but that hasn’t stopped star Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays Snowden, from talking about meeting the whistleblower.
"[Snowden] was in good spirits," the actor told The Guardian, describing him as "warm, kind and thoughtful."
Read more @ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joseph-gordon-levitt-talks-meeting-824537
Read more @ http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/upcoming-biopics-bring-lance-armstrong-edward-snowden-stories-to-big-screen-1.2561034
Joseph Gordon-Levitt Prepares for Role by Secretly Meeting with Edward Snowden
Read more @ http://www.allmediany.com/articles/31161-joseph-gordon-levitt-prepares-for-role-by-secretly-meeting-with-edward-snowden
The People's Whistleblower up for Euro Parl's human rights prize, again Whistleblower-in-chief Edward Snowden has been nominated for the European Parliament’s human rights prize, for a second time. The nominations for the 2015 Sakharov Prize were decided last week, with Snowden getting the nod again after losing to Malala Yousafzai, the teenage Pakistani girl who defied the Taliban, in 2013. The prize is awarded every year to honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression. Nominations can be made by political groups or by at least 40 MEPs and the Parliament is notably fond of Snowden – a report approved last week called for him to be given asylum. Once the nominations are in, three committees – Foreign Affairs (AFET), Human Rights (DROI, which is technically a subcommittee) and Development (DEVE) – vote to select three finalists. After that, the Conference of Presidents, made up of the parliament president and the leaders of the political groups, select the winner. Two other whistleblowers are on the list: Antoine Deltour, a former PricewaterhouseCoopers auditor who unleashed the so-called LuxLeaks scandal, and Stéphanie Gibaud, who uncovered tax evasion and money laundering by UBS.
Whistleblower-in-chief Edward Snowden has been nominated for the European Parliament’s human rights prize, for a second time.
The nominations for the 2015 Sakharov Prize were decided last week, with Snowden getting the nod again after losing to Malala Yousafzai, the teenage Pakistani girl who defied the Taliban, in 2013.
The prize is awarded every year to honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression.
Nominations can be made by political groups or by at least 40 MEPs and the Parliament is notably fond of Snowden – a report approved last week called for him to be given asylum.
Once the nominations are in, three committees – Foreign Affairs (AFET), Human Rights (DROI, which is technically a subcommittee) and Development (DEVE) – vote to select three finalists. After that, the Conference of Presidents, made up of the parliament president and the leaders of the political groups, select the winner.
Two other whistleblowers are on the list: Antoine Deltour, a former PricewaterhouseCoopers auditor who unleashed the so-called LuxLeaks scandal, and Stéphanie Gibaud, who uncovered tax evasion and money laundering by UBS.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/14/meps_we_love_you_edward_snowden/
BRUSSELS – Assassinated Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov and leaker Edward Snowden are among the candidates later this month for the European Union's top human rights prize. Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister turned critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was assassinated Feb. 27, 2015, near the Kremlin. With Russia relations already at a low, the EU legislature said that Nadezhda Savchenko, a Ukrainian pilot currently held in Russia, will also be among the eight candidates presented on Sep. 28 for the Sakharov Prize. The nominees also include Snowden, the U.S. intelligence leaker who also was among the candidates two years ago.
BRUSSELS – Assassinated Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov and leaker Edward Snowden are among the candidates later this month for the European Union's top human rights prize.
Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister turned critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was assassinated Feb. 27, 2015, near the Kremlin.
With Russia relations already at a low, the EU legislature said that Nadezhda Savchenko, a Ukrainian pilot currently held in Russia, will also be among the eight candidates presented on Sep. 28 for the Sakharov Prize.
The nominees also include Snowden, the U.S. intelligence leaker who also was among the candidates two years ago.
Read more @ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/11/late-boris-nemtsov-edward-snowden-among-candidates-for-top-european-union-right/
A new museum of espionage opening in Berlin is set to commemorate the world of spying with relics from the Cold War including cameras hidden in bras, lipstick guns and tobacco pipe guns - right up to modern day snooping technology. The Museum in Leipziger Platz is homage to the world of spying, which is unsurprising as Berlin was known as the "capital of spies" throughout the Cold War period. It contains much of what M might have conceived in the James Bond movies.
The Museum in Leipziger Platz is homage to the world of spying, which is unsurprising as Berlin was known as the "capital of spies" throughout the Cold War period. It contains much of what M might have conceived in the James Bond movies.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150918/1027194841/Berlin-museum-surveillance-spying.html
Edward Snowden is back in Geneva, alongside fellow whistleblowers Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. Well, a bronze sculpture of them, that is. They feature in a new temporary installation in support of freedom of expression. "It is a monument to the courage of three people who said no to the establishment of comprehensive monitoring and lies, and have chosen to tell the truth," declared the Italian artist Davide Dormino, who created the bronze sculpture of the three whistleblowers. Entitled “Anything to Say?" his itinerant memorial was inaugurated on the Place des Nations in front of the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva on Monday.
"It is a monument to the courage of three people who said no to the establishment of comprehensive monitoring and lies, and have chosen to tell the truth," declared the Italian artist Davide Dormino, who created the bronze sculpture of the three whistleblowers.
Entitled “Anything to Say?" his itinerant memorial was inaugurated on the Place des Nations in front of the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva on Monday.
Read more @ http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/traitors-or-heroes-_edward-snowden-spotted-in-geneva---in-sculpture-form/41660402
ANNANDALE-ON-HUDSON >> Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee accused of espionage for leaking classified information on government surveillance programs, will be among featured speakers at a two-day conference, “Why Privacy Matters,” at Bard College next month. Snowden, who currently resides in Russia, where he had been granted a three-year asylum, will be speaking via satellite Oct. 16 at the eighth annual international conference, which takes place Oct. 15 and 16 at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College. In 2013, Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency, which revealed global surveillance programs run by the United States and European governments. He has since been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with violating the Espionage Act and with theft of government property. The conference, at Olin Hall on Bard’s Annandale-on-Hudson campus, asks the question of what people lose when they lose their privacy. Reading on Kindles, searching Google, and using cell phones leave a data trail of intimate details, the college said. “Why Privacy Matters” convenes a diverse group of thinkers to consider topics such as whether people’s loss of control over their data impacts their inner lives and whether freedom is possible in a world without privacy.
ANNANDALE-ON-HUDSON >> Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee accused of espionage for leaking classified information on government surveillance programs, will be among featured speakers at a two-day conference, “Why Privacy Matters,” at Bard College next month.
Snowden, who currently resides in Russia, where he had been granted a three-year asylum, will be speaking via satellite Oct. 16 at the eighth annual international conference, which takes place Oct. 15 and 16 at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College.
In 2013, Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency, which revealed global surveillance programs run by the United States and European governments. He has since been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with violating the Espionage Act and with theft of government property.
The conference, at Olin Hall on Bard’s Annandale-on-Hudson campus, asks the question of what people lose when they lose their privacy.
Reading on Kindles, searching Google, and using cell phones leave a data trail of intimate details, the college said. “Why Privacy Matters” convenes a diverse group of thinkers to consider topics such as whether people’s loss of control over their data impacts their inner lives and whether freedom is possible in a world without privacy.
Read more @ http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20150913/edward-snowden-among-speakers-at-bard-college-conference-on-privacy
Former CIA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed the extent and methods of mass surveillance used by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain's GCHQ spy agency, has called on students to oppose plans to increase surveillance powers. Snowden was speaking in his role as Rector of the University of Glasgow, at the opening of Freshers' Week, when new students arrive. He said: "There are cynical people in government, in private society, in the press who argue that everything we do as civil society, a community, as an academic sector, as a common human family doesn't amount to much. We change things, but they're not so big. Reforms are made, but they aren't really determinative. I would argue that that is completely false," said Snowden.
Snowden was speaking in his role as Rector of the University of Glasgow, at the opening of Freshers' Week, when new students arrive. He said:
"There are cynical people in government, in private society, in the press who argue that everything we do as civil society, a community, as an academic sector, as a common human family doesn't amount to much. We change things, but they're not so big. Reforms are made, but they aren't really determinative. I would argue that that is completely false," said Snowden.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150915/1027029995/snowden-glasgow-university-speech-surveillance.html
Rector of university also raises concerns over the Higher Education Governance Bill AMERICAN whistleblower Edward Snowden, who revealed illegal digital surveillance by Western intelligence services, called on Glasgow university students to pursue human rights, civil liberties and democratic accountability during a speech delivered at the university’s Freshers Week. Snowden was speaking via video link from Moscow, where he has been granted asylum, as the Rector of the university. He was elected by over 3,000 students last year. The former National Security Agency spy, responsible for the largest intelligence leak of all time, said: “You’re arriving at this university at an extraordinary time of change. The world is more complex and evolving at a faster rate than it ever has for any class before. And you, and the capabilities and knowledge that you develop here with a little bit of skill and hopefully more than a little bit of luck, will allow you to change the world. “There are cynical people in government, in private society, in the press who argue that everything we do as civil society, a community, as an academic sector, as a common human family doesn’t amount to much. We change things, but there’s not so big. Reforms are made, but they aren’t really determinative. “I would argue that that is completely false. When we look at what’s happened in the last two years alone within the United Kingdom, we see that there is a system of mass surveillance put upon the public without their knowledge, without their consent and overseen only by a secret court called the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that in 15 years never ruled against the government a single time.
Rector of university also raises concerns over the Higher Education Governance Bill
AMERICAN whistleblower Edward Snowden, who revealed illegal digital surveillance by Western intelligence services, called on Glasgow university students to pursue human rights, civil liberties and democratic accountability during a speech delivered at the university’s Freshers Week.
Snowden was speaking via video link from Moscow, where he has been granted asylum, as the Rector of the university. He was elected by over 3,000 students last year.
The former National Security Agency spy, responsible for the largest intelligence leak of all time, said: “You’re arriving at this university at an extraordinary time of change. The world is more complex and evolving at a faster rate than it ever has for any class before. And you, and the capabilities and knowledge that you develop here with a little bit of skill and hopefully more than a little bit of luck, will allow you to change the world.
“There are cynical people in government, in private society, in the press who argue that everything we do as civil society, a community, as an academic sector, as a common human family doesn’t amount to much. We change things, but there’s not so big. Reforms are made, but they aren’t really determinative.
“I would argue that that is completely false. When we look at what’s happened in the last two years alone within the United Kingdom, we see that there is a system of mass surveillance put upon the public without their knowledge, without their consent and overseen only by a secret court called the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that in 15 years never ruled against the government a single time.
Read more @ https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2416/edward-snowden-addresses-glasgowuni-students-defy-the-cynics-and-change-the-world
Edward Snowden continues to live in Russian exile with little prospect of returning home to the United States. In a recent interview with Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, he spoke out about his past and plans for the future. In 2013 Snowden exposed how the US, along with its many global partners, had developed the largest and most complex system of state surveillance in history. Snowden in 2006 began working in IT security for the CIA, and later for the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton with the National Security Agency (NSA). In time, he began to question the many surveillance systems he had access to. One in particular gave him “the authority to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the president if I had a personal email”, he said. Snowden was no radical, but came to see the state’s secretive operations as dangerous and undermining of democratic society and personal liberty. “I came from a federal family. And when you’re someone like me who grows up in the system believing everything the government says is likely to be true because ‘why would they possibly lie to us’ and you find more and more clear evidence that … the public [is] being misled … you have to think about how that would change your view, how would that change your personality, what would you do?”
Edward Snowden continues to live in Russian exile with little prospect of returning home to the United States. In a recent interview with Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, he spoke out about his past and plans for the future.
In 2013 Snowden exposed how the US, along with its many global partners, had developed the largest and most complex system of state surveillance in history. Snowden in 2006 began working in IT security for the CIA, and later for the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton with the National Security Agency (NSA). In time, he began to question the many surveillance systems he had access to. One in particular gave him “the authority to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the president if I had a personal email”, he said.
Snowden was no radical, but came to see the state’s secretive operations as dangerous and undermining of democratic society and personal liberty. “I came from a federal family. And when you’re someone like me who grows up in the system believing everything the government says is likely to be true because ‘why would they possibly lie to us’ and you find more and more clear evidence that … the public [is] being misled … you have to think about how that would change your view, how would that change your personality, what would you do?”
Read more @ https://redflag.org.au/article/exiled-edward-snowden-remains-defiant
Edward Snowden, the former intelligence contractor who leaked classified documents to expose government surveillance, will speak in December to a Park City audience via video. Snowden will speak from Russia, where he has been given asylum. Snowden will participate in a discussion on cybersecurity at 7:30 p.m. Dec. 5 at the Eccles Center. The discussion will be moderated by KUER's Doug Fabrizio. Another guest will be Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. Tickets go on sale for the public Oct. 1 by calling 435-655-3114 or online at www.EcclesCenter.org.
Edward Snowden, the former intelligence contractor who leaked classified documents to expose government surveillance, will speak in December to a Park City audience via video.
Snowden will speak from Russia, where he has been given asylum. Snowden will participate in a discussion on cybersecurity at 7:30 p.m. Dec. 5 at the Eccles Center. The discussion will be moderated by KUER's Doug Fabrizio.
Another guest will be Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project.
Tickets go on sale for the public Oct. 1 by calling 435-655-3114 or online at www.EcclesCenter.org.
Read more @ http://www.sltrib.com/home/2965273-155/story.html
Former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations rocked the world. According to his detailed reports, the US had launched massive spying programs and was scrutinizing the communications of American citizens in a manner which could only be described as extreme and intense. The US’s reaction was swift and to the point. “”Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” President Obama said when asked about the NSA. As quoted in The Guardian, Obama went on to say that surveillance programs were “fully overseen not just by Congress but by the Fisa court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them”. However, it appears that Snowden may have missed a pivotal part of the US surveillance program. And in stating that the “nobody” is not listening to our calls, President Obama may have been fudging quite a bit. In fact, Great Britain maintains a “listening post” at NSA HQ. The laws restricting live wiretaps do not apply to foreign countries and thus this listening post is not subject to US law. In other words, the restrictions upon wiretaps, etc. do not apply to the British listening post. So when Great Britain hands over the recordings to the NSA, technically speaking, a law is not being broken and technically speaking, the US is not eavesdropping on our each and every call. It is Great Britain which is doing the eavesdropping and turning over these records to US intelligence. According to John Loftus, formerly an attorney with the Department of Justice and author of a number of books concerning US intelligence activities, back in the late seventies the USDOJ issued a memorandum proposing an amendment to FISA. Loftus, who recalls seeing the memo, stated in conversation this week that the DOJ proposed inserting the words “by the NSA” into the FISA law so the scope of the law would only restrict surveillance by the NSA, not by the British. Any subsequent sharing of the data culled through the listening posts was strictly outside the arena of FISA. Obama was less than forthcoming when he insisted that “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a US person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails … and have not.” According to Loftus, the NSA is indeed listening as Great Britain is turning over the surveillance records en masse to that agency. Loftus states that the arrangement is reciprocal, with the US maintaining a parallel listening post in Great Britain.
Former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations rocked the world. According to his detailed reports, the US had launched massive spying programs and was scrutinizing the communications of American citizens in a manner which could only be described as extreme and intense.
The US’s reaction was swift and to the point. “”Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” President Obama said when asked about the NSA. As quoted in The Guardian, Obama went on to say that surveillance programs were “fully overseen not just by Congress but by the Fisa court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them”.
However, it appears that Snowden may have missed a pivotal part of the US surveillance program. And in stating that the “nobody” is not listening to our calls, President Obama may have been fudging quite a bit.
In fact, Great Britain maintains a “listening post” at NSA HQ. The laws restricting live wiretaps do not apply to foreign countries and thus this listening post is not subject to US law. In other words, the restrictions upon wiretaps, etc. do not apply to the British listening post. So when Great Britain hands over the recordings to the NSA, technically speaking, a law is not being broken and technically speaking, the US is not eavesdropping on our each and every call.
It is Great Britain which is doing the eavesdropping and turning over these records to US intelligence.
According to John Loftus, formerly an attorney with the Department of Justice and author of a number of books concerning US intelligence activities, back in the late seventies the USDOJ issued a memorandum proposing an amendment to FISA. Loftus, who recalls seeing the memo, stated in conversation this week that the DOJ proposed inserting the words “by the NSA” into the FISA law so the scope of the law would only restrict surveillance by the NSA, not by the British. Any subsequent sharing of the data culled through the listening posts was strictly outside the arena of FISA.
Obama was less than forthcoming when he insisted that “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a US person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails … and have not.”
According to Loftus, the NSA is indeed listening as Great Britain is turning over the surveillance records en masse to that agency. Loftus states that the arrangement is reciprocal, with the US maintaining a parallel listening post in Great Britain.
Read more @ http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fundamentals-of-us-surveillance-what-edward-snowden-never-told-us/5477125
Nuclear Whistle-blower Vanunu Is Israel's Edward Snowden
Read more @ http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.676206
On Friday, Neil deGrasse Tyson welcomed Edward Snowden to his StarTalk podcast. Along with the usual conversations about privacy and government, Snowden had another important warning to provide: encryption may hurt our abilities to see, or be seen by, extraterrestrials. Speaking to deGrasse Tyson from Russia, Snowden explained that the current need for data encryption may not be doing us many favours — at least in the cosmic sense. He said: “If you look at encrypted communication, if they are properly encrypted, there is no real way to tell that they are encrypted. You can’t distinguish a properly encrypted communication from random behaviour… “So if you have an an alien civilisation trying to listen for other civilizations or our civilisation trying to listen for aliens, there’s only one small period in the development of their society when all their communication will be sent via the most primitive and most unprotected means.” He also pointed out that properly encrypted alien signals could also be “indistinguishable to us from cosmic microwave background radiation”. But deGrasse Tyson has a witty retort to that particular warning: “Only if they have the same security problems as us.” Funny, because it’s true. You can listen to the episode of StarTalk here.
On Friday, Neil deGrasse Tyson welcomed Edward Snowden to his StarTalk podcast. Along with the usual conversations about privacy and government, Snowden had another important warning to provide: encryption may hurt our abilities to see, or be seen by, extraterrestrials.
Speaking to deGrasse Tyson from Russia, Snowden explained that the current need for data encryption may not be doing us many favours — at least in the cosmic sense. He said:
“If you look at encrypted communication, if they are properly encrypted, there is no real way to tell that they are encrypted. You can’t distinguish a properly encrypted communication from random behaviour…
“So if you have an an alien civilisation trying to listen for other civilizations or our civilisation trying to listen for aliens, there’s only one small period in the development of their society when all their communication will be sent via the most primitive and most unprotected means.”
He also pointed out that properly encrypted alien signals could also be “indistinguishable to us from cosmic microwave background radiation”. But deGrasse Tyson has a witty retort to that particular warning: “Only if they have the same security problems as us.” Funny, because it’s true.
You can listen to the episode of StarTalk here.
Read more @ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/09/edward-snowden-advanced-encryption-may-stop-us-communicating-with-aliens/
Whistle-blower Edward Snowden has some strong opinions on communications — even when those communications are coming from aliens. The former intelligence-agency contractor turned fugitive was an unexpected guest on famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's StarTalk podcast on September 18. And, inevitably, the two got to talking about extraterrestrials. Snowden became an infamous household name in 2013 when he leaked classified documents divulging the government's top-secret mass-surveillance program, which involved collecting personal information on Americans via phone records without their knowledge. When the news broke, the US charged him with theft and espionage, and he's now living in Russia where he has asylum. But Tyson scored an interview with him in New York City. How? Snowden rigged a robot that he can control from Russia, and rolled right into Tyson's office at the Hayden Planetarium in New York with his face displayed on the screen. The conversation turned to encryption and cybersecurity, but here's where an astrophysicist differs from a journalist: Tyson's line of questioning quickly turned to how encryption relates to communication with ... aliens. Tyson asked Snowden if a highly intelligent alien civilization might be communicating with encrypted messages. And Snowden had an unsettling answer. First, Snowden said, let's assume that most advanced societies eventually realize that they need to encrypt their communication in order to protect it. This could also be the reason why we've never heard from other civilizations — their messages may have just been melding into the background static of the universe. Here's Snowden's full answer, from the StarTalk podcast: So if you have an alien civilization trying to listen for other civilizations, or our civilization trying to listen for aliens, there's only one small period in the development of their society when all of their communication will be sent via the most primitive and most unprotected means. So when we think about everything that we're hearing through our satellites or everything that they're hearing from our civilization (if there are indeed aliens out there), all of their communications are encrypted by default. So what we are hearing, that's actually an alien television show or, you know, a phone call ... is indistinguishable to us from cosmic microwave background radiation. So it could be possible there are alien messages constantly hitting our satellites, and we just don't recognize them because they're so heavily encrypted. (The cosmic microwave background radiation that Snowden mentions is thermal radiation throughout the universe left over from the Big Bang. It basically looks and sounds like static to us puny humans.)
Whistle-blower Edward Snowden has some strong opinions on communications — even when those communications are coming from aliens.
The former intelligence-agency contractor turned fugitive was an unexpected guest on famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's StarTalk podcast on September 18. And, inevitably, the two got to talking about extraterrestrials.
Snowden became an infamous household name in 2013 when he leaked classified documents divulging the government's top-secret mass-surveillance program, which involved collecting personal information on Americans via phone records without their knowledge.
When the news broke, the US charged him with theft and espionage, and he's now living in Russia where he has asylum.
But Tyson scored an interview with him in New York City. How? Snowden rigged a robot that he can control from Russia, and rolled right into Tyson's office at the Hayden Planetarium in New York with his face displayed on the screen.
The conversation turned to encryption and cybersecurity, but here's where an astrophysicist differs from a journalist: Tyson's line of questioning quickly turned to how encryption relates to communication with ... aliens.
Tyson asked Snowden if a highly intelligent alien civilization might be communicating with encrypted messages. And Snowden had an unsettling answer.
First, Snowden said, let's assume that most advanced societies eventually realize that they need to encrypt their communication in order to protect it. This could also be the reason why we've never heard from other civilizations — their messages may have just been melding into the background static of the universe.
Here's Snowden's full answer, from the StarTalk podcast:
So if you have an alien civilization trying to listen for other civilizations, or our civilization trying to listen for aliens, there's only one small period in the development of their society when all of their communication will be sent via the most primitive and most unprotected means.
So when we think about everything that we're hearing through our satellites or everything that they're hearing from our civilization (if there are indeed aliens out there), all of their communications are encrypted by default.
So what we are hearing, that's actually an alien television show or, you know, a phone call ... is indistinguishable to us from cosmic microwave background radiation.
So it could be possible there are alien messages constantly hitting our satellites, and we just don't recognize them because they're so heavily encrypted. (The cosmic microwave background radiation that Snowden mentions is thermal radiation throughout the universe left over from the Big Bang. It basically looks and sounds like static to us puny humans.)
Read more @ http://www.techinsider.io/edward-snowden-talks-alien-communication-with-neil-degrasse-tyson-2015-9
Sep 26 15 2:25 PM
How do you serve a warrant on an encryption algorithm? For 20 years, governments have been struggling with that question, putting pressure on tech companies to build backdoors into security systems as the companies increasingly tell them it simply can't be done. The tension has grown particularly strong after the Snowden revelations caused companies to tighten up, leading the government to look for ever more creative ways to break the deadlock. A new report from The Washington Post details some of the latest ideas, including some that already have civil libertarians raising the alarm. The news comes from a draft memo from the president's encryption working group, which was tasked with finding solutions that would be acceptable to tech companies and law enforcement alike. The result isn't intended for public consumption, but it shows just how far we might need to go to appease law enforcement's desire for backdoor access. The paper suggests four main proposals, including a forced backup system and a system triggered by combined consent from multiple parties. Another proposal suggested installing a special encrypted port that only the government would have access to.
How do you serve a warrant on an encryption algorithm? For 20 years, governments have been struggling with that question, putting pressure on tech companies to build backdoors into security systems as the companies increasingly tell them it simply can't be done. The tension has grown particularly strong after the Snowden revelations caused companies to tighten up, leading the government to look for ever more creative ways to break the deadlock.
A new report from The Washington Post details some of the latest ideas, including some that already have civil libertarians raising the alarm. The news comes from a draft memo from the president's encryption working group, which was tasked with finding solutions that would be acceptable to tech companies and law enforcement alike. The result isn't intended for public consumption, but it shows just how far we might need to go to appease law enforcement's desire for backdoor access. The paper suggests four main proposals, including a forced backup system and a system triggered by combined consent from multiple parties. Another proposal suggested installing a special encrypted port that only the government would have access to.
Read more @ http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/24/9393091/white-house-break-encryption-updates-working-group
Leaked docs show how out-of-control spy agency went full Stasi on innocent surfersNew documents revealing GCHQ's mass-surveillance activities have detailed an operation codenamed KARMA POLICE, which slurped up the details of "every visible user on the Internet". The operation was launched in 2009, without Parliamentary consultation or public scrutiny, to record the browsing habits of "every visible user on the Internet" without the agency obtaining legal permission to do so, according to documents published by The Intercept. KARMA POLICE was constructed between 2007 and 2008, and according to slides was developed with the explicit intention of correlating "every user visible to passive SIGINT with every website they visit, hence providing either (a) a web browsing profile for every visible user on the Internet, or (b) a user profile for every visible website on the Internet." Its 2009 run was particularly interested in those listening to online radio shows, although one slide also shows tracking of those who have visited spook-baiting Cryptome.org, and pornography site RedTube. A summary document reveals that the operation affected "224,446 unique listener IP addresses over a three month period, covering approximately 108448 /24 subnets." Another programme, codenamed BLAZING SADDLES, was used to target listeners of "any one particular radio station ... to understand any trends or behaviours." The summary report states how: A wealth of datamining techniques could be applied on small closed groups of individuals, to look for potential covert communications channels for hostile intelligence agencies running agents in allied countries, terrorist cells, or serious crime targets. One user was targeted, without any stated suspicion of being involved in terrorism or posing a threat to national security, and was found to have visited popular porn purveyor Redtube, as well as social media sites and several Arabic and Islamic sites, which appeared to be commercial enterprises.
New documents revealing GCHQ's mass-surveillance activities have detailed an operation codenamed KARMA POLICE, which slurped up the details of "every visible user on the Internet".
The operation was launched in 2009, without Parliamentary consultation or public scrutiny, to record the browsing habits of "every visible user on the Internet" without the agency obtaining legal permission to do so, according to documents published by The Intercept.
KARMA POLICE was constructed between 2007 and 2008, and according to slides was developed with the explicit intention of correlating "every user visible to passive SIGINT with every website they visit, hence providing either (a) a web browsing profile for every visible user on the Internet, or (b) a user profile for every visible website on the Internet."
Its 2009 run was particularly interested in those listening to online radio shows, although one slide also shows tracking of those who have visited spook-baiting Cryptome.org, and pornography site RedTube.
A summary document reveals that the operation affected "224,446 unique listener IP addresses over a three month period, covering approximately 108448 /24 subnets."
Another programme, codenamed BLAZING SADDLES, was used to target listeners of "any one particular radio station ... to understand any trends or behaviours."
The summary report states how:
A wealth of datamining techniques could be applied on small closed groups of individuals, to look for potential covert communications channels for hostile intelligence agencies running agents in allied countries, terrorist cells, or serious crime targets.
One user was targeted, without any stated suspicion of being involved in terrorism or posing a threat to national security, and was found to have visited popular porn purveyor Redtube, as well as social media sites and several Arabic and Islamic sites, which appeared to be commercial enterprises.
Sep 30 15 8:21 PM
Schools, social workers and police will be able to access children’s confidential medical records in a new integrated database established by NHS Dumfries and Galloway. The move, which renews fresh fears over data sharing, has been described by the health board as a “pioneering achievement”. Graham Gault, General Manager ICT at NHS Dumfries and Galloway, said: “We now have a powerful and sophisticated tool to link children from records and datasets that use NHS numbers, social care numbers, police references, education references and any other type of identifier. “We can now share relevant health information with partner organisations, where appropriate, using proper information governance protocols, so that the best decisions can be made, and the safest and most effective care delivered for children.” NextGate, the US-based IT specialists who designed the database to fit with the Scottish Government’s ‘Getting it right for every child’ guidelines, said: “This project represents a major move forward in Scotland for delivering joined-up services. Population health relies on accurate, timely, and aggregated information.” But Simon Calvert, spokesman for NO2NP, warned: “This is the Big Brother state writ large. Don’t these people realise how creepy it is to be boasting about how easy they’ve made it for officials to access highly sensitive data on children?
Schools, social workers and police will be able to access children’s confidential medical records in a new integrated database established by NHS Dumfries and Galloway.
The move, which renews fresh fears over data sharing, has been described by the health board as a “pioneering achievement”.
Graham Gault, General Manager ICT at NHS Dumfries and Galloway, said: “We now have a powerful and sophisticated tool to link children from records and datasets that use NHS numbers, social care numbers, police references, education references and any other type of identifier.
“We can now share relevant health information with partner organisations, where appropriate, using proper information governance protocols, so that the best decisions can be made, and the safest and most effective care delivered for children.”
NextGate, the US-based IT specialists who designed the database to fit with the Scottish Government’s ‘Getting it right for every child’ guidelines, said: “This project represents a major move forward in Scotland for delivering joined-up services. Population health relies on accurate, timely, and aggregated information.”
But Simon Calvert, spokesman for NO2NP, warned: “This is the Big Brother state writ large. Don’t these people realise how creepy it is to be boasting about how easy they’ve made it for officials to access highly sensitive data on children?
Read more @ http://no2np.org/scottish-health-board-boasts-new-system-share-childrens-confidential-records/
Oct 9 15 8:48 AM
What if the future of law enforcement doesn’t involve faster, more forceful responses to crime—but rather, a surefire way to predict it? Hitachi, the Japanese tech giant that makes everything from elevators to security systems, seems to have faith in the latter. It announced today (Sept. 29) that it’s developed a robust new technology that can pinpoint where and when a crime will occur. The system, called Hitachi Visualization Predictive Crime Analytics, gobbles massive amounts of data—from public transit maps, social media conversations, weather reports, and more—and uses machine learning to find patterns that humans can’t pick out.“A human just can’t handle when you get to the tens or hundreds of variables that could impact crime,” Darrin Lipscomb, an executive in Hitachi’s Public Safety and Visualization division, told Fast Company. Mark Jules, another executive, said that police officers usually build crime-prediction models based on their personal or collective experience—but the Hitachi system doesn’t need anyone to fiddle around with correlations and variable weights. Given a heap of data, it does it by itself. The system can specify potential crime scenes down to a 200-square-meter spot, and it assigns relative threat levels to every situation.
What if the future of law enforcement doesn’t involve faster, more forceful responses to crime—but rather, a surefire way to predict it?
“A human just can’t handle when you get to the tens or hundreds of variables that could impact crime,” Darrin Lipscomb, an executive in Hitachi’s Public Safety and Visualization division, told Fast Company. Mark Jules, another executive, said that police officers usually build crime-prediction models based on their personal or collective experience—but the Hitachi system doesn’t need anyone to fiddle around with correlations and variable weights. Given a heap of data, it does it by itself.
Oct 15 15 6:39 PM
Whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned that UK spy agency GCHQ has the ability to hack into smartphones with encrypted text messages and gain “total control,” the BBC reports. Snowden told the BBC that GCHQ has something called “Smurf suite,” which is a collection of spying programs that the agency can use to hack into the phones of suspected terrorists. One tool is called “Dreamy Smurf.” Snowden says it allows GCHQ to turn on mobile phones without the user knowing. There’s also “Nosey Smurf,” which can be used to turn on the phone’s microphone. Another tool in GCHQ’s “Smurf suite” is “Tracker Smurf.” It can turn on a smartphone’s geolocation feature, which allows intelligence agencies to accurately track a user’s location. Authorities can already track smartphones by measuring which cell tower they’re nearest to, but it looks like this tool is much more accurate.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned that UK spy agency GCHQ has the ability to hack into smartphones with encrypted text messages and gain “total control,” the BBC reports.
Snowden told the BBC that GCHQ has something called “Smurf suite,” which is a collection of spying programs that the agency can use to hack into the phones of suspected terrorists.
One tool is called “Dreamy Smurf.” Snowden says it allows GCHQ to turn on mobile phones without the user knowing. There’s also “Nosey Smurf,” which can be used to turn on the phone’s microphone.
Another tool in GCHQ’s “Smurf suite” is “Tracker Smurf.” It can turn on a smartphone’s geolocation feature, which allows intelligence agencies to accurately track a user’s location. Authorities can already track smartphones by measuring which cell tower they’re nearest to, but it looks like this tool is much more accurate.
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/edward-snowden-gchq-smurf-hack-smartphones-2015-10
I’ve already given my instant verdict on Tuesday night’s Democratic debate: in terms of the horse race, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner, although Bernie Sanders also did pretty well. But it was a long discussion about serious issues, and some of the exchanges bear closer inspection—including the one about Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who is currently languishing in Russia. The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, “Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?” Chafee replied that he would bring Snowden home without forcing him to serve any jail time. “The American government was acting illegally,” he continued. “That’s what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home.” Chafee was stating a truth. In May of this year, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, ruled that the N.S.A., in routinely collecting the phone records of millions of Americans—an intelligence program that Snowden exposed in 2013—broke the law of the land. The Patriot Act did not authorize the government to gather calling records in bulk, the judges said. “Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans,” the decision read. The ruling overturned one that had been handed down in December, 2013, in which a federal judge, William Pauley, said that the N.S.A.’s collection of metadata was legal. After Chafee spoke, Cooper turned to Hillary Clinton and asked, “Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?” Clinton, who earlier in the debate had described herself as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” replied, “He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistle-blower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.” “Should he do jail time?” Cooper asked, to which Clinton replied, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.” From a civil-liberties perspective—and a factual perspective—Clinton’s answers were disturbing enough that they warrant parsing
I’ve already given my instant verdict on Tuesday night’s Democratic debate: in terms of the horse race, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner, although Bernie Sanders also did pretty well. But it was a long discussion about serious issues, and some of the exchanges bear closer inspection—including the one about Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who is currently languishing in Russia.
The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, “Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?” Chafee replied that he would bring Snowden home without forcing him to serve any jail time. “The American government was acting illegally,” he continued. “That’s what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home.”
Chafee was stating a truth. In May of this year, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, ruled that the N.S.A., in routinely collecting the phone records of millions of Americans—an intelligence program that Snowden exposed in 2013—broke the law of the land. The Patriot Act did not authorize the government to gather calling records in bulk, the judges said. “Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans,” the decision read. The ruling overturned one that had been handed down in December, 2013, in which a federal judge, William Pauley, said that the N.S.A.’s collection of metadata was legal.
After Chafee spoke, Cooper turned to Hillary Clinton and asked, “Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?” Clinton, who earlier in the debate had described herself as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” replied, “He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistle-blower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.”
“Should he do jail time?” Cooper asked, to which Clinton replied, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.”
From a civil-liberties perspective—and a factual perspective—Clinton’s answers were disturbing enough that they warrant parsing
Read more @ http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-edward-snowden
Read more @ http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/emails-and-edward-snowden-us-democratric-presidential-debate-highlights-1306725
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/if-edward-snowden-is-right-about-clintons-emails_b_8225470.html?ir=Australia
As new controversial metadata laws went into effect in Australia on Tuesday, whistleblower Edward Snowden took to Twitter to warn the country’s residents about the privacy violations that accompany the legislation. The new laws require Australian telecommunications companies and Internet service providers (ISPs) to store user metadata—such as phone records and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses—for two years, during which time it may be accessed by law enforcement without a warrant. Civil liberties and Internet freedom groups have criticized the laws as invasive and unconstitutional. “Beginning today, if you are Australian, everything you do online is being tracked, stored, and retained for 2 years,” Snowden wrote, linking to a campaign by advocacy group GetUp! that gave instructions on how to circumvent the data retention scheme. Beginning today, if you are Australian, everything you do online is being tracked, stored, and retained for 2 years. https://t.co/g8etUYgHGr — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 12, 2015 The laws are “costly, ineffective, and against the public interest,” the GetUp! campaign said.
As new controversial metadata laws went into effect in Australia on Tuesday, whistleblower Edward Snowden took to Twitter to warn the country’s residents about the privacy violations that accompany the legislation.
The new laws require Australian telecommunications companies and Internet service providers (ISPs) to store user metadata—such as phone records and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses—for two years, during which time it may be accessed by law enforcement without a warrant. Civil liberties and Internet freedom groups have criticized the laws as invasive and unconstitutional.
“Beginning today, if you are Australian, everything you do online is being tracked, stored, and retained for 2 years,” Snowden wrote, linking to a campaign by advocacy group GetUp! that gave instructions on how to circumvent the data retention scheme.
Beginning today, if you are Australian, everything you do online is being tracked, stored, and retained for 2 years. https://t.co/g8etUYgHGr
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 12, 2015
The laws are “costly, ineffective, and against the public interest,” the GetUp! campaign said.
Read more @ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/snowden_and_allies_issue_warnings_as_australia_unleashes_mass_spying_201510
Australian intelligence authorities accessed private internet data gathered by the US National Security Agency even more than their British counterparts over a 12-month period, according to a previously unreported document released by Edward Snowden. The document relates to the NSA's PRISM program, which takes chunks of users' online activity directly from companies like Google. In the 12 months to May 2012, Australia's electronic spy agency, the ASD, then known as DSD, produced 310 reports based on PRISM. The UK produced 197. Eric King from British activist group Privacy International found the document and told Lateline he was astonished. "What we've now found out is that DSD, the Australian intelligence services, were using PRISM, they were having access directly to Google, Apple, Facebook and other big US companies which are right into heart of their customer's data and pulling that out," he said. "The fact that [Australia] had a third more than even Britain used is astonishing to my mind."
Australian intelligence authorities accessed private internet data gathered by the US National Security Agency even more than their British counterparts over a 12-month period, according to a previously unreported document released by Edward Snowden.
The document relates to the NSA's PRISM program, which takes chunks of users' online activity directly from companies like Google.
In the 12 months to May 2012, Australia's electronic spy agency, the ASD, then known as DSD, produced 310 reports based on PRISM. The UK produced 197.
Eric King from British activist group Privacy International found the document and told Lateline he was astonished.
"What we've now found out is that DSD, the Australian intelligence services, were using PRISM, they were having access directly to Google, Apple, Facebook and other big US companies which are right into heart of their customer's data and pulling that out," he said.
"The fact that [Australia] had a third more than even Britain used is astonishing to my mind."
Read more @ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-15/edward-snowden-docs-show-australia-accessed-nsa-spy-data/6856994
At the Council for Foreign Relations Web site, David Fidler says that Edward Snowden isn’t radical enough. He identifies three problems with the proposal that Snowden, David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras have made for a treaty to stop indiscriminate surveillance and protect whistle blowers. First, Fidler argues that existing treaties recognize the right to privacy – so why do we need a new one? Second – given that states “don’t abide by existing treaties, [why would they] now decide to respect one that enshrines privacy as a fundamental right and outlaws mass surveillance?” Third – why would states agree to any innovative new compliance mechanisms, given that they’re not interested in actually complying? Fidler claims that “this predictable problem explains why oversight mechanisms in human rights treaties are notoriously weak. Put another way, states can riddle bulletproof documents with holes because they, not privacy advocates, write treaty rules. Oddly, the Snowden-treaty movement wants us to traipse, once again, into this cul-de-sac.” Instead of a treaty, Fidler proposes a Snowden Charter, “an accord among civil society, consumers, and technology companies to confront governments and confound mass surveillance through, among other things, continuing to expand encryption in our digital lives.” Without getting into political questions about whether a Snowden Treaty (or Snowden Charter) would be a good or bad idea, Fidler’s arguments provide a valuable contrast to political science arguments about treaties. Fidler knows a lot about the Snowden controversies. He is also a law professor interested in how non-state approaches could solve international problems. In general, political scientists are more skeptical about civil society based approaches than Fidler seems to be. Here’s why. Snowden, Greenwald and their allies are not that radical Contrary to public perceptions, neither Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald are very radical, as I discuss in an article for the National Interest. Snowden is a libertarian – but one who supported President Obama’s initial presidential campaign, and who has said he’s content to let the existing democratic system decide how to deal with his revelations. Greenwald is a pugnacious American Civil Liberties Union style liberal, with a strong bias towards free speech. Both are plausibly within the mainstream of American politics, and it is unsurprising that they advocate a mainstream solution, such as a treaty. This is not to say, of course, that their views aren’t controversial – but the controversies surrounding their views and actions are similar to previous disputes that divided mainstream opinion (e.g. over the Pentagon Papers) in which people disagreed over the relationship between national secrecy laws and free public debate.
At the Council for Foreign Relations Web site, David Fidler says that Edward Snowden isn’t radical enough. He identifies three problems with the proposal that Snowden, David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras have made for a treaty to stop indiscriminate surveillance and protect whistle blowers.
First, Fidler argues that existing treaties recognize the right to privacy – so why do we need a new one? Second – given that states “don’t abide by existing treaties, [why would they] now decide to respect one that enshrines privacy as a fundamental right and outlaws mass surveillance?” Third – why would states agree to any innovative new compliance mechanisms, given that they’re not interested in actually complying? Fidler claims that “this predictable problem explains why oversight mechanisms in human rights treaties are notoriously weak. Put another way, states can riddle bulletproof documents with holes because they, not privacy advocates, write treaty rules. Oddly, the Snowden-treaty movement wants us to traipse, once again, into this cul-de-sac.”
Instead of a treaty, Fidler proposes a Snowden Charter, “an accord among civil society, consumers, and technology companies to confront governments and confound mass surveillance through, among other things, continuing to expand encryption in our digital lives.”
Without getting into political questions about whether a Snowden Treaty (or Snowden Charter) would be a good or bad idea, Fidler’s arguments provide a valuable contrast to political science arguments about treaties. Fidler knows a lot about the Snowden controversies. He is also a law professor interested in how non-state approaches could solve international problems. In general, political scientists are more skeptical about civil society based approaches than Fidler seems to be. Here’s why.
Snowden, Greenwald and their allies are not that radical
Contrary to public perceptions, neither Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald are very radical, as I discuss in an article for the National Interest. Snowden is a libertarian – but one who supported President Obama’s initial presidential campaign, and who has said he’s content to let the existing democratic system decide how to deal with his revelations. Greenwald is a pugnacious American Civil Liberties Union style liberal, with a strong bias towards free speech. Both are plausibly within the mainstream of American politics, and it is unsurprising that they advocate a mainstream solution, such as a treaty. This is not to say, of course, that their views aren’t controversial – but the controversies surrounding their views and actions are similar to previous disputes that divided mainstream opinion (e.g. over the Pentagon Papers) in which people disagreed over the relationship between national secrecy laws and free public debate.
Read more @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/10/14/edward-snowden-has-proposed-a-new-treaty-heres-why-it-might-or-might-not-take-off/
At a security conference on Tuesday, Rep. Chris Stewart, a Republican, argued that a $1.7 billion NSA data center near Salt Lake City doesn't focus on bulk data collection and had harsh words for the former NSA contractor. Salt Lake City — The National Security Agency's massive data center in Utah isn't being used to store Americans' personal phone calls or social media activity, but plays a key role in protecting the country from cyber-attacks by hostile foreign governments, U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah said Tuesday. Stewart's comments came during a national security conference he hosted on the University of Utah campus in Salt Lake City. NSA Utah director Dave Winberg was among the speakers, but didn't talk specifically what happens at a $1.7 billion data center south of Salt Lake City. He instead focused his remarks on the NSA's global purpose.
At a security conference on Tuesday, Rep. Chris Stewart, a Republican, argued that a $1.7 billion NSA data center near Salt Lake City doesn't focus on bulk data collection and had harsh words for the former NSA contractor.
Salt Lake City — The National Security Agency's massive data center in Utah isn't being used to store Americans' personal phone calls or social media activity, but plays a key role in protecting the country from cyber-attacks by hostile foreign governments, U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah said Tuesday.
Stewart's comments came during a national security conference he hosted on the University of Utah campus in Salt Lake City. NSA Utah director Dave Winberg was among the speakers, but didn't talk specifically what happens at a $1.7 billion data center south of Salt Lake City. He instead focused his remarks on the NSA's global purpose.
Read more @ http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/1014/Why-one-Utah-lawmaker-is-calling-Edward-Snowden-a-traitor
VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger spoke out at the VMworld Europe conference about how the "professional era" of cloud has been shaped by Edward Snowden's NSA revelations The Edward Snowden revelations have been instrumental in hastening the maturation of the cloud computing market, as enterprises move beyond experimenting with off-premise technologies. That’s the view of VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger, who talked at length during the second day keynote of the VMworld user conference in Barcelona about the evolution in how enterprises are treating cloud, as CIOs and IT managers become more accustomed to using it.
The Edward Snowden revelations have been instrumental in hastening the maturation of the cloud computing market, as enterprises move beyond experimenting with off-premise technologies.
That’s the view of VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger, who talked at length during the second day keynote of the VMworld user conference in Barcelona about the evolution in how enterprises are treating cloud, as CIOs and IT managers become more accustomed to using it.
Read more @ http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500255407/VMware-CEO-credits-Edward-Snowden-with-transforming-enterprise-cloud-attitudes
They also agreed to have a public debate on the relationship between police violence and surveillance. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson had a spirited discussion about their respective causes on Twitter Monday night, trading points on the relationship between police and state violence and surveillance. It started when Snowden tweeted: If you want to protect your rights, you've got to protect the rights of others. Social justice is common sense. — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 12, 2015 Mckesson then asked Snowden what he thought about the Black Lives Matter movement and police violence. What are your thoughts about Black Lives Matter, the movement re: ending police & state violence? https://t.co/KfvYA8mtlL — deray mckesson (@deray) October 12, 2015 Mckesson also brought up how activists like him have been monitored by government officials. He asked Snowden for tips on how activists can safeguard their information and protect their organization. Snowden, in turn, asked Mckesson how people "can highlight the danger" of intelligence officials targeting civil rights activists -- which has occurred throughout American history, most notably during the Civil Rights movement. In the end, the two agreed to hold a public debate about these topics, which, judging from the Twitter exchange, could be very interesting.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson had a spirited discussion about their respective causes on Twitter Monday night, trading points on the relationship between police and state violence and surveillance.
It started when Snowden tweeted:
If you want to protect your rights, you've got to protect the rights of others. Social justice is common sense.
Mckesson then asked Snowden what he thought about the Black Lives Matter movement and police violence.
What are your thoughts about Black Lives Matter, the movement re: ending police & state violence? https://t.co/KfvYA8mtlL
— deray mckesson (@deray) October 12, 2015
Mckesson also brought up how activists like him have been monitored by government officials. He asked Snowden for tips on how activists can safeguard their information and protect their organization.
Snowden, in turn, asked Mckesson how people "can highlight the danger" of intelligence officials targeting civil rights activists -- which has occurred throughout American history, most notably during the Civil Rights movement.
In the end, the two agreed to hold a public debate about these topics, which, judging from the Twitter exchange, could be very interesting.
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/edward-snowden-black-lives-matter_561c5a81e4b0c5a1ce60527c?section=australia&adsSiteOverride=au
'An individual trying to limit speech at universities is interested in neither university nor justice.' Edward Snowden tweeted his support for free speech on campuses after being asked to denounce leftist students who disinvite speakers. After Snowden wrote that “social justice is common sense,” another Twitter user replied: “Can you please direct that at SJWs that uninvite speakers at universities because their views may be offensive to some?” The acronym “SJW” is shorthand for “social justice warrior,” a derogatory reference to far-left activists, often of the feminist persuasion.
Edward Snowden tweeted his support for free speech on campuses after being asked to denounce leftist students who disinvite speakers.
After Snowden wrote that “social justice is common sense,” another Twitter user replied: “Can you please direct that at SJWs that uninvite speakers at universities because their views may be offensive to some?” The acronym “SJW” is shorthand for “social justice warrior,” a derogatory reference to far-left activists, often of the feminist persuasion.
Read more @ https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/13/in-tweet-edward-snowden-scolds-those-who
The entire world knows who Edward Snowden is. He’s the infamous former CIA agent who leaked classified information to reporters regarding surveillance on U.S. citizens and surveillance on a global level. He’s been the topic of heated debates over whether or not he’s a traitor or a patriot. It’s an off week when he’s not mentioned in the news in some shape or form, especially since he’s currently taking asylum in Russia with its government, as some are trying to find ways to get him back on U.S. soil. However, just because he’s exiled to Russia doesn’t mean he’s given up on making sure the world knows what the National Security Agency is really up to. On Sept. 29, he joined the realm of social media with Twitter, his first tweet reading, “Can you hear me now?” Being a fellow Twitter user, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to follow him. I was pleasantly surprised. It’s made me come to the conclusion that what he’s doing with social media is fantastic. When this story first broke, I was slightly confused. Why would someone who’s a fugitive and has asylum in Russia create a social media account for the world to see? Wouldn’t it be best just to keep his mouth shut since the entire U.S. government wants him back in order to face the consequence for his actions? What’s even more interesting to me is the fact that he’s only following the NSA, the organization he blew the whistle on. He’s still trying to find ways to get his voice heard in society, despite his status. It really shows his commitment to his cause and it’s clear that he’s not going anywhere. He might be in exile, but he’s still hard at work.
The entire world knows who Edward Snowden is.
He’s the infamous former CIA agent who leaked classified information to reporters regarding surveillance on U.S. citizens and surveillance on a global level. He’s been the topic of heated debates over whether or not he’s a traitor or a patriot. It’s an off week when he’s not mentioned in the news in some shape or form, especially since he’s currently taking asylum in Russia with its government, as some are trying to find ways to get him back on U.S. soil.
However, just because he’s exiled to Russia doesn’t mean he’s given up on making sure the world knows what the National Security Agency is really up to. On Sept. 29, he joined the realm of social media with Twitter, his first tweet reading, “Can you hear me now?”
Being a fellow Twitter user, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to follow him. I was pleasantly surprised. It’s made me come to the conclusion that what he’s doing with social media is fantastic.
When this story first broke, I was slightly confused. Why would someone who’s a fugitive and has asylum in Russia create a social media account for the world to see? Wouldn’t it be best just to keep his mouth shut since the entire U.S. government wants him back in order to face the consequence for his actions?
What’s even more interesting to me is the fact that he’s only following the NSA, the organization he blew the whistle on.
He’s still trying to find ways to get his voice heard in society, despite his status. It really shows his commitment to his cause and it’s clear that he’s not going anywhere. He might be in exile, but he’s still hard at work.
Read more @ http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/edward-snowden-can-use-social-media-to-his-advantage/article_19d207e4-72c4-11e5-aa85-2328820ce408.html
Whistleblower says he has offered to do time in prison as part of a deal to return to US, but ‘we are still waiting for them to call us back’ The US justice department has made no effort to contact Edward Snowden to discuss a plea deal that would see him return from exile in Russia, the NSA whistleblower said in an interview on BBC Panorama to be broadcast on Monday night. Snowden, who is wanted under the Espionage Act after leaking tens of thousands of top secret documents, said he had offered to do time in prison as part of a deal. “We are still waiting for them to call us back,” he said. His comments come just months after Eric Holder, who was US attorney-general until April, said Snowden’s revelations had “spurred a necessary debate”. He also said the “possibility exists” of a plea deal. But senior figures in the security services in both the US and UK are unforgiving, wanting him to serve a long sentence both as punishment and to act as a deterrent to others.
Whistleblower says he has offered to do time in prison as part of a deal to return to US, but ‘we are still waiting for them to call us back’
The US justice department has made no effort to contact Edward Snowden to discuss a plea deal that would see him return from exile in Russia, the NSA whistleblower said in an interview on BBC Panorama to be broadcast on Monday night.
Snowden, who is wanted under the Espionage Act after leaking tens of thousands of top secret documents, said he had offered to do time in prison as part of a deal. “We are still waiting for them to call us back,” he said.
His comments come just months after Eric Holder, who was US attorney-general until April, said Snowden’s revelations had “spurred a necessary debate”. He also said the “possibility exists” of a plea deal.
But senior figures in the security services in both the US and UK are unforgiving, wanting him to serve a long sentence both as punishment and to act as a deterrent to others.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/05/edward-snowden-us-has-not-offered-me-plea-deal
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul believes Edward Snowden deserves some punishment for leaking classified documents about government surveillance, though he says it should be less than what some of his fellow Republicans have called for against the former National Security Agency worker. During the convention of the Republican Liberty Caucus on Friday, a college student asked Paul whether he would pardon Snowden if elected president. The ballroom in Nashua, New Hampshire, quickly fell silent as Paul joked, "There's always got to be an easy question." Some libertarians have called for Snowden to be pardoned. Paul's own father and one-time presidential candidate, Ron Paul, has praised Snowden in the past and supported a petition asking for clemency.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul believes Edward Snowden deserves some punishment for leaking classified documents about government surveillance, though he says it should be less than what some of his fellow Republicans have called for against the former National Security Agency worker.
During the convention of the Republican Liberty Caucus on Friday, a college student asked Paul whether he would pardon Snowden if elected president. The ballroom in Nashua, New Hampshire, quickly fell silent as Paul joked, "There's always got to be an easy question."
Some libertarians have called for Snowden to be pardoned. Paul's own father and one-time presidential candidate, Ron Paul, has praised Snowden in the past and supported a petition asking for clemency.
Read more @ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-paul-pardon-edward-snowden/story?id=34379901
NSA whistleblower and American fugitive Edward Snowden has revealed information on the scope and capabilities of the United Kingdom’s GCHQ intelligence agency. He has found that this British version of the NSA, “a subsidiary of the NSA,” according to Snowden, can hack into and control British citizen’s phones without a warrant, or without the owner even noticing. Government’s turning smartphones into smart tracking devices Americans may have heard of the “Stingray” program that police and government agencies have used in major American cities since 2012. With Stingray, illegal and unconstitutional access of phone conversations and locations is collected using “Stingrays.” These devices can act as a cell tower in an area, intercepting calls, and finding locations of phones. Three years later, American authorities have probably increased their abilities since, but Snowden discusses what the GCHQ is doing with consumer phones in Britain. He describes the government agency’s encoded computer programs within the UK and used the names of characters from the 1980’s cartoon, “The Smurfs.” He relayed the intel in an interview with the BBC’s “Panorama.”
NSA whistleblower and American fugitive Edward Snowden has revealed information on the scope and capabilities of the United Kingdom’s GCHQ intelligence agency. He has found that this British version of the NSA, “a subsidiary of the NSA,” according to Snowden, can hack into and control British citizen’s phones without a warrant, or without the owner even noticing.
Americans may have heard of the “Stingray” program that police and government agencies have used in major American cities since 2012. With Stingray, illegal and unconstitutional access of phone conversations and locations is collected using “Stingrays.” These devices can act as a cell tower in an area, intercepting calls, and finding locations of phones.
Three years later, American authorities have probably increased their abilities since, but Snowden discusses what the GCHQ is doing with consumer phones in Britain. He describes the government agency’s encoded computer programs within the UK and used the names of characters from the 1980’s cartoon, “The Smurfs.” He relayed the intel in an interview with the BBC’s “Panorama.”
Read more @ http://cointelegraph.com/news/115402/edward-snowden-governments-want-to-own-your-phone-instead-of-you
Two much-anticipated films — one about CIA secrets leaker Edward Snowden, and another about music legend Miles Davis — have been pushed back into 2016. Originally slated for a Christmas Day release, Oliver Stone’s “Snowden” will now be coming out on May 13, according to a release from the film’s distributor, Open Road. Written by Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald, “Snowden” stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. Other cast members include Shailene Woodley, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Rhys Ifans, Nicolas Cage, Scott Eastwood, Joely Richardson and Timothy Olyphant. The script is based on the books “The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Wanted Man,” by Luke Harding, and “Time of the Octopus,” by Anatoly Kucherena.
Two much-anticipated films — one about CIA secrets leaker Edward Snowden, and another about music legend Miles Davis — have been pushed back into 2016.
Originally slated for a Christmas Day release, Oliver Stone’s “Snowden” will now be coming out on May 13, according to a release from the film’s distributor, Open Road. Written by Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald, “Snowden” stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. Other cast members include Shailene Woodley, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Rhys Ifans, Nicolas Cage, Scott Eastwood, Joely Richardson and Timothy Olyphant.
The script is based on the books “The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Wanted Man,” by Luke Harding, and “Time of the Octopus,” by Anatoly Kucherena.
Read more @ http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/snowden-miles-davis-films-pushed-back-next-year/
Sometime between joining Twitter and sending his first tweet, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden forgot to check his notification settings. If he did, he might've noticed that by default Twitter sends email notifications for pretty much every social interaction. Whoopsies.
Sometime between joining Twitter and sending his first tweet, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden forgot to check his notification settings. If he did, he might've noticed that by default Twitter sends email notifications for pretty much every social interaction.
Whoopsies.
Read more @ http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2015/10/1/9434581/edward-snowden-twitter-47GB-email-notifications-whoopsies
Oct 24 15 5:17 PM
What Did Clinton Mean When She Said Snowden Files Fell Into the “Wrong Hands”?
Hillary Clinton asserted at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands.” She seemed to be darkly intimating that the information Snowden gave to journalists in Hong Kong before he was granted asylum in Moscow also ended up with the Chinese and/or Russian governments. But that conclusion is entirely unsupported by the evidence; it’s a political smear that even the most alarmist Obama administration intelligence officials have not asserted as fact.
Hillary Clinton asserted at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands.”
She seemed to be darkly intimating that the information Snowden gave to journalists in Hong Kong before he was granted asylum in Moscow also ended up with the Chinese and/or Russian governments.
But that conclusion is entirely unsupported by the evidence; it’s a political smear that even the most alarmist Obama administration intelligence officials have not asserted as fact.
Read more @ https://theintercept.com/2015/10/14/what-did-clinton-mean-when-she-said-snowden-files-fell-into-the-wrong-hands/
What the revelations mean for you.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1
DEMOCRATS ON CYBER: THREATS, PRIVATE SERVER, SNOWDEN — Most of the candidates Tuesday night came to Hillary Clinton’s defense over her private server; Jim Webb talked up the cyber threat; and Edward Snowden got no love from the Democrats. It was a different kind of cyber talk than we got from the debates with Republicans, who had little kind to say about the former secretary of State’s private email server and who invoked China and Russia hacking repeatedly in pursuit of attacking the Obama administration.
Last month, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald and other privacy activists launched a new campaign to establish global privacy standards. The proposed International Treaty on the Right to Privacy, Protection Against Improper Surveillance and Protection of Whistleblowers would require states to ban mass data collection and implement public oversight of national security programs. It would also require states to offer asylum to whistleblowers. It’s been dubbed the "Snowden Treaty." We discuss the state of mass surveillance with Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights.
Read the transcript @ http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/23/everybody_is_a_suspect_european_rights
Said while poking Europe in the ribs about honesty FTC Commissioner Julie Brill views the landmark decision to kill the US-EU safe harbor agreement as an opportunity to improve privacy laws on both sides of the Atlantic. The safe harbor pact allowed Europeans' personal and private information to flow into American data centers, but that agreement was torn up by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) this month in the wake of the NSA's mass surveillance of foreigners. Giving the keynote at the Amsterdam Privacy Conference on Friday, Brill – one of four commissioners at the US trade regulator – took a largely pro-Schrems line; Max Schrems being the law student who kicked off this whole thing. But she couldn't resist poking European regulators in the ribs about the need for an "honest" discussion about what is done with people's data. "Transatlantic Privacy After Schrems: Time for An Honest Conversation" was the title of her talk [PDF]. But while Brill failed to give any detail beyond general goals, her comments highlight that the FTC, the consumer protection arm of the US government, is looking to make some serious changes in how people's personal details are handled in the internet era.
FTC Commissioner Julie Brill views the landmark decision to kill the US-EU safe harbor agreement as an opportunity to improve privacy laws on both sides of the Atlantic.
The safe harbor pact allowed Europeans' personal and private information to flow into American data centers, but that agreement was torn up by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) this month in the wake of the NSA's mass surveillance of foreigners.
Giving the keynote at the Amsterdam Privacy Conference on Friday, Brill – one of four commissioners at the US trade regulator – took a largely pro-Schrems line; Max Schrems being the law student who kicked off this whole thing.
But she couldn't resist poking European regulators in the ribs about the need for an "honest" discussion about what is done with people's data.
"Transatlantic Privacy After Schrems: Time for An Honest Conversation" was the title of her talk [PDF]. But while Brill failed to give any detail beyond general goals, her comments highlight that the FTC, the consumer protection arm of the US government, is looking to make some serious changes in how people's personal details are handled in the internet era.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/23/ftc_eu_safe_harbor/
Edward Snowden wants to return to the United States, an attorney for the NSA whistleblower told a Nashville crowd on Saturday, but it would have to be under considerably more lenient terms than the crimes he would currently face. Ben Wizner, an attorney for Snowden, framed those comments as simply “reading between the lines” of past statements from Snowden. Wizner was speaking at an American Civil Liberties Union-sponsored event at the downtown Nashville Public Library called, “Surveillance State: Can Democracy Survive?” Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor considered a hero by some and traitor by others, remains living in Russia more than two years after his release of documents to multiple media organizations revealed government programs that systematically collect data from private citizens in the name of national security. “What’s next for Edward Snowden?” Wizner said. “I will tell you what he’s said. He would like to return to the United States. He doesn’t like being across the world from his closest family members. He’s not going to come back and accept felony convictions and lose civil rights as a consequence of his act of conscience.
Edward Snowden wants to return to the United States, an attorney for the NSA whistleblower told a Nashville crowd on Saturday, but it would have to be under considerably more lenient terms than the crimes he would currently face.
Ben Wizner, an attorney for Snowden, framed those comments as simply “reading between the lines” of past statements from Snowden. Wizner was speaking at an American Civil Liberties Union-sponsored event at the downtown Nashville Public Library called, “Surveillance State: Can Democracy Survive?”
Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor considered a hero by some and traitor by others, remains living in Russia more than two years after his release of documents to multiple media organizations revealed government programs that systematically collect data from private citizens in the name of national security.
“What’s next for Edward Snowden?” Wizner said. “I will tell you what he’s said. He would like to return to the United States. He doesn’t like being across the world from his closest family members. He’s not going to come back and accept felony convictions and lose civil rights as a consequence of his act of conscience.
Read more @ http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2015/10/17/edward-snowden-attorney-us-return-pick-your-misdemeanor/73958266/
TL;DR: Stop using 1024-bit keys ... like we said in 2005 Now that the cat is firmly out the bag, and it's clear that the NSA has cracked the encryption behind, potentially, a huge amount of internet traffic, the question inevitably turns to: what are internet engineers going to do about it? Clearly the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have pondered the same question: a blog post on Thursday by IETF chairman Jari Arkko and security specialist Paul Wouters outlines how to beef up the internet's security. The post's title references a crucial element at the heart of the security flap: the Diffie-Hellman key-exchange protocol. Broadly stated, this protocol – developed in 1976 by Whit Diffie and Martin Hellman – lets two users (say, Alice and Bob) calculate and share a secret between themselves, and just themselves, in public. The secret is developed between Alice and Bob using very, very large prime numbers and math. Even if the pair are snooped on by an eavesdropper, Eve, it should be virtually impossible for the spy to discover their secret.
Now that the cat is firmly out the bag, and it's clear that the NSA has cracked the encryption behind, potentially, a huge amount of internet traffic, the question inevitably turns to: what are internet engineers going to do about it?
Clearly the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have pondered the same question: a blog post on Thursday by IETF chairman Jari Arkko and security specialist Paul Wouters outlines how to beef up the internet's security.
The post's title references a crucial element at the heart of the security flap: the Diffie-Hellman key-exchange protocol.
Broadly stated, this protocol – developed in 1976 by Whit Diffie and Martin Hellman – lets two users (say, Alice and Bob) calculate and share a secret between themselves, and just themselves, in public. The secret is developed between Alice and Bob using very, very large prime numbers and math.
Even if the pair are snooped on by an eavesdropper, Eve, it should be virtually impossible for the spy to discover their secret.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/24/nsa_encryption_hack/
The NSA’s mass surveillance would not be possible if the internet wasn’t controlled by just a few major US companies, Nikolay Nikiforov, Russia’s communications minister, told RT after the first BRICS ministerial meeting on the de-monopolization of IT. “Snowden’s disclosures showed exactly the harmfulness of the monopoly because it would not be possible if the world IT sector should be structured in a more balanced way,” Nikiforov said, adding that, as things stand, US security agencies have the power to just “come to several companies and to force them… to actually provide absolutely illegal access to hundreds of millions records of private data of users globally.” In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked thousands of documents revealing the US National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs, proving that Google, Facebook and other US tech giants have been passing information to the spy agency. Russia’s Communications and Mass Media minister stressed that, in purely economic terms, the monopoly is also harmful for BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the international community as a whole. “The monopolist could dictate you the certain price level… each country in the world is actually sending out billions of dollars outside its national economies as the license fees… for key technologies,” he explained.
The NSA’s mass surveillance would not be possible if the internet wasn’t controlled by just a few major US companies, Nikolay Nikiforov, Russia’s communications minister, told RT after the first BRICS ministerial meeting on the de-monopolization of IT.
“Snowden’s disclosures showed exactly the harmfulness of the monopoly because it would not be possible if the world IT sector should be structured in a more balanced way,” Nikiforov said, adding that, as things stand, US security agencies have the power to just “come to several companies and to force them… to actually provide absolutely illegal access to hundreds of millions records of private data of users globally.”
In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked thousands of documents revealing the US National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs, proving that Google, Facebook and other US tech giants have been passing information to the spy agency.
Russia’s Communications and Mass Media minister stressed that, in purely economic terms, the monopoly is also harmful for BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the international community as a whole.
“The monopolist could dictate you the certain price level… each country in the world is actually sending out billions of dollars outside its national economies as the license fees… for key technologies,” he explained.
Read more @ https://www.rt.com/news/319522-snowden-leaks-us-monopoly/
It’s a scenario familiar to many of us: We go online and search for a product we’re interested in purchasing. Moments later, we click on our favorite news site, only to be bombarded with ads, including some for the product we were just viewing. So how did this happen? And what else about ourselves might we unwittingly be sharing? A whole lot, says investigative reporter Julia Angwin. Her latest book, “Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security, and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance,” explores the seemingly endless ways that data brokers are tracking our every move. Those brokers could include government agencies, cellphone providers, retailers and, yes, criminals. Angwin is an investigative journalist at the independent news organization ProPublica and spent 13 years as a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where she was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize. In her latest book, she explains how “dragnets” indiscriminately track us and store volumes of personal information. Much of the time we are unaware this is even happening. Presumably private interactions can quickly become quite public. And this ever-growing amount of stored information, some of which may be potentially damaging, is just waiting to be exploited. “In today’s world, every choice we make associates us with a person, a place or an idea,” she writes in her book. “Visit a political website; you are associated with its views. Sit in a restaurant near somebody who is being watched; your cellphone is now part of the ‘community of interest’ that may be monitored by authorities. Those associations are scooped up and entered into databases where people use them to make predictions about your future behavior.”
It’s a scenario familiar to many of us: We go online and search for a product we’re interested in purchasing. Moments later, we click on our favorite news site, only to be bombarded with ads, including some for the product we were just viewing.
So how did this happen? And what else about ourselves might we unwittingly be sharing?
A whole lot, says investigative reporter Julia Angwin. Her latest book, “Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security, and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance,” explores the seemingly endless ways that data brokers are tracking our every move. Those brokers could include government agencies, cellphone providers, retailers and, yes, criminals.
Angwin is an investigative journalist at the independent news organization ProPublica and spent 13 years as a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where she was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize. In her latest book, she explains how “dragnets” indiscriminately track us and store volumes of personal information. Much of the time we are unaware this is even happening. Presumably private interactions can quickly become quite public. And this ever-growing amount of stored information, some of which may be potentially damaging, is just waiting to be exploited.
“In today’s world, every choice we make associates us with a person, a place or an idea,” she writes in her book. “Visit a political website; you are associated with its views. Sit in a restaurant near somebody who is being watched; your cellphone is now part of the ‘community of interest’ that may be monitored by authorities. Those associations are scooped up and entered into databases where people use them to make predictions about your future behavior.”
Read more @ http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/10/24/4048637/readers-corner-dragnets-are-redefining.html
20 years ago today a federal judge in the US authorized the first legal computer wiretap. Prior to October 23rd, 1995, wiretap authorizations had been used primarily as a means to monitor telephone conversations of organized crime and drug suspects. The wiretap on Harvard computers during the last two months of 1995 ultimately led to the arrest of 21-year-old Julio Cesar Ardita of Buenos Aires who later pled guilty to illegal wiretapping and computer crime felonies. A March 1996 press release announcing an arrest warrant for Ardita noted how careful investigators were to protect the privacy of the innocent. "Court authorization was deemed necessary in this case because the Harvard computer system does not post a banner informing users who log onto the system that their communications might be monitored." How quaint. The government also touted its ability to preserve the confidentiality of legitimate transmissions even while on the lookout for baddies. "We intercepted only those communications which fit the pattern," said US Attorney Donald K. Stern. "Even when communications contained the identifying pattern of the intruder, we limited our initial examination to 80 characters around the tell-tale sign to further protect the privacy of innocent communications." Attorney General Janet Reno added, "This case demonstrates that the real threat to computer privacy comes from unscrupulous intruders, not government investigators." Times sure have changed.
20 years ago today a federal judge in the US authorized the first legal computer wiretap. Prior to October 23rd, 1995, wiretap authorizations had been used primarily as a means to monitor telephone conversations of organized crime and drug suspects. The wiretap on Harvard computers during the last two months of 1995 ultimately led to the arrest of 21-year-old Julio Cesar Ardita of Buenos Aires who later pled guilty to illegal wiretapping and computer crime felonies.
A March 1996 press release announcing an arrest warrant for Ardita noted how careful investigators were to protect the privacy of the innocent. "Court authorization was deemed necessary in this case because the Harvard computer system does not post a banner informing users who log onto the system that their communications might be monitored." How quaint.
The government also touted its ability to preserve the confidentiality of legitimate transmissions even while on the lookout for baddies. "We intercepted only those communications which fit the pattern," said US Attorney Donald K. Stern. "Even when communications contained the identifying pattern of the intruder, we limited our initial examination to 80 characters around the tell-tale sign to further protect the privacy of innocent communications." Attorney General Janet Reno added, "This case demonstrates that the real threat to computer privacy comes from unscrupulous intruders, not government investigators." Times sure have changed.
Read more @ http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/23/9602354/first-click-dont-tell-the-nsa-but-the-legal-computer-wiretap-turns-20
As American tech giants extend their global reach, fears are growing on their side of the Atlantic over trade barriers some see as “digital protectionism.” Washington (AFP) While China has long been a difficult market for US firms to navigate, tensions have been rising with the European Union on privacy, antitrust and other issues, impacting tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Uber. In recent weeks, Europe’s highest court struck down an agreement which allowed US firms to transfer personal data out of the region without running afoul of privacy rules. In parallel, Brussels is looking to create a new “digital single market” simplifying rules for operating across EU borders — but which could also include new regulations for online “platforms”. Some see this as a jab at US retailers like Amazon, “sharing economy” services like Airbnb or even news outfits. Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said the platform proposal “has the potential to be troublesome.” “Nobody has defined what a platform is,” Black told AFP. “It feels like a proposal to solve a non-problem.”
Washington (AFP)
While China has long been a difficult market for US firms to navigate, tensions have been rising with the European Union on privacy, antitrust and other issues, impacting tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Uber.
In recent weeks, Europe’s highest court struck down an agreement which allowed US firms to transfer personal data out of the region without running afoul of privacy rules.
In parallel, Brussels is looking to create a new “digital single market” simplifying rules for operating across EU borders — but which could also include new regulations for online “platforms”.
Some see this as a jab at US retailers like Amazon, “sharing economy” services like Airbnb or even news outfits.
Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said the platform proposal “has the potential to be troublesome.”
“Nobody has defined what a platform is,” Black told AFP. “It feels like a proposal to solve a non-problem.”
Read more @ http://citizen.co.za/afp_feed_article/tech-spats-spark-us-fears-of-digital-protectionism/
11 Ways To Track Your Moves When Using a Web Browser
There are a number of different use cases to track users as they use a particular web site. Some of them are more "sinister" then others. For most web applications, some form of session tracking is required to maintain the user's state. This is typically easily done using well configured cookies (and not the scope of this article). Session are meant to be ephemeral and will not persist for long. On the other hand, some tracking methods do attempt to track the user over a long time, and in particular attempt to make it difficult to evade the tracking. This is sometimes done for advertisement purposes, but can also be done to stop certain attacks like brute forcing or to identify attackers that return to a site. In its worst case, from a private perspective, the tracking is done to follow a user across various web sites. Over the years, browsers and plugins have provided a number of ways to restrict this tracking. Here are some of the more common techniques how tracking is done and how the user can prevent (some of) it:
There are a number of different use cases to track users as they use a particular web site. Some of them are more "sinister" then others. For most web applications, some form of session tracking is required to maintain the user's state. This is typically easily done using well configured cookies (and not the scope of this article). Session are meant to be ephemeral and will not persist for long.
On the other hand, some tracking methods do attempt to track the user over a long time, and in particular attempt to make it difficult to evade the tracking. This is sometimes done for advertisement purposes, but can also be done to stop certain attacks like brute forcing or to identify attackers that return to a site. In its worst case, from a private perspective, the tracking is done to follow a user across various web sites.
Over the years, browsers and plugins have provided a number of ways to restrict this tracking. Here are some of the more common techniques how tracking is done and how the user can prevent (some of) it:
Read more @ https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/11+Ways+To+Track+Your+Moves+When+Using+a+Web+Browser/19369/
Don’t they mean Australia’s innocence? Ignorance…. Pffftttt…..
AUSTRALIA’S “ignorance” had allowed its diplomats, foreign affairs officials and some from the left-wing of the Labor Party to be seduced by Russian spies during the Cold War to the detriment of western intelligence and security. And many idealists engaged in espionage simply for the “love of intrigue”, money or desire to be a player should Soviet expansionism see the world order change. That’s one of the conclusions drawn by the British intelligence agency MI5 that yesterday released publicly for the first time thousands of startling documents related to espionage in Australia during the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s. According to the treasure trove of historical memos, briefs and warnings, many of which are stamped “Top Secret” and released through the National Archives office in London, at one stage such was the infiltration of Russian spies and “communist penetration” into Australia’s Department of External Affairs, forerunner to today’s DFAT, British spooks urged caution in having anything to do with certain lead Australian government figures.
AUSTRALIA’S “ignorance” had allowed its diplomats, foreign affairs officials and some from the left-wing of the Labor Party to be seduced by Russian spies during the Cold War to the detriment of western intelligence and security.
And many idealists engaged in espionage simply for the “love of intrigue”, money or desire to be a player should Soviet expansionism see the world order change.
That’s one of the conclusions drawn by the British intelligence agency MI5 that yesterday released publicly for the first time thousands of startling documents related to espionage in Australia during the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s.
According to the treasure trove of historical memos, briefs and warnings, many of which are stamped “Top Secret” and released through the National Archives office in London, at one stage such was the infiltration of Russian spies and “communist penetration” into Australia’s Department of External Affairs, forerunner to today’s DFAT, British spooks urged caution in having anything to do with certain lead Australian government figures.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/national/top-secret-files-released-by-british-intelligence-agency-mi5-reveal-aussie-cold-war-spies/story-fncynjr2-1227580343202
In the United Nation's first wide-scale review of whistleblower protections worldwide, a special rapporteur appointed by the Secretary-General has cited governments and organizations, among them the UN itself, for failing to do enough to shield those who reveal secrets in the public interest. The report, authored by David Kaye, UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, called for greater protections for journalistic sources, as well as for journalists themselves — particularly those that publicly or privately expose malfeasance. The report, citing the public's right to receive information from the media that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explicitly recommended that states revise and implement national laws "protecting the confidentiality of sources." Kaye presented the report to the General Assembly's Third Committee on Thursday. Questions over the protections afforded to whistleblowers globally have grown in scope since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the United States spy agency's massive surveillance program in 2013. Many countries responded with reforms, but Kaye says that while new and preexisting laws ostensibly offer safeguards, they fall well sort of being effective.
In the United Nation's first wide-scale review of whistleblower protections worldwide, a special rapporteur appointed by the Secretary-General has cited governments and organizations, among them the UN itself, for failing to do enough to shield those who reveal secrets in the public interest.
The report, authored by David Kaye, UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, called for greater protections for journalistic sources, as well as for journalists themselves — particularly those that publicly or privately expose malfeasance. The report, citing the public's right to receive information from the media that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explicitly recommended that states revise and implement national laws "protecting the confidentiality of sources." Kaye presented the report to the General Assembly's Third Committee on Thursday.
Questions over the protections afforded to whistleblowers globally have grown in scope since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the United States spy agency's massive surveillance program in 2013. Many countries responded with reforms, but Kaye says that while new and preexisting laws ostensibly offer safeguards, they fall well sort of being effective.
Read more @ https://news.vice.com/article/whistleblowers-in-peril-as-government-policies-shaft-press-freedoms
A federal court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Wikimedia and others against the National Security Agency over mass surveillance practices revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a government motion to dismiss the case on the grounds the plaintiffs “had not plausibly alleged that their communications were being monitored by the NSA,” according to the ACLU. The ACLU represented plaintiffs the Wikimedia Foundation — the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia — Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others in the case to challenge the NSA’s surveillance of the content of Americans’ communications as they cross the global Internet’s backbone. “The court has wrongly insulated the NSA’s spying from meaningful judicial scrutiny,” ACLU attorney Patrick Toomey, who argued the case last month, said Friday. “The decision turns a blind eye to the fact that the government is tapping into the Internet’s backbone to spy on millions of Americans. The dismissal of the lawsuit’s claims as ‘speculative’ is at odds with an overwhelming public record of warrantless surveillance.” Plaintiffs filed the case in March to challenge NSA’s “upstream” surveillance, when the signals intelligence agency taps the physical infrastructure of the Internet, such as undersea fiber cables, to surveil the content of foreigners’ communications, like emails, instant messages, etc., as they exit and enter the U.S. Upstream surveillance is legal under Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, and allows NSA to surveil Americans communications with foreign targets overseas. According to rights groups, it also facilitates a loophole that lets NSA “incidentally” sweep up unrelated data belonging to Americans in the process.
A federal court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Wikimedia and others against the National Security Agency over mass surveillance practices revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a government motion to dismiss the case on the grounds the plaintiffs “had not plausibly alleged that their communications were being monitored by the NSA,” according to the ACLU.
The ACLU represented plaintiffs the Wikimedia Foundation — the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia — Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others in the case to challenge the NSA’s surveillance of the content of Americans’ communications as they cross the global Internet’s backbone.
“The court has wrongly insulated the NSA’s spying from meaningful judicial scrutiny,” ACLU attorney Patrick Toomey, who argued the case last month, said Friday. “The decision turns a blind eye to the fact that the government is tapping into the Internet’s backbone to spy on millions of Americans. The dismissal of the lawsuit’s claims as ‘speculative’ is at odds with an overwhelming public record of warrantless surveillance.”
Plaintiffs filed the case in March to challenge NSA’s “upstream” surveillance, when the signals intelligence agency taps the physical infrastructure of the Internet, such as undersea fiber cables, to surveil the content of foreigners’ communications, like emails, instant messages, etc., as they exit and enter the U.S.
Upstream surveillance is legal under Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, and allows NSA to surveil Americans communications with foreign targets overseas. According to rights groups, it also facilitates a loophole that lets NSA “incidentally” sweep up unrelated data belonging to Americans in the process.
Read more @ http://www.insidesources.com/federal-court-dismisses-aclu-wikipedia-case-against-nsas-upstream-surveillance/
Irish regulator to examine complaint by Austrian law studentInvestigation follows ban on EU-U.S. data transfer accordShare on FacebookShare on Twitter Share on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Google+E-mail Ireland will investigate a complaint about U.S. spies potentially accessing Facebook Inc. users’ private details after the European Union’s highest court overturned a trans-Atlantic pact that allowed the free flow of such data 15 years ago. Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner agreed to probe the complaint by Austrian law student Max Schrems following the landmark Oct. 6 ruling by the EU Court of Justice, Paul Anthony McDermott, a lawyer for the authority, said in a Dublin court on Tuesday. The Irish data watchdog’s initial refusal to examine the complaint triggered the EU court case, which led to the banning of the so-called safe-harbor accord, struck between the EU and U.S. in 2000. That original decision “must now fall” and the Irish regulator “must investigate,” McDermott said. He said the probe wouldn’t be delayed. The EU’s top court based in Luxembourg focused on the validity of the data-sharing accord in the light of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about U.S. government surveillance activities and mass data collection. Last year, an Irish judge asked the top EU court to decide on key points in the Schrems case -- seeking guidance on whether the safe harbor still protects privacy and whether national regulators have the power to suspend illegal data flows from the EU to the U.S.
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Share on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Google+E-mail
Ireland will investigate a complaint about U.S. spies potentially accessing Facebook Inc. users’ private details after the European Union’s highest court overturned a trans-Atlantic pact that allowed the free flow of such data 15 years ago.
Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner agreed to probe the complaint by Austrian law student Max Schrems following the landmark Oct. 6 ruling by the EU Court of Justice, Paul Anthony McDermott, a lawyer for the authority, said in a Dublin court on Tuesday. The Irish data watchdog’s initial refusal to examine the complaint triggered the EU court case, which led to the banning of the so-called safe-harbor accord, struck between the EU and U.S. in 2000.
That original decision “must now fall” and the Irish regulator “must investigate,” McDermott said. He said the probe wouldn’t be delayed.
The EU’s top court based in Luxembourg focused on the validity of the data-sharing accord in the light of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about U.S. government surveillance activities and mass data collection. Last year, an Irish judge asked the top EU court to decide on key points in the Schrems case -- seeking guidance on whether the safe harbor still protects privacy and whether national regulators have the power to suspend illegal data flows from the EU to the U.S.
Read more @ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-20/facebook-data-transfers-to-u-s-face-probe-after-eu-court-ruling
Apple CEO’s and NSA Director Michael Rogers spar over privacy and national security. Although it’s been more than two years since Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s data snooping, U.S. officials and tech executives are still grappling with balancing national security and privacy. The topic came up yet again on Monday night at the Wall Street Journal’s technology conference in Laguna Beach, Calif. where Apple CEO Tim Cook followed NSA director Admiral Michael Rogers on stage. They shared contrasting views about a number of hot button issues around privacy, which have created a deep divide between Silicon Valley and the nation’s security apparatus. Should companies give authorities “backdoors,” or easy access to their user data to investigate national security cases? And should companies be allowed to encrypt user data so that agencies that do gain access see only gibberish? “We’ve said that no backdoor is a must, and we’ve said that encryption is a must,” Cook said after being asked about his privacy stance.
Apple CEO’s and NSA Director Michael Rogers spar over privacy and national security.
Although it’s been more than two years since Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s data snooping, U.S. officials and tech executives are still grappling with balancing national security and privacy.
The topic came up yet again on Monday night at the Wall Street Journal’s technology conference in Laguna Beach, Calif. where Apple CEO Tim Cook followed NSA director Admiral Michael Rogers on stage. They shared contrasting views about a number of hot button issues around privacy, which have created a deep divide between Silicon Valley and the nation’s security apparatus.
Should companies give authorities “backdoors,” or easy access to their user data to investigate national security cases? And should companies be allowed to encrypt user data so that agencies that do gain access see only gibberish?
“We’ve said that no backdoor is a must, and we’ve said that encryption is a must,” Cook said after being asked about his privacy stance.
Read more @ http://fortune.com/2015/10/20/tim-cook-against-backdoor/
Public posts on Facebook will now be much easier to search, thanks to new and expanded options. But what does this mean for user privacy? According to Facebook, more than 1.5 billion searches occur per day on the site, and more than 2 trillion posts have been made by users of the site. This week, Facebook has introduced a new feature called “Search FYI,” which the company believes will make it much easier to find information across the social network. Search FYI will not only make posts from close friends and family much more accessible, it will also enable users to find what strangers and organizations are saying about the same topics.
Public posts on Facebook will now be much easier to search, thanks to new and expanded options. But what does this mean for user privacy?
According to Facebook, more than 1.5 billion searches occur per day on the site, and more than 2 trillion posts have been made by users of the site.
This week, Facebook has introduced a new feature called “Search FYI,” which the company believes will make it much easier to find information across the social network.
Search FYI will not only make posts from close friends and family much more accessible, it will also enable users to find what strangers and organizations are saying about the same topics.
Read more @ http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/1023/Why-Facebook-has-expanded-its-search-options
It’s been just over two years since Edward Snowden leaked a massive trove of NSA documents, and more than five since Chelsea Manning gave WikiLeaks a megacache of military and diplomatic secrets. Now there appears to be a new source on that scale of classified leaks—this time with a focus on drones. On Thursday the Intercept published a groundbreaking new collection of documents related to America’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles to kill foreign targets in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Yemen. The revelations about the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command actions include primary source evidence that as many as 90 percent of US drone killings in one five month period weren’t the intended target, that a former British citizen was killed in a drone strike despite repeated opportunities to capture him instead, and details of the grisly process by which the American government chooses who will die, down to the “baseball cards” of profile information created for individual targets, and the chain of authorization that goes up directly to the president.1 All of this new information, according to the Intercept, appears to have come from a single anonymous whistleblower. A spokesperson for the investigative news site declined to comment on that source. But unlike the leaks of Snowden or Manning, the spilled classified materials are accompanied by statements about the whistleblower’s motivation in his or her own words. “This outrageous explosion of watchlisting—of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield—it was, from the very first instance, wrong,” the source tells the Intercept. “We’re allowing this to happen. And by ‘we,’ I mean every American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do nothing about it.” Reports first surfaced in the fall of last year that the Intercept, a news site created in part to analyze and publish the remaining cache of Snowden NSA documents, had found a second source of highly classified information. The final scene of the film “Citizenfour,” directed by Intercept co-founder Laura Poitras, shows fellow Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald meeting with Snowden in Moscow to tell him about a new source with information about the U.S.
It’s been just over two years since Edward Snowden leaked a massive trove of NSA documents, and more than five since Chelsea Manning gave WikiLeaks a megacache of military and diplomatic secrets. Now there appears to be a new source on that scale of classified leaks—this time with a focus on drones.
On Thursday the Intercept published a groundbreaking new collection of documents related to America’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles to kill foreign targets in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Yemen. The revelations about the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command actions include primary source evidence that as many as 90 percent of US drone killings in one five month period weren’t the intended target, that a former British citizen was killed in a drone strike despite repeated opportunities to capture him instead, and details of the grisly process by which the American government chooses who will die, down to the “baseball cards” of profile information created for individual targets, and the chain of authorization that goes up directly to the president.1
All of this new information, according to the Intercept, appears to have come from a single anonymous whistleblower. A spokesperson for the investigative news site declined to comment on that source. But unlike the leaks of Snowden or Manning, the spilled classified materials are accompanied by statements about the whistleblower’s motivation in his or her own words.
“This outrageous explosion of watchlisting—of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield—it was, from the very first instance, wrong,” the source tells the Intercept. “We’re allowing this to happen. And by ‘we,’ I mean every American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do nothing about it.”
Reports first surfaced in the fall of last year that the Intercept, a news site created in part to analyze and publish the remaining cache of Snowden NSA documents, had found a second source of highly classified information. The final scene of the film “Citizenfour,” directed by Intercept co-founder Laura Poitras, shows fellow Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald meeting with Snowden in Moscow to tell him about a new source with information about the U.S.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/10/a-second-snowden-leaks-a-mother-lode-of-drone-docs/
Oct 26 15 6:56 PM
WE HAVE all heard the warnings.‘Be careful what you post online.’ ‘We all leave a digital footprint.’ ‘Nothing is ever truly deleted.’But we never really think much of it. Most of us are not that bothered about checking in at our favourite restaurant while posing in a selfie with our bestie.But in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, former spies say we should care about what we post online saying it gives authorities even more unfettered access into our private lives.“Facebook is evil, in my view, I’ve been saying this for years,” Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent, told the Germany documentary Digital Dissidents which airs on the ABC Four Corners program tonight. “It is the spy’s wet dream.“We offer our information and it’s just there on a plate for the spies to access. And we know they do through backdoors and things. And yet, that sort of information used to take them weeks or months to gather on an individual.”Ms Machon, along with her former partner David Shayler, who was a MI6 spy, broke protocol in the mid-90s by exposing alleged crimes committed by the British intelligence service, MI5.The pair were forced to flee Britain and lived underground for a year. After two years in Paris the pair returned to the UK. Shayler went to prison but Machon was spared.Since then she has campaigned for the rights of whistleblowers around the world and fights for government accountability.She tells the documentary, which looks at whether whistleblowers, or “digital dissidents”, are regarded as heroes or traitors, that the only way a person can have complete privacy is to “take it in our own hands”.“We can’t trust the corporations, we can’t trust our governments and we certainly cannot trust the spy agencies to respect our privacy and respect the law,” she said.“When David Shayler and I ended up and going on the run after we had blown the whistle on a series of crimes from MI5, we were very conscious of exactly how they could be targeting us and investigating us.“Because we know that our computers, our telephones, all of that can be compromised.“The video can be switched on remotely; the audio can be switched on remotely. They can log what we write on the keyboards. They can even – and this comes from the Snowden disclosures – they can even use micro waves apparently to beam onto the screen and read what you are typing.”
WE HAVE all heard the warnings.
‘Be careful what you post online.’ ‘We all leave a digital footprint.’ ‘Nothing is ever truly deleted.’
But we never really think much of it. Most of us are not that bothered about checking in at our favourite restaurant while posing in a selfie with our bestie.
But in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, former spies say we should care about what we post online saying it gives authorities even more unfettered access into our private lives.
“Facebook is evil, in my view, I’ve been saying this for years,” Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent, told the Germany documentary Digital Dissidents which airs on the ABC Four Corners program tonight. “It is the spy’s wet dream.
“We offer our information and it’s just there on a plate for the spies to access. And we know they do through backdoors and things. And yet, that sort of information used to take them weeks or months to gather on an individual.”
Ms Machon, along with her former partner David Shayler, who was a MI6 spy, broke protocol in the mid-90s by exposing alleged crimes committed by the British intelligence service, MI5.
The pair were forced to flee Britain and lived underground for a year. After two years in Paris the pair returned to the UK. Shayler went to prison but Machon was spared.
Since then she has campaigned for the rights of whistleblowers around the world and fights for government accountability.
She tells the documentary, which looks at whether whistleblowers, or “digital dissidents”, are regarded as heroes or traitors, that the only way a person can have complete privacy is to “take it in our own hands”.
“We can’t trust the corporations, we can’t trust our governments and we certainly cannot trust the spy agencies to respect our privacy and respect the law,” she said.
“When David Shayler and I ended up and going on the run after we had blown the whistle on a series of crimes from MI5, we were very conscious of exactly how they could be targeting us and investigating us.
“Because we know that our computers, our telephones, all of that can be compromised.
“The video can be switched on remotely; the audio can be switched on remotely. They can log what we write on the keyboards. They can even – and this comes from the Snowden disclosures – they can even use micro waves apparently to beam onto the screen and read what you are typing.”
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/german-documentary-examines-the-role-of-the-whistleblowers-in-exposing-the-intelligence-services/story-fn948wjf-1227583113374
Read more @ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/top-nsa-spying-chief-if-you-ever-get-on-their-enemies-list-like-petraeus-did-then-you-can-be-drawn-into-that-surveillance.html
Oct 28 15 9:48 AM
Hillary Clinton either lied when she said Edward Snowden could’ve received whistleblower protections under federal law or she’s just ignorant. Which do you think it was? Ted Rall cartoon.
See more @ http://anewdomain.net/2015/10/20/hillary-clinton-on-edward-snowden-just-plain-wrong-and-ignorant-too-ted-rall-cartoon/
Speaking via satellite at a privacy conference at Bard College in New York, Snowden disputed Clinton’s claim that he bypassed whistleblower protections Edward Snowden has accused Hillary Clinton of “a lack of political courage” for her assertion during the Democratic presidential debate this week that the whistleblower had bypassed options for disclosing illegal government spying programs that would have protected him and not violated the law. Speaking via satellite at a privacy conference at New York’s Bard College on Friday, Snowden said: “Hillary Clinton’s claims are false here.” “This is important, right?” Snowden told an audience at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. “Truth should matter in politics, and courage should matter in politics, because we need change. Everyone knows we need change. And we have been aggrieved and in many ways misled by political leaders in the past.” Before Snowden spoke, Clinton repeated the claim on Friday, at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire. After a voter said Snowden was “close to a patriot,” BuzzFeed reported, Clinton disagreed and said he could have received whistleblower protections but instead chose to break the law.
Speaking via satellite at a privacy conference at Bard College in New York, Snowden disputed Clinton’s claim that he bypassed whistleblower protections
Edward Snowden has accused Hillary Clinton of “a lack of political courage” for her assertion during the Democratic presidential debate this week that the whistleblower had bypassed options for disclosing illegal government spying programs that would have protected him and not violated the law.
Speaking via satellite at a privacy conference at New York’s Bard College on Friday, Snowden said: “Hillary Clinton’s claims are false here.”
“This is important, right?” Snowden told an audience at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. “Truth should matter in politics, and courage should matter in politics, because we need change. Everyone knows we need change. And we have been aggrieved and in many ways misled by political leaders in the past.”
Before Snowden spoke, Clinton repeated the claim on Friday, at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire. After a voter said Snowden was “close to a patriot,” BuzzFeed reported, Clinton disagreed and said he could have received whistleblower protections but instead chose to break the law.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/16/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-false-claim-whistleblower-protection
Hillary Clinton is wrong about Edward Snowden. Again. The presidential candidate and former secretary of state insisted during the recent Democratic debate that Snowden should have remained in the United States to voice his concerns about government spying on U.S. citizens. Instead, she claimed, he “endangered U.S. secrets by fleeing to Russia.” After accusing Snowden of stealing “very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands,” she added: “He should not be brought home without facing the music.” Clinton should stop rooting for Snowden’s incarceration and get her facts straight.
Hillary Clinton is wrong about Edward Snowden. Again.
The presidential candidate and former secretary of state insisted during the recent Democratic debate that Snowden should have remained in the United States to voice his concerns about government spying on U.S. citizens. Instead, she claimed, he “endangered U.S. secrets by fleeing to Russia.”
After accusing Snowden of stealing “very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands,” she added: “He should not be brought home without facing the music.”
Clinton should stop rooting for Snowden’s incarceration and get her facts straight.
Read more @ http://www.eurasiareview.com/27102015-what-hillary-clinton-got-wrong-about-edward-snowden-oped/
The U.N. envoy charged with safeguarding free speech around the globe has declared in a dramatic new report that confidential sources and whistleblowers are a crucial element of a healthy democracy, and that governments should protect them rather than demonize them. The report by David Kaye, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, also highlights the harsh treatment of whistleblowers in the U.S., most notably former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who is living in Russia as fugitive from the U.S. government. Snowden has been charged with three felonies, including two under the heavy-handed World War I-era Espionage Act, which does not allow defendants to make the argument that their actions were in the public interest. Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, notes in his report that “Snowden’s revelations of surveillance practices” made “a deep and lasting impact on law, policy and politics.” In a statement accompanying the report in response to Kaye’s questionnaire, U.S. officials acknowledged that government employees who deal with classified material are not covered by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. But they insisted that those employees “retain the ability to report any perceived government fraud, waste, or abuse to appropriate inspectors general, other executive branch oversight entities, and certain members of Congress while preserving any national security interests at issue.”
The U.N. envoy charged with safeguarding free speech around the globe has declared in a dramatic new report that confidential sources and whistleblowers are a crucial element of a healthy democracy, and that governments should protect them rather than demonize them.
The report by David Kaye, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, also highlights the harsh treatment of whistleblowers in the U.S., most notably former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who is living in Russia as fugitive from the U.S. government.
Snowden has been charged with three felonies, including two under the heavy-handed World War I-era Espionage Act, which does not allow defendants to make the argument that their actions were in the public interest.
Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, notes in his report that “Snowden’s revelations of surveillance practices” made “a deep and lasting impact on law, policy and politics.”
In a statement accompanying the report in response to Kaye’s questionnaire, U.S. officials acknowledged that government employees who deal with classified material are not covered by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. But they insisted that those employees “retain the ability to report any perceived government fraud, waste, or abuse to appropriate inspectors general, other executive branch oversight entities, and certain members of Congress while preserving any national security interests at issue.”
Read more @ https://theintercept.com/2015/10/23/u-n-report-calls-on-governments-to-protect-whistleblowers-like-snowden-not-prosecute-them/
[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression David Kaye [official profile] spoke out [press release] on Thursday against governments and international organizations who lack protection for whistleblowers. Kaye believes that there are numerous whistleblowers who withhold information that should be made public because of intimidation from government officials and peers. In his report [text], the UN Special Rapporteur noted that individuals have a right to access pertinent information under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text]. In regards to what level of disclosure of information should be allowed, Kaye said, "[s]tates may restrict access to information in specific areas and narrow circumstances, yet the disclosure of information relating to human rights or humanitarian law violations should never be the basis of penalties of any kind." Kaye noted that the issue has silenced journalists, bloggers, and other media officials but fears that more of the world population remains hesitant to bring issues to light.
Read more @ http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/10/un-rights-expert-governments-must-ensure-whistleblower-protections.php
New York, Oct 23 (IBNS): Governments and international organizations are failing to ensure adequate protections to whistleblowers and sources of information, according to a new report by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression. “Countless sources and whistleblowers around the world are intimidated by officials, co-workers, and others, depriving everyone of information that may be critical to public debate and accountability,” David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression told UN General Assembly during the presentation of his study. “All too often, those revealing allegations of wrongdoing lack effective protection,” the human rights expert warned delegates in the Assembly’s Third Committee – the Organization’s main body dealing with social, humanitarian and cultural issues. He added, “Silence is too often the only safe option left to them, with the public left in the dark and wrongdoing left unpunished.” In the first major UN report devoted to the subject, Kaye reviews national and international norms and practices and presents recommendations to establish or improve available protections. “The problem of source protection extends beyond traditional journalists to bloggers, citizen reporters, [non-governmental organization] researchers, authors, academics, and many others,” the expert noted. “How can they carry out investigative work if they cannot extend the basic assurances of confidentiality to their sources?” “While there are major gaps in protections, there are also important advancements in norms protecting sources and whistleblowers around the world. Yet they are often riven with loopholes or, even with strong legal protections, not enforced in practice,” he continued.
New York, Oct 23 (IBNS): Governments and international organizations are failing to ensure adequate protections to whistleblowers and sources of information, according to a new report by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression.
“Countless sources and whistleblowers around the world are intimidated by officials, co-workers, and others, depriving everyone of information that may be critical to public debate and accountability,” David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression told UN General Assembly during the presentation of his study.
“All too often, those revealing allegations of wrongdoing lack effective protection,” the human rights expert warned delegates in the Assembly’s Third Committee – the Organization’s main body dealing with social, humanitarian and cultural issues.
He added, “Silence is too often the only safe option left to them, with the public left in the dark and wrongdoing left unpunished.”
In the first major UN report devoted to the subject, Kaye reviews national and international norms and practices and presents recommendations to establish or improve available protections.
“The problem of source protection extends beyond traditional journalists to bloggers, citizen reporters, [non-governmental organization] researchers, authors, academics, and many others,” the expert noted. “How can they carry out investigative work if they cannot extend the basic assurances of confidentiality to their sources?”
“While there are major gaps in protections, there are also important advancements in norms protecting sources and whistleblowers around the world. Yet they are often riven with loopholes or, even with strong legal protections, not enforced in practice,” he continued.
Read more @ http://indiablooms.com/ibns_new/world-details/F/4756/silence-is-too-often-the-only-safe-option-left-un-report-on-sources-and-whistleblowers.html
UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye has called on governments to protect whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. In his latest report Kaye highlighted the harsh treatment of whistleblowers in the US and urged officials to stop demonizing them; as such people are a crucial element of a healthy democracy. Radio Sputnik discussed the issue with the former FBI special agent who jointly held the TIME magazine’s “Person of the Year” award in 2002 — Coleen Rowley. “Edward Snowden recently said that if you are going to be a whistleblower who just merely wants to tell the public about any illegal action that your government is committing then you have to practically understand that you will become a martyr.” Rowley further said that in his case he had to flee to another country to seek asylum because if “you stay in the US then more likely than not you will end up in prison. The person loses his job and in some cases his family. It is a steep cost for all whistleblowers.”
In his latest report Kaye highlighted the harsh treatment of whistleblowers in the US and urged officials to stop demonizing them; as such people are a crucial element of a healthy democracy.
Radio Sputnik discussed the issue with the former FBI special agent who jointly held the TIME magazine’s “Person of the Year” award in 2002 — Coleen Rowley.
“Edward Snowden recently said that if you are going to be a whistleblower who just merely wants to tell the public about any illegal action that your government is committing then you have to practically understand that you will become a martyr.”
Rowley further said that in his case he had to flee to another country to seek asylum because if “you stay in the US then more likely than not you will end up in prison. The person loses his job and in some cases his family. It is a steep cost for all whistleblowers.”
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151026/1029119970/us-snowden-whistleblower-interview-fbi-agent.html
The acclaimed US series starring Christian Slater has won plaudits for its realistic depiction of a world of digital vulnerability. Here’s how it became 2015’s must-see TV Elliot Alderson, the tech whizz at the centre of the TV thriller Mr Robot, hacks anything and everything: computers, smartphones, even his own therapist. “Hacking her was easy,” he brags in the show’s first episode. Her password he guessed straight away: Dylan_2791, her favourite artist and the year she was born, backwards. Within minutes, Elliot had wormed his way into her email, looked through her dating history on eHarmony and found out the name of her current boyfriend. “I’ll hack him soon enough. I always do,” he says dispassionately. You don’t dare doubt him. If Rami Malek, the Egyptian-American actor who plays Elliot, can’t quite boast the computer chops of his character just yet, he does seem to have picked up a few pointers. “In the car the other day a friend wanted to play music on her phone. She was driving so she gave me the four-digit code. I looked at it and said: ‘Ha, four digits! That wouldn’t happen to be the pin code to your ATM card, would it?’” He laughs then pauses: “People don’t realise how vulnerable they are.” Vulnerable is the right word. In a society where every last detail of people’s lives is catalogued and shared online, our data has become a much-coveted commodity. Governments pore over our phone records and WhatsApp threads, corporations sell our hobbies and health records to the highest bidder, and – somewhere in the murky corners of the internet – a dark army of phishers, spammers and general villains lies in wait, ready to pilfer our credit card details or leak our darkest secrets to the wider web.
The acclaimed US series starring Christian Slater has won plaudits for its realistic depiction of a world of digital vulnerability. Here’s how it became 2015’s must-see TV
Elliot Alderson, the tech whizz at the centre of the TV thriller Mr Robot, hacks anything and everything: computers, smartphones, even his own therapist. “Hacking her was easy,” he brags in the show’s first episode. Her password he guessed straight away: Dylan_2791, her favourite artist and the year she was born, backwards. Within minutes, Elliot had wormed his way into her email, looked through her dating history on eHarmony and found out the name of her current boyfriend. “I’ll hack him soon enough. I always do,” he says dispassionately. You don’t dare doubt him.
If Rami Malek, the Egyptian-American actor who plays Elliot, can’t quite boast the computer chops of his character just yet, he does seem to have picked up a few pointers. “In the car the other day a friend wanted to play music on her phone. She was driving so she gave me the four-digit code. I looked at it and said: ‘Ha, four digits! That wouldn’t happen to be the pin code to your ATM card, would it?’” He laughs then pauses: “People don’t realise how vulnerable they are.”
Vulnerable is the right word. In a society where every last detail of people’s lives is catalogued and shared online, our data has become a much-coveted commodity. Governments pore over our phone records and WhatsApp threads, corporations sell our hobbies and health records to the highest bidder, and – somewhere in the murky corners of the internet – a dark army of phishers, spammers and general villains lies in wait, ready to pilfer our credit card details or leak our darkest secrets to the wider web.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/oct/17/mr-robot-christian-slater-rami-malek
The US is prepared to undertake counter-offensive cyber operations in other people's networks as a retaliatory action if its own cyberspace is breached, warned Richard Ledgett, the deputy director of the National Security Agency. He said nations need to do more to identify clear red lines that, if crossed, will lead to consequences. These consequences could take the form of actions within cyberspace itself, or it could be diplomatic or economic, in the form of sanctions or the threat of sanctions. He noted that there is an increasing danger of destructive cyber attacks by countries such as that faced by Sony last year and the world's largest oil company, Saudi Aramco in 2012. It is also seeing more aggressive postures by nation states.
The US is prepared to undertake counter-offensive cyber operations in other people's networks as a retaliatory action if its own cyberspace is breached, warned Richard Ledgett, the deputy director of the National Security Agency.
He said nations need to do more to identify clear red lines that, if crossed, will lead to consequences. These consequences could take the form of actions within cyberspace itself, or it could be diplomatic or economic, in the form of sanctions or the threat of sanctions.
He noted that there is an increasing danger of destructive cyber attacks by countries such as that faced by Sony last year and the world's largest oil company, Saudi Aramco in 2012. It is also seeing more aggressive postures by nation states.
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-prepared-undertake-counter-offensive-cyber-operations-other-peoples-networks-nsa-warns-1525815
Read more @ http://wesa.fm/post/nsa-director-talks-snowden-ethics-accountability-cmu
I guess if they say it long enough they think people will believe it…. And many will. I keep coming back to what Snowden said…. Its about power, economic espionage etc…..and not terrorism. When you go back over the news stories on what he has divulged its evident that Snowden is right…..
The deputy director of the NSA has accepted the need for a "macro" level debate about privacy and security but rejects the characterisation of Edward Snowden as a whistleblower. Richard Ledgett, deputy director of the US National Security Agency (NSA) since April 2014, said in an interview with BBC Radio 4 this morning that many hundreds of targets that the NSA monitors realised in the wake of the Snowden revelations that they were vulnerable, jeopardising the work of the intelligence services. He said that a “macro” level debate was need but he didn't like the way that it had come about.
The deputy director of the NSA has accepted the need for a "macro" level debate about privacy and security but rejects the characterisation of Edward Snowden as a whistleblower.
Richard Ledgett, deputy director of the US National Security Agency (NSA) since April 2014, said in an interview with BBC Radio 4 this morning that many hundreds of targets that the NSA monitors realised in the wake of the Snowden revelations that they were vulnerable, jeopardising the work of the intelligence services.
He said that a “macro” level debate was need but he didn't like the way that it had come about.
Read more @ http://www.scmagazine.com/nsa-slams-snowden-but-accepts-need-for-high-level-debate-on-privacy/article/449602/
Classified documents on US assassination program released to the Intercept welcomed by men who exposed NSA surveillance and Pentagon Papers American whistleblowers hailed the release on Thursday of a collection of classified documents about US drone warfare as a blow on behalf of transparency and human rights. The documents anchored a multi-part report by the Intercept on the Defense Department assassination program in Yemen and Somalia. Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups said the report raised significant concerns about human rights violations by the US government, and called for an investigation. Classified documents published by the Intercept include pages from a 2013 study of the drone program by a Pentagon taskforce. The documents came from “a source within the intelligence community who worked on the types of operations and programs described in the slides”, the Intercept said. “It’s pretty remarkable stuff,” said Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “In some ways it reconfirms and illuminates much of what we knew, or thought we knew, about a lot of these programs, like that the administration firmly prefers kill over capture despite claiming the opposite, and that there’s not ‘a bunch of folks in the room’, as Obama calls it – that there’s a clear, bureaucratic process for this. “It clearly shows, as we’ve known, that the United States does not know who it’s killing.”
Classified documents on US assassination program released to the Intercept welcomed by men who exposed NSA surveillance and Pentagon Papers
American whistleblowers hailed the release on Thursday of a collection of classified documents about US drone warfare as a blow on behalf of transparency and human rights.
The documents anchored a multi-part report by the Intercept on the Defense Department assassination program in Yemen and Somalia. Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups said the report raised significant concerns about human rights violations by the US government, and called for an investigation.
Classified documents published by the Intercept include pages from a 2013 study of the drone program by a Pentagon taskforce. The documents came from “a source within the intelligence community who worked on the types of operations and programs described in the slides”, the Intercept said.
“It’s pretty remarkable stuff,” said Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“In some ways it reconfirms and illuminates much of what we knew, or thought we knew, about a lot of these programs, like that the administration firmly prefers kill over capture despite claiming the opposite, and that there’s not ‘a bunch of folks in the room’, as Obama calls it – that there’s a clear, bureaucratic process for this.
“It clearly shows, as we’ve known, that the United States does not know who it’s killing.”
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/16/drone-documents-whistleblower-edward-snowden-daniel-ellsberg
Cache of top-secret security documents published by The InterceptThe same team leaked files from NSA whistleblower Edward SnowdenThe new cache of 'slides' details how President Obama clears a pilot-less drone assassination The source who leaked them described the process as 'outrageous'He or she has not been named, fearing a Snowden-like backlashThe documents reveal that in one operation where 219 people were killed, only 35 - 15 percent - were intended targetsThe CIA and Pentagon officials are investigating the leak · Intelligence chiefs are hunting for a new Edward Snowden-style whistleblower who has leaked classified details about America’s drone assassination program. · CIA and Pentagon bosses are investigating after the publication of ‘The Drone Papers’ which includes Top Secret slides on how President Obama authorizes a kill. · The disclosure raises the prospect of a second Snowden-like figure, especially as the leak was published by the same journalists who worked with him before. · But unlike Snowden the single, anonymous source has already spoken out and expresses intense moral outrage over the drone strikes on theintercept.com.
· Intelligence chiefs are hunting for a new Edward Snowden-style whistleblower who has leaked classified details about America’s drone assassination program.
· CIA and Pentagon bosses are investigating after the publication of ‘The Drone Papers’ which includes Top Secret slides on how President Obama authorizes a kill.
· The disclosure raises the prospect of a second Snowden-like figure, especially as the leak was published by the same journalists who worked with him before.
· But unlike Snowden the single, anonymous source has already spoken out and expresses intense moral outrage over the drone strikes on theintercept.com.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3274583/US-spy-chiefs-hunt-new-Snowden-Whistleblower-leaks-secret-drone-assassination-program-reveals-Obama-authorizies-kill.html
US spy agency is concerned about state-sponsored spying
Also with Edward Snowden VORACIOUS DATA CONSUMER the US National Security Agency (NSA) is concerned that some national states, but not the United ones, are taking hacking and surveillance too far and are close to crossing a line. The NSA invited the BBC into its offices and presented its deputy director for questioning. Richard Ledgett had a lot to say, and told the Beeb that attacks are getting worse and that this is a bad thing. Ledgett is concerned about state-sponsored shenanigans, which is ironic since the rest of the world is concerned about US-sponsored swoop-and-store-data grabs. Anyway, he reckons that anything that connects to the internet is in the threat sphere. "If you are connected to the internet, you are vulnerable to determined nation-state attackers," he said.
Also with Edward Snowden
VORACIOUS DATA CONSUMER the US National Security Agency (NSA) is concerned that some national states, but not the United ones, are taking hacking and surveillance too far and are close to crossing a line.
The NSA invited the BBC into its offices and presented its deputy director for questioning. Richard Ledgett had a lot to say, and told the Beeb that attacks are getting worse and that this is a bad thing.
Ledgett is concerned about state-sponsored shenanigans, which is ironic since the rest of the world is concerned about US-sponsored swoop-and-store-data grabs. Anyway, he reckons that anything that connects to the internet is in the threat sphere.
"If you are connected to the internet, you are vulnerable to determined nation-state attackers," he said.
Read more @ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2432112/us-spy-agency-is-concerned-about-state-sponsored-spying
SNOWDEN was elected rector of Glasgow University earlier this year while he is still hiding in Russia. WHISTLEBLOWER Edward Snowden has criticised the SNP’s plan to take more control of universities. The former US intelligence contractor, now rector of Glasgow University, said the Higher Education Governance Bill puts funding at risk. Snowden, who is in hiding in Russia, also warned the legislation threatens student and uni independence. His words were seized on by the SNP’s opponents as proof Education Secretary Angela Constance must rethink her plans. Holyrood insist they only want to make institutions more accountable. But Snowden told his 1.5 million Twitter followers: “Despite objections, UK’s SNP advancing bill threatening student, university autonomy.” He warned students that the Bill “represents a real threat to the financial and academic independence” of universities.’
WHISTLEBLOWER Edward Snowden has criticised the SNP’s plan to take more control of universities.
The former US intelligence contractor, now rector of Glasgow University, said the Higher Education Governance Bill puts funding at risk.
Snowden, who is in hiding in Russia, also warned the legislation threatens student and uni independence. His words were seized on by the SNP’s opponents as proof Education Secretary Angela Constance must rethink her plans.
Holyrood insist they only want to make institutions more accountable.
But Snowden told his 1.5 million Twitter followers: “Despite objections, UK’s SNP advancing bill threatening student, university autonomy.”
He warned students that the Bill “represents a real threat to the financial and academic independence” of universities.’
Read more @ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/edward-snowden-warns-snp-plans-6712751
Q&A with Jesselyn Radack, Snowden's attorney. "Edward Snowden's Lawyer on the Government's War on Whistleblowers," written by Amanda Winkler & Nick Gillespie and filmed by Todd Krainin and Joshua Swain. About 13 minutes. Original release date was October 22, 2015. Writeup below: During the first Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton denounced Edward Snowden as a criminal who simply refused to work through official channels. "He broke the laws," said Clinton. "He could have been a whistleblower, he could have gotten all the protections of being a whistleblower." Would Edward Snowden be better off had he gone through official channels to blow the whistle? No way, says his lawyer, Jesselyn Radack of ExposeFacts.org. In an interview with Nick Gillespie, she points to intelligence whistleblowers who came before Snowden as evidence that her client would not have been provided legal protections. "Tom Drake, Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis did go through the proper channels," she tells Reason TV, "and all of them fell under criminal investigations for having done so."
"Edward Snowden's Lawyer on the Government's War on Whistleblowers," written by Amanda Winkler & Nick Gillespie and filmed by Todd Krainin and Joshua Swain. About 13 minutes.
Original release date was October 22, 2015. Writeup below:
During the first Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton denounced Edward Snowden as a criminal who simply refused to work through official channels. "He broke the laws," said Clinton. "He could have been a whistleblower, he could have gotten all the protections of being a whistleblower."
Would Edward Snowden be better off had he gone through official channels to blow the whistle?
No way, says his lawyer, Jesselyn Radack of ExposeFacts.org.
In an interview with Nick Gillespie, she points to intelligence whistleblowers who came before Snowden as evidence that her client would not have been provided legal protections. "Tom Drake, Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis did go through the proper channels," she tells Reason TV, "and all of them fell under criminal investigations for having done so."
Read more @ https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/25/edward-snowdens-lawyer-on-the-government
Lauded as heroes by some, denounced as traitors by others, they're the "digital dissidents" whose revelations have made headlines around the world. "Criticise me, hate me, but think about what matters in the issues. Right? Think about the world you want to live in." Edward Snowden The decision by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to reveal covert US surveillance programs exposed the massive capabilities of the US spy agency to monitor communications around the globe. "The way in which these disclosures happened have been damaging to the United States and damaging to our Intelligence capabilities." US President Barack Obama In speaking out, Snowden's joined the ranks of self-declared intelligence whistleblowers who have risked imprisonment. "There was a moment where he said very clearly, very distinctly, that I showed him the right way. I had always hoped that a Snowden would come along." Thomas Drake, NSA Whistleblower In this documentary from German broadcaster WDR, Snowden, along with other whistleblowers from the NSA and Britain's MI5 talk about their motivations for speaking out: "Once you lose that sense of privacy and you start to self-censor, you stop to be an effective and fully integrated citizen of that country, so privacy in my view is the last defence against the slide towards a police state or totalitarianism." Annie Machon, Former MI5 agent
Lauded as heroes by some, denounced as traitors by others, they're the "digital dissidents" whose revelations have made headlines around the world.
"Criticise me, hate me, but think about what matters in the issues. Right? Think about the world you want to live in." Edward Snowden
The decision by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to reveal covert US surveillance programs exposed the massive capabilities of the US spy agency to monitor communications around the globe.
"The way in which these disclosures happened have been damaging to the United States and damaging to our Intelligence capabilities." US President Barack Obama
In speaking out, Snowden's joined the ranks of self-declared intelligence whistleblowers who have risked imprisonment.
"There was a moment where he said very clearly, very distinctly, that I showed him the right way. I had always hoped that a Snowden would come along." Thomas Drake, NSA Whistleblower
In this documentary from German broadcaster WDR, Snowden, along with other whistleblowers from the NSA and Britain's MI5 talk about their motivations for speaking out:
"Once you lose that sense of privacy and you start to self-censor, you stop to be an effective and fully integrated citizen of that country, so privacy in my view is the last defence against the slide towards a police state or totalitarianism." Annie Machon, Former MI5 agent
Read more @ http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/10/26/4337020.htm
Jesselyn Radack reveals what happens when whistleblowers go through those "proper channels" we're always hearing about. During the first Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton denounced Edward Snowden as a criminal who simply refused to work through official channels. "He broke the laws," said Clinton. "He could have been a whistleblower, he could have gotten all the protections of being a whistleblower." Would Edward Snowden be better off had he gone through official channels to blow the whistle? No way, says his lawyer, Jesselyn Radack of ExposeFacts.org.
Read more @ https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/22/edward-snowdens-lawyer-war-on-whistleblo
The Senate on Tuesday passed a cybersecurity bill that would give companies legal immunity for sharing data with the federal government, over the protests of some lawmakers and consumer advocates who say that the legislation does not adequately protect Americans’ privacy. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA, must now be reconciled with legislation passed earlier this year by the House of Representatives. The Obama administration and lawmakers in both parties have been seeking for years to enact information-sharing legislation, and it now seems likely to become law.
The Senate on Tuesday passed a cybersecurity bill that would give companies legal immunity for sharing data with the federal government, over the protests of some lawmakers and consumer advocates who say that the legislation does not adequately protect Americans’ privacy.
The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA, must now be reconciled with legislation passed earlier this year by the House of Representatives.
The Obama administration and lawmakers in both parties have been seeking for years to enact information-sharing legislation, and it now seems likely to become law.
Read more @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/27/senate-passes-controversial-cybersecurity-information-sharing-legislation/
Read more @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/10/27/senate-expected-to-approve-cybersecurity-bill/
Facebook has been accused of secretly backing the US Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA) - which is now poised to become law - while it continues to publicly oppose the act. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has branded the social network "shameful" in response. If it goes through US Congress, CISA would allow companies and the government to share private user information to be used in investigating crime and terrorism. Participating companies could look forward to protection from prosecution for handing over this data. Facebook is a member of an industry body called the CCIA - the Computer and Communications Industry Association - which also includes Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Nvidia, eBay and Yahoo, and which issued an open letter in protest against CISA earlier this month. "CISA's prescribed mechanism for sharing of cyber threat information does not sufficiently protect users' privacy or appropriately limit the permissible uses of information shared with the government," read the letter. "In addition, the bill authorizes entities to employ network defense measures that might cause collateral harm to the systems of innocent third parties."
Facebook has been accused of secretly backing the US Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA) - which is now poised to become law - while it continues to publicly oppose the act.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has branded the social network "shameful" in response.
If it goes through US Congress, CISA would allow companies and the government to share private user information to be used in investigating crime and terrorism. Participating companies could look forward to protection from prosecution for handing over this data.
Facebook is a member of an industry body called the CCIA - the Computer and Communications Industry Association - which also includes Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Nvidia, eBay and Yahoo, and which issued an open letter in protest against CISA earlier this month.
"CISA's prescribed mechanism for sharing of cyber threat information does not sufficiently protect users' privacy or appropriately limit the permissible uses of information shared with the government," read the letter.
"In addition, the bill authorizes entities to employ network defense measures that might cause collateral harm to the systems of innocent third parties."
Read more @ http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2432164/edward-snowden-brands-facebook-shameful-as-social-network-is-accused-of-secretly-backing-us-data-sharing-scheme
'StarTalk's' Neil deGrasse Tyson on 'patriotic' Edward Snowden, finding the geek within
Excerpt: You recently interviewed Edward Snowden. How did that come about? You seemed excited to speak with him. Why wouldn’t anyone be? We learned he was a fan of my work and watched "Cosmos." So that always makes a good starting point because that means they have a comfort level I don't have to earn. They know I’m not there to stump 'em, this is not some kind of investigative, journalistic interview. We’re here to get our geek on. In my conversation with him, yes, we talked about the Bill of Rights and security and the right to privacy, the usual things you'd expect, but quickly we got on the topic of can an alien embed signals within the radio waves that permeate the universe and hide them in the cosmic radio waves so that you can send a signal that no one would know about. We talked about cosmic encryption. That's him getting on his geek underbelly. So you related to him as a fellow nerd and not necessarily as a hero or villain? I was agnostic going on. I generally try to avoid having an opinion about someone that was shaped by journalists or anybody else's account. Yes, there’s the duality, hero or traitor. I don’t use the word "hero" very often, I'm not going to use it in this case, but certainly "traitor" has been invoked for him. What I would say is, after discussing his motives and what he did and why he did it, I can tell you without hesitation he is the most patriotic person I have ever met. He understands the Constitution better than most of the people who are criticizing him. He's all for secrets, if you obtain them from people whom you have reason to expect could be against the security of the nation. That’s not what was happening. The NSA was collecting secrets on everybody and at that point he cried foul. He said, this is a violation of this amendment and I will not stand by this. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind, this is what the founding fathers tried to protect against.
Excerpt:
You recently interviewed Edward Snowden. How did that come about? You seemed excited to speak with him.
Why wouldn’t anyone be? We learned he was a fan of my work and watched "Cosmos." So that always makes a good starting point because that means they have a comfort level I don't have to earn. They know I’m not there to stump 'em, this is not some kind of investigative, journalistic interview. We’re here to get our geek on. In my conversation with him, yes, we talked about the Bill of Rights and security and the right to privacy, the usual things you'd expect, but quickly we got on the topic of can an alien embed signals within the radio waves that permeate the universe and hide them in the cosmic radio waves so that you can send a signal that no one would know about. We talked about cosmic encryption. That's him getting on his geek underbelly.
So you related to him as a fellow nerd and not necessarily as a hero or villain?
I was agnostic going on. I generally try to avoid having an opinion about someone that was shaped by journalists or anybody else's account. Yes, there’s the duality, hero or traitor. I don’t use the word "hero" very often, I'm not going to use it in this case, but certainly "traitor" has been invoked for him.
What I would say is, after discussing his motives and what he did and why he did it, I can tell you without hesitation he is the most patriotic person I have ever met. He understands the Constitution better than most of the people who are criticizing him. He's all for secrets, if you obtain them from people whom you have reason to expect could be against the security of the nation. That’s not what was happening. The NSA was collecting secrets on everybody and at that point he cried foul. He said, this is a violation of this amendment and I will not stand by this. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind, this is what the founding fathers tried to protect against.
Read more @ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-neil-degrasse-tyson-star-talk-edward-snowden-20151021-story.html
Oct 29 15 9:18 PM
A MILITARY surveillance blimp worth more than $1.9 billion crash-landed in central Pennsylvania on Wednesday just hours after it broke loose from its tether in Maryland.The crash took out power to a nearby school.The unmanned aircraft, one of two JLENS, or ‘Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defence Elevated Netted Sensor Systems’ that have been surveying the US east coast, came detached around noon (Maryland time) while hovering at an altitude of nearly 5000m, according to the Baltimore Sun.Students at Columbia-Montour Area Vocational-Technical School in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania tweeted that they saw the blimp go down near the school.“It knocked out the power. When we went outside it was going down on the other side of the building,” tweeted Fisher P. Creasy, a student who posted a video of the blimp around 1:30pm.
A MILITARY surveillance blimp worth more than $1.9 billion crash-landed in central Pennsylvania on Wednesday just hours after it broke loose from its tether in Maryland.
The crash took out power to a nearby school.
The unmanned aircraft, one of two JLENS, or ‘Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defence Elevated Netted Sensor Systems’ that have been surveying the US east coast, came detached around noon (Maryland time) while hovering at an altitude of nearly 5000m, according to the Baltimore Sun.
Students at Columbia-Montour Area Vocational-Technical School in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania tweeted that they saw the blimp go down near the school.
“It knocked out the power. When we went outside it was going down on the other side of the building,” tweeted Fisher P. Creasy, a student who posted a video of the blimp around 1:30pm.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military-blimp-worth-19-billion-crashes-in-pennsylvania/story-fnpjxnlk-1227586463240
Nov 6 15 2:45 PM
By urging EU members to stop the persecution of Edward Snowden, the European Parliament showed its independence from the United States, the chairman of the independent non-profit organization Workshop of Eurasian Ideas told Radio Sputnik. The fact that the EU Parliament recognized Snowden as a human rights activist and urged the countries of the EU to provide protection to the former NSA employee shows that Europe is tired of getting bullied by Washington, and decided to show its independence by refusing to follow White House orders, Grigory Trofimchuk, the chairman of the Workshop of Eurasian Ideas, argued. "I think that Europe's decision — is not simply a formal document, but the intentional act of defiance to Washington which goes against US policy on the Snowden issue… [Europe] gladly seized the opportunity to demonstrate its independence," Trofimchuk told Radio Sputnik. This is the EU Parliament's response to US policies in the Middle East and North Africa that led to the refugee crisis in Europe as well as Washington's attempts to draw Europe into a continent-wide war because of the Ukrainian conflict, Trofimchuk argued. This is a serious statement on behalf of the EU. "The crack" in relations between the United States and the EU has already appeared and might increase further down the road, the political expert said, adding that it's highly likely that Washington now might come up with retaliatory policies.
The fact that the EU Parliament recognized Snowden as a human rights activist and urged the countries of the EU to provide protection to the former NSA employee shows that Europe is tired of getting bullied by Washington, and decided to show its independence by refusing to follow White House orders, Grigory Trofimchuk, the chairman of the Workshop of Eurasian Ideas, argued.
"I think that Europe's decision — is not simply a formal document, but the intentional act of defiance to Washington which goes against US policy on the Snowden issue… [Europe] gladly seized the opportunity to demonstrate its independence," Trofimchuk told Radio Sputnik.
This is the EU Parliament's response to US policies in the Middle East and North Africa that led to the refugee crisis in Europe as well as Washington's attempts to draw Europe into a continent-wide war because of the Ukrainian conflict, Trofimchuk argued.
This is a serious statement on behalf of the EU. "The crack" in relations between the United States and the EU has already appeared and might increase further down the road, the political expert said, adding that it's highly likely that Washington now might come up with retaliatory policies.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151102/1029496672/protection-snowden-eu-confronts-us.html
EU votes to drop charges against Edward Snowden
The European Parliament voted on October 29 to drop all criminal charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and offer him asylum and protection from rendition from third parties, The Independent said that day. MEPs voted 285-281 to recognise Snowden's status as a “human rights defender”. The resolution asked member states to grant him protection from extradition to the US, where he is wanted under several Espionage Act charges. The resolution also said “too little has been done to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights following revelations of electronic mass surveillance”. Snowden exposed the extent of the National Security Agency's spying program in 2013. TeleSUR English said that day that the resolution also slammed the European Commission and others for not having properly applied a previous European Parliament resolution passed in March last year, shortly after Snowden's shocking revelations on the US-EU Safe Harbour scheme. Implemented since 2000, the Safe Harbour Scheme allowed US companies to transfer data from the EU to the United States.
The European Parliament voted on October 29 to drop all criminal charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and offer him asylum and protection from rendition from third parties, The Independent said that day.
MEPs voted 285-281 to recognise Snowden's status as a “human rights defender”. The resolution asked member states to grant him protection from extradition to the US, where he is wanted under several Espionage Act charges.
The resolution also said “too little has been done to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights following revelations of electronic mass surveillance”. Snowden exposed the extent of the National Security Agency's spying program in 2013.
TeleSUR English said that day that the resolution also slammed the European Commission and others for not having properly applied a previous European Parliament resolution passed in March last year, shortly after Snowden's shocking revelations on the US-EU Safe Harbour scheme. Implemented since 2000, the Safe Harbour Scheme allowed US companies to transfer data from the EU to the United States.
Read more @ https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60528
European Union lawmakers passed a resolution asking their nations to protect Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker. Comments from Twitter are edited for clarity and grammar: EU nations should protect Edward Snowden. I believe doing so would continue moving toward better privacy protection for people. — @sergioDACED The fact that Snowden is accepted by the EU shows that the EU lacks values. — @eantolini1 Every person who stands for the people without regard for himself or herself should be protected from the government.
European Union lawmakers passed a resolution asking their nations to protect Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker. Comments from Twitter are edited for clarity and grammar:
EU nations should protect Edward Snowden. I believe doing so would continue moving toward better privacy protection for people.
— @sergioDACED
The fact that Snowden is accepted by the EU shows that the EU lacks values.
— @eantolini1
Every person who stands for the people without regard for himself or herself should be protected from the government.
Read more @ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/02/edward-snowden-european-union-tellusatoday-your-say/75069622/
The EU resolution declaring former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a “human rights defender” may open some doors for the whistleblower to travel freely to some European states, despite the witch hunt against him, analyst and political columnist Ted Rall told RT. RT: The resolution is calling Snowden a “human rights defender” – that is a far cry from ... John Kerry who said that Snowden has betrayed his country. What kind of a reaction do you think we will get from Washington? Are they going to accept this? Ted Rall: Well they have already indicated that nothing has changed as far as they are concerned. Mr. Snowden has reached out on a number of occasions to the US government and offered to come back and even accept jail time, if he is allowed to have a fair trial, which appears to be a condition that the US is not willing to grant. Even though the whole world appears to be on Mr. Snowden’s side, it does not appear that the US has gotten the message.
The EU resolution declaring former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a “human rights defender” may open some doors for the whistleblower to travel freely to some European states, despite the witch hunt against him, analyst and political columnist Ted Rall told RT.
RT: The resolution is calling Snowden a “human rights defender” – that is a far cry from ... John Kerry who said that Snowden has betrayed his country. What kind of a reaction do you think we will get from Washington? Are they going to accept this?
Ted Rall: Well they have already indicated that nothing has changed as far as they are concerned. Mr. Snowden has reached out on a number of occasions to the US government and offered to come back and even accept jail time, if he is allowed to have a fair trial, which appears to be a condition that the US is not willing to grant. Even though the whole world appears to be on Mr. Snowden’s side, it does not appear that the US has gotten the message.
Read more @ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320113-snowden-eu-resolution-freedom/
BRUSSELS — The European Parliament narrowly adopted a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution on Thursday urging the 28 nations of the European Union to recognize Edward J. Snowden as a “whistle-blower and international human rights defender” and shield him from prosecution. On Twitter, Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked millions of documents about electronic surveillance by the United States government, called the vote a “game-changer.” But the resolution has no legal force and limited practical effect for Mr. Snowden, who is living in Russia on a three-year residency permit. Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and none have done so thus far.
BRUSSELS — The European Parliament narrowly adopted a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution on Thursday urging the 28 nations of the European Union to recognize Edward J. Snowden as a “whistle-blower and international human rights defender” and shield him from prosecution.
On Twitter, Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked millions of documents about electronic surveillance by the United States government, called the vote a “game-changer.” But the resolution has no legal force and limited practical effect for Mr. Snowden, who is living in Russia on a three-year residency permit.
Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and none have done so thus far.
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/world/europe/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower.html?_r=0
The narrowly passed measure called on member states to protect the whistleblower from prosecution, which he sees as ‘a chance to move forward’ Edward Snowden on Thursday hailed as “extraordinary” and a “game-changer” a vote in the European parliament calling on member states to prevent his extradition to the US. The parliament voted 285-281 to pass a largely symbolic measure, a resolution that called on European Union member states to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender”.
The narrowly passed measure called on member states to protect the whistleblower from prosecution, which he sees as ‘a chance to move forward’
Edward Snowden on Thursday hailed as “extraordinary” and a “game-changer” a vote in the European parliament calling on member states to prevent his extradition to the US.
The parliament voted 285-281 to pass a largely symbolic measure, a resolution that called on European Union member states to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender”.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/29/edward-snowden-eu-parliament-vote-extradition
On Oct. 29, the European Parliament approved a resolution (passed by 285 votes to 281) calling “on European Union Member States to drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender.” The European Parliament, based in Brussels, has no legal power to compel European Union countries to implement its demands. But it frequently acts as a bully pulpit in Europe to advance a distinctly left-wing agenda and a broader supranational ideology that seeks to trample on the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination. The resolution also condemns “recent laws in some Member States that extend surveillance capabilities of intelligence bodies,” including in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
On Oct. 29, the European Parliament approved a resolution (passed by 285 votes to 281) calling “on European Union Member States to drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender.”
The European Parliament, based in Brussels, has no legal power to compel European Union countries to implement its demands. But it frequently acts as a bully pulpit in Europe to advance a distinctly left-wing agenda and a broader supranational ideology that seeks to trample on the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination. The resolution also condemns “recent laws in some Member States that extend surveillance capabilities of intelligence bodies,” including in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Read more @ http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/30/the-european-parliament-is-wrong-on-edward-snowden-and-national-security/
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has confirmed she met with former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden during a visit to Moscow in April. Fernández casually dropped the information into her first speech following the weekend's first round presidential poll in which her favored candidate, Daniel Scioli, only scraped first place despite her backing. It came immediately after she expressed her opposition to the idea of electronic voting. "If the Argentine parliament approves electronic voting then, when the day comes, I will not know whether to vote or not," she said. "Especially after having chatted with Edward Snowden when I was in Russia, which I will reveal now for the first time." Fernández went on to describe the American whistleblower as "the man who revealed the secrets behind the handling of history, life, and information technology in the world."
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has confirmed she met with former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden during a visit to Moscow in April.
Fernández casually dropped the information into her first speech following the weekend's first round presidential poll in which her favored candidate, Daniel Scioli, only scraped first place despite her backing.
It came immediately after she expressed her opposition to the idea of electronic voting.
"If the Argentine parliament approves electronic voting then, when the day comes, I will not know whether to vote or not," she said. "Especially after having chatted with Edward Snowden when I was in Russia, which I will reveal now for the first time."
Fernández went on to describe the American whistleblower as "the man who revealed the secrets behind the handling of history, life, and information technology in the world."
Read more @ https://news.vice.com/article/argentine-president-confirms-she-met-edward-snowden-in-moscow-in-april
Tweets by former NSA whistleblower claim Theresa May’s plans are akin to compiling ‘a list of every book you’ve ever opened’ Edward Snowden has outlined his opposition to the British government’s investigatory powers bill, arguing that Conservative politicians were “taking notes on how to defend the indefensible”. The former National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, whose disclosure of top-secret documents ultimately led to the home secretary, Theresa May, proposing the bill, made a series of tweets on Wednesday warning that the communications data covered by the legislation was “the activity log of your life”.
Tweets by former NSA whistleblower claim Theresa May’s plans are akin to compiling ‘a list of every book you’ve ever opened’
Edward Snowden has outlined his opposition to the British government’s investigatory powers bill, arguing that Conservative politicians were “taking notes on how to defend the indefensible”.
The former National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, whose disclosure of top-secret documents ultimately led to the home secretary, Theresa May, proposing the bill, made a series of tweets on Wednesday warning that the communications data covered by the legislation was “the activity log of your life”.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/edward-snowden-attacks-tories-over-investigatory-powers-bill
WE HAVE all heard the warnings. ‘Be careful what you post online.’ ‘We all leave a digital footprint.’ ‘Nothing is ever truly deleted.’ But we never really think much of it. Most of us are not that bothered about checking in at our favourite restaurant while posing in a selfie with our bestie. But in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, former spies say we should care about what we post online saying it gives authorities even more unfettered access into our private lives. “Facebook is evil, in my view, I’ve been saying this for years,” Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent, told the Germany documentary Digital Dissidents which airs on the ABC Four Corners program tonight. “It is the spy’s wet dream. “We offer our information and it’s just there on a plate for the spies to access. And we know they do through backdoors and things. And yet, that sort of information used to take them weeks or months to gather on an individual.” Ms Machon, along with her former partner David Shayler, who was a MI6 spy, broke protocol in the mid-90s by exposing alleged crimes committed by the British intelligence service, MI5.
The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans. Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said. But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use. Mrs May told MPs the proposed powers were needed to fight crime and terror. Follow the latest developments on our live page The wide-ranging draft Investigatory Powers Bill also contains proposals covering how the state can hack devices and run operations to sweep up large amounts of data as it flows through the internet, enshrining in law the previously covert activities of GCHQ, as uncovered by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The draft bill's measures include: Giving a panel of judges the power to block spying operations authorised by the home secretaryA new criminal offence of "knowingly or recklessly obtaining communications data from a telecommunications operator without lawful authority", carrying a prison sentence of up to two yearsLocal councils to retain some investigatory powers, such as surveillance of benefit cheats, but they will not be able to access online data stored by internet firmsThe Wilson doctrine - preventing surveillance of Parliamentarians' communications - to be written into lawPolice will not be able to access journalistic sources without the authorisation of a judgeA legal duty on British companies to help law enforcement agencies hack devices to acquire information if it is reasonably practical to do soFormer Appeal Court judge Sir Stanley Burnton is appointed as the new interception of communications commissioner Mrs May told MPs the draft bill was a "significant departure" from previous plans, dubbed the "snooper's charter" by critics, which were blocked by the Lib Dems, and will "provide some of the strongest protections and safeguards anywhere in the democratic world and an approach that sets new standards for openness, transparency and oversight".
The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans.
Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said.
But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use.
Mrs May told MPs the proposed powers were needed to fight crime and terror.
The wide-ranging draft Investigatory Powers Bill also contains proposals covering how the state can hack devices and run operations to sweep up large amounts of data as it flows through the internet, enshrining in law the previously covert activities of GCHQ, as uncovered by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The draft bill's measures include:
Mrs May told MPs the draft bill was a "significant departure" from previous plans, dubbed the "snooper's charter" by critics, which were blocked by the Lib Dems, and will "provide some of the strongest protections and safeguards anywhere in the democratic world and an approach that sets new standards for openness, transparency and oversight".
Read more @ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34715872
The Investigatory Powers Bill, known by critics as "the Snooper's Charter," could also require overseas companies to play a part in bulk collection of data and interception of messages. In an echo of Australia's new mandatory data retention scheme, the UK Government introduced draft legislation on Wednesday that would allow British police and intelligence agencies to access a record of any UK citizen's website visits. The Investigatory Powers Bill (PDF), drafted by British Home Secretary Theresa May, covers a wide spectrum of government surveillance activities, including the bulk collection of data, the interception of communications, and the hacking and bugging of electronic equipment. Because of its scope, the bill could affect every British citizen and every Internet service provider and communications company in the UK. But the changes wouldn't just affect UK-based companies; the bill also includes provisions for foreign companies operating in the UK. That includes US companies like Apple, Google and Facebook, all of which operate messaging services the government could potentially request access to.
The Investigatory Powers Bill, known by critics as "the Snooper's Charter," could also require overseas companies to play a part in bulk collection of data and interception of messages.
In an echo of Australia's new mandatory data retention scheme, the UK Government introduced draft legislation on Wednesday that would allow British police and intelligence agencies to access a record of any UK citizen's website visits.
The Investigatory Powers Bill (PDF), drafted by British Home Secretary Theresa May, covers a wide spectrum of government surveillance activities, including the bulk collection of data, the interception of communications, and the hacking and bugging of electronic equipment.
Because of its scope, the bill could affect every British citizen and every Internet service provider and communications company in the UK. But the changes wouldn't just affect UK-based companies; the bill also includes provisions for foreign companies operating in the UK. That includes US companies like Apple, Google and Facebook, all of which operate messaging services the government could potentially request access to.
Read more @ http://www.cnet.com/au/news/what-websites-have-you-visited-spy-agencies-could-find-out-under-proposed-law/
On Wednesday, the Investigatory Powers Bill was published in draft form, but it was in the wake of 9/11 that the UK government started its mass surveillance programs, spying on the online activities of British citizens. Under the guise of the 1984 Telecommunications Act, this surveillance was moved up a gear in 2005. Former deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says that very few politicians knew about it. Clegg only learned of the surveillance programs that were used to harvest emails, phone records, and texts in 2010, and questioned whether it was necessary. The former PM makes the revelations in an article for the Guardian in which he says that after Edward Snowden NSA and GCHQ spying revelations, "the knee-jerk response from the government was to play the man and ignore the ball". Clegg and his part of the coalition government were instrumental in blocking the progress of the snooper's charter which ultimately led to the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. He admits that the new bill is "far from perfect" and expresses concern that there has been insufficient meaningful scrutiny.
On Wednesday, the Investigatory Powers Bill was published in draft form, but it was in the wake of 9/11 that the UK government started its mass surveillance programs, spying on the online activities of British citizens. Under the guise of the 1984 Telecommunications Act, this surveillance was moved up a gear in 2005. Former deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says that very few politicians knew about it.
Clegg only learned of the surveillance programs that were used to harvest emails, phone records, and texts in 2010, and questioned whether it was necessary. The former PM makes the revelations in an article for the Guardian in which he says that after Edward Snowden NSA and GCHQ spying revelations, "the knee-jerk response from the government was to play the man and ignore the ball".
Clegg and his part of the coalition government were instrumental in blocking the progress of the snooper's charter which ultimately led to the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. He admits that the new bill is "far from perfect" and expresses concern that there has been insufficient meaningful scrutiny.
Read more @ http://betanews.com/2015/11/05/uk-government-started-online-mass-surveillance-after-911-but-few-politicians-knew/
Our online data and history to be stored by companies and websites for 12 months under new surveillance law Internet firms will have to store details of people's online activity for 12 months under a new surveillance law to be applied in the UK. The government is promising strict safeguards, including a ban on councils accessing people's internet records and a new offence of misuse of the data. Ministers are also facing calls for judges to sign warrants to access the content of digital records. Currently responsibility lies with Home Secretary Theresa May. The draft bill, which David Cameron says is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this parliament, will be published in the House of Commons on Wednesday. It will be examined in detail by both Houses of Parliament before the final bill is voted on next year. The language in the draft bill will be dry - but quite simply it creates new powers to allow arms of the state to access your online life - if they have cause and legal justification to do so.
Our online data and history to be stored by companies and websites for 12 months under new surveillance law
Internet firms will have to store details of people's online activity for 12 months under a new surveillance law to be applied in the UK.
The government is promising strict safeguards, including a ban on councils accessing people's internet records and a new offence of misuse of the data.
Ministers are also facing calls for judges to sign warrants to access the content of digital records.
Currently responsibility lies with Home Secretary Theresa May. The draft bill, which David Cameron says is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this parliament, will be published in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
It will be examined in detail by both Houses of Parliament before the final bill is voted on next year.
The language in the draft bill will be dry - but quite simply it creates new powers to allow arms of the state to access your online life - if they have cause and legal justification to do so.
Read more @ http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/Big-brother-is-watching-ou-online-activity-stored-for-12-months-under-new-surveillance-law
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Tuesday that he would not grant Edward Snowden a pardon, despite speaking in positive terms about the information uncovered by the NSA whistleblower. Carson said of pardoning Snowden, “It would set a very bad precedent… There are appropriate ways to reveal things, and that was an inappropriate way, because it jeopardized our country.” In Carson’s new book A More Perfect Union, Carson wrote that “surreptitiously tracking phone calls, purchasing activity, web site visitation history, and a host of other activities is tantamount to the illegal search and seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment,” adding the government did not come clean about its involvement until “exposed by an informant.”
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Tuesday that he would not grant Edward Snowden a pardon, despite speaking in positive terms about the information uncovered by the NSA whistleblower.
Carson said of pardoning Snowden, “It would set a very bad precedent… There are appropriate ways to reveal things, and that was an inappropriate way, because it jeopardized our country.”
In Carson’s new book A More Perfect Union, Carson wrote that “surreptitiously tracking phone calls, purchasing activity, web site visitation history, and a host of other activities is tantamount to the illegal search and seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment,” adding the government did not come clean about its involvement until “exposed by an informant.”
Read more @ http://www.mediaite.com/online/carson-supports-edward-snowdens-work-but-not-edward-snowden/
http://patch.com/illinois/lakeforest/edward-snowdens-attorney-talks-privacy-lake-forest-college
“You’ll never go wrong with IBM” was good investing advice fifty years ago, or even ten years ago. The story is different now. Big Blue can’t keep up in a cloud-based world. International Business Machines is not the only U.S. tech giant caught in the trap, but the “international” part of its name makes IBM uniquely vulnerable. The company thought it could grow by storing, processing and transporting data between hemispheres. IBM had a good plan. It might even have worked, had Edward Snowden not come along. Snowden single-handedly changed the global economy. He exposed the U.S. government’s “collect it all” intelligence methods and the way technology and telecom companies betrayed their own customers. Less than three years later, we already see major consequences.
Read more @ http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/PatrickWatson/Edward-Snowden-IBM-Global-Tech-Dream/2015/11/04/id/700499/
Snowden think he has something in common with the blimp Edward Snowden believes he has something in common with the large military blimp that came unmoored in Maryland on Wednesday. Snowden, who leaked information about top-secret government programs in 2013, joked on Twitter that the loose blimp wasn’t the first time “mass surveillance [led] to unauthorized travel.”
Read more @ http://time.com/4091212/edward-snowden-blimp/
Many new features and packages have been added Tails, a Live operating system that is built with the declared purpose of keeping users safe and anonymous while going online, has been updated to version 1.7. This is a major upgrade and users have been advised to make the switch as soon as possible. Tails is getting a lot more attention than it used to, even if the operating system has been around for a long time. The reason for the sudden fame is the fact that whistleblower Edward Snowden said that he used this Linux OS to keep his information trafficking activities safe from the authorities. Tails has even been spotted in a TV show, so we know that people are becoming much more aware of its existence.
Tails, a Live operating system that is built with the declared purpose of keeping users safe and anonymous while going online, has been updated to version 1.7. This is a major upgrade and users have been advised to make the switch as soon as possible.
Tails is getting a lot more attention than it used to, even if the operating system has been around for a long time. The reason for the sudden fame is the fact that whistleblower Edward Snowden said that he used this Linux OS to keep his information trafficking activities safe from the authorities. Tails has even been spotted in a TV show, so we know that people are becoming much more aware of its existence.
Read more @ http://news.softpedia.com/news/edward-snowden-s-favourite-distro-tails-gets-major-upgrade-to-1-7-495717.shtml
There’s a slight chance that you may value privacy but may not have the $800 or so that the likes of a BlackBerry or Blackphone demand. If that’s the case, this may be the next best thing. Open Whisper, the makers of RedPhone and TextSecure apps for encrypted calling and SMS, has received what may be the biggest independent endorsement for a mobile app, ever. The developer is bringing “Signal,” an app that combines the two functions into one, to Android phones, and what do you know, Edward Snowden himself is a fan. I use Signal every day. #notesforFBI (Spoiler: they already know) https://t.co/KNy0xppsN0 — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 2, 2015 Android Authority reports that the app has been available on iOS for half a year, and has garnered a reputation for staying true to its word. The two separate apps have also been available on Android, but are being combined into a new free solution.
There’s a slight chance that you may value privacy but may not have the $800 or so that the likes of a BlackBerry or Blackphone demand. If that’s the case, this may be the next best thing.
Open Whisper, the makers of RedPhone and TextSecure apps for encrypted calling and SMS, has received what may be the biggest independent endorsement for a mobile app, ever.
The developer is bringing “Signal,” an app that combines the two functions into one, to Android phones, and what do you know, Edward Snowden himself is a fan.
I use Signal every day. #notesforFBI (Spoiler: they already know) https://t.co/KNy0xppsN0
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 2, 2015
Android Authority reports that the app has been available on iOS for half a year, and has garnered a reputation for staying true to its word. The two separate apps have also been available on Android, but are being combined into a new free solution.
Read more @ http://www.computerdealernews.com/news/heres-the-encrypted-call-and-messenger-app-that-edward-snowden-himself-uses/45311
HE might have been trying to become the next Julian Assange, but all Michael Scerba achieved was a one-year jail sentence for disclosing secret information online. The then-21-year-old Department of Defence graduate came to the attention of authorities after he posted a “highly sensitive” report on the anonymous image-sharing forum 4chan. For this crime, Justice Richard Refshauge sentenced the 24-year-old to spend a minimum of three months in prison, with the remainder to be served as a suspended sentence, subject to a two-year good behaviour bond. In 2012, the Department of Defence graduate burnt the document to a compact disc after downloading it from a Secret Defence Security Network. He then took it home and shared the first two pages of the 15-page document on the website with the comment, “Julian Assange is my hero”.
HE might have been trying to become the next Julian Assange, but all Michael Scerba achieved was a one-year jail sentence for disclosing secret information online.
The then-21-year-old Department of Defence graduate came to the attention of authorities after he posted a “highly sensitive” report on the anonymous image-sharing forum 4chan.
For this crime, Justice Richard Refshauge sentenced the 24-year-old to spend a minimum of three months in prison, with the remainder to be served as a suspended sentence, subject to a two-year good behaviour bond.
In 2012, the Department of Defence graduate burnt the document to a compact disc after downloading it from a Secret Defence Security Network.
He then took it home and shared the first two pages of the 15-page document on the website with the comment, “Julian Assange is my hero”.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/department-of-defence-graduate-jailed-for-leaking-top-secret-documents-on-4chan/story-fnjwnfzw-1227597932337
Nov 12 15 4:12 PM
Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden met last winter, says Ellberg, the Nixon-era whistleblower who leaked The Pentagon Papers to The New York Times back in 1971 Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg met in Moscow recently to exchange view on freedom of information and Snowden’s fate. Ellsberg is a welcome guest on any campus these days. In 1971, while a military analyst at the Rand Corporation, he leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. The two met last winter, according to Ellsberg, who revealed details about the meeting this week. In a post announcing the meeting, Ellsberg wrote: ” is the quintessential American whistleblower, and a personal hero of mine, Leaks are the lifeblood of the republic and, for the first time, the American public has been given the chance to debate democratically the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Accountability journalism can’t be done without the courageous acts exemplified by Snowden, and we need more like him . . .”
Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden met last winter, says Ellberg, the Nixon-era whistleblower who leaked The Pentagon Papers to The New York Times back in 1971
Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg met in Moscow recently to exchange view on freedom of information and Snowden’s fate.
Ellsberg is a welcome guest on any campus these days. In 1971, while a military analyst at the Rand Corporation, he leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times.
The two met last winter, according to Ellsberg, who revealed details about the meeting this week.
In a post announcing the meeting, Ellsberg wrote:
” is the quintessential American whistleblower, and a personal hero of mine, Leaks are the lifeblood of the republic and, for the first time, the American public has been given the chance to debate democratically the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Accountability journalism can’t be done without the courageous acts exemplified by Snowden, and we need more like him . . .”
Read more @ http://anewdomain.net/2015/11/11/profiles-courage-two-kind-rebels-nsa-barred-court/
It’s a photograph that may have left some people scratching their heads – a Hollywood film star meeting with perhaps the most wanted man in the world. But when John Cusack and former NSA spy Edward Snowden met in secrecy at a swanky hotel in Moscow – along with fellow whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg and writer Arundhati Roy – it was a gathering of some of the leading advocates for press freedom and government transparency. Photos posted on Instagram and Twitter show the cosy encounter, which Cusack said was arranged after he wondered what it would be like for Ellsberg, Roy and Snowden to meet in person.
It’s a photograph that may have left some people scratching their heads – a Hollywood film star meeting with perhaps the most wanted man in the world.
But when John Cusack and former NSA spy Edward Snowden met in secrecy at a swanky hotel in Moscow – along with fellow whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg and writer Arundhati Roy – it was a gathering of some of the leading advocates for press freedom and government transparency.
Photos posted on Instagram and Twitter show the cosy encounter, which Cusack said was arranged after he wondered what it would be like for Ellsberg, Roy and Snowden to meet in person.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3310664/Edward-Snowden-meets-secret-John-Cusack-Arundhati-Roy-Daniel-Ellsberg.html
A US federal judge ruled yesterday (Nov. 9) against the National Security Agency for its bulk collection of phone call records, first disclosed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. It’s a largely symbolic win against the agency, but one still celebrated by Snowden and other opponents of mass surveillance. Washington, DC district court judge Richard Leon granted an injunction to bar the National Security Agency (NSA) from collecting the phone call data of J.J. Little, a California attorney and conservative activist, along with data from his small legal practice. In his ruling, Leon said it is “substantially likely” that the bulk collection program is “unlawful”—and furthermore, that Little and his law firm have “suffered a concrete harm” from of the collection and warehousing of their phone records.
A US federal judge ruled yesterday (Nov. 9) against the National Security Agency for its bulk collection of phone call records, first disclosed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. It’s a largely symbolic win against the agency, but one still celebrated by Snowden and other opponents of mass surveillance.
Washington, DC district court judge Richard Leon granted an injunction to bar the National Security Agency (NSA) from collecting the phone call data of J.J. Little, a California attorney and conservative activist, along with data from his small legal practice.
In his ruling, Leon said it is “substantially likely” that the bulk collection program is “unlawful”—and furthermore, that Little and his law firm have “suffered a concrete harm” from of the collection and warehousing of their phone records.
Read more @ http://qz.com/545978/a-federal-judges-ruling-against-the-nsa-is-a-big-win-for-edward-snowden/
Snowden's lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, explains why whistleblowers are the targets of government prosecution. Would Edward Snowden be better off if he had gone through official channels to expose multiple National Security Agency programs that violated the privacy rights of Americans? Snowden's lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, says no and points to the track record of whistleblowers who have faced criminal investigations over speaking out officially. "Tom Drake, Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis did go through the proper channels "and all of them fell under criminal investigations for having done so." Radack told Reason TV Editor-In-Chief Nick Gillespie. While Edward Snowden has become a popular debate topic posed to Democratic and GOP hopefuls, the real issue may be the U.S. government's war on information. For more watch, "Edward Snowden's Lawyer on the Government's War on Whistleblowers."
Would Edward Snowden be better off if he had gone through official channels to expose multiple National Security Agency programs that violated the privacy rights of Americans? Snowden's lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, says no and points to the track record of whistleblowers who have faced criminal investigations over speaking out officially.
"Tom Drake, Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis did go through the proper channels "and all of them fell under criminal investigations for having done so." Radack told Reason TV Editor-In-Chief Nick Gillespie.
While Edward Snowden has become a popular debate topic posed to Democratic and GOP hopefuls, the real issue may be the U.S. government's war on information. For more watch, "Edward Snowden's Lawyer on the Government's War on Whistleblowers."
Read more @ https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/08/here-is-why-edward-snowden-couldnt-have
NSA whistleblower points to ‘extraordinary change’ in attitudes as he notes that Democratic candidates for US president did not call him a traitor Edward Snowden has described the Democratic presidential debate last month as marking an “extraordinary change” in attitudes towards him. In a lengthy interview with Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter published on Friday, Snowden said he had been encouraged by the debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, her main challenger for the Democratic nomination. During the televised encounter, both candidates called for Snowden to face trial, but Sanders said he thought the NSA whistleblower had “played a very important role in educating the American people”. That marked an important shift in the US debate over Snowden’s action, he said. The former National Security Agency analyst said it had taken 30 years for Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam war, to shift from being described regularly as a traitor. But not once in the debate had Snowden been referred to as a traitor.
NSA whistleblower points to ‘extraordinary change’ in attitudes as he notes that Democratic candidates for US president did not call him a traitor
Edward Snowden has described the Democratic presidential debate last month as marking an “extraordinary change” in attitudes towards him.
In a lengthy interview with Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter published on Friday, Snowden said he had been encouraged by the debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, her main challenger for the Democratic nomination.
During the televised encounter, both candidates called for Snowden to face trial, but Sanders said he thought the NSA whistleblower had “played a very important role in educating the American people”.
That marked an important shift in the US debate over Snowden’s action, he said.
The former National Security Agency analyst said it had taken 30 years for Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam war, to shift from being described regularly as a traitor.
But not once in the debate had Snowden been referred to as a traitor.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/06/edward-snowden-democratic-debate
Certain parallels between 2012’s Skyfall, the most successful Bond film ever, and Spectre (Nov. 6) are too obvious to ignore. Both movies feature brooding British thespian Daniel Craig as an all-too-human 007 who must shoulder the heavy existential burden of being a superspy while simultaneously saving the world. Both were directed by Oscar-winner Sam Mendes, and each film showcases the same actors portraying MI6 support staff facing downward pressure from government bureaucracy: Ralph Fiennes as Secret Intelligence Service boss M, Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny, and Ben Whishaw as gadget master Q.
In a recent interview, Edward Snowden unveiled his top five security tools that he uses all the time to protect his communications and devices against surveillance and hacking. These include the Tor anonymizing network, the Signal private messenger, Off-The-Record (OTR) encryption protocol, TAILS, the portable anonymity-focused operating system, and Qubes OS, the operating system that offers security through compartmentalization. Tor Tor is an anonymizing network that can provide different IP addresses from around the world to anyone who wants to hide their location. The difference between Tor and a VPN is that Tor is more like a "chain VPN," because your data travels encrypted through multiple nodes situated in different locations of the world, making it difficult for most people, companies, or even countries to track you.
In a recent interview, Edward Snowden unveiled his top five security tools that he uses all the time to protect his communications and devices against surveillance and hacking. These include the Tor anonymizing network, the Signal private messenger, Off-The-Record (OTR) encryption protocol, TAILS, the portable anonymity-focused operating system, and Qubes OS, the operating system that offers security through compartmentalization.
Tor is an anonymizing network that can provide different IP addresses from around the world to anyone who wants to hide their location. The difference between Tor and a VPN is that Tor is more like a "chain VPN," because your data travels encrypted through multiple nodes situated in different locations of the world, making it difficult for most people, companies, or even countries to track you.
Read more @ http://www.tomshardware.com/news/edward-snowden-favorite-security-tools,30507.html
A man some people consider a hero and others believe is a criminal is to present the opening address at a Queen’s University conference later this week. Edward Snowden, 32, the former Central Intelligence Agency employee and United States government contractor who leaked thousands of classified documents that revealed the extent of global surveillance programs operated by the U S. and its English-speaking allies, is to present the opening keynote speech at the Queen’s International Affairs Association’s Model United Nations Invitational on Thursday. The event is to include 250 student delegates from 15 schools across North America. Snowden, who has asylum in Russia, is to speak about cyber security at the conference via video link. “We really wanted to bring this issue forward because, really, all of the people here at Queen’s, in terms of being university students, this issue is verya, very applicable to them,” said Jeremy Rogers, a third-year political student who arranged the Snowden talk, which is to include a 45-minute keynote address and a 35-minute question-and-answer session. “We’ve all grown up with social media from a very young age. Everything we’ve done is on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Our entire lives can be catalogued.”
A man some people consider a hero and others believe is a criminal is to present the opening address at a Queen’s University conference later this week.
Edward Snowden, 32, the former Central Intelligence Agency employee and United States government contractor who leaked thousands of classified documents that revealed the extent of global surveillance programs operated by the U S. and its English-speaking allies, is to present the opening keynote speech at the Queen’s International Affairs Association’s Model United Nations Invitational on Thursday. The event is to include 250 student delegates from 15 schools across North America.
Snowden, who has asylum in Russia, is to speak about cyber security at the conference via video link.
“We really wanted to bring this issue forward because, really, all of the people here at Queen’s, in terms of being university students, this issue is verya, very applicable to them,” said Jeremy Rogers, a third-year political student who arranged the Snowden talk, which is to include a 45-minute keynote address and a 35-minute question-and-answer session.
“We’ve all grown up with social media from a very young age. Everything we’ve done is on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Our entire lives can be catalogued.”
Read more @ http://www.thewhig.com/2015/11/09/snowden-to-speak-at-queens-conference
“I never thought that I would be Big Brother,” jokes Snowden as he is lowered down from the cloud and on to a projector screen. The crowd greets him like a rock star. He looks sheepish, perhaps overcome by the fervor of an audience in a country that he has no possibility of returning to under the present circumstances. On the stage to greet him is poet Ann Lauterbach and the Intercept’s Peter Maass. The dissident, the poet, and the journalist engaged in discussion at the penultimate talk of Bard College’s “Why Privacy Matters” conference held in October in the spirit of the college’s matron philosopher Hannah Arendt. Whether it is state-sponsored or corporate surveillance, or increasingly sousveillance, it seems privacy has become a relic of bygone days. In some sense, we have become unquestioning of this new reality of zero privacy put forth by government and corporate interests alike. But then I look up and see Snowden.
“I never thought that I would be Big Brother,” jokes Snowden as he is lowered down from the cloud and on to a projector screen. The crowd greets him like a rock star. He looks sheepish, perhaps overcome by the fervor of an audience in a country that he has no possibility of returning to under the present circumstances. On the stage to greet him is poet Ann Lauterbach and the Intercept’s Peter Maass. The dissident, the poet, and the journalist engaged in discussion at the penultimate talk of Bard College’s “Why Privacy Matters” conference held in October in the spirit of the college’s matron philosopher Hannah Arendt.
Read more @ http://www.thenation.com/article/the-poet-the-journalist-and-the-dissident/
In all probability, there wouldn’t have been a new investigatory powers bill without Edward Snowden and his Guardian revelations that galvanised change from the Obama administration and moved the whole issue of state surveillance centre stage in Britain. There wouldn’t have been specific clauses to safeguard the rights of journalists and doctors. And we wouldn’t have known, almost incidentally (to quote the Daily Mail), that MI5 “has been hoovering up our email and phone records while operating in a shady area of an outdated law” – in short, that this whole shady area needed drastic reform. Has Theresa May pulled it off? Campaigners from Liberty to the UK Press Gazette have certainly played a vibrant role in moving her and evasive “authority” this far. (The extent to which the police were abusing feeble statute and hacking into journalists’ phone and database records was, and remains, a scandal.) But don’t expect Fleet Street to sing from the same hymn sheet, because this whole area of reporting and analysis is a terrible muddle. Here’s Max Hastings, chuntering away in the Mail on “state snooping and why I trust our spies more than apologists for treachery”. And here’s contemporaneous Mail comment on “The duplicity of Tony Blair and his cronies”: cronies like the senior spies who signed off on the dodgy Iraq dossier. Either spying and secrecy are part of the problem of transparency and trustworthiness, or they’re not. Either Snowden played his part and ignited the issue, or it somehow self-ignited. Either you trust the latest reassurances from on high, or you don’t.
In all probability, there wouldn’t have been a new investigatory powers bill without Edward Snowden and his Guardian revelations that galvanised change from the Obama administration and moved the whole issue of state surveillance centre stage in Britain. There wouldn’t have been specific clauses to safeguard the rights of journalists and doctors. And we wouldn’t have known, almost incidentally (to quote the Daily Mail), that MI5 “has been hoovering up our email and phone records while operating in a shady area of an outdated law” – in short, that this whole shady area needed drastic reform.
Has Theresa May pulled it off? Campaigners from Liberty to the UK Press Gazette have certainly played a vibrant role in moving her and evasive “authority” this far. (The extent to which the police were abusing feeble statute and hacking into journalists’ phone and database records was, and remains, a scandal.) But don’t expect Fleet Street to sing from the same hymn sheet, because this whole area of reporting and analysis is a terrible muddle. Here’s Max Hastings, chuntering away in the Mail on “state snooping and why I trust our spies more than apologists for treachery”. And here’s contemporaneous Mail comment on “The duplicity of Tony Blair and his cronies”: cronies like the senior spies who signed off on the dodgy Iraq dossier.
Either spying and secrecy are part of the problem of transparency and trustworthiness, or they’re not. Either Snowden played his part and ignited the issue, or it somehow self-ignited. Either you trust the latest reassurances from on high, or you don’t.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/08/snoopers-charter-outrage-or-snowden-not-both
So what happens if you don’t agree to their terms?
User agreements are written for regulators and lawyers but a new database intends to help consumers make more informed choices to ensure data is protected No one reads those interminable terms of service agreements on Instagram, WhatsApp and their like. But they could make the difference between life and death, according to Rebecca MacKinnon. “It may be about whether you get tortured for what you wrote on Facebook or not, or whether you get tried based on some of the stuff you had in your text messages or something you uploaded. They’re worth a lot to human beings,” said MacKinnon, the leader of a new project that hopes to show people just what they are signing away when they blindly click “agree”.
User agreements are written for regulators and lawyers but a new database intends to help consumers make more informed choices to ensure data is protected
No one reads those interminable terms of service agreements on Instagram, WhatsApp and their like. But they could make the difference between life and death, according to Rebecca MacKinnon.
“It may be about whether you get tortured for what you wrote on Facebook or not, or whether you get tried based on some of the stuff you had in your text messages or something you uploaded. They’re worth a lot to human beings,” said MacKinnon, the leader of a new project that hopes to show people just what they are signing away when they blindly click “agree”.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/03/ranking-digital-rights-project-data-protection
Dec 1 15 9:14 PM
What?? they are blaming the Paris attacks on Snowden….. that is ludicrous, because France and all the rest of them are still spying on everyone. They are passing the blame for their own mistakes…. Why did they miss it….? I think it’s the needle in the haystack that Snowden spoke of…. Terrorists knew long before Snowden how to hide their communications…… long before. If they didn’t they would be hit by a drone strike…..
Why the CIA is smearing Edward Snowden
Security agencies hope to use our fear of terrorism to win backdoor access to our internet communications Decent people see tragedy and barbarism when viewing a terrorism attack. American politicians and intelligence officials see something else: opportunity. Bodies were still lying in the streets of Paris when CIA operatives began exploiting the resulting fear and anger to advance long-standing political agendas. They and their congressional allies instantly attempted to heap blame for the atrocity not on Islamic State but on several pre-existing adversaries: internet encryption, Silicon Valley's privacy policies and Edward Snowden. Are we ready to endorse the precept that no human communication can ever take place without the US government being able to monitor it? The CIA's former acting director, Michael Morell, blamed the Paris attack on internet companies "building encryption without keys", which, he said, was caused by the debate over surveillance prompted by Snowden's disclosures. Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein blamed Silicon Valley's privacy safeguards, claiming: "I have asked for help. And I haven't gotten any help." Former CIA chief James Woolsey said Snowden "has blood on his hands" because, he asserted, the Paris attackers learnt from his disclosures how to hide their communications behind encryption. Woolsey also said the National Security Agency whistleblower should be "hanged by the neck until he's dead, rather than merely electrocuted". In one sense, this blame-shifting tactic is understandable. After all, the CIA, the NSA and similar agencies receive billions of dollars a year from Congress and have been vested by their Senate overseers with virtually unlimited spying power. They have one paramount mission: find and stop people who are plotting terrorist attacks. When they fail, of course, they are desperate to blame others. The CIA's blame-shifting game, aside from being self-serving, was deceitful in the extreme. To begin with, there still is no evidence the perpetrators in Paris used the internet to plot their attacks, let alone used encryption technology.
Security agencies hope to use our fear of terrorism to win backdoor access to our internet communications
Decent people see tragedy and barbarism when viewing a terrorism attack. American politicians and intelligence officials see something else: opportunity.
Bodies were still lying in the streets of Paris when CIA operatives began exploiting the resulting fear and anger to advance long-standing political agendas. They and their congressional allies instantly attempted to heap blame for the atrocity not on Islamic State but on several pre-existing adversaries: internet encryption, Silicon Valley's privacy policies and Edward Snowden.
Are we ready to endorse the precept that no human communication can ever take place without the US government being able to monitor it?
The CIA's former acting director, Michael Morell, blamed the Paris attack on internet companies "building encryption without keys", which, he said, was caused by the debate over surveillance prompted by Snowden's disclosures.
Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein blamed Silicon Valley's privacy safeguards, claiming: "I have asked for help. And I haven't gotten any help."
Former CIA chief James Woolsey said Snowden "has blood on his hands" because, he asserted, the Paris attackers learnt from his disclosures how to hide their communications behind encryption. Woolsey also said the National Security Agency whistleblower should be "hanged by the neck until he's dead, rather than merely electrocuted".
In one sense, this blame-shifting tactic is understandable. After all, the CIA, the NSA and similar agencies receive billions of dollars a year from Congress and have been vested by their Senate overseers with virtually unlimited spying power. They have one paramount mission: find and stop people who are plotting terrorist attacks. When they fail, of course, they are desperate to blame others.
The CIA's blame-shifting game, aside from being self-serving, was deceitful in the extreme. To begin with, there still is no evidence the perpetrators in Paris used the internet to plot their attacks, let alone used encryption technology.
Read more @ http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why-the-cia-is-smearing-snowden-20151130-glc080.html
Read more @ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1126-greenwald-snowden-paris-encryption-20151126-story.html
AMERICA’S most senior intelligence officers have blamed the Paris attacks on National Security Agency renegade Edward Snowden. Both the current CIA director John Brennan and his predecessor James Woolsey claimed in separate interviews that leaks by the former contractor taught Islamist terrorists how to use encryption and avoid standard means of electronic communication to evade detection. This is despite the fact that terrorists are known to have used anti-surveillance techniques since before 9/11 and an independent report last year, which found “no correlation” between updates to jihadist encryption software and Snowden’s leaks. But according to Mr Brennan: “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorised disclosures, and a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that have been taken that make our ability collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging. “There has been an increase in the operational security of a number of operatives of these terrorist networks as they have gone to school on what it is that they need to do in order to keep their activities concealed from the authorities.”
AMERICA’S most senior intelligence officers have blamed the Paris attacks on National Security Agency renegade Edward Snowden.
Both the current CIA director John Brennan and his predecessor James Woolsey claimed in separate interviews that leaks by the former contractor taught Islamist terrorists how to use encryption and avoid standard means of electronic communication to evade detection.
This is despite the fact that terrorists are known to have used anti-surveillance techniques since before 9/11 and an independent report last year, which found “no correlation” between updates to jihadist encryption software and Snowden’s leaks.
But according to Mr Brennan: “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorised disclosures, and a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that have been taken that make our ability collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging.
“There has been an increase in the operational security of a number of operatives of these terrorist networks as they have gone to school on what it is that they need to do in order to keep their activities concealed from the authorities.”
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/cia-blames-national-security-agency-whistleblower-edward-snowden-for-paris-attacks/news-story/9c0be6ad1de03e67214b486126c0a6d7
Does Edward Snowden really have blood on his hands over Paris?
“What Snowden disclosed was the astonishing extent to which the government’s surveillance power had been turned on ordinary citizens. The CIA director knows this" In a pair of public appearances this week, CIA Director John Brennan made clear that he blames leaks by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden for enabling terrorists to evade detection. “Because of a number of unauthorized disclosures, and a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists,” Brennan said, the CIA and others agencies have lost use of critical tools needed “to find these terrorists.” Brennan’s assertion has become a refrain in the two years since Snowden exposed details about a range of U.S. surveillance programs. And former CIA director R. James Woolsey went further, saying on Sunday, “I think Snowden has blood on his hands from these killings in France.”
“What Snowden disclosed was the astonishing extent to which the government’s surveillance power had been turned on ordinary citizens. The CIA director knows this"
In a pair of public appearances this week, CIA Director John Brennan made clear that he blames leaks by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden for enabling terrorists to evade detection.
“Because of a number of unauthorized disclosures, and a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists,” Brennan said, the CIA and others agencies have lost use of critical tools needed “to find these terrorists.”
Brennan’s assertion has become a refrain in the two years since Snowden exposed details about a range of U.S. surveillance programs. And former CIA director R. James Woolsey went further, saying on Sunday, “I think Snowden has blood on his hands from these killings in France.”
Read more @ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/does-edward-snowden-really-have-blood-on-his-hands-over-paris-a6740626.html
When intelligence services fail their calling; when institutions armed to the teeth with surveillance capacities and anti-terrorism laws falter in preventing what was their purpose to prevent, the cult of blame is bound to surface. Given his role in blowing the lid off the surveillance complex of infinite growth and finite gain, Edward Snowden was always fair game after the Paris attacks. The wounded within the intelligence fraternity strike out with inevitable fury. They were caught with their pants down, an observation more acute given the French surveillance padding introduced after the Charlie Hebdo killings of January this year. This supplemented a 2013 law permitting warrantless surveillance of Internet usage. The French surveillance state was found wanting. Ha’aretz, through Associated Press, revealed the rather uncomfortable fact that Iraqi intelligence had warned of an ISIS attack a day prior to the slaughter in Paris, conveying a dispatch by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that coalition countries were in for blows. The attacks “in the coming days” would be deployed against countries fighting in Iraq and Syria, and would also include Iran and Russia, employing “bombings or assassinations or hostage taking in the coming days.” [1] The response? This is the sort of communication French intelligence receives, according to a French security official quizzed on this, received “all the time” and “every day”. This was subsequently disputed by four Iraqi intelligence officials who conveyed warnings that France was specified in the listing, with details about where the attackers may have trained for their Parisian terror sojourn. Given that the venue was Raqqa in Syria, the Islamic State’s declared de facto capital, eyes should have opened wide in anticipation. The intelligence also featured warnings about how a sleeper cell would be triggered to assist the attackers, an enterprise involving 24 people, with 19 attackers and five others steering the endeavour and responsible for logistics. This, it would seem, is a bloated security complex so overdeveloped it has lost sight of its feet.
When intelligence services fail their calling; when institutions armed to the teeth with surveillance capacities and anti-terrorism laws falter in preventing what was their purpose to prevent, the cult of blame is bound to surface. Given his role in blowing the lid off the surveillance complex of infinite growth and finite gain, Edward Snowden was always fair game after the Paris attacks.
The wounded within the intelligence fraternity strike out with inevitable fury. They were caught with their pants down, an observation more acute given the French surveillance padding introduced after the Charlie Hebdo killings of January this year. This supplemented a 2013 law permitting warrantless surveillance of Internet usage. The French surveillance state was found wanting.
Ha’aretz, through Associated Press, revealed the rather uncomfortable fact that Iraqi intelligence had warned of an ISIS attack a day prior to the slaughter in Paris, conveying a dispatch by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that coalition countries were in for blows. The attacks “in the coming days” would be deployed against countries fighting in Iraq and Syria, and would also include Iran and Russia, employing “bombings or assassinations or hostage taking in the coming days.” [1]
The response? This is the sort of communication French intelligence receives, according to a French security official quizzed on this, received “all the time” and “every day”.
This was subsequently disputed by four Iraqi intelligence officials who conveyed warnings that France was specified in the listing, with details about where the attackers may have trained for their Parisian terror sojourn. Given that the venue was Raqqa in Syria, the Islamic State’s declared de facto capital, eyes should have opened wide in anticipation.
The intelligence also featured warnings about how a sleeper cell would be triggered to assist the attackers, an enterprise involving 24 people, with 19 attackers and five others steering the endeavour and responsible for logistics. This, it would seem, is a bloated security complex so overdeveloped it has lost sight of its feet.
Read more @ http://www.eurasiareview.com/19112015-blaming-snowden-for-the-paris-attacks-oped/
"Many large scale terrorist attacks have been successfully perpetrated well before anyone ever heard the name Edward Snowden." Glenn Greenwald called claims that Edward Snowden was to blame for last week's attacks in Paris "unbelievably irrational" in a conversation with HuffPost Live on Monday. The Snowden confidant said that he's not surprised by attempts to link Snowden to the terror in Paris because doing so redirects blame that should be placed on intelligence agencies. Greenwald explained: If you think about who's actually trying to convince people to blame [Snowden], it's current and former officials at the CIA, the NSA and other government agencies. And if you think about their predicament, these are people who receive billions and billions of dollars every year in American taxpayer money and have been vested with enormous radical authorities ... and they have only one mission, and their mission is to find terror plots. And so when they fail miserably in their job and dozens of people die, as just happened in Paris, of course they're petrified that people are going to look to them and say, 'Why did you fail in your job?' So what they want to do is point the finger at other people and say, 'Oh, don't think about us, don't look at us, don't ask why we failed even though we have all this money. Look over there are Edward Snowden, it's his fault.' Greenwald added that the world's history of terror attacks is proof that it doesn't make sense to accuse Snowden of teaching the attackers in Paris how to evade surveillance.
Glenn Greenwald called claims that Edward Snowden was to blame for last week's attacks in Paris "unbelievably irrational" in a conversation with HuffPost Live on Monday.
The Snowden confidant said that he's not surprised by attempts to link Snowden to the terror in Paris because doing so redirects blame that should be placed on intelligence agencies. Greenwald explained:
If you think about who's actually trying to convince people to blame [Snowden], it's current and former officials at the CIA, the NSA and other government agencies. And if you think about their predicament, these are people who receive billions and billions of dollars every year in American taxpayer money and have been vested with enormous radical authorities ... and they have only one mission, and their mission is to find terror plots. And so when they fail miserably in their job and dozens of people die, as just happened in Paris, of course they're petrified that people are going to look to them and say, 'Why did you fail in your job?' So what they want to do is point the finger at other people and say, 'Oh, don't think about us, don't look at us, don't ask why we failed even though we have all this money. Look over there are Edward Snowden, it's his fault.'
Greenwald added that the world's history of terror attacks is proof that it doesn't make sense to accuse Snowden of teaching the attackers in Paris how to evade surveillance.
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/glenn-greenwald-irrational-to-blame-snowden-leaks-for-paris-terrorists_564b4005e4b08cda348a7d00?section=australia&adsSiteOverride=au
Read more @ http://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/2015/11/30/oped-why-cia-smearing-snowden/76563780/
As soon as some picture of the Paris attacks began to come into focus, the debate over Edward Snowden started again. Senior officials are now saying the former contractor’s leaks made it harder to catch the perpetrators of the atrocity in France. The known facts so far tell a different story. Last Monday, CIA director John Brennan said terrorists had practiced more “operational security” after leaks about some intelligence programmes. The next day, Politico published an interview with Brennan’s predecessor, Michael Morell, who said Snowden’s leaks helped contribute to the rise of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and that had they not occurred, the West would have had a “fighting chance” to prevent the terror in Paris. Former CIA director James Woolsey over the weekend was more explicit, saying Snowden has “blood on his hands”. The case against Snowden emerged after some European officials said the attack’s plotters in Belgium, France and Syria likely used encrypted messaging applications. FBI Director James Comey has said easy-to-use encrypted communications technology creates “dark spaces”, making it harder (though not impossible) for the bureau to intercept these conversations. The question now is whether Snowden’s disclosures caused terrorists to be more cautious, and use this technology to foil the efforts of governments to find them. Senior US officials have made variations of this claim since 2013. Morell, for example, wrote in his memoir published this year that terror networks monitored by US intelligence “went dark” after some of the Snowden stories were published.
As soon as some picture of the Paris attacks began to come into focus, the debate over Edward Snowden started again. Senior officials are now saying the former contractor’s leaks made it harder to catch the perpetrators of the atrocity in France. The known facts so far tell a different story.
Last Monday, CIA director John Brennan said terrorists had practiced more “operational security” after leaks about some intelligence programmes. The next day, Politico published an interview with Brennan’s predecessor, Michael Morell, who said Snowden’s leaks helped contribute to the rise of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and that had they not occurred, the West would have had a “fighting chance” to prevent the terror in Paris. Former CIA director James Woolsey over the weekend was more explicit, saying Snowden has “blood on his hands”.
The case against Snowden emerged after some European officials said the attack’s plotters in Belgium, France and Syria likely used encrypted messaging applications. FBI Director James Comey has said easy-to-use encrypted communications technology creates “dark spaces”, making it harder (though not impossible) for the bureau to intercept these conversations.
The question now is whether Snowden’s disclosures caused terrorists to be more cautious, and use this technology to foil the efforts of governments to find them. Senior US officials have made variations of this claim since 2013. Morell, for example, wrote in his memoir published this year that terror networks monitored by US intelligence “went dark” after some of the Snowden stories were published.
Read more @ http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/don-t-blame-edward-snowden-for-terror-in-paris-1.1624295
The Indian novelist recalls an extraordinary encounter in a Moscow hotel with the NSA whistleblower The Moscow Un-Summit wasn’t a formal interview. Nor was it a cloak-and-dagger underground rendezvous. The upshot is that John Cusack, Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war) and I didn’t get the cautious, diplomatic, regulation Edward Snowden. The downshot (that isn’t a word, I know) is that the jokes, the humour and repartee that took place in Room 1001 cannot be reproduced. The Un-Summit cannot be written about in the detail that it deserves. Yet it definitely cannot not be written about. Because it did happen. And because the world is a millipede that inches forward on millions of real conversations. And this, certainly, was a real one. What mattered, perhaps even more than what was said, was the spirit in the room. There was Edward Snowden who, after 9/11, was in his own words “straight up singing highly of Bush” and signing up for the Iraq war. And there were those of us who, after 9/11, had been straight up doing exactly the opposite. It was a little late for this conversation, of course. Iraq has been all but destroyed. And now the map of what is so condescendingly called the “Middle East” is being brutally redrawn (yet again). But still, there we were, all of us, talking to each other in a bizarre hotel in Russia. Bizarre it certainly was. The opulent lobby of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton was teeming with drunk millionaires, high on new money, and gorgeous, high-stepping young women, half peasant, half supermodel, draped on the arms of toady men – gazelles on their way to fame and fortune, paying their dues to the satyrs who would get them there. In the corridors, you passed serious fistfights, loud singing and quiet, liveried waiters wheeling trolleys with towers of food and silverware in and out of rooms. In Room 1001 we were so close to the Kremlin that if you put your hand out of the window, you could almost touch it. It was snowing outside. We were deep into the Russian winter – never credited enough for its part in the second world war. Edward Snowden was much smaller than I thought he’d be. Small, lithe, neat, like a house cat. He greeted Dan ecstatically and us warmly. “I know why you’re here,” he said to me, smiling. “Why?” “To radicalise me.” I laughed. We settled down on various perches, stools, chairs and John’s bed. Dan and Ed were so pleased to meet each other, and had so much to say to each other, that it felt a little impolite to intrude on them. At times they broke into some kind of arcane code language: “I jumped from nobody on the street, straight to TSSCI.” “No, because, again, this isn’t DS at all, this is NSA. At CIA, it’s called COMO.” “It’s kind of a similar role, but is it under support?” “PRISEC or PRIVAC?” “They start out with the TALENT KEYHOLE thing. Everyone then gets read into TS, SI, TK, and GAMMA-G clearance... Nobody knows what it is…” We spoke about whether the economic sanctions and subsequent invasion of Iraq could be accurately called genocide It took a while before I felt it was all right to interrupt them. Snowden’s disarming answer to my question about being photographed cradling the American flag was to roll his eyes and say: “Oh, man. I don’t know. Somebody handed me a flag, they took a picture.” And when I asked him why he signed up for the Iraq war, when millions of people all over the world were marching against it, he replied, equally disarmingly: “I fell for the propaganda.” Dan talked at some length about how it would be unusual for US citizens who joined the Pentagon and the National Security Agency to have read much literature on US exceptionalism and its history of warfare. (And once they joined, it was unlikely to be a subject that interested them.) He and Ed had watched it play out live, in real time, and were horrified enough to stake their lives and their freedom when they decided to be whistleblowers. What the two of them clearly had in common was a strong, almost corporeal sense of moral righteousness – of right and wrong. A sense of righteousness that was obviously at work not just when they decided to blow the whistle on what they thought to be morally unacceptable, but also when they signed up for their jobs – Dan to save his country from communism, Ed to save it from Islamist terrorism. What they did when they grew disillusioned was so electrifying, so dramatic, that they have come to be identified by that single act of moral courage. I asked Ed Snowden what he thought about Washington’s ability to destroy countries and its inability to win a war (despite mass surveillance). I think the question was phrased quite rudely – something like, “When was the last time the United States won a war?” We spoke about whether the economic sanctions and subsequent invasion of Iraq could be accurately called genocide. We talked about how the CIA knew – and was preparing for the fact – that the world was heading to a place of not just inter-country war but of intra-country war, in which mass surveillance would be necessary to control populations. And about how armies were being turned into police forces to administer countries they have invaded and occupied, while the police – even in places such as India and Pakistan and Ferguson, Missouri, in the United States – were being trained to behave like armies to quell internal insurrections.
The Indian novelist recalls an extraordinary encounter in a Moscow hotel with the NSA whistleblower
The Moscow Un-Summit wasn’t a formal interview. Nor was it a cloak-and-dagger underground rendezvous. The upshot is that John Cusack, Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war) and I didn’t get the cautious, diplomatic, regulation Edward Snowden. The downshot (that isn’t a word, I know) is that the jokes, the humour and repartee that took place in Room 1001 cannot be reproduced. The Un-Summit cannot be written about in the detail that it deserves. Yet it definitely cannot not be written about. Because it did happen. And because the world is a millipede that inches forward on millions of real conversations. And this, certainly, was a real one.
What mattered, perhaps even more than what was said, was the spirit in the room. There was Edward Snowden who, after 9/11, was in his own words “straight up singing highly of Bush” and signing up for the Iraq war. And there were those of us who, after 9/11, had been straight up doing exactly the opposite. It was a little late for this conversation, of course. Iraq has been all but destroyed. And now the map of what is so condescendingly called the “Middle East” is being brutally redrawn (yet again). But still, there we were, all of us, talking to each other in a bizarre hotel in Russia. Bizarre it certainly was.
The opulent lobby of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton was teeming with drunk millionaires, high on new money, and gorgeous, high-stepping young women, half peasant, half supermodel, draped on the arms of toady men – gazelles on their way to fame and fortune, paying their dues to the satyrs who would get them there. In the corridors, you passed serious fistfights, loud singing and quiet, liveried waiters wheeling trolleys with towers of food and silverware in and out of rooms. In Room 1001 we were so close to the Kremlin that if you put your hand out of the window, you could almost touch it. It was snowing outside. We were deep into the Russian winter – never credited enough for its part in the second world war. Edward Snowden was much smaller than I thought he’d be. Small, lithe, neat, like a house cat. He greeted Dan ecstatically and us warmly. “I know why you’re here,” he said to me, smiling. “Why?” “To radicalise me.” I laughed.
We settled down on various perches, stools, chairs and John’s bed. Dan and Ed were so pleased to meet each other, and had so much to say to each other, that it felt a little impolite to intrude on them. At times they broke into some kind of arcane code language: “I jumped from nobody on the street, straight to TSSCI.” “No, because, again, this isn’t DS at all, this is NSA. At CIA, it’s called COMO.” “It’s kind of a similar role, but is it under support?” “PRISEC or PRIVAC?” “They start out with the TALENT KEYHOLE thing. Everyone then gets read into TS, SI, TK, and GAMMA-G clearance... Nobody knows what it is…”
We spoke about whether the economic sanctions and subsequent invasion of Iraq could be accurately called genocide
Dan talked at some length about how it would be unusual for US citizens who joined the Pentagon and the National Security Agency to have read much literature on US exceptionalism and its history of warfare. (And once they joined, it was unlikely to be a subject that interested them.) He and Ed had watched it play out live, in real time, and were horrified enough to stake their lives and their freedom when they decided to be whistleblowers. What the two of them clearly had in common was a strong, almost corporeal sense of moral righteousness – of right and wrong.
A sense of righteousness that was obviously at work not just when they decided to blow the whistle on what they thought to be morally unacceptable, but also when they signed up for their jobs – Dan to save his country from communism, Ed to save it from Islamist terrorism. What they did when they grew disillusioned was so electrifying, so dramatic, that they have come to be identified by that single act of moral courage.
I asked Ed Snowden what he thought about Washington’s ability to destroy countries and its inability to win a war (despite mass surveillance). I think the question was phrased quite rudely – something like, “When was the last time the United States won a war?” We spoke about whether the economic sanctions and subsequent invasion of Iraq could be accurately called genocide. We talked about how the CIA knew – and was preparing for the fact – that the world was heading to a place of not just inter-country war but of intra-country war, in which mass surveillance would be necessary to control populations. And about how armies were being turned into police forces to administer countries they have invaded and occupied, while the police – even in places such as India and Pakistan and Ferguson, Missouri, in the United States – were being trained to behave like armies to quell internal insurrections.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/28/conversation-edward-snowden-arundhati-roy-john-cusack-interview
Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web-culture/victims-of-cat-facts-twitter-spam-made-to-tweet-at-edward-snowden-for-release-20151119-gl3gu0.html
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-why-everyone-is-tweeting-meow-i-2015-11
The biggest names in tech traveled across the country from Silicon Valley earlier this month for a four-day, invite-only cruise that set sail on November 13 from Miami. The second-annual Summit at Sea was both a networking event and party for the 3,000 carefully curated influencers onboard. And while the lineup of impressive speakers may have been the main draw for most of those on the trip, there was also a wide variety of classes that were offered including sunrise yoga, calligraphy workshops, 3D figure painting classes, and live demonstrations and tutorials on shark tagging. Best of all, guests had plenty of time to enjoy this wide variety of classes as well as the panels over the course of the four days - which included a live interview with Edward Snowden - because there was no Wi-Fi access on the ship save the 10 computers in the main lobby.
The biggest names in tech traveled across the country from Silicon Valley earlier this month for a four-day, invite-only cruise that set sail on November 13 from Miami.
The second-annual Summit at Sea was both a networking event and party for the 3,000 carefully curated influencers onboard.
And while the lineup of impressive speakers may have been the main draw for most of those on the trip, there was also a wide variety of classes that were offered including sunrise yoga, calligraphy workshops, 3D figure painting classes, and live demonstrations and tutorials on shark tagging.
Best of all, guests had plenty of time to enjoy this wide variety of classes as well as the panels over the course of the four days - which included a live interview with Edward Snowden - because there was no Wi-Fi access on the ship save the 10 computers in the main lobby.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328277/Silicon-Valley-sea-Titans-tech-pay-10-000-party-networking-cruise-offers-sunrise-yoga-world-class-cuisine-live-talk-Edward-Snowden-no-Wi-Fi.html
The recent vote by the European Parliament calling on member states to protect whistle blower Edward Snowden from extradition and prosecution, while largely symbolic, demonstrates how the United States government is conservative by international standards. This was seen again in the past week when, with absolutely no evidence to back them, some in the intelligence community used the recent terrorist attack in Paris to make Snowden the scapegoat. Glenn Greenwald has debunked these arguments: The CIA’s former acting director, Michael Morell, blamed the Paris attack on Internet companies “building encryption without keys,” which, he said, was caused by the debate over surveillance prompted by Snowden’s disclosures. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) blamed Silicon Valley’s privacy safeguards, claiming: “I have asked for help. And I haven’t gotten any help.” Former CIA chief James Woolsey said Snowden “has blood on his hands” because, he asserted, the Paris attackers learned from his disclosures how to hide their communications behind encryption. Woolsey thus decreed on CNN that the NSA whistleblower should be “hanged by the neck until he’s dead, rather than merely electrocuted.” In one sense, this blame-shifting tactic is understandable. After all, the CIA, the NSA and similar agencies receive billions of dollars annually from Congress and have been vested by their Senate overseers with virtually unlimited spying power. They have one paramount mission: find and stop people who are plotting terrorist attacks. When they fail, of course they are desperate to blame others. The CIA’s blame-shifting game, aside from being self-serving, was deceitful in the extreme. To begin with, there still is no evidence that the perpetrators in Paris used the Internet to plot their attacks, let alone used encryption technology. CIA officials simply made that up. It is at least equally likely that the attackers formulated their plans in face-to-face meetings. The central premise of the CIA’s campaign — encryption enabled the attackers to evade our detection — is baseless. Even if they had used encryption, what would that prove? Are we ready to endorse the precept that no human communication can ever take place without the U.S. government being able to monitor it? To prevent the CIA and FBI from “going dark” on terrorism plots that are planned in person, should we put Orwellian surveillance monitors in every room of every home that can be activated whenever someone is suspected of plotting? The claim that the Paris attackers learned to use encryption from Snowden is even more misleading. For many years before anyone heard of Snowden, the U.S. government repeatedly warned that terrorists were using highly advanced means of evading American surveillance… Greenwald elaborated more on this, and concluded with a general warning about how the government uses terrorism as an excuse to infringe upon civil liberties:
The recent vote by the European Parliament calling on member states to protect whistle blower Edward Snowden from extradition and prosecution, while largely symbolic, demonstrates how the United States government is conservative by international standards. This was seen again in the past week when, with absolutely no evidence to back them, some in the intelligence community used the recent terrorist attack in Paris to make Snowden the scapegoat. Glenn Greenwald has debunked these arguments:
The CIA’s former acting director, Michael Morell, blamed the Paris attack on Internet companies “building encryption without keys,” which, he said, was caused by the debate over surveillance prompted by Snowden’s disclosures. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) blamed Silicon Valley’s privacy safeguards, claiming: “I have asked for help. And I haven’t gotten any help.”
Former CIA chief James Woolsey said Snowden “has blood on his hands” because, he asserted, the Paris attackers learned from his disclosures how to hide their communications behind encryption. Woolsey thus decreed on CNN that the NSA whistleblower should be “hanged by the neck until he’s dead, rather than merely electrocuted.”
CIA officials simply made that up. It is at least equally likely that the attackers formulated their plans in face-to-face meetings. The central premise of the CIA’s campaign — encryption enabled the attackers to evade our detection — is baseless.
Even if they had used encryption, what would that prove? Are we ready to endorse the precept that no human communication can ever take place without the U.S. government being able to monitor it? To prevent the CIA and FBI from “going dark” on terrorism plots that are planned in person, should we put Orwellian surveillance monitors in every room of every home that can be activated whenever someone is suspected of plotting?
The claim that the Paris attackers learned to use encryption from Snowden is even more misleading. For many years before anyone heard of Snowden, the U.S. government repeatedly warned that terrorists were using highly advanced means of evading American surveillance…
Greenwald elaborated more on this, and concluded with a general warning about how the government uses terrorism as an excuse to infringe upon civil liberties:
Read more @ http://themoderatevoice.com/211048/edward-snowden-continues-to-bring-out-differences-between-civil-libertarians-and-advocates-of-the-surveillance-state/
Washington: The US government has halted its controversial program to collect vast troves of information from Americans' phone calls, a move prompted by the revelations of former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden. Privacy advocates and some tech firms are welcoming the end of the bulk gathering of so-called "metadata," but some security hawks fear law enforcement will be hampered in their efforts to thwart terror attacks.
Washington: The US government has halted its controversial program to collect vast troves of information from Americans' phone calls, a move prompted by the revelations of former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden.
Privacy advocates and some tech firms are welcoming the end of the bulk gathering of so-called "metadata," but some security hawks fear law enforcement will be hampered in their efforts to thwart terror attacks.
Read more @ http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/us-ends-phone-data-collection-exposed-by-edward-snowden-1170784.html
The National Security Agency is scheduled to end its dragnet collection of data on phone calls that use domestic carriers Saturday night — the most significant change in U.S. intelligence-gathering since Edward Snowden revealed details of the agency's programs two years ago. Under the Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the NSA had been permitted to gather records about phone calls and hunt through them to discover connections to al-Qaida and other groups. The legal authority for that system expires Saturday. Under a new law, the NSA must ask phone companies for records on a case-by-case basis. That gives the agency access to a greater volume of phone records than before. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Friday that the new program limits the data collected to "the greatest extent reasonably practicable."
The National Security Agency is scheduled to end its dragnet collection of data on phone calls that use domestic carriers Saturday night — the most significant change in U.S. intelligence-gathering since Edward Snowden revealed details of the agency's programs two years ago.
Under the Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the NSA had been permitted to gather records about phone calls and hunt through them to discover connections to al-Qaida and other groups.
The legal authority for that system expires Saturday. Under a new law, the NSA must ask phone companies for records on a case-by-case basis. That gives the agency access to a greater volume of phone records than before.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Friday that the new program limits the data collected to "the greatest extent reasonably practicable."
Read more @ http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-nsa-phone-program-20151127-story.html
It's no secret that ad blocking software is on the rise. One study released by Adobe and Pagefair, a company that tries to help publishers get around ad blocking tech, earlier this year found that there are 45 million active ad-block users in the United States -- a figure that increased 48 percent between June 2014 and June 2015. And Edward Snowden, the source for a slew of reports in The Washington Post and elsewhere that revealed the extent of the government's digital surveillance capabilities, thinks that's a good thing. Here's what he said in a recent interview with Micah Lee at the Intercept: "Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective ... "We've seen Internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, or whoever it is, insert their own ads into your plaintext http connections ... As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of JavaScript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser -- you should be actively trying to block these. Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response." Essentially, Snowden is making the security case for using ad blockers.
It's no secret that ad blocking software is on the rise. One study released by Adobe and Pagefair, a company that tries to help publishers get around ad blocking tech, earlier this year found that there are 45 million active ad-block users in the United States -- a figure that increased 48 percent between June 2014 and June 2015.
And Edward Snowden, the source for a slew of reports in The Washington Post and elsewhere that revealed the extent of the government's digital surveillance capabilities, thinks that's a good thing.
Here's what he said in a recent interview with Micah Lee at the Intercept:
"Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective ...
"We've seen Internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, or whoever it is, insert their own ads into your plaintext http connections ... As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of JavaScript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser -- you should be actively trying to block these. Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response."
Essentially, Snowden is making the security case for using ad blockers.
Read more @ http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20151121/business/151129974/
Edward Snowden has strongly criticised online ads, and advised Internet users to employ an ad blocker to protect their privacy online. "Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective. "We’ve seen internet providers inserting their own ads into your plaintext http connections. "As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that requires the use of Javascript to display or that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, you should be actively trying to block these. "Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response," he told online publication The Intercept. A "malvertising" attack occurs when an ad network unknowingly hosts harmful files which are disguised as ads. These types of attack have increased over the last few months, with one making the headlines when it infected Yahoo's website. Most news sites employ dozens of trackers and cookies that gather information about personal web browsing habits which can be used for advertising purposes.
Edward Snowden has strongly criticised online ads, and advised Internet users to employ an ad blocker to protect their privacy online.
"Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective.
"We’ve seen internet providers inserting their own ads into your plaintext http connections.
"As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that requires the use of Javascript to display or that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, you should be actively trying to block these.
"Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response," he told online publication The Intercept.
A "malvertising" attack occurs when an ad network unknowingly hosts harmful files which are disguised as ads.
These types of attack have increased over the last few months, with one making the headlines when it infected Yahoo's website.
Most news sites employ dozens of trackers and cookies that gather information about personal web browsing habits which can be used for advertising purposes.
Read more @ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/technology/edward-snowden-install-ad-blockers-to-boost-online-privacy-34213927.html
In a recent interview with The Intercept, Edward Snowden offered some advice for what average citizens can do to reclaim their privacy. Because the sharing of information should be a conversation, not an enigma buried in a site's 'Terms of Service.' 1. This includes Signal, an easy-to-use app that encrypts your mobile phone messages, as long as the person you're calling or texting also has the app installed. Developed by Open Whisper Systems, the app is available for both iOS and Android. 2. The next easy step is to enable two-factor authentication on your accounts. This way an attacker needs not only your password, but also a physical device, like your smartphone, to get the secondary code that opens your account. 3. A password manager, like KeePassX, will ensure your passwords are diversified across all accounts. So, if one account becomes compromised, they won't all become compromised.
In a recent interview with The Intercept, Edward Snowden offered some advice for what average citizens can do to reclaim their privacy. Because the sharing of information should be a conversation, not an enigma buried in a site's 'Terms of Service.'
1. This includes Signal, an easy-to-use app that encrypts your mobile phone messages, as long as the person you're calling or texting also has the app installed. Developed by Open Whisper Systems, the app is available for both iOS and Android.
2. The next easy step is to enable two-factor authentication on your accounts. This way an attacker needs not only your password, but also a physical device, like your smartphone, to get the secondary code that opens your account.
3. A password manager, like KeePassX, will ensure your passwords are diversified across all accounts. So, if one account becomes compromised, they won't all become compromised.
Read more @ http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/snowden-explains-why-its-super-easy-to-protect-our-privacy-online
Dec 5 15 10:31 PM
Representing Edward Snowden is 'no ordinary legal representation'
ACLU's Wizner will attend his client's Park City event It's like something from a James Bond film. Computer engineer, Edward Snowden, formerly with the CIA, is assigned to help the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) defend themselves from Chinese hackers. He is quickly promoted to being an expert in "cyber counterintelligence" and a "cyberstrategist." During this time, Snowden stumbles across unconstitutional misconducts and abuse of power in the intelligence community regarding privacy and surveillance. After fleeing to Hong Kong and revealing documents to the press, Snowden is charged with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property. So he flees to Russia, which has granted him three years of temporary asylum. Park City will get the opportunity to hear from Snowden when the Park City Institute kicks off its 2015-16 Main Stage Season with "Live from Russia: Edward Snowden" at the Eccles Center for the Performing Arts on Saturday, Dec. 5. Snowden will appear via a video messaging service and will be interviewed by KUER's Doug Frabrizio, according to his lawyer, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU's Wizner will attend his client's Park City event
It's like something from a James Bond film.
Computer engineer, Edward Snowden, formerly with the CIA, is assigned to help the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) defend themselves from Chinese hackers.
He is quickly promoted to being an expert in "cyber counterintelligence" and a "cyberstrategist."
During this time, Snowden stumbles across unconstitutional misconducts and abuse of power in the intelligence community regarding privacy and surveillance.
After fleeing to Hong Kong and revealing documents to the press, Snowden is charged with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property. So he flees to Russia, which has granted him three years of temporary asylum.
Park City will get the opportunity to hear from Snowden when the Park City Institute kicks off its 2015-16 Main Stage Season with "Live from Russia: Edward Snowden" at the Eccles Center for the Performing Arts on Saturday, Dec. 5.
Snowden will appear via a video messaging service and will be interviewed by KUER's Doug Frabrizio, according to his lawyer, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Read more @ http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_29189099/representing-edward-snowden-is-no-ordinary-legal-representation
He didn’t flee to Russia, he was trapped in Russia when the US revoked his passport…..
As the lead negotiator for the European Parliament on data protection, Jan Albrecht’s voice carries far. Edward Snowden is one of Jan Philipp Albrecht’s folk heroes. The Paris attacks didn’t change his mind, but the terrorists made his job harder. As the lead negotiator for the European Parliament on the General Data Protection Regulation, the German Green is the driving force behind a law that will harmonize data protection rules across Europe. The aim is to give people more power over what happens with their data, ranging from financial information to family photos, ensuring it is only processed, stored or sold with their consent. The law would also make it easier for people to switch services, like cloud photo storage, by making data more portable. Finally, companies could be fined for failure to comply or to notify authorities when breached. The legislation is expected to be finalized by the end of December, but the tenor of the debate shifted after the Paris attacks coupled with the level-4 terror threat in Brussels. A growing number of political leaders are listening to frightened voters who are willing to sacrifice more privacy in order to feel more secure. “[Snowden] didn’t reveal any intelligence about terrorist investigations but just information about the unlawful extent of intelligence agencies activities.”
As the lead negotiator for the European Parliament on data protection, Jan Albrecht’s voice carries far.
Edward Snowden is one of Jan Philipp Albrecht’s folk heroes. The Paris attacks didn’t change his mind, but the terrorists made his job harder.
As the lead negotiator for the European Parliament on the General Data Protection Regulation, the German Green is the driving force behind a law that will harmonize data protection rules across Europe.
The aim is to give people more power over what happens with their data, ranging from financial information to family photos, ensuring it is only processed, stored or sold with their consent. The law would also make it easier for people to switch services, like cloud photo storage, by making data more portable. Finally, companies could be fined for failure to comply or to notify authorities when breached.
The legislation is expected to be finalized by the end of December, but the tenor of the debate shifted after the Paris attacks coupled with the level-4 terror threat in Brussels. A growing number of political leaders are listening to frightened voters who are willing to sacrifice more privacy in order to feel more secure.
“[Snowden] didn’t reveal any intelligence about terrorist investigations but just information about the unlawful extent of intelligence agencies activities.”
Read more @ http://www.politico.eu/article/snowdens-biggest-european-fan-stays-loyal/
Park City Institute's Teri Orr discusses Snowden's streamed appearance. Teri Orr is the director of the Park City Institute, where she worked since 1996, before the Eccles Center in Park Center was built in 1998. But she is also a journalist, having served as an award-winning, former editor of the Park Record newspaper where she remains a columnist today. After hearing Edward Snowden speak at the 2014 TED conference via live stream, she had the idea to bring the infamous leaker of government confidential data to Utah. "I came into that experience neutral and left feeling I needed to understand more about the National Security Agency and how whistleblowers are treated," she writes in an email. "The entire freedom-of-the-press issue hit me in the gut. And I understand in a new way, nothing electronic is private, anymore." Her idea will become a reality this Saturday, Dec. 5, at 7:30 p.m., the Eccles Center in Park City will host Edward Snowden streamed live from Russia (see City Weekly's Entertainment Picks for more information). After hearing Edward Snowden talk at the Ted Conference, how did you come to view him—a patriotic whistle blower or a traitor who former CIA director James Woolsey claims has blood on his hands for the recent Paris attacks? The more you study Edward Snowden—what he actually did and did not do, and his concerns for our country—you have to admire his bravery. If you saw the Oscar award-winning documentary, CitizenFour, you understand the enormous sacrifice and risk. When you understand his military family background and his own military service, you shift again. And when you see his Twitter feeds, you understand he also has a quick sense of humor. I think we will come to view Edward Snowden as we once did Deep Throat or Daniel Ellsberg. We will discover we initially misjudged him and come to understand him as a remarkable patriot. He deserves amnesty and a return to the United States and there are increasing calls for this to happen from New York Times editorials to former Attorney General Eric Holder suggesting we re-consider bringing him home and suggesting to make a deal to do so.
Teri Orr is the director of the Park City Institute, where she worked since 1996, before the Eccles Center in Park Center was built in 1998. But she is also a journalist, having served as an award-winning, former editor of the Park Record newspaper where she remains a columnist today. After hearing Edward Snowden speak at the 2014 TED conference via live stream, she had the idea to bring the infamous leaker of government confidential data to Utah. "I came into that experience neutral and left feeling I needed to understand more about the National Security Agency and how whistleblowers are treated," she writes in an email. "The entire freedom-of-the-press issue hit me in the gut. And I understand in a new way, nothing electronic is private, anymore." Her idea will become a reality this Saturday, Dec. 5, at 7:30 p.m., the Eccles Center in Park City will host Edward Snowden streamed live from Russia (see City Weekly's Entertainment Picks for more information).
After hearing Edward Snowden talk at the Ted Conference, how did you come to view him—a patriotic whistle blower or a traitor who former CIA director James Woolsey claims has blood on his hands for the recent Paris attacks?
The more you study Edward Snowden—what he actually did and did not do, and his concerns for our country—you have to admire his bravery. If you saw the Oscar award-winning documentary, CitizenFour, you understand the enormous sacrifice and risk. When you understand his military family background and his own military service, you shift again. And when you see his Twitter feeds, you understand he also has a quick sense of humor. I think we will come to view Edward Snowden as we once did Deep Throat or Daniel Ellsberg. We will discover we initially misjudged him and come to understand him as a remarkable patriot. He deserves amnesty and a return to the United States and there are increasing calls for this to happen from New York Times editorials to former Attorney General Eric Holder suggesting we re-consider bringing him home and suggesting to make a deal to do so.
Read more @ http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/chat-with-teri-orr-about-chat-with-edward-snowden/Content?oid=3090263
Open Whisper Systems has announced the launch of Signal on desktop, available in closed beta today. The messaging service is a favorite among privacy advocates, including NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden. Signal offers end-to-end encryption for text, image, and video messages — both single and group conversations are available. The end-to-end encryption stops snoopers from being able to access or read the conversation.
Open Whisper Systems has announced the launch of Signal on desktop, available in closed beta today. The messaging service is a favorite among privacy advocates, including NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Signal offers end-to-end encryption for text, image, and video messages — both single and group conversations are available. The end-to-end encryption stops snoopers from being able to access or read the conversation.
Read more @ http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/signal-desktop/
RT, the Russian state-funded English news network, marked its tenth anniversary this month with a new promotional video. It imagines a world 20 years from now where a doddering President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, impersonated by actors, putter about in their retirement. In the background in Obama's kitchen, RT blares away on Obama's television, showing a news conference where exiled whistleblower Edward Snowden is now the U.S. president and heralds a new era in transparency. "Damn propaganda bullhorn," says Kerry, a reference to an actual remark he made about RT last year. Obama echoes his colleague's opinion.
RT, the Russian state-funded English news network, marked its tenth anniversary this month with a new promotional video. It imagines a world 20 years from now where a doddering President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, impersonated by actors, putter about in their retirement.
In the background in Obama's kitchen, RT blares away on Obama's television, showing a news conference where exiled whistleblower Edward Snowden is now the U.S. president and heralds a new era in transparency.
"Damn propaganda bullhorn," says Kerry, a reference to an actual remark he made about RT last year. Obama echoes his colleague's opinion.
Read more @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/04/watch-the-kremlins-fantasy-of-an-edward-snowden-presidency/
I think Snowden would make a brilliant US president..... because he has strong principles and stands by them, and he is for the people.
Dec 10 15 8:28 AM
Edward Snowden to Keynote Liberty Forum 2016!
The Free State Project‘s yearly hotel convention, “NH Liberty Forum” is always a great event that attracts hundreds of attendees, including lots of prospective movers. Regardless of who is speaking, the event is worth attending simply to experience the amazing liberty activist community we have here in New Hampshire. However, having great speakers certainly makes the event more attractive and the FSP is going to have a tough time topping this year’s keynote speaker – Edward Snowden. Yes, THE Edward Snowden, whose revelations about the NSA and their spy counterpart agencies worldwide like the British GCHQ, rocked the world. Of course, he can’t come in person due to the fact that the scumbag feds will arrest him on sight, so he’ll be appearing via remote video link from Moscow.
The Free State Project‘s yearly hotel convention, “NH Liberty Forum” is always a great event that attracts hundreds of attendees, including lots of prospective movers. Regardless of who is speaking, the event is worth attending simply to experience the amazing liberty activist community we have here in New Hampshire. However, having great speakers certainly makes the event more attractive and the FSP is going to have a tough time topping this year’s keynote speaker – Edward Snowden.
Yes, THE Edward Snowden, whose revelations about the NSA and their spy counterpart agencies worldwide like the British GCHQ, rocked the world. Of course, he can’t come in person due to the fact that the scumbag feds will arrest him on sight, so he’ll be appearing via remote video link from Moscow.
Read more @ http://freekeene.com/2015/12/02/edward-snowden-to-keynote-liberty-forum-2016/
On Tuesday, Jared Leto will interview former CIA employee Edward Snowden, who leaked top-secret documents that showed the NSA was spying on American citizens. Yes, that same Jared Leto. The actor-musician, who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role in Dallas Buyers Club and fronts the band Thirty Seconds to Mars, can now add interviewing some of the world's most famous newsmakers to his long list of accomplishments. You can tune in to Tuesday's episode featuring Snowden on AOL, host to Leto's web program Beyond the Horizon.
Read more @ http://www.bustle.com/articles/128382-how-to-listen-to-jared-leto-interviewing-edward-snowden-yes-really-on-your-old-friend-aol
Read more @ http://mashable.com/2015/12/07/jared-leto-edward-snowden/#nMtHS.nVVPqK
At least we know Edward Snowden gets a little time for himself — like us, Fallout 4 seems to be his preferred method to relax — and he doesn’t like it when it’s interrupted by bad national security journalism. From his Brotherhood of Steel fortress in the depths of Siberia (read: Moscow), Snowden let loose today’s best quote: Ever have one of those days where you just wanted to play Fallout 4, but somebody says something so dumb you have to get on Twitter? — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) December 7, 2015 That “somebody” in this case is the Associated Press investigative editor Ted Bridis, who wrote a story published Sunday about law enforcement access to phone records in the San Bernarndino shooting. Snowden says Bridis is wrong, wrong, wrong. The takeaway from the AP story is that investigators lost out on the NSA’s phone record dragnet when one of the NSA’s bulk collection programs expired, which would have allowed them to access five years of phone records on shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Now, the AP story implies, they’re stuck obtaining records directly from phone companies under the USA Freedom Act. “Under the new law, passed in June, investigators still can look for links in phone records but they must obtain a targeted warrant to get them directly from phone companies, which generally keep customer records for 18 months to two years, although some keep them longer.” But the FBI investigators in the San Bernardino case have access to a lot more than the AP made out here, according to Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel, who wrote a brutal takedown of the piece after a back-and-forth with Bridis on Twitter. She writes: “But the real problem with this utterly erroneous article is that it suggests the ‘US government’ can’t get any records from NSA, which in turn suggests the only records of interest the NSA might have came from the Section 215 bulk collection program, which is of course nonsense. Not only does the NSA get far more records than what they got under Section 215 — that dragnet was … just a fraction of what NSA got, and according to NSA’s training, it was significantly redundant with … collection on international calls to the US, which the NSA can collect with fewer limits as to format and share more freely with the FBI — but there are plenty of other places where the FBI can get records. “So the AP didn’t mention all the ways FBI gets records on its own, and it didn’t mention the larger NSA EO 12333 bulk collection that NSA can share more freely with FBI.” For example, the New York Times reported back in 2013 that the government had arranged a partnership with AT&T that would give anti-narcotics units access to a colossal AT&T database on the DL — a database that goes back more than 25 years.
At least we know Edward Snowden gets a little time for himself — like us, Fallout 4 seems to be his preferred method to relax — and he doesn’t like it when it’s interrupted by bad national security journalism. From his Brotherhood of Steel fortress in the depths of Siberia (read: Moscow), Snowden let loose today’s best quote:
Ever have one of those days where you just wanted to play Fallout 4, but somebody says something so dumb you have to get on Twitter?
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) December 7, 2015
That “somebody” in this case is the Associated Press investigative editor Ted Bridis, who wrote a story published Sunday about law enforcement access to phone records in the San Bernarndino shooting.
Snowden says Bridis is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The takeaway from the AP story is that investigators lost out on the NSA’s phone record dragnet when one of the NSA’s bulk collection programs expired, which would have allowed them to access five years of phone records on shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Now, the AP story implies, they’re stuck obtaining records directly from phone companies under the USA Freedom Act.
“Under the new law, passed in June, investigators still can look for links in phone records but they must obtain a targeted warrant to get them directly from phone companies, which generally keep customer records for 18 months to two years, although some keep them longer.”
But the FBI investigators in the San Bernardino case have access to a lot more than the AP made out here, according to Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel, who wrote a brutal takedown of the piece after a back-and-forth with Bridis on Twitter. She writes:
“But the real problem with this utterly erroneous article is that it suggests the ‘US government’ can’t get any records from NSA, which in turn suggests the only records of interest the NSA might have came from the Section 215 bulk collection program, which is of course nonsense. Not only does the NSA get far more records than what they got under Section 215 — that dragnet was … just a fraction of what NSA got, and according to NSA’s training, it was significantly redundant with … collection on international calls to the US, which the NSA can collect with fewer limits as to format and share more freely with the FBI — but there are plenty of other places where the FBI can get records.
“So the AP didn’t mention all the ways FBI gets records on its own, and it didn’t mention the larger NSA EO 12333 bulk collection that NSA can share more freely with FBI.”
For example, the New York Times reported back in 2013 that the government had arranged a partnership with AT&T that would give anti-narcotics units access to a colossal AT&T database on the DL — a database that goes back more than 25 years.
Read more @ https://www.inverse.com/article/8915-edward-snowden-would-rather-play-fallout-4-than-correct-ap-journalists
Read more @ http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2015/12/07/marco-rubio-calls-edward-snowden-a-traitor-cruz-has-not-again.aspx
Read more @ http://www.mediaite.com/online/rt-russia-today-ad-depicts-eldery-obama-predicts-edward-snowdens-presidency/
Not unless Snowden Ok's it first......
Read more @ http://finance.yahoo.com/news/edward-snowden-favorite-messaging-app-162256944.html