FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Snowden wakes MSM up to PRISM mass warrantless surveillance
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MI5 and GCHQ documents allow spying on lawyers
Top secret documents, released in a legal case, show the security services have permitted their operatives to intercept communications between lawyers and their clients
Guidelines indicate the security services have been targeting communications between lawyers and their clients for years Photo: PA

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent

3:30PM GMT 06 Nov 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11213755/MI5-and- GCHQ-documents-allow-spying-on-lawyers.html

Top secret guidelines setting out how the security services have been instructed to spy on communications between lawyers and the clients have been published for the first time.

Extracts of documents from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ were released as part of a legal action brought by lawyers from the campaigning charity Reprieve on behalf of two Libyan men.

The papers, disclosed in a tribunal case, are controversial because communications between lawyers and their clients are covered by “legal professional privilege”, or LPP, meaning that law enforcement agencies are supposed to respect their privacy.

But the guidelines indicate the security services have been targeting such communications – by interception methods thought to include telephone taps and e-mail surveillance – since at last October 2002.

One of the extracts, from GCHQ internal documents, says: “You may in principle target the communications of lawyers.

“However, you must give careful consideration to necessity and proportionality, because lawyer-client communications are subject to special protection in UK law on grounds of confidentiality known as legal professional privilege.

“If you intend to or have inadvertently targeted lawyers' communications, and it seems likely that advice to a client will or has been intercepted, you must consult Legal at GCHQ who will seek [legal adviser] advice.”

The Security Service, also known as MI5, tells its intelligence officers that "in principle, and subject to the normal requirements of necessity and proportionality, LPP material may be used just like any other item of intelligence".

Another extract from an MI5 document highlights the difficulties posed by spying on lawyers who are preparing a defendant’s case against criminal charges.

“If an individual who is investigated by the service is the subject of criminal proceedings, and in the course of investigation the service intercepts a forensic report prepared for the purpose of those proceedings then it might be justifiable to put information from that report into the Service’s database for future use in intelligence investigations.

“However, this information would not be passed onto the police, in case they use it to gather further evidence or direct their own forensic experts in such a way as to refute the defence expert.

“In other words the service mustn’t use LPP material in a way that gives the appearance of enabling the State to gain an unfair advantage in current or future court proceedings.”

Campaigners and lawyers involved with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal case said the disclosures raised "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".

Cori Crider, a director at Reprieve, said: “It’s now clear the intelligence agencies have been eavesdropping on lawyer-client conversations for years.

“The documents clearly show that MI5’s and GCHQ’s policies on snooping on lawyers have major loopholes.

“And MI6’s ‘policies’ are so hopeless they appear to have been jotted down on the back of a beer mat.

“This raises troubling implications for the whole British justice system. In how many cases has the Government eavesdropped to give itself an unfair advantage in court?”

Richard Stein, a partner at Leigh Day solicitors, said: “After many months’ resistance, the security services have now been forced to disclose the policies which they claim are in place to protect the confidential communications between lawyers and their clients.

“We can see why they were so reluctant to disclose them.

“They highlight how the security services instruct their staff to flout these important principles in a cavalier way.

“We hope the tribunal will tell the government in no uncertain terms that this conduct is completely unacceptable.”

Disclosure of the material was resisted on national security grounds by the Government until a tribubal hearing last week.

The papers were released following a claim brought on behalf of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi who, along with members of their families, were kidnapped and sent to face punishment in Libya in 2004.

The families brought the case after disclosures on mass surveillance by Edward Snowden, the former CIA contractor.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SECRET MALWARE IN EUROPEAN UNION ATTACK LINKED TO U.S. AND BRITISH INTELLIGENCE
BY MORGAN MARQUIS-BOIRE, CLAUDIO GUARNIERI, AND RYAN GALLAGHER @headhntr@rj_gallagher MONDAY AT 5:25 PM
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/24/secret-regin-malware-bel gacom-nsa-gchq/

Complex malware known as Regin is the suspected technology behind sophisticated cyberattacks conducted by U.S. and British intelligence agencies on the European Union and a Belgian telecommunications company, according to security industry sources and technical analysis conducted by The Intercept.

Regin was found on infected internal computer systems and email servers at Belgacom, a partly state-owned Belgian phone and internet provider, following reports last year that the company was targeted in a top-secret surveillance operation carried out by British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters, industry sources told The Intercept.

The malware, which steals data from infected systems and disguises itself as legitimate Microsoft software, has also been identified on the same European Union computer systems that were targeted for surveillance by the National Security Agency.

The hacking operations against Belgacom and the European Union were first revealed last year through documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The specific malware used in the attacks has never been disclosed, however.

The Regin malware, whose existence was first reported by the security firm Symantec on Sunday, is among the most sophisticated ever discovered by researchers. Symantec compared Regin to Stuxnet, a state-sponsored malware program developed by the U.S. and Israel to sabotage computers at an Iranian nuclear facility. Sources familiar with internal investigations at Belgacom and the European Union have confirmed to The Intercept that the Regin malware was found on their systems after they were compromised, linking the spy tool to the secret GCHQ and NSA operations.

Ronald Prins, a security expert whose company Fox IT was hired to remove the malware from Belgacom’s networks, told The Intercept that it was “the most sophisticated malware” he had ever studied.

“Having analyzed this malware and looked at the [previously published] Snowden documents,” Prins said, “I’m convinced Regin is used by British and American intelligence services.”

A spokesman for Belgacom declined to comment specifically about the Regin revelations, but said that the company had shared “every element about the attack” with a federal prosecutor in Belgium who is conducting a criminal investigation into the intrusion. “It’s impossible for us to comment on this,” said Jan Margot, a spokesman for Belgacom. “It’s always been clear to us the malware was highly sophisticated, but ever since the clean-up this whole story belongs to the past for us.”

In a hacking mission codenamed Operation Socialist, GCHQ gained access to Belgacom’s internal systems in 2010 by targeting engineers at the company. The agency secretly installed so-called malware “implants” on the employees’ computers by sending their internet connection to a fake LinkedIn page. The malicious LinkedIn page launched a malware attack, infecting the employees’ computers and giving the spies total control of their systems, allowing GCHQ to get deep inside Belgacom’s networks to steal data.

The implants allowed GCHQ to conduct surveillance of internal Belgacom company communications and gave British spies the ability to gather data from the company’s network and customers, which include the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council. The software implants used in this case were part of the suite of malware now known as Regin.

One of the keys to Regin is its stealth: To avoid detection and frustrate analysis, malware used in such operations frequently adhere to a modular design. This involves the deployment of the malware in stages, making it more difficult to analyze and mitigating certain risks of being caught.

Based on an analysis of the malware samples, Regin appears to have been developed over the course of more than a decade; The Intercept has identified traces of its components dating back as far as 2003. Regin was mentioned at a recent Hack.lu conference in Luxembourg, and Symantec’s report on Sunday said the firm had identified Regin on infected systems operated by private companies, government entities, and research institutes in countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Ireland, Belgium, and Iran.

The use of hacking techniques and malware in state-sponsored espionage has been publicly documented over the last few years: China has been linked to extensive cyber espionage, and recently the Russian government was also alleged to have been behind a cyber attack on the White House. Regin further demonstrates that Western intelligence agencies are also involved in covert cyberespionage.

GCHQ declined to comment for this story. The agency issued its standard response to inquiries, saying that “it is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters” and “all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate.”

The NSA said in a statement, “We are not going to comment on The Intercept’s speculation.”

The Intercept has obtained samples of the malware from sources in the security community and is making it available for public download in an effort to encourage further research and analysis. (To download the malware, click here. The file is encrypted; to access it on your machine use the password “infected.”) What follows is a brief technical analysis of Regin conducted by The Intercept’s computer security staff. Regin is an extremely complex, multi-faceted piece of work and this is by no means a definitive analysis.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SECRET MALWARE IN EUROPEAN UNION ATTACK LINKED TO U.S. AND BRITISH INTELLIGENCE
BY MORGAN MARQUIS-BOIRE, CLAUDIO GUARNIERI, AND RYAN GALLAGHER @headhntr@rj_gallagher MONDAY AT 5:25 PM
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/24/secret-regin-malware-bel gacom-nsa-gchq/

Complex malware known as Regin is the suspected technology behind sophisticated cyberattacks conducted by U.S. and British intelligence agencies on the European Union and a Belgian telecommunications company, according to security industry sources and technical analysis conducted by The Intercept.

Regin was found on infected internal computer systems and email servers at Belgacom, a partly state-owned Belgian phone and internet provider, following reports last year that the company was targeted in a top-secret surveillance operation carried out by British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters, industry sources told The Intercept.

The malware, which steals data from infected systems and disguises itself as legitimate Microsoft software, has also been identified on the same European Union computer systems that were targeted for surveillance by the National Security Agency.

The hacking operations against Belgacom and the European Union were first revealed last year through documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The specific malware used in the attacks has never been disclosed, however.

The Regin malware, whose existence was first reported by the security firm Symantec on Sunday, is among the most sophisticated ever discovered by researchers. Symantec compared Regin to Stuxnet, a state-sponsored malware program developed by the U.S. and Israel to sabotage computers at an Iranian nuclear facility. Sources familiar with internal investigations at Belgacom and the European Union have confirmed to The Intercept that the Regin malware was found on their systems after they were compromised, linking the spy tool to the secret GCHQ and NSA operations.

Ronald Prins, a security expert whose company Fox IT was hired to remove the malware from Belgacom’s networks, told The Intercept that it was “the most sophisticated malware” he had ever studied.

“Having analyzed this malware and looked at the [previously published] Snowden documents,” Prins said, “I’m convinced Regin is used by British and American intelligence services.”

A spokesman for Belgacom declined to comment specifically about the Regin revelations, but said that the company had shared “every element about the attack” with a federal prosecutor in Belgium who is conducting a criminal investigation into the intrusion. “It’s impossible for us to comment on this,” said Jan Margot, a spokesman for Belgacom. “It’s always been clear to us the malware was highly sophisticated, but ever since the clean-up this whole story belongs to the past for us.”

In a hacking mission codenamed Operation Socialist, GCHQ gained access to Belgacom’s internal systems in 2010 by targeting engineers at the company. The agency secretly installed so-called malware “implants” on the employees’ computers by sending their internet connection to a fake LinkedIn page. The malicious LinkedIn page launched a malware attack, infecting the employees’ computers and giving the spies total control of their systems, allowing GCHQ to get deep inside Belgacom’s networks to steal data.

The implants allowed GCHQ to conduct surveillance of internal Belgacom company communications and gave British spies the ability to gather data from the company’s network and customers, which include the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council. The software implants used in this case were part of the suite of malware now known as Regin.

One of the keys to Regin is its stealth: To avoid detection and frustrate analysis, malware used in such operations frequently adhere to a modular design. This involves the deployment of the malware in stages, making it more difficult to analyze and mitigating certain risks of being caught.

Based on an analysis of the malware samples, Regin appears to have been developed over the course of more than a decade; The Intercept has identified traces of its components dating back as far as 2003. Regin was mentioned at a recent Hack.lu conference in Luxembourg, and Symantec’s report on Sunday said the firm had identified Regin on infected systems operated by private companies, government entities, and research institutes in countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Ireland, Belgium, and Iran.

The use of hacking techniques and malware in state-sponsored espionage has been publicly documented over the last few years: China has been linked to extensive cyber espionage, and recently the Russian government was also alleged to have been behind a cyber attack on the White House. Regin further demonstrates that Western intelligence agencies are also involved in covert cyberespionage.

GCHQ declined to comment for this story. The agency issued its standard response to inquiries, saying that “it is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters” and “all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate.”

The NSA said in a statement, “We are not going to comment on The Intercept’s speculation.”

The Intercept has obtained samples of the malware from sources in the security community and is making it available for public download in an effort to encourage further research and analysis. (To download the malware, click here. The file is encrypted; to access it on your machine use the password “infected.”) What follows is a brief technical analysis of Regin conducted by The Intercept’s computer security staff. Regin is an extremely complex, multi-faceted piece of work and this is by no means a definitive analysis.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 1691
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In March 2011, two weeks before the Western intervention in Libya, a secret message was delivered to the National Security Agency. An intelligence unit within the U.S. military’s Africa Command needed help to hack into Libya’s cellphone networks and monitor text messages.

For the NSA, the task was easy. The agency had already obtained technical information about the cellphone carriers’ internal systems by spying on documents sent among company employees, and these details would provide the perfect blueprint to help the military break into the networks.

The NSA’s assistance in the Libya operation, however, was not an isolated case. It was part of a much larger surveillance program—global in its scope and ramifications—targeted not just at hostile countries.

According to documents contained in the archive of material provided to The Intercept by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the NSA has spied on hundreds of companies and organizations internationally, including in countries closely allied to the United States, in an effort to find security weaknesses in cellphone technology that it can exploit for surveillance.

The documents also reveal how the NSA plans to secretly introduce new flaws into communication systems so that they can be tapped into—a controversial tactic that security experts say could be exposing the general population to criminal hackers.

Codenamed AURORAGOLD, the covert operation has monitored the content of messages sent and received by more than 1,200 email accounts associated with major cellphone network operators, intercepting confidential company planning papers that help the NSA hack into phone networks.

One high-profile surveillance target is the GSM Association, an influential U.K.-headquartered trade group that works closely with large U.S.-based firms including Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, and Cisco, and is currently being funded by the U.S. government to develop privacy-enhancing technologies.

Karsten Nohl, a leading cellphone security expert and cryptographer who was consulted by The Intercept about details contained in the AURORAGOLD documents, said that the broad scope of information swept up in the operation appears aimed at ensuring virtually every cellphone network in the world is NSA accessible.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/04/nsa-auroragold-hack-cell phones/

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cult of Snowden: Germany sees whistleblower as hero, icon & brand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMcjDHv6X8o&feature=em-uploademail (2 1/2 minute video):

Germans show their appreciation of Edward Snowden's exposures.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More cop fun and games How police 3-way your calls:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-surveillance-state/more-cop-fun -and-games.html

Short 4.4 minute video clip, but here is a Global Research article on the subject:
'New Hi-Tech Police Surveillance: The “StingRay” Cell Phone Spying Device':
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-hi-tech-police-surveillance-the-sting ray-cell-phone-spying-device/5331165

'Blocked by a Supreme Court decision from using GPS tracking devices without a warrant, federal investigators and other law enforcement agencies are turning to a new, more powerful and more threatening technology in their bid to spy more freely on those they suspect of drug crimes. That’s leading civil libertarians, electronic privacy advocates, and even some federal judges to raise the alarm about a new surveillance technology whose use has yet to be taken up definitively by the federal courts.

The new surveillance technology is the StingRay (also marketed as Triggerfish, IMSI Catcher, Cell-site Simulator or Digital Analyzer), a sophisticated, portable spy device able to track cell phone signals inside vehicles, homes and insulated buildings. StingRay trackers act as fake cell towers, allowing police investigators to pinpoint location of a targeted wireless mobile by sucking up phone data such as text messages, emails and cell-site information.

When a suspect makes a phone call, the StingRay tricks the cell into sending its signal back to the police, thus preventing the signal from traveling back to the suspect’s wireless carrier. But not only does StingRay track the targeted cell phone, it also extracts data off potentially thousands of other cell phone users in the area.

Although manufactured by a Germany and Britain-based firm, the StingRay devices are sold in the US by the Harris Corporation, an international telecommunications equipment company. It gets between $60,000 and $175,000 for each Stingray it sells to US law enforcement agencies.

[While the US courts are only beginning to grapple with StingRay, the high tech cat-and-mouse game between cops and criminals continues afoot. Foreign hackers reportedly sell an underground IMSI tracker to counter the Stingray to anyone who asks for $1000. And in December 2011, noted German security expert Karsten Nohl released "Catcher Catcher," powerful software that monitors a network's traffic to seek out the StingRay in use.]

Originally intended for terrorism investigations, the feds and local law enforcement agencies are now using the James Bond-type surveillance to track cell phones in drug war cases across the nation without a warrant. Federal officials say that is fine — responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) and the First Amendment Coalition, the Justice Department argued that no warrant was needed to use StingRay technology.

“If a device is not capturing the contents of a particular dialogue call, the device does not require a warrant, but only a court order under the Pen Register Statute showing the material obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation,” the department wrote.

The FBI claims that it is adhering to lawful standards in using StingRay. “The bureau advises field officers to work closely with the US Attorney’s Office in their districts to comply with legal requirements,” FBI spokesman Chris Allen told the Washington Post last week, but the agency has refused to fully disclose whether or not its agents obtain probable cause warrants to track phones using the controversial device.

And the federal government’s response to the EFF’s FOIA about Stingray wasn’t exactly responsive. While the FOIA request generated over 20,000 records related to StingRay, the Justice Department released only a pair of court orders and a handful of heavily redacted documents that didn’t explain when and how the technology was used.

The LA Weekly reported in January that the StingRay “intended to fight terrorism was used in far more routine Los Angeles Police criminal investigations,” apparently without the courts’ knowledge that it probes the lives of non-suspects living in the same neighborhood with a suspect.

Critics say the technology wrongfully invades technology and that its uncontrolled use by law enforcement raised constitutional questions. “It is the biggest threat to cell phone privacy you don’t know about,” EFF said in a statement.

ACLU privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian told a Yale Law School Location Tracking and Biometrics Conference panel last month that “the government uses the device either when a target is routinely and quickly changing phones to thwart a wiretap or when police don’t have sufficient cause for a warrant.”

“The government is hiding information about new surveillance technology not only from the public, but even from the courts,” ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye wrote in a legal brief in the first pending federal StingRay case (see below). “By keeping courts in the dark about new technologies, the government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants, and that’s not how the Constitution works.”

Lye further expressed concern over the StingRay’s ability to interfere with cell phone signals in violation of Federal Communication Act. “We haven’t seen documents suggesting the LAPD or any other agency have sought or obtained FCC authorization,” she wrote.

“If the government shows up in your neighborhood, essentially every phone is going to check in with the government,” said the ACLU’s Soghoian. “The government is sending signals through people’s walls and clothes and capturing information about innocent people. That’s not much different than using invasive technology to search every house on a block,” Soghoian said during interviews with reporters covering the StingRay story.

Advocates also raised alarms over another troubling issue: Using the StingRay allows investigators to bypass the routine process of obtaining fee-based location data from cell service providers like Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Comcast. Unlike buying location data fro service providers, using StingRay leaves no paper trail for defense attorneys.

Crack defense attorney Stephen Leckar who scored a victory in a landmark Supreme Court decision over the feds’ warrantless use of a GPS tracker in US v. Jones, a cocaine trafficking case where the government tracked Jones’ vehicle for weeks without a warrant, also has concerns.


“Anytime the government refuses to disclose the ambit of its investigatory device, one has to wonder, what’s really happening,” he told the Chronicle. ”If without a warrant the feds use this sophisticated device for entry into people’s homes, accessing private information, they may run afoul of a concurring opinion by Justice Alito, who ruled in US v Jones whether people would view unwarranted monitoring of their home or property as Constitutionally repugnant.”

Leckar cited Supreme Court precedent in Katz v. US (privacy) and US v. Kyllo (thermal imaging), where the Supreme Court prohibited searches conducted by police from outside the home to obtain information behind closed doors. Similar legal thinking marked February’s Supreme Court decision in a case where it prohibited the warrantless use of drug dogs to sniff a residence, Florida v. Jardines.

The EFF FOIA lawsuit shed light on how the US government sold StingRay devices to state and local law enforcement agencies for use specifically in drug cases. The Los Angeles and Fort Worth police departments have publicly acknowledged buying the devices, and records show that they are using them for drug investigations.

“Out of 155 cell phone investigations conducted by LAPD between June and September 2012, none of these cases involved terrorism, but primarily involved drugs and other felonies,” said Peter Scheer, director of the First Amendment Center.

The StingRay technology is so new and so powerful that it not only raises Fourth Amendment concerns, it also raises questions about whether police and federal agents are withholding information about it from judges to win approval to monitor suspects without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth. At least one federal judge thinks they are. Magistrate Judge Brian Owsley of the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi told the Yale conference federal prosecutors are using clever techniques to fool judges into allowing use of StingRay. They will draft surveillance requests to appear as Pen Register applications, which don’t need to meet the probable cause standards.

“After receiving a second StingRay request,” Owsley told the panel, “I emailed every magistrate judge in the country telling them about the device. And hardly anyone understood them.”

In a earlier decision related to a Cell-site Simulator, Judge Owsley denied a DEA request to obtain data information to identify where the cell phone belonging to a drug trafficker was located. DEA wanted to use the suspect’s E911 emergency tracking system that is operated by the wireless carrier. E911 trackers reads signals sent to satellites from a cell phone’s GPS chip or by triangulation of radio transmitted signal. Owsley told the panel that federal agents and US attorneys often apply for a court order to show that any information obtained with a StingRay falls under the Stored Communication Act and the Pen Register statute.

DEA later petitioned Judge Owsley to issue an order allowing the agent to track a known drug dealer with the StingRay. DEA emphasized to Owsley how urgently they needed approval because the dealer had repeatedly changed cell phones while they spied on him. Owsley flatly denied the request, indicating the StingRay was not covered under federal statute and that DEA and prosecutors had failed to disclose what they expected to obtain through the use of the stored data inside the drug dealer’s phone, protected by the Fourth Amendment.

“There was no affidavit attached to demonstrate probable cause as required by law under rule 41 of federal criminal procedures,” Owsley pointed out. The swiping of data off wireless phones is “cell tower dumps on steroids,” Owsley concluded.

But judges in other districts have ruled favorably for the government. A federal magistrate judge in Houston approved DEA request for cell tower data without probable cause. More recently, New York Southern District Federal Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein approved warrantless cell-site data.

“The government did not install the tracking device — and the cell user chose to carry the phone that permitted transmission of its information to a carrier,” Gorenstein held in that opinion. “Therefore no warrant is needed.”

In a related case, US District Court Judge Liam O’Grady of the Northern District of Virginia ruled that the government could obtain data from Twitter accounts of three Wikileakers without a warrant. Because they had turned over their IP addresses when they opened their Twitter accounts, they had no expectation of privacy, he ruled.

“Petitioners knew or should have known that their IP information was subject to examination by Twitter, so they had a lessened expectation of privacy in that information, particularly in light of their apparent consent to the Twitter terms of service and privacy policy,” Judge O’Grady wrote.

A federal judge in Arizona is now set to render a decision in the nation’s first StingRay case. After a hearing last week, the court in US v. Rigmaiden is expected to issue a ruling that could set privacy limits on how law enforcement uses the new technology. Just as the issue of GPS tracking technology eventually ended up before the Supreme Court, this latest iteration of the ongoing balancing act between enabling law enforcement to do its job and protecting the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of citizens could well be headed there, too.


Note the reference to Twitter accounts (near end of article).

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NYT columnist David Carr drops dead just hours after interviewing Edward Snowden
Posted on February 13, 2015 by Shepard Ambellas
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/02/13/nyt-columnist-david-carr-drops -dead-just-hours-interviewing-edward-snowden/

SCREENCAPTURE VIA NEW YORK TIMES
CREDENTIALED COLUMNIST’S DEATH MAKES WAVES IN NEWS AND CONSPIRACY COMMUNITIES

NEW YORK (INTELLIHUB) — David Carr, 58, a columnist for the New York Times, fell out dead in his office Thursday just after interviewing NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a “Times Talks” episode which was captured on video via Google Hangouts.

Before Carr’s death he was said to have drawn out candid conversation with the whistleblower Snowden about the release of secret documents and also touched on the new film “Citizenfour”.

During the interview Snowden gave information to Carr about a secret NSA encryption program. Moments later a clip of Citizenfour was also shown in which Snowden, who sitting in bed at a hotel room at the time, was being interviewed by a journalist as fire alarms kept going off, promptly alerting Snowden to unplug his room phone.

Carr joined the New York Times in 2002 where his column “Media Equation” was typically posted in the Monday business edition.

Carr’s coworkers were shocked of his death and said that he was “special”, a “gifted” journalist with lots of “talent”.

Carr also had a book published in 2008, which he worked on for three years, titled “The Night of the Gun” which talked about his previous struggles with cocaine and how he eventually became a good father to his daughters and a columnist for the Times.

According to Tom McElroy with the AP, Carr was even teaching a “Boston University class that explored the creative business models to support digital journalism” as he was quite the busy guy.

Carr’s death will now likely be a hot topic amongst the conspiracy community as Snowden was also responsible for leaking sensitive information about at least one “flying saucer” or UFO incident.

Watch Carr’s final interview here:

http://new.livestream.com/nytimes/events/3800646/videos/76929642
Other Sources:

New York Times media columnist David Carr dies at age 58 — AP

David Carr, Times Critic and Champion of Media, Dies at 58 — New York Times

Rieder: David Carr death latest shocker for journalism — USA Today

David Carr’s Outsize ‘Times’ Legacy — The Daily Beast

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 1691
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Russian researchers expose 'NSA's secret weapon': Outrage at program that enables America to spy on EVERY home computer in the world is uncovered
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956058/Russian-researchers-ex pose-breakthrough-U-S-spying-program.html

By Reuters Reporter and Chris Spargo For Dailymail.com
02:49 17 Feb 2015, updated 13:35 17 Feb 2015
The NSA has figured out how to hide spying and sabotage software deep within hard drives, according to cyber researchers and former operatives
The group said it found personal computers in 30 countries infected with one or more of the spying programs
The most infections were seen in Iran, followed by Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria
The infections started in 2001, but increased drastically in 2008, the year President Barack Obama was elected
The tools are designed to run on computers even when they are not connected to the Internet, and even the makers of some of the hard drives are unaware that these programs have been embedded
Russian firm Kaspersky Lab said 'this surpasses anything known in terms of complexity and sophistication of techniques'
The National Security Agency has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives, allowing them to monitor and eavesdrop on the majority of the world's computers - even when they are not connected to the internet.

The Moscow-based security software maker Kaspersky Lab said it has found personal computers in 30 countries infected with one or more of the spying programs, with the most infections seen in Iran, followed by Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria.

The targets included government and military institutions, telecommunication companies, banks, energy companies, nuclear researchers, media, and Islamic activists.

Kaspersky said it found personal computers in 30 countries infected with one or more of the spying programs +4
Kaspersky said it found personal computers in 30 countries infected with one or more of the spying programs
The NSA has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives , giving the agency the means to eavesdrop on the majority of the world's computers, according to Kaspersky (file photo) +4
The NSA has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives , giving the agency the means to eavesdrop on the majority of the world's computers, according to Kaspersky (file photo)
The NSA began infecting computers in 2001 claims Kaspersky, ramping up their efforts in 2008 when President Barack Obama was elected.

This 'surpasses anything known in terms of complexity and sophistication of techniques, and that has been active for almost two decades,' said Kaspersky.

What's more, even the makers of these hard drives are unaware that these spying programs have been installed, with the NSA obtaining their source codes by going so far as to pose as software developers according to former intelligence operatives, or telling the companies the government must do a security audit to make sure their source code is safe.

The firm declined to publicly name the country behind the spying campaign, but said it was closely linked to Stuxnet, the NSA-led cyberweapon that was used to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facility. The NSA is the U.S. agency responsible for gathering electronic intelligence.

A former NSA employee told Reuters that Kaspersky's analysis was correct, and that people still in the spy agency valued these espionage programs as highly as Stuxnet. Another former intelligence operative confirmed that the NSA had developed the prized technique of concealing spyware in hard drives, but said he did not know which spy efforts relied on it.

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said the agency was aware of the Kaspersky report but would not comment on it publicly.

Kaspersky published the technical details of its research on Monday, a move that could help infected institutions detect the spying programs, some of which trace back as far as 2001.

The disclosure could hurt the NSA's surveillance abilities, already damaged by massive leaks by former contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations have upset some U.S. allies and slowed the sales of U.S. technology products abroad.

The exposure of these new spying tools could lead to greater backlash against Western technology, particularly in countries such as China, which is already drafting regulations that would require most bank technology suppliers to proffer copies of their software code for inspection.

MORE...
PICTURED: Banker wife of JP Morgan Vice President found dead after getting stranded in treacherous conditions on holiday climb
Raise a glass to sales of Rioja: Imports rose by 10% last year as UK now accounts for third of all sales of the red wine
All aboard Air Force Un! First glimpse inside North Korean dictator's private jet as he marks his late father's birthday
Ukraine fighters ignore ceasefire: Pro-Russian rebels said to have attacked 112 times since truce began on Sunday
Peter Swire, one of five members of U.S. President Barack Obama's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, said the Kaspersky report showed that it is essential for the country to consider the possible impact on trade and diplomatic relations before deciding to use its knowledge of software flaws for intelligence gathering.

'There can be serious negative effects on other U.S. interests,' Swire said.

Technological breakthrough

According to Kaspersky, the spies made a technological breakthrough by figuring out how to lodge malicious software in the obscure code called firmware that launches every time a computer is turned on.

Disk drive firmware is viewed by spies and cybersecurity experts as the second-most valuable real estate on a PC for a hacker, second only to the BIOS code invoked automatically as a computer boots up.

'The hardware will be able to infect the computer over and over,' lead Kaspersky researcher Costin Raiu said in an interview.

Though the leaders of the still-active espionage campaign could have taken control of thousands of PCs, giving them the ability to steal files or eavesdrop on anything they wanted, the spies were selective and only established full remote control over machines belonging to the most desirable foreign targets, according to Raiu. He said Kaspersky found only a few especially high-value computers with the hard-drive infections.

Kaspersky's reconstructions of the spying programs show that they could work in disk drives sold by more than a dozen companies, comprising essentially the entire market. They include Western Digital Corp, Seagate Technology Plc, Toshiba Corp, IBM, Micron Technology Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.

Western Digital, Seagate and Micron said they had no knowledge of these spying programs. Toshiba and Samsung declined to comment. IBM did not respond to requests for comment.

Getting the source code

Raiu said the authors of the spying programs must have had access to the proprietary source code that directs the actions of the hard drives. That code can serve as a roadmap to vulnerabilities, allowing those who study it to launch attacks much more easily.

'There is zero chance that someone could rewrite the [hard drive] operating system using public information,' Raiu said.

Concerns about access to source code flared after a series of high-profile cyberattacks on Google Inc and other U.S. companies in 2009 that were blamed on China. Investigators have said they found evidence that the hackers gained access to source code from several big U.S. tech and defense companies.

It is not clear how the NSA may have obtained the hard drives' source code. Western Digital spokesman Steve Shattuck said the company 'has not provided its source code to government agencies.' The other hard drive makers would not say if they had shared their source code with the NSA.

Seagate spokesman Clive Over said it has 'secure measures to prevent tampering or reverse engineering of its firmware and other technologies.' Micron spokesman Daniel Francisco said the company took the security of its products seriously and 'we are not aware of any instances of foreign code.'

According to former intelligence operatives, the NSA has multiple ways of obtaining source code from tech companies,including asking directly and posing as a software developer +4
According to former intelligence operatives, the NSA has multiple ways of obtaining source code from tech companies,including asking directly and posing as a software developer
According to former intelligence operatives, the NSA has multiple ways of obtaining source code from tech companies, including asking directly and posing as a software developer. If a company wants to sell products to the Pentagon or another sensitive U.S. agency, the government can request a security audit to make sure the source code is safe.

'They don't admit it, but they do say, "We're going to do an evaluation, we need the source code,"' said Vincent Liu, a partner at security consulting firm Bishop Fox and former NSA analyst. 'It's usually the NSA doing the evaluation, and it's a pretty small leap to say they're going to keep that source code.'

The NSA declined to comment on any allegations in the Kaspersky report. Vines said the agency complies with the law and White House directives to protect the United States and its allies 'from a wide array of serious threats.'

Kaspersky called the authors of the spying program 'the Equation group,' named after their embrace of complex encryption formulas.

The group used a variety of means to spread other spying programs, such as by compromising jihadist websites, infecting USB sticks and CDs, and developing a self-spreading computer worm called Fanny, Kaspersky said.

Fanny was like Stuxnet in that it exploited two of the same undisclosed software flaws, known as 'zero days,' which strongly suggested collaboration by the authors, Raiu said. He added that it was 'quite possible' that the Equation group used Fanny to scout out targets for Stuxnet in Iran and spread the virus.

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'One out of Every Four Activists Could Be a Corporate Spy | Nafeez Ahmed Breaks the Set':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Js-edrZqWk

'The war on democracy: How corporations and spy agencies use "security" to defend profiteering and crush activism':
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/nov/28/war-o n-democracy-corporations-spy-profit-activism

'Nafeez Ahmed Thursday 28 November 2013 16.46 GMT

A stunning new report compiles extensive evidence showing how some of the world's largest corporations have partnered with private intelligence firms and government intelligence agencies to spy on activist and nonprofit groups. Environmental activism is a prominent though not exclusive focus of these activities.

The report by the Center for Corporate Policy (CCP) in Washington DC titled Spooky Business: Corporate Espionage against Nonprofit Organizations draws on a wide range of public record evidence, including lawsuits and journalistic investigations. It paints a disturbing picture of a global corporate espionage programme that is out of control, with possibly as much as one in four activists being private spies.
The report argues that a key precondition for corporate espionage is that the nonprofit in question:


"... impairs or at least threatens a company's assets or image sufficiently."

One of the groups that has been targeted the most, and by a range of different corporations, is Greenpeace. In the 1990s, Greenpeace was tracked by private security firm Beckett Brown International (BBI) on behalf of the world's largest chlorine producer, Dow Chemical, due to the environmental organisation's campaigning against the use of chlorine to manufacture paper and plastics. The spying included:


"... pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings."

Other Greenpeace offices in France and Europe were hacked and spied on by French private intelligence firms at the behest of Électricité de France, the world's largest operator of nuclear power plants, 85% owned by the French government.

Oil companies Shell and BP had also reportedly hired Hackluyt, a private investigative firm with "close links" to MI6, to infiltrate Greenpeace by planting an agent who "posed as a left -wing sympathiser and film maker." His mission was to "betray plans of Greenpeace's activities against oil giants," including gathering "information about the movements of the motor vessel Greenpeace in the north Atlantic."

The CCP report notes that:


"A diverse array of nonprofits have been targeted by espionage, including environmental, anti-war, public interest, consumer, food safety, pesticide reform, nursing home reform, gun control, social justice, animal rights and arms control groups.

Many of the world's largest corporations and their trade associations - including the US Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Monsanto, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Burger King, McDonald's, Shell, BP, BAE, Sasol, Brown & Williamson and E.ON - have been linked to espionage or planned espionage against nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers."

Exploring other examples of this activity, the report notes that in Ecuador, after a lawsuit against Texaco triggering a $9.5 billion fine for spilling 350 million gallons of oil around Lago Agrio, the private investigations firm Kroll tried to hire journalist Mary Cuddehe as a "corporate spy" for Chevron, to undermine studies of the environmental health effects of the spill.


Advertisement



Referring to the work of US investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill, the report points out that the notorious defence contractor Blackwater, later renamed XE Services and now Academi, had sought to become "the intel arm" of Monsanto, the agricultural and biotechnology corporation associated with genetically modified foods. Blackwater was paid to "provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm."

In another case, the UK's Camp for Climate Action, which supports the decommissioning of coal-fired plants, was infiltrated by private security firm Vericola on behalf of three energy companies, E.ON, Scottish Power, and Scottish Resources Group.

Reviewing emails released by Wikileaks from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor, the report shows how the firm reportedly "conducted espionage against human rights, animal rights and environmental groups, on behalf of companies such as Coca-Cola." In one case, the emails suggest that Stratfor investigated People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) at Coca-Cola's request, and had access to a classified FBI investigation on PETA.

The report uncovers compelling evidence that much corporate espionage is facilitated by government agencies, particularly the FBI. The CCP report examines a September 2010 document from the Office of the Inspector General in the US Justice Department, which reviewed FBI investigations between 2001 and 2006. It concluded that:


"... the factual basis of opening some of the investigations of individuals affiliated with the groups was factually weak... In some cases, we also found that the FBI extended the duration of investigations involving advocacy groups or their members without adequate basis…. In some cases, the FBI classified some of its investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its 'Acts of Terrorism' classification."

For instance, on an FBI investigation of Greenpeace, the Justice Department found that:


"... the FBI articulated little or no basis for suspecting a violation of any federal criminal statute... the FBI's opening EC [electronic communication] did not articulate any basis to suspect that they were planning any federal crimes….We also found that the FBI kept this investigation open for over 3 years, long past the corporate shareholder meetings that the subjects were supposedly planning to disrupt... We concluded that the investigation was kept open 'beyond the point at which its underlying justification no longer existed,' which was inconsistent with the FBI's Manual of Investigative and Operational Guidelines (MIOG)."

The FBI's involvement in corporate espionage has been institutionalised through 'InfraGard', "a little-known partnership between private industry, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security." The partnership involves the participation of "more than 23,000 representatives of private industry," including 350 of the Fortune 500 companies.

But it's not just the FBI. According to the new report, "active-duty CIA operatives are allowed to sell their expertise to the highest bidder", a policy that gives "financial firms and hedge funds access to the nation's top-level intelligence talent. Little is known about the CIA's moonlighting policy, or which corporations have hired current CIA operatives."

The report concludes that, due to an extreme lack of oversight, government effectively tends to simply "rubber stamp" such intelligence outsourcing:


"In effect, corporations are now able to replicate in miniature the services of a private CIA, employing active-duty and retired officers from intelligence and/or law enforcement. Lawlessness committed by this private intelligence and law enforcement capacity, which appears to enjoy near impunity, is a threat to democracy and the rule of law. In essence, corporations are now able to hire a private law enforcement capacity - which is barely constrained by legal and ethical norms - and use it to subvert or destroy civic groups. This greatly erodes the capacity of the civic sector to countervail the tremendous power of corporate and wealthy elites."

Gary Ruskin, author of the report, said:


"Corporate espionage against nonprofit organizations is an egregious abuse of corporate power that is subverting democracy. Who will rein in the forces of corporate lawlessness as they bear down upon nonprofit defenders of justice?"

That's a good question. Ironically, many of the same companies spearheading the war on democracy are also at war with planet earth - just last week the Guardian revealed that 90 of some of the biggest corporations generate nearly two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions and are thus overwhelmingly responsible for climate change.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed '

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talking to GCHQ (interception not required) ...
http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/talking-gchq-interception-not-re quired

A remarkable consequence of the Snowden revelations took place last week (14 May), when a former "C" (Chief of the UK's Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)) presided as forty-plus participants from around the world sat down in private for three days to talk intensively through changed approaches to intelligence, security and privacy.

I was asked to open the conference discussions, in conjunction with GCHQ's new Director, Robert Hannigan (pictured below). No-one argued against calls for greater openness. That's a first; coming 40 years after a time when it was a crime in Britain even to mention the existence of GCHQ, and programmes on the subject were banned.



Perhaps to many participants' surprise, there was general agreement across broad divides of opinion that Snowden - love him or hate him - had changed the landscape; and that change towards transparency, or at least "translucency" and providing more information about intelligence activities affecting privacy, was both overdue and necessary. An event like this would have been inconceivable without Snowden.

Away from the foetid heat of political posturing and populist headlines, I heard some unexpected and suprising comments from senior intelligence voices, including that "cold winds of transparency" had arrived and were here to stay.

"We should have seen it coming in the first place", and so put more information in the public domain first, was another observation. (The rules of the conference prohibit attributing any particular remark to any attendee, and also require that contributions are personal and not official positions - although Ditchley normally publishes the names of all participants.)

A different senior speaker reflected that Snowden's actions were an inevitable and perhaps necessary counterbalance to admitted excesses of intelligence collection after 9/11, while also asserting that the disclosures were hugely damaging. You don't get nuanced thoughts like that on Fox News or in Britain's Daily Mail.

Despite the collection of current and former CIA, GCHQ and SIS officials, counter-terrorism commanders, security managers, and former permanent secretaries present, as well as the former chair of Britain's Intelligence and Security Committee, I did not hear the phrase "capability gap" mentioned. That sort of rhetoric seemed to be reserved for the political arena. No-one tried to debate whether Snowden was a villain, traitor or hero.

There was genuine tension between some intelligence demands for personal information from US Internet companies, and the requirements of US law. US regulators and the companies whose officials were present - Apple and Google - could point to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA) and to the Fourth Amendment.

The audience and participants at Ditchley Park, a conference centre near Oxford, included intelligence regulators and human rights specialists from Europe and English speaking countries. They were mixed in with twelve current or past directors or senior staff of Five Eyes intelligence and security agencies, including the German BND, France's DGSE, Sweden's sigint agency FRA, Australia's ASIO and ASIS, Canada's CSIS and a former Director and a former Director of Intelligence of the CIA, as well as GCHQ and SIS.

The conference conclusions, which will be published by the Ditchley Foundation shortly, are focussed on possible principles of accountability, regulation and oversight, not allegations of harm.

According to Ditchley's Director Sir John Holmes, he planned the event because "renewed terrorism threats and the Assange and Snowden revelations have put the intelligence debate back in political minds". The purpose of the conference, he said, was to explore "how can governments achieve the right balance between gathering enough information to keep their citizens safe, without those same citizens feeling that their privacy is being unreasonably invaded?"

One of the stipulations made by the intelligence officials and regulators alike at the conference was that there should be "no secret laws" about what agencies do, unavailable to the public. One of those attending, former GCHQ Director and Permanent Secretary Sir David Omand, has written elsewhere that "investigative activity should be regulated by 'black letter law'". Omand's further published suggestion that "not everything that technically can be done should be done" was not disputed.

Curiously, both supervisors and intelligence gathererers appeared to agree that even given the scale of the leaks about NSA and GCHQ activities, "relatively little embarassing information has emerged"; most of what had come out that was embarassing was about spying on friendly states. Other points of agreement were that agencies needed strong external controls, including supervision of internal ethical controls. Oversight should not govern just what was collected, but needed to expand to include the "combination of data" (such as massive metadata analysis), "information sharing", and the "use of intelligence collected". Internet companies should not have to face "ad hoc approaches and conflicts of law". Agencies were asked to use the front door in making requests for law enforcement data, and not (as hitherto) steal it from internal networks by hacking or by intercepting data flows. Unfortunately, Mr Hannigan and his Director of Strategic Policy and External Relation did not stay to hear all of the conference (at least, not in person).

Unhappily, in the big world outside, during the second day of the conference, the UK government was forced to reveal in court that it had just made new and until-then secret (or at least highly obscured) new laws, allowing intelligence and police agencies to hack anyone's computer in the UK without a warrant.

A summary of the discussions at Ditchley is to be published soon. The list of attendees will be included. My colleague Ryan Gallagher has mentioned key names in his report in The Intercept.

The day after the conference ended, GCHQ launched a rainbow-coloured charm offensive to proclaim its "proud" stance against homophobia, bathing the doughnut at the heart of its surveillance operations in the gay pride flag. Their website cites their award from Stonewall as "diversity champions". This is pink-washing, as Glenn Greenwald has commented. I agree - but it is still a welcome change from the 1980-90s when we campaigned against GCHQ throwing out gay staff, and when I was one of the founders of Stonewall. Then, GCHQ were extralegal, unrestrained, unsupervised, unacknowledged, and aggressively unwilling to be open about anything.

I do not know where, if anywhere, the Ditchley conference and the proposed "principles" will lead, beyond an erudite summary of issues.

But we are not in Kansas anymore.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'But we are not in Kansas anymore' -which means?
The 'Security Services' would hardly 'let their hair down' when an 'Investigative Journalist' was present.
Any 'Investigative Journalist' who does not know that 9/11 was an 'Inside Job' needs to be seen for what he/she is: a 'Limited Hangout' apparatchik.
Total bullsh*t and bolloc*s.

(following to the tune of 'Runaway'Smile
I vonder, yeh, yeh, yeh I vonder, what on earth they'd say,
Yes I vonder, vot they would say....

to these links (and vot Duncan Campbell vould say, also):
(no probs, I'll ask the 'gentleman' myself):

"Sex Cult" Runs UK Government, says MI-6 Victim: http://www.henrymakow.com/mi-6_mk_ultra_a_uk_survivors_s.html ):

http://lifeonchildreninthemix.com/MI5-MI6_ROYAL_ARCH_FREEMASONRY.html
MI5-MI6 ROYAL ARCH FREEMASONRY NETWORK

'Course, 'On the other hand' (as Chaim Bermont used to say....), it might be aload of BS.

Here's the email I'm sending Mr. Campbell:

Hi Mr. Campbell,

Re your article on GCHQ, I am posting the following opinion on the '9/11 Truth UK' Forum; I would be interested in your response (I know I am rather 'antagonistic' towards you in the 'opinion', but I believe I have explained why).

There are 'Investigative Journalists' and there are 'Investigative Journalists'; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q7SR_kYxIM

God bless,....

And I'll be adding the link to this Forum page.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Credulous BBC & Telegraph majoring today on another MI6 Snowden smear

Five Reasons the MI6 Story is a Lie
by craig on June 14, 2015 10:06 am in Uncategorized
The Sunday Times has a story claiming that Snowden’s revelations have caused danger to MI6 and disrupted their operations. Here are five reasons it is a lie.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons-the-mi6-s tory-is-a-lie/

1) The alleged Downing Street source is quoted directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story is a lie.

2) The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that could happen is they would be sent home. Agents’ – generally local people, as opposed to MI6 officers – identities would not be revealed in the Snowden documents. Rule No.1 in both the CIA and MI6 is that agents’ identities are never, ever written down, neither their names nor a description that would allow them to be identified. I once got very, very severely carpeted for adding an agents’ name to my copy of an intelligence report in handwriting, suggesting he was a useless gossip and MI6 should not be wasting their money on bribing him. And that was in post communist Poland, not a high risk situation.

3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our “diplomats” in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them.

4) This anti Snowden non-story – even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has been harmed – is timed precisely to coincide with the government’s new Snooper’s Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.

5) The paper publishing the story is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is sourced to the people who brought you the dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, every single “fact” in which proved to be a fabrication. Why would you believe the liars now?

There you have five reasons the story is a lie.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Truth Avoided by Mainstream Media Liars
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/please-communicate-thi s-challenge-to-the-journalist-of-your-choice/

by craig on June 16, 2015 in Uncategorized

My factual demolition of the anti-Snowden story has been read by hundreds of thousands of people, very probably millions, around the internet, 50,000 so far on this site alone, and tweeted by thousands of people. It has been tweeted at – repeatedly – every single mainstream media journalist who has been repeating the government propaganda.

The extraordinary thing is that no jurnalist, anywhere, has made any attempt to deny the facts I give. Not one journalist in the entire crowd of corporate media paid lackeys at the BBC, Sunday Times, Reuters or anywhere at all has addressed or tried to refute the facts which make it impossible that their Snowden story is true. They have not addressed it in their publications or even tried to defend themselves on social media. Not one journalist, not anywhere. (One or two have pointed out that the fifth point is an ad hominem, which is true. Not all ad hominems are invalid, but the first four facts destroy the argument anyway).

Neither has there been any response from the “safe” retired diplomats or security consultants the mainstream media can generally roll out on these occasions.

So here is a challenge to the Sunday Times, BBC and rest of the mainstream media. If your story is true, where exactly are my facts wrong? If you refuse to address this, why do you consider yourself a journalist?

To avoid you “journalists” having to do even a click of research, here is my article again:

[see above & attached]

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A grand Sunday Times front page but this is embarassing

Reports: Russia, China have files leaked by Snowden
Newsroom | Source: CNN
Added on 1759 GMT (0059 HKT) June 14, 2015
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/14/tom-harper-nsa-files-snowd en-howell-intv-nr.cnn/video/playlists/intl-latest-world-videos/

George Howell grilling Tom Harper on CNN (edited Very Happy)

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prj0-BW34wI

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
ian neal
Site Founder
Site Founder


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3138
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Media lens commentary

‘We Just Publish The Position Of The British Government’ – Edward Snowden, The Sunday Times And The Death Of Journalism

In the wake of the greatest crime of the twenty-first century, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, you might have thought that the days of passing off unattributed government and intelligence pronouncements as 'journalism' would be over. Apparently not. On June 14, the Sunday Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch, published what has already become a classic of the genre (behind a paywall; full text here).

The prominent front-page story was titled: 'British spies betrayed to Russians and Chinese; Missions aborted to prevent spies being killed'. It sounded like an exciting plot for a James Bond film. And the first line was suitably dramatic:

'Russia and China have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.' (our emphasis)

What followed was a series of assertions from faceless sources, backed by zero evidence and outright falsehoods.

Western intelligence agencies – famously trustworthy and free of any hidden agenda - said they had 'been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin'. Anyone seeking 'protection' from one of the world's 'Bad Guys' is, of course, immediately deemed suspect.

'Senior government sources' claimed that 'China had also cracked the encrypted documents', endangering British and American spies. One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having 'blood on his hands', although Downing Street said there was 'no evidence of anyone being harmed'. The journalists appeared unperturbed by the discrepancy and ploughed on.

More anonymous sources popped up: 'David Cameron's aides confirmed', 'A senior Downing Street source said', 'said a senior Home Office source', 'a British intelligence source said', 'A US intelligence source said'. The only named source in the whole piece was Sir David Omand, the former director of GCHQ, the secretive agency that conducts mass surveillance for the British intelligence services.

Taking as undisputed fact that Russia and China had access to Snowden's material, Omand said that this:

'was a "huge strategic setback" that was "harming" to Britain, America and their Nato allies.'

No other views were reported by the Sunday Times. This was stenography, not journalism.

The article appeared under the bylines of Tom Harper (the paper's home affairs correspondent), Richard Kerbaj (security correspondent) and Tim Shipman (political editor). But it was clearly prepared with major input from intelligence and government sources with their own particular agendas. All of this was, no doubt, given the all-clear by the paper's editor, Martin Ivens.

BBC News echoed the Sunday Times article, with an online piece containing 'analysis' by BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera. This supposed expert commentary was based on 'my understanding from conversations over an extended period' and performed his usual function of providing a conduit for the government view. Some mild scepticism – 'a pinch of salt' - did filter through to later versions of the BBC article as it was updated. But it was shunted to the bottom of the piece, with no mention in the introduction.

In summary, the Sunday Times article contained no evidence for its anonymous claims, no challenges to the assertions made, and no journalistic balance. It was almost inevitable, then, that it would quickly fall apart under scrutiny.


The Opposite Of Journalism

Craig Murray, the former British diplomat, responded promptly with a blog piece titled, 'Five Reasons the MI6 Story is a Lie'. One of these reasons, Murray notes, is:

'The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that could happen is they would be sent home.'

Another reason is the convenient timing, aimed at providing a propaganda service for the alleged need for mass surveillance by the intelligence services:

'This anti Snowden non-story ... is timed precisely to coincide with the government's new Snooper's Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity.'

Ewen MacAskill, the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent, raised a sceptical eyebrow, listing 'five questions for UK government'. Of course, the Guardian, including MacAskill himself, has a history of channeling government propaganda – not least during the great propaganda campaigns pushing for the invasions of Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. (Archive of Media Lens media alerts, passim).

One of the most notorious examples of Sunday Times-style state stenography occurred in 2007 when Pentagon propaganda occupied the Guardian's front page under the title, 'Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq'. As we noted then, the piece by Simon Tisdall, a Guardian foreign affairs specialist, was based almost entirely on unsupported assertions by anonymous US officials. Indeed 22 of the 23 paragraphs in the story relayed official US claims: over 95 per cent of the article. It went like this:

'US officials say'; 'a senior US official in Baghdad warned'; 'The official said'; 'the official said'; 'the official said'; 'US officials now say'; 'the senior official in Baghdad said'; 'he [the senior official in Baghdad] added'; 'the official said'; 'the official said'; 'he [the official] indicated'...

No less than 26 references to official pronouncements formed the basis for a Guardian story presented with no scrutiny, no balance, no counter-evidence; nothing. Remove the verbiage described above and the Guardian front page news report was essentially a Pentagon press release. (For other examples, see also: 'Real Men Go To Tehran' and 'An Existential Threat – the US, Israel and Iran'.)

The 'pushback' from Guardian journalists to the Sunday Times article, then, has to be seen in the wider context of: (a) Guardian complicity and journalistic cowardice in the face of Western government propaganda over many years; (b) an opportunity for liberal journalists to attack the corporate competition in the form of a Murdoch newspaper and make themselves look good.

Returning to the Sunday Times piece, journalist Ryan Gallagher, who writes for The Intercept, notes:

'the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions, made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements is antithetical to good journalism.'

But perhaps the most comprehensive demolition came from Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who met Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, and who was primarily responsible for bringing Snowden's whistleblowing to public attention. Greenwald writes:

'the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of western journalism.'

This 'sickness' is summed up by:

'the formula that shapes their brains: anonymous self-serving government assertions = Truth.'

This is raw submission to power with the result that:

'government officials know they can propagandize the public at any time because subservient journalists will give them anonymity to do so and will uncritically disseminate and accept their claims.'

As Greenwald observes, there is a long history of anonymous government accusations and smears being laundered through the media whenever damaging information is revealed by whistleblowers. Much the same happened in the Nixon era to Daniel Ellsberg when he published the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War. The US government tried to smear Ellsberg by asserting that he had shared information with the Soviet Union. This was a lie.

Greenwald adds that there is 'a coordinated smear campaign in Washington to malign Snowden'. The British government and intelligence agencies are no doubt well aware of this, and happy to be part of it. The Sunday Times smear job fits the pattern.

Greenwald then exposes what he calls an 'utter lie'. The paper had stated:

'David Miranda, the boyfriend (sic – spousal partner) of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 "highly classified" intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow.'

In fact, as Greenwald points out:

'David did not visit Snowden in Moscow before being detained. As of the time he was detained in Heathrow, David had never been to Moscow and had never met Snowden. The only city David visited on that trip before being detained was Berlin, where he stayed in the apartment of [filmmaker] Laura Poitras.'

The day after the Sunday Times piece was published, observes Greenwald, the paper 'quietly deleted' the offending paragraph:

'they just removed it from their story without any indication or note to their readers that they've done so (though it remains in the print edition and thus requires a retraction). That's indicative of the standard of "journalism" for the article itself. Multiple other falsehoods, and all sorts of shoddy journalistic practices, remain thus far unchanged.'

The Sunday Times was clearly stung by Greenwald's piece. The very next day, Murdoch's company News UK sent a letter to First Look, the publisher of The Intercept where Greenwald's piece had appeared, demanding that an image of the Sunday Times front page be removed from the critical article. Greenwald replied:

'No, @TheSundayTimes, we are not going to remove the image of your humiliating headline from our story about it https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2101948-news-uk-dmca-notificat ion-first-look-productions.html'


'We Just Don't Know' - Four Minutes Of Farcical Fumbling

Tom Harper, the lead reporter of the Sunday Times article, appeared in a laugh-out-loud, four-minute interview on CNN that should be shown to journalism students from now until the end of eternity.

George Howell, the CNN interviewer, tried to find out from Harper what his article was about, and what evidence he had for the claims being made. Howell is no radical; but he didn't need to be. By asking basic questions about the Sunday Times 'story', he revealed the utter paucity of anything that could count as journalism. Among a blizzard of 'ums' and 'ers', Harper could offer little more than:

'Well, uh, I don't know, to be honest with you, George'.

'All we know is that this is effectively the official position of the British government'.

'Well, again, sorry to just repeat myself, George, but we don't know'.

'Again, I'm afraid to disappoint you, we just don't know'.

Adam Weinster of Gawker has helpfully provided a complete transcript of the calamity interview here. He adds ironically:

'it ended up being perhaps the clearest vindication of Snowden's work to date.'

Journalist Ryan Gallagher neatly sums up the CNN interview:

'How were the files breached? "I don't know." Were the files hacked or did Snowden hand them over? "We don't know." Were MI6 agents directly under threat? "We don't know." How did the government know what was in the files? "That's not something we're clear on." Can you substantiate the claims? "No."'

Gallagher adds:

'The interview is quite extraordinary because it makes absolutely clear that not only was this entire dubious story based solely on claims made anonymously by government officials, the reporters who regurgitated the claims did not even seek to question the veracity of the information. They just credulously accepted the allegations and then printed them unquestioningly. That really is the definition of stenography journalism — it's shameful.'

The Sunday Times approach was best encapsulated when Harper made the mistake of admitting blankly in the CNN interview:

'We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government'.

That epitaph may as well be engraved on the tomb of British 'mainstream' journalism.


The 'Moral Equivalence' Argument Gets Another Airing

As noted earlier, the natural stance of BBC News was to take the Sunday Times propaganda piece at face value, with a smattering of cautious scepticism added later to the mix to simulate 'balanced' journalism. Andrew Marr declared on his Sunday morning BBC show: 'It has a certain plausibility about it, however'. Of course, Marr has a long history in finding 'a certain plausibility' in crass state propaganda, as was seen when he was the BBC's political editor during the invasion of Iraq.

On the flagship Radio 4 Today programme, the BBC's structural bias was exposed yet again when Justin Webb made the mistake of interviewing Glenn Greenwald, who knows what he's talking about. (Today link; expires 20 June 2015. Also archived on YouTube.)

Webb presented the standard, propaganda-friendly version of Snowden's courageous whistleblowing:

JW: 'A lot of people [are] saying, whatever you think of Edward Snowden, he has drawn people's attention to something that needed to have its attention drawn to it. But the other side of that ledger – it would be reasonable to assume, wouldn't it? – is that he has given away secrets that have been useful to people who want to do harm to other perfectly innocent people. I just wonder if you accept that those are the two sides of it, and that's what we've all got to live with?'

GG: 'No, I think you just made that up, what you just said [JW laughs in shock]. Edward Snowden has not given any documents or any information to anybody, except for journalists with major media organisations. So if the New York Times or the Guardian or the Washington Post has published a story that you think shouldn't have been published, your quarrel is with them. Edward Snowden didn't disclose any documents. He went to journalists and gave the documents to journalists and said, "I want you to work in order to find the ones in the public interest that the public ought to know."'

In the interview, Webb also asked Greenwald:

'I mean you are not suggesting that President Putin's government is on a par in its support of democracy and human rights with the United States or Britain, or are you?'

Greenwald responded:

'I'm pretty sure that it wasn't Russia that invaded and destroyed a country of 26 million people called Iraq, or set up a worldwide torture regime around the world to torture people in secret, or put people in indefinite detention camps in the middle of the ocean called Guantanamo. So I think it would be incredibly naïve for some Westerner to say: "My side is really good. It's Vladimir Putin's side that's the bad side."'

This was classic BBC propaganda fare. Webb's framing of Putin as the 'Bad Guy', and the United States and Britain as the 'Good Guys', underpins the delusional 'moral equivalence' argument that corporate journalists habitually deploy.

We recall the BBC's Michael Buerk commenting in disbelief to Denis Halliday, the former senior UN diplomat who had resigned in protest at the genocidal sanctions imposed on Iraq by the West:

'You can't... you can't possibly draw a moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein and George Bush Senior, can you?' (BBC radio interview, 2001)

And the BBC's incredulous Jeremy Paxman to Noam Chomsky in a 2004 interview on Newsnight:

'You seem to be suggesting or implying, perhaps I'm being unfair to you, but you seem to be implying there is some moral equivalence between democratically elected heads of state like George Bush or Prime Ministers like Tony Blair and regimes in places like Iraq.'

Chomsky demolished this specious 'argument':

'The term moral equivalence is an interesting one. It was invented, I think, by Jeane Kirkpatrick [former US ambassador to the UN] as a method of trying to prevent criticism of foreign policy and state decisions. It is a meaningless notion. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever.'

Investigative journalist Peter Oborne, who resigned from the Telegraph in February in protest at the paper's perpetration of a 'fraud on its readers' in its failure to report scandals involving HSBC, recently commented:

'The men and women who advocated the Iraq invasion remain dominant in British public life. Those who opposed it remain marginal and despised.'

This ought to be deeply shocking and very disturbing. Unsurprisingly, the journalistic practices that made the Iraq crime possible also remain dominant with honest practices relegated to the margins and despised.

And so we find that major news organisations continue to act as mindless conduits for anonymous state propaganda, somehow unable to learn the blindingly obvious lessons of past deceptions. Given the scale of the Iraq and Libyan catastrophes, this is powerful testimony indeed to the sheer depth of the structural corruption of the corporate media system. Not even Iraq, not even the deaths of one million Iraqis, not even the devastation of a country of 26 million people, are enough to deter journalists who are driven by ruthless political and economic forces, apparently immune to public pressure - so far.

In truth, those destructive forces have grown stronger in the years since the 2003 invasion. Media performance is indicative of a sharp and dangerous deterioration in Western democracy.



DC & DE

http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=794: we-just-publish-the-position-of-the-british-government-edward-snowden- the-sunday-times-and-the-death-of-journalism&catid=53:alerts-2015&Item id=247
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GCHQ AND ME
My Life Unmasking British Eavesdroppers
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/03/life-unmasking-british-e avesdroppers/

Photo: Paul Broadhurst
Duncan Campbell
Aug. 3 2015, 10:49 a.m.
I STEPPED FROM the warmth of our source’s London flat. That February night in 1977, the air was damp and cool, the buzz of traffic muted in this leafy North London suburb, in the shadow of the iconic Alexandra Palace. A fellow journalist and I had just spent three hours inside, drinking Chianti and talking about secret surveillance with our source, and now we stood on the doorstep discussing how to get back to the south coast town where I lived.

Events were about to take me on a different journey. Behind me, sharp footfalls broke the stillness. A squad was running, hard, toward the porch of the house we had left. Suited men surrounded us. A burly middle-aged cop held up his police ID. We had broken “Section 2″ of Britain’s secrecy law, he claimed. These were “Special Branch,” then the elite security division of the British police.

For a split second, I thought this was a hustle. I knew that a parliamentary commission had released a report five years earlier that concluded that the secrecy law, first enacted a century ago, should be changed. I pulled out my journalist identification card, ready to ask them to respect the press.

But they already knew that my companion that evening, Time Out reporter Crispin Aubrey, and I were journalists. And they had been outside, watching our entire meeting with former British Army signals intelligence (Sigint) operator John Berry, who at the time was a social worker.

Aubrey and I were arrested on suspicion of possessing unauthorized information. They said we’d be taken to the local police station. But after being forced into cars, we were driven in the wrong direction, toward the center of London. I became uneasy.

Mandatory Credit: Photo by ANL/Re/REX Shutterstock (807726a)Old Baily Secrets Case : They Are Charged Under The Official Secrets Act The Accused L-r Journalists Duncan Campbell John Crispin Aubrey And Former Soldier John BerryOld Baily Secrets Case : They Are Charged Under The Official Secrets Act The Accused L-r Journalists Duncan Campbell John Crispin Aubrey And Former Soldier John Berry (L-R) Journalists Duncan Campbell and Crispin Aubrey with former Sigint operator John Berry in 1978. Photo: ANL/Re/REX Shutterstock
It was soon apparent that the elite squad had no idea where the local police station was. They stopped and asked a taxi to lead them there. We were then locked up overnight, denied bail and sent to London’s Brixton prison.

Aubrey had recorded our interview. During three hours of tapes that the cops took from Aubrey, Berry had revealed spying on Western allies. When the tape was transcribed, every page was stamped “SECRET” in red, top and bottom. Then, with a red felt-tip pen, “Top” was methodically written in front of each “SECRET.”

Our discussion was considered so dangerous that we — two reporters and a social worker — were placed on the top floor of the prison maximum security wing, which guards told us had formerly held terrorists, serial murderers, gang leaders and child rapists. Meanwhile, police stripped my home of every file, every piece of paper I had, and 400 books.

Our case became known as “ABC,” after our surnames: Aubrey, Berry and Campbell. We hoped it would end quickly. We knew that the senior minister responsible, Home Secretary Merlyn Rees, had announced three months before that the “mere receipt of unauthorized information should no longer be an offense.” The day after we were arrested, I was told he was furious to be woken with news that the security agencies had delivered a fait accompli. Historian Richard Aldrich found an official letter from the head of MI5, Britain’s Security Service, saying they considered me at the time the person of the greatest interest to see incarcerated.

In my 40 years of reporting on mass surveillance, I have been raided three times; jailed once; had television programs I made or assisted making banned from airing under government pressure five times; seen tapes seized; faced being shoved out of a helicopter; had my phone tapped for at least a decade; and — with this arrest — been lined up to face up to 30 years imprisonment for alleged violations of secrecy laws. And why do I keep going? Because from the beginning, my investigations revealed a once-unimaginable scope of governmental surveillance, collusion, and concealment by the British and U.S. governments — practices that were always as much about domestic spying during times of peace as they were about keeping citizens safe from supposed foreign enemies, thus giving the British government the potential power to become, as our source that night had put it, a virtual “police state.”

The charges against Aubrey, Berry and Campbell in the ABC trial.
A decade later, in a parliamentary debate, Foreign Secretary David Owen revealed that he was initially against our being prosecuted, but was convinced to go along after being promised that we journalists could be jailed in secret. “Everybody came in and persuaded me that it would be terrible not to prosecute. … I eventually relented. But one of my reasons for doing so was that I was given an absolute promise that the case would be heard in camera [a secret hearing].”

In the face of this security onslaught, the politicians collapsed and agreed we should all be charged with espionage — although there was no suggestion that we wanted to do anything other than write articles. I was alleged to be “a thoroughly subversive man who was quite prepared to publish information which was secret,” my lawyer later wrote in his memoir.

My lawyer saw it differently. “Campbell is a journalist … a ferret not a skunk,” he told the magistrates’ court in Tottenham, North London. But when he inquired about the possibility of a misdemeanor plea and a £50 fine (about $75), he was cut down: “That course might be acceptable for Berry and Aubrey. But the security services want Campbell in prison for a very long time.”

They meant it. In March 1977, one month after our nighttime arrest, we were all charged with breaking Britain’s Official Secrets Act, for the “unlawful receipt of information.” Then we were charged with espionage. Each espionage charge carried a maximum of 14 years. I was also charged with espionage for collecting open source information on U.K. government plans. In total, I faced 30 years.

The interview, and then our arrests, were a first encounter with the power of Government Communications Headquarters, better known by its acronym, GCHQ, Britain’s electronic surveillance agency.

I FIRST HEARD of secret intelligence as a boy. My mother, Mary, a mathematician, often reminisced about her wartime work in a top-secret establishment, including two years working alongside a man they called “the Prof.” She portrayed an awkward, gangly fellow with a stutter who loved long-distance running and mushrooms he foraged from local woods that no one would touch — and who was a math genius “out of her league.” The Prof was Alan Turing, the wartime breaker of the German Enigma code, inventor of the modern computer, and hero of the recent Oscar-winning film, The Imitation Game.

Almost four decades passed before she found out for whom she and the Prof had been working. She had kept a war souvenir, a flirtatious poem given to her by a British general who visited her radio listening station. The poem inspired her army boss to joke that the general intended to propose. When official war records were finally released, we discovered that the general had been the assistant chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service.

I first stumbled across GCHQ’s surveillance network while at school. On a bike outing in Scotland with another science student, we spotted a large hilltop radio station. We pedaled up to find fences, locked gates and a meaningless sign hung on the wire that read, “CSOS Hawklaw.” Nearby, we found a ubiquitous British chippie, a fish-and-chip shop, and asked the proprietor, “What do they do there?”

“They never talk,” we were told. “It’s a secret government place.”

“The Eavesdroppers” by Duncan Campbell and Mark Hosenball, 1976. At the public library, I checked every phone book in the country, looking for more sites with the same name. The initials stood for “Composite Signals Organisation Station” — hardly revealing. Among the sites I found was GCHQ’s Bude station in Cornwall, England, now exposed as a global epicenter of NSA-GCHQ Internet cable surveillance. Back then, it was called “CSOS Morwenstow.” Four years and a degree in physics later, I found a press report that CSOS was part of GCHQ.
Armed with these leads, in May 1976 I wrote “The Eavesdroppers,” the first-ever story about GCHQ, alongside American journalist Mark Hosenball, for London’s then-radical entertainment magazine Time Out.

I was later told by high-level government contacts that I had been under surveillance while reporting “The Eavesdroppers.” The “watchers,” from MI5, were first rate. I never spotted anything. But while following me and tapping my phone, British security learned an uncomfortable truth: All of the sources for my secret information were Americans, whose free speech was not controlled by British laws.

“The Eavesdroppers” put GCHQ in view as Britain’s largest spy network organization. “With the huge U.S National Security Agency as partner, [GCHQ] intercepts and decodes communications throughout the world,” I wrote.

The very existence of GCHQ and the Sigint network were then closely guarded secrets. My article was based on open sources and help from ex-NSA whistleblowers. One was Perry Fellwock, a former U.S. Air Force analyst who helped expose the scale of illegal NSA surveillance during Watergate.

My co-author, Mark Hosenball, a U.S. citizen (and now an investigative reporter for Reuters), was quickly slated for deportation as a threat to national security. He faced a security inquiry and then expulsion, knowing only that he was accused of having “sought information for publication which would be harmful for state security.” The ban was lifted more than 20 years ago.

One part of our article that caused concern was a centerpiece map (compiled from phone book data) showing NSA and GCHQ monitoring stations scattered across Britain. One of the locations I identified, Menwith Hill Station, a tapping center in the heart of England, has now been revealed in Edward Snowden’s papers as a global center for planned cyberwar. We also reported that electronic versions of the Enigma cypher were being sold to developing countries by European firms such as Crypto AG of Switzerland for decades before those nations knew Britain had cracked the code.

The day after publication, GCHQ relayed my article around the world. At one major overseas center, I was told that the local station chief came into a morning meeting, incoherent with rage and “frothing at the mouth,” according to a security official present. Unable to explain in grammatical sentences what had upset him, the chief pulled out and hurled down a telegraphed copy of my article.

After Hosenball was ordered to leave Britain in 1977 for his part in writing the piece, new whistleblowers came forward. One was John Berry, who had worked for GCHQ in Cyprus.

Berry revealed in a letter to Britain’s National Council for Civil Liberties, the equivalent of the ACLU, that “GCHQ … monitors the radio networks of so-called friendly countries and even the commercial signals of U.K. companies. … The extent of intelligence activities … and the resources which the British Government deploys in this area are largely unknown. … The apparatus could transform Britain into a police state overnight.” That is what led us to Berry’s flat that unforgettable February evening.

BEFORE THE ABC trial, GCHQ demanded that its key witness have his identity hidden “to protect national security.” He was to be “Lieutenant Colonel A.” When magistrates rejected this, a “Colonel B” was sent instead. From reading open army journals, I already knew who “Colonel B” was. In one article, he was named as Colonel Hugh Johnstone and identified as “the Don of the communications underworld.”

Johnstone’s name quickly leaked, provoking prosecutions for contempt of court against editors and our journalists’ union. Johnstone was then named again during BBC live radio broadcasts from Parliament. Overnight, the top-secret GCHQ witness became the most famous officer in the British Army.

As our trial started, witness after witness from security sites tried to claim that openly published information was in fact secret. In a typical interchange, one Sigint unit chief was shown a road sign outside his base:

Q: Is that the name of your unit?

A: I cannot answer that question, that is a secret.

Q: Is that the board which passers-by on the main road see outside your unit’s base?

A: Yes.

Q: Read it out to the jury, please.

A: I cannot do that. It is a secret.

Official panic set in. The foreign secretary who GCHQ had bullied into having us accused of spying wrote that “almost any accommodation is to be preferred” to allowing our trial to continue. A Ministry of Defense report in September 1978, now released, disclosed that the “prosecuting counsel has come to the view that there have been so many published references to the information Campbell has acquired and the conclusions he has drawn from it that the chances of success with [the collection charge] are not good.”

My lawyer overheard the exasperated prosecutor saying that he would allow the government to continue with the espionage charge against me “over [his] dead body.” The judge, a no-nonsense Welsh lawyer, was also fed up with the secrecy pantomime. He demanded the government scrap the espionage charges. They did.

That left only our taped discussion with Berry — which was mainly filled with trivia about his military life. Johnstone then said that a particular revelation — information that GCHQ targeted NATO ally Turkey — could cause “exceptionally grave damage,” and could disrupt the NATO alliance. Berry had indeed told us that after a coup in Greece, “We knew that a Turkish invasion fleet had sailed [to invade Cyprus].” Johnstone assumed Berry knew this from top-secret intercepts. In fact, Berry’s military record showed he had been in England when the Turks had moved on Cyprus. Johnstone was shown a newspaper article Berry had seen while in England that reported the sailing of the Turkish fleet. Berry had told us only what he’d seen in a newspaper. But what “Colonel B” said had given away a damaging secret — spying on allies.

The error was catastrophic. I watched as Johnstone slumped in the witness box. He then descended into “gloomy confusion,” according to a watching reporter. He condemned articles published in his own army unit’s magazine as illegal, and finally confessed, “To be frank, I am not certain what is a secret and what isn’t.”

We walked free. The judge ruled that we should face no punishment for technically breaking the discredited secrecy law, which was repealed 11 years later.



Mandatory Credit: Photo by John Carter/ANL/REX Shutterstock (2569089a)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br  /><br /> The Distinctive Domes Of The American Spy Base At Menwith Hill In North Yorkshire.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The Distinctive Domes Of The American Spy Base At Menwith Hill In North Yorkshire. The distinctive radomes on Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, 1996. Photo: John Carter/ANL/REX Shutterstock
The ABC trial helped pierce an iron veil of British secrecy, changing the political landscape and leading to important new whistleblowers coming forward. Since then, my inquiries have helped throw light on the secret world of surveillance, including uncovering ECHELON, the first-ever automated global mass surveillance system.
In February 1980, with help from new whistleblowers, I published the location of the U.K.’s secret national phone-tapping center, “Tinkerbell.” This time, politicians and the national press put the focus where it belonged. The government admitted that there was then no legal basis for wiretapping in Britain. They were forced to legislate to regulate wiretapping four years later.

That same year, new sources told me that a secret NSA base in England — Menwith Hill Station (MHS) — had been identified by 1970s congressional intelligence investigators as the larger of two NSA centers tapping telephones in Europe.

I teamed up with the British Sunday Times investigative reporter Linda Melvern, and we traveled to the U.S., where intelligence officials confirmed the role of the base. One ex-NSA analyst told us he had documents giving the base authority for “tapping the telephone lines to Europe.” A former British military officer who had visited Menwith said, “It intercepts telephone and other communications to and from the United States and Europe.”

Some of our sources suspected that Menwith Hill’s location and powerful access arrangements might have facilitated its central role in the unlawful secret surveillance of U.S. citizens’ communications uncovered in the 1970s, when NSA had helped the FBI target civil rights activists and other protesters.

Our best source — impeccable — was a top intelligence consultant who then still worked with NSA. He told us he had officially inspected the site and confirmed, “for sure,” its elaborate tapping facilities. This whistleblower, whose identity has never before been revealed, was Oliver G. Selfridge, a founder of the field of artificial intelligence and a member of NSA’s Scientific Advisory Board until 1993.

We were discreetly introduced to Selfridge in a downtown Washington bar by a colleague, who drove us around the National Mall and the city sights in darkness. Selfridge told us that powerful cables connected Menwith to the tapping network, and we should “go look for them.”

We raced back home — and confirmed the tip. We found and photographed an umbilical link between the NSA base and the national and international communications network. We suspected we were looking at the biggest tap on the planet, and titled our report “The Billion Dollar Phone Tap.”

Back at the Sunday Times newsroom, we celebrated. But the editor who had commissioned the investigation expressed concerns about exposing secrets without specific evidence of wrongdoing. He wanted to lead with a report about U.S. spies helping Britain fight Irish terrorists. We believed we had uncovered a story of mass surveillance.

Instead, we published in the small-circulation left-leaning weekly New Statesman, where I was working as a reporter. Although reported by the Washington Post, and triggering an editorial in the London Times, the story didn’t have the impact we hoped for. But it did result in an important contact with author Jim Bamford, who was reporting on the NSA. As Bamford recounted in an article for The Intercept last year, it was the Sunday Times reporter Melvern who ended up helping him protect material on a secret Department of Justice investigation into NSA in the 1970s. (After leaving the Sunday Times, Melvern became a prominent investigator of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.)

Jim Bamford and I each worked mainly from open sources. We stayed in touch and shared some significant leads, prompting the author of the first major book on GCHQ, Richard Aldrich, to write, “Together Duncan Campbell and James Bamford confirmed a fundamental truth; that there are no secrets, only lazy researchers.”

SEVEN YEARS LATER, in February 1987, police Special Branch teams were sent to search my home and office for a third time. This time the trigger was a documentary program the BBC had asked me to make, called “Secret Society.” My program revealed that GCHQ had violated financial accountability to try and gain “independence” from NSA. Wanting its own space program, GCHQ had evaded legislators to get authority to build a $700 million all-British spy satellite — code-named “Zircon.”

Zircon was intended to launch into a “geostationary” orbit; from there, a giant antenna would unfold to collect signals from Asia, Europe and Africa. It was an ambitious project, but because of the tiny number of people who knew about Zircon, I had no documents to use to support the story.

Former scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defense, Sir Ronald Mason, did know about Zircon. I mentioned the name at the end of an innocuous interview question. His mouth dropped — and stayed open. He recovered his composure and said, “I can’t talk to you about that, I’m afraid.” He didn’t need to.

Under intense pressure from the government, BBC Director General Alasdair Milne agreed to ban my program about Zircon. I then arranged to screen the film inside Parliament. My idea was to distract the censors and pull GCHQ off track while we got the Zircon story out in print in the New Statesman magazine.

At the last minute, government attorneys rushed to obtain court orders. The afternoon before publication, they suddenly arrived at our magazine offices, armed with an order to gag me. They were shown to the elevator while I raced down the stairs, jumped on my bicycle and disappeared. The magazine’s production manager left for a secret location, carrying emergency funds to pay new printers in case our normal printers were blocked.

The next morning, as the New Statesman hit newsstands, I went early to Parliament to meet a friend and supporter, an MP named Robin Cook. He led me to a sanctuary in Parliament, where I could stay long enough to avoid being served by the authorities and get our story out safely. Meanwhile, the mood in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s office reportedly went “incandescent.” Her rage was unleashed. Police raids began.

They spent days searching the New Statesman’s offices. The government then ordered a raid on the BBC itself. On a Saturday night, in front of cameras, police wheeled out carts containing our program tapes. News and images of the raid on the BBC traveled around the world, bolstering the image of British secrecy gone mad.

Two weeks after we published the New Statesman story, BBC Director General Milne was sacked by BBC governors. I was not prosecuted. My program aired a year later. Zircon itself was never completed or launched.

Behind the Zircon scandal was deception. The government had previously been caught hiding weapons expenditures using false accounting. The government then promised to report, in secret if needed, on any project that cost more than £250 million (about $400 million). No sooner was this promise made than it was broken for GCHQ’s purposes. Operating Zircon would also have raised GCHQ’s costs by one third.

IN NOVEMBER 1987, San Francisco’s Center for Investigative Reporting asked me over to discuss the Zircon program. My trip led to probably the most important surveillance story I have uncovered. I went to Sunnyvale to meet Margaret Newsham, a former Lockheed Martin employee, to hear about unconstitutional NSA activity.

I drove south on California Route 101. In Sunnyvale, close to where Google’s campus now stands, the highway runs past a huge windowless “Blue Cube” that controlled the NSA’s constellation of surveillance satellites, run by Lockheed and closed in 2010.

We sat on Newsham’s porch. She was a computer system manager who had worked for NSA contractor Lockheed for seven years before being forced out after challenging corruption. She had been assigned to Menwith Hill in 1978 to manage NSA databases, including something known as Project ECHELON.

Newsham explained that ECHELON was an automated computer-driven system for sifting and sorting all types of international civilian communications intercepted from satellites — mainly operated by U.S. companies.

The scale of the operation she described took my breath away (this was 1988, remember). The NSA and its partners had arranged for everything we communicated to be grabbed and potentially analyzed. ECHELON was at the heart of a massive, billion-dollar expansion of global electronic surveillance for the 21st century, she explained. She feared the scale of automated surveillance. “Its immensity almost defies comprehension. … It is important for the truth to come out,” she said. “I don’t believe we should put up with being controlled by Big Brother.”

While sitting inside Building 36D at Menwith Hill Station, Newsham had been invited to listen on headphones to a live call from inside the U.S. Senate. She recognized the voice of Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond, and immediately realized the NSA had gone off track. “Constitutional laws had been broken,” she told me.

She explained how she had provided evidence to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Investigators told her they had issued subpoenas, and had asked to see plans for ECHELON. But nothing had happened.

She handed me some of the plans for ECHELON. In technical jargon, one described a basic tool kit for surveillance — the “commonality of automated data processing equipment (ADPE) in the ECHELON system.” Others described the ECHELON “Dictionary” database, the heart of the system holding target groups of keywords. “Dictionary” ran on networks of mini-computers. Newsham had managed these networks. Some plans listed equipment she had helped deploy for a secret project code-named “CARBOY II.” She did not know where CARBOY was.

campbell-bude-1977 The author, outside the Bude station in 1977. Photo: Courtesy of Duncan CampbellThe plans showed how ECHELON, also called Project P415, intercepted satellite connections, sorting phone calls, telex, telegraph and computer signals. Although the Internet was then in early infancy, what was carried digitally was covered. The way ECHELON had been designed, she said, demonstrated the targeting of U.S. political figures was not an accident.
Back in Britain, I matched Newsham’s plans to other clues. Pictures of GCHQ’s base at Bude in southwest England showed two satellite tracking dishes, pointing directly at Western satellites called Intelsat.

Intelsat, the first commercial communications satellite (COMSAT) network, linked people and businesses around the globe; for example, it even relayed the moon landings live. It started in 1965. From planning records and a press report, I deduced that GCHQ had planned to intercept Intelsat from Bude, beginning in 1966.

Author Jim Bamford provided me with letters from 1969 between NSA and GCHQ that he’d obtained, showing that the NSA had helped GCHQ bully the British into building the Bude station. A new GCHQ source told me that the NSA paid for the station under a secret agreement — and that the job was given to the Brits because of fears about U.S. communications laws.

I figured that a second ECHELON site would be needed to complete global coverage, intercepting a third Intelsat satellite over the Pacific Ocean. Jim Bamford and I both found the site — built in America, spying on U.S. communications with Asia. In November 1970, a Washington state newspaper revealed Department of Defense plans for a so-called “research station” in Yakima, about 150 miles from Seattle. I obtained photographs. They showed it was targeting the Pacific Intelsat. At the dawn of the era of mass surveillance, almost 50 years ago, the ECHELON stations at Bude and Yakima were the global mass surveillance system.

I had also seen confidential papers from the Watergate investigations that revealed that GCHQ had fed into the NSA’s unlawful SHAMROCK program of international surveillance on satellites and cables, and that this had supported unlawful FBI surveillance on U.S. dissidents and civil rights campaigners. The evidence thus showed that the British had been paid by the NSA to build a station that spied on satellites run by the U.S. and carrying mostly Western communications, and that GCHQ had supported unconstitutional surveillance of U.S citizens.

When I published the ECHELON story in August 1988, it got little mainstream attention. It was ignored for a decade, downplayed by many as European paranoia.

In 1999, at last, ECHELON attracted the concern of Europe’s Parliament, which commissioned an investigation. My report, “Interception Capabilities 2000,” outlined what ECHELON was and was not. With ECHELON under investigation in Europe, Margaret Newsham decided to reveal her identity as the whistleblower, and retold her story on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”

The European Parliament then mandated extensive action against mass surveillance. Their recommendations were passed in full on September 5, 2001. Six days later, the Twin Towers came down. Any plans for limiting mass surveillance were buried with the victims of 9/11, and never formally published. But proof of ECHELON has become available.

yakima-research-station Yakima Research Station Photo: cliu.org
In December 2014, I asked fellow Scottish journalist and Intercept reporter Ryan Gallagher to check Snowden’s documents. Was there evidence of ECHELON?

There was; the documents included details of the “ECHELON agreement” and more — a batch of GCHQ and NSA documents confirming what whistleblower Margaret Newsham had revealed 27 years ago. ECHELON was indeed “a system targeting communications satellites” that began nearly 50 years ago.

“In 1966, NSA established the FROSTING program, an umbrella program for the collection and processing of all communications emanating from communication satellites,” according to a January 2011 newsletter published by the NSA’s Yakima Research Station. “FROSTING’s two sub-programs were TRANSIENT, for all efforts against Soviet satellite targets, and ECHELON, for the collection and processing of INTELSAT communications.”

Another report, published in NSA’s “SID Today” newsletter in 2005, stated that “yes, there is an ECHELON system,” and noted that the “extensive story of ECHELON would be part of the forthcoming history initiative.” A 2010 GCHQ report noted that “historically, NSA has been a large source of funding for COMSAT [interception]. Many current COMSAT assets were purchased by NSA and are supported by GCHQ under the Echelon Agreement.”

The documents also confirmed the role of ECHELON Dictionaries as “text keyword scanning engines.” Other previously published Snowden documents show that CARBOY, whose expansion plans Newsham gave me, was a “primary” foreign satellite collection operation at Bude.

The most shocking part of ECHELON, confirmed by the Snowden documents, is that it was built to target Intelsat satellites, which in the early years were used primarily by Western countries; the United States was the largest owner and user. The Soviet Union, China and their allies didn’t have ground stations, nor the equipment to connect to Intelsat, until years later.

The Yakima site, which started operating in May 1973, was “established under the ECHELON program to collect and process INTELSAT communications during the height of the Cold War,” reads a July 2012 newsletter published by the NSA’s Yakima Research Station.

One more GCHQ document linked Edward Snowden’s archive back to where my journey first began, with John Berry and the ABC case. The GCHQ station in Cyprus where Berry served has the code name “SOUNDER.” Here, too, NSA was heavily involved, according to the document: “Under the ECHELON Agreement, NSA provides 50% of the funding for the SOUNDER Comsat facility.”

“Don’t wrestle in the mud with the pigs. They like it, and you both get dirty,” an NSA employee wrote in a newsletter.
The NSA’s “SID Today” newsletter concludes by recounting that the agency showed arrogance in evading public scrutiny. It describes how ECHELON “caught the ire of Europeans,” prompting a European Parliament investigation in 2000. The NSA newsletter writer wrote that when a European delegation came to Washington to visit NSA and other agencies, they were snubbed and their appointments were cancelled. “Our interests, and our SIGINT partners’ interests, were protected throughout the ordeal,” reads the report.

NSA claimed that the Parliament investigation “reflected not only that NSA played by the rules, with congressional oversight, but that those characteristics were lacking when the [European delegation] applied its investigatory criteria to other European nations.” According to the NSA writer, the Europeans were “pigs” wading in filth. “The “pig rule” applied when dealing with this tacky matter: “Don’t wrestle in the mud with the pigs. They like it, and you both get dirty.”

Attitudes like this have made the secret dirty world of electronic mass surveillance difficult to expose, and more difficult to get changed. Even today, neither GCHQ nor NSA will comment on ECHELON or other specific issues raised in the Snowden documents. (“It is long standing policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters,” GCHQ said in a statement.)

Yet change has happened, and at increasing speed.

In May 2015, two years after Edward Snowden’s revelations were first published, I was invited on behalf of a former “C” — chief of the U.K.’s Secret Intelligence Service — to co-introduce a conference on intelligence, security and privacy. Nearly three decades after almost going to prison for allegedly exposing GCHQ’s secrets, my partner in starting the conference was the agency’s newly appointed director, Robert Hannigan.

No one present argued against greater openness. Thanks to Edward Snowden and those who courageously came before, the need for public accountability and review has become unassailable.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not surprising to find back-stabbing 'Gang of Four' member David Owen up to his neck in it! They effectively broke up the Labour Party as it had been previously. What a shower! And Owen wanted a 'secret court'!

The gang Labour blames for wilderness years:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563256/The-gang-Labour-blames- for-wilderness-years.html

I wonder who will 'step up to the plate' and try to break up the Party if Jeremy Corbyn's juggernaut popularity continues, as expected, and he is elected leader?

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DOCUMENTARY: Edward Snowden - Terminal F (2015):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd6qN167wKo&feature=youtu.be

1 hour long Snowden documentary

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Facebook court judgement threatens Safe Harbour data-sharing agreement with US
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500254555/Facebook-court-judgement -threatens-Safe-Harbour-data-sharing-agreement-with-US

Kevin Cahill 01 Oct 2015 13:30
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) could torpedo the EU/US Safe Harbour agreement following the US National Security Agency's (NSA) mass surveillance on EU citizens using Facebook data

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will give its final judgement in the case against the Irish data protection commissioner Helen Dixon and Facebook on 6 October 2015 at 9.30am.

The judgement could have profound implications for the high-tech relationship between the US and the European Union (EU), if it rules as illegal the Safe Harbour agreement that permits US corporations to send European data to the US.
Download our in-depth report on IT spending in the UK.

Benchmark your IT spending plans with our in-depth study of spending priorities across the UK.
E-mail Address:


The Safe Harbour agreement is at the heart of the case, because Facebook – the other defendant – cannot use its US-based cloud storage without the consent of the EC through the Safe Harbour agreement.

The case was brought by the Austrian law student Max Schrems, 27. He challenged the legality and effectiveness of the EU/US Safe Harbour data-sharing agreement.

Schrems asked Irish data protection commissioner Helen Dixon to investigate Facebook, which has a European base in the Republic of Ireland. Dixon refused and Schrems went to the Irish High Court, in effect to seek a judicial review.
1
NSA used Safe Harbour data for ‘mass surveillance’

In a judgement scathing of the data protection commissioner, Irish High Court judge Gerard Hogan found the US was using Safe Harbour to impose mass surveillance on the citizens of Europe through its Prism programme.

He wrote that "only the naive or the credulous could really have been greatly surprised over these forms of mass surveillance".

The judge further found “that personal data transferred by companies such as Facebook Ireland to its parent company in the United States is thereafter capable of being accessed by the NSA in the course of a mass and indiscriminate surveillance of such data.

"Indeed, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, the available evidence presently admits of no other realistic conclusion.”
1
Ireland refers Facebook dispute to European Court of Justice

Judge Hogan referred the matter to the ECJ, the highest court in the EU. That court does not go back to the facts, but takes them as found in the Irish Court, and looks at how they relate to EU law.
CW+
Features

Enjoy the benefits of CW+ membership, learn more and join.
7
E-Handbook

Secunia Vulnerability Review
7
E-Handbook

Reconsidering PKI and its Place in your Enterprise Encryption Strategy
7
E-Handbook

Data Breach Readiness 2.0

Two weeks ago the judge advocate general on the case – French jurist Yves Bot – advised the court that the US was, as Judge Hogan had found, using mass surveillance via the NSA, to take European data; and that the Safe Harbour agreement did not protect European data.

This week the US government launched a stinging attack on judge Hogan's facts and Yves Bot's opinion, via its ambassador in Brussels, Anthony Gardner.
1
US ‘risked perjury’ if it gave evidence

The ambassador said there had been "no actual fact-finding in this case". Gardner added: "The US does not and is not engaged in indiscriminate surveillance of anyone, including ordinary European citizens."
Read more about Max Schrems vs Facebook
Privacy campaigner Max Schrems leads a 25,000-strong class action lawsuit in Vienna against Facebook, claiming it breached European privacy law
US tech giants could soon come under increased pressure to build European datacentres now the validity of the US Safe Harbour Agreement has been called into question by EU law makers.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) should consider the impact on privacy and transatlantic trading should it rule against the validity of the Safe Harbour Agreement on 6 October 2015, US diplomats have warned.
Facebook has welcomed a Vienna court’s rejection of a 25,000-strong class action lawsuit against the social networking firm for breaching European privacy laws.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has begun considering a case brought by privacy campaigner Max Schrems that could decide how Europeans’ data will be shared with US internet firms in future.

This caused a furious reaction at the court where an official – who wished to remain anonymous – said the US failed to exercise its right to make its case during the hearing.

"The US had a proper and legal opportunity to make it's case at the Irish Court. The procedures of the European court are well-known to the US authorities," he said.

Speaking to Computer Weekly, plaintiff Max Schrems was more cynical.

"If the US had appeared in Dublin, they would have had to swear their evidence under oath. They would not be able to deny Prism without committing perjury," he said.

The problem for ambassador Gardner is that both the US government and the UK government have publicly acknowledged Prism. That programme is a mass surveillance programme, the full workings of which were originally disclosed in the Guardian in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
1
Court reacts with unprecedented speed

Dai Davis, a solicitor who specialises in information technology law, said he cannot remember a case where the judgement has followed so fast on the judge advocate's opinion.

"I do speculate that the final judgement will closely follow the judge advocate's opinion," he said.

The judgement is bound to make an impact on current negotiations between the US and the EU, about the renewal of Safe Harbour, underway in Brussels.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group – a group campaigning against surveillance and censorship – said Safe Harbour rules were ineffective.

“Safe Harbour is in an untenable position, claiming to protect European citizens’ privacy right while the USA places everyone under mass surveillance," said Killock.

"The advocate’s opinion shows that the court is considering the right issues, so we hope they will produce a strong judgment that insists on our right to protection of our privacy when using US companies’ services."

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC Panorama Edward Snowden Spies and the Law - fascinating

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXoS-iCcUA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06h7j3b/panorama-edward-snowden- spies-and-the-law

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fetch the cops, chaps and chapesses, and the lawyers.

On Tuesday the European Court of Justice struck down the arrangement, called Safe Harbour, under which US companies ship your personal data to the US. The Court, the highest in Europe, gave no grace period for the companies to comply. They are expected to comply, now. There is no appeal against the Court's judgement.
So far none of the UK media have addressed the two key findings of fact in the court judgement, that Edward Snowden, the US whistleblower's evidence about US mass surveillance is sound and has been accepted by the Court. And that the US is engaged in "indiscrimninate mass surveillance under the PRISM programme". What this means for ordinary users of US companies services in the UK, especially those of the 9 PRISM companies Apple, Microsoft (including Hotmail) Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, Pal Talk, AOL and Skype, is that these companies are committing criminal offences in the UK, and breaching UK users privacy, now. And even if the companies obeyed the Court ruling they broke the law here since 2006, when the US spooks forist ordered the criminal interception of e mails and theft of personal details.

This means that they owe you compensation, considerable compensation. Contact your solicitors, now.

Kevin Cahill



TonyGosling wrote:
Facebook court judgement threatens Safe Harbour data-sharing agreement with US
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500254555/Facebook-court-judgement -threatens-Safe-Harbour-data-sharing-agreement-with-US

Kevin Cahill 01 Oct 2015 13:30
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) could torpedo the EU/US Safe Harbour agreement following the US National Security Agency's (NSA) mass surveillance on EU citizens using Facebook data

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will give its final judgement in the case against the Irish data protection commissioner Helen Dixon and Facebook on 6 October 2015 at 9.30am.

The judgement could have profound implications for the high-tech relationship between the US and the European Union (EU), if it rules as illegal the Safe Harbour agreement that permits US corporations to send European data to the US.
Download our in-depth report on IT spending in the UK.

Benchmark your IT spending plans with our in-depth study of spending priorities across the UK.
E-mail Address:


The Safe Harbour agreement is at the heart of the case, because Facebook – the other defendant – cannot use its US-based cloud storage without the consent of the EC through the Safe Harbour agreement.

The case was brought by the Austrian law student Max Schrems, 27. He challenged the legality and effectiveness of the EU/US Safe Harbour data-sharing agreement.

Schrems asked Irish data protection commissioner Helen Dixon to investigate Facebook, which has a European base in the Republic of Ireland. Dixon refused and Schrems went to the Irish High Court, in effect to seek a judicial review.
1
NSA used Safe Harbour data for ‘mass surveillance’

In a judgement scathing of the data protection commissioner, Irish High Court judge Gerard Hogan found the US was using Safe Harbour to impose mass surveillance on the citizens of Europe through its Prism programme.

He wrote that "only the naive or the credulous could really have been greatly surprised over these forms of mass surveillance".

The judge further found “that personal data transferred by companies such as Facebook Ireland to its parent company in the United States is thereafter capable of being accessed by the NSA in the course of a mass and indiscriminate surveillance of such data.

"Indeed, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, the available evidence presently admits of no other realistic conclusion.”
1
Ireland refers Facebook dispute to European Court of Justice

Judge Hogan referred the matter to the ECJ, the highest court in the EU. That court does not go back to the facts, but takes them as found in the Irish Court, and looks at how they relate to EU law.
CW+
Features

Enjoy the benefits of CW+ membership, learn more and join.
7
E-Handbook

Secunia Vulnerability Review
7
E-Handbook

Reconsidering PKI and its Place in your Enterprise Encryption Strategy
7
E-Handbook

Data Breach Readiness 2.0

Two weeks ago the judge advocate general on the case – French jurist Yves Bot – advised the court that the US was, as Judge Hogan had found, using mass surveillance via the NSA, to take European data; and that the Safe Harbour agreement did not protect European data.

This week the US government launched a stinging attack on judge Hogan's facts and Yves Bot's opinion, via its ambassador in Brussels, Anthony Gardner.
1
US ‘risked perjury’ if it gave evidence

The ambassador said there had been "no actual fact-finding in this case". Gardner added: "The US does not and is not engaged in indiscriminate surveillance of anyone, including ordinary European citizens."
Read more about Max Schrems vs Facebook
Privacy campaigner Max Schrems leads a 25,000-strong class action lawsuit in Vienna against Facebook, claiming it breached European privacy law
US tech giants could soon come under increased pressure to build European datacentres now the validity of the US Safe Harbour Agreement has been called into question by EU law makers.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) should consider the impact on privacy and transatlantic trading should it rule against the validity of the Safe Harbour Agreement on 6 October 2015, US diplomats have warned.
Facebook has welcomed a Vienna court’s rejection of a 25,000-strong class action lawsuit against the social networking firm for breaching European privacy laws.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has begun considering a case brought by privacy campaigner Max Schrems that could decide how Europeans’ data will be shared with US internet firms in future.

This caused a furious reaction at the court where an official – who wished to remain anonymous – said the US failed to exercise its right to make its case during the hearing.

"The US had a proper and legal opportunity to make it's case at the Irish Court. The procedures of the European court are well-known to the US authorities," he said.

Speaking to Computer Weekly, plaintiff Max Schrems was more cynical.

"If the US had appeared in Dublin, they would have had to swear their evidence under oath. They would not be able to deny Prism without committing perjury," he said.

The problem for ambassador Gardner is that both the US government and the UK government have publicly acknowledged Prism. That programme is a mass surveillance programme, the full workings of which were originally disclosed in the Guardian in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
1
Court reacts with unprecedented speed

Dai Davis, a solicitor who specialises in information technology law, said he cannot remember a case where the judgement has followed so fast on the judge advocate's opinion.

"I do speculate that the final judgement will closely follow the judge advocate's opinion," he said.

The judgement is bound to make an impact on current negotiations between the US and the EU, about the renewal of Safe Harbour, underway in Brussels.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group – a group campaigning against surveillance and censorship – said Safe Harbour rules were ineffective.

“Safe Harbour is in an untenable position, claiming to protect European citizens’ privacy right while the USA places everyone under mass surveillance," said Killock.

"The advocate’s opinion shows that the court is considering the right issues, so we hope they will produce a strong judgment that insists on our right to protection of our privacy when using US companies’ services."

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what this book is like, but the blurb makes a very important point (bold type):


Ted Rall on Reddit Q & A (AMA) Today

‪I will be doing a Reddit Q&A/AMA at 4PM ET (1 PM PT) today with Sarah Harrison (Courage Foundation) and Jesselyn Radack (Expose Facts). We'll be answering your questions about Edward Snowden, the surveillance state, and the problems facing whistleblowers today.
Here's the direct link.

Dramatic, Evocative, Important
– Noam Chomsky

For a tax-deductible donation of $50 or more, I will send you a signed copy.
(Ted Rall is a Fellow of the Palast Investigative Fund).

Or order your copy on Amazon, B&N or IndieBound. and help get the book on the bestseller list.

Snowden is a portrait of a brave young man standing up to the most powerful government in the world.

As many as 1.4 million citizens with security clearance saw some or all of the same documents revealed by Edward Snowden. Why did he, and no one else, decide to step forward and take on the risks associated with becoming a whistleblower and then a fugitive?

A fierce independent voice of integrity whose mission is to defend the powerless and expose hypocrisy among the rich and powerful.

Ted Rall brand new book Snowden is out on August 25. Donate and get a signed copy.

Ted Rall is a fellow of the Palast Investigative Fund, a project of the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

Support Ted Rall's work and legal defense by making a tax-deductible donation.

Follow Ted Rall on Twitter | Follow Ted Rall on Facebook | Forward to a friend
Subscribe to Ted Rall's Newsletter


Indeed,oh don't know where the 1.4 million figure came from - there is probably a good reason for the figure; but anyway, a LOT of people saw the info, and stayed 'schtum'.
This is a good argument for us when people say 'If 9/11 was an 'Inside Job', someone whould have blown the whistle. Another is the Manhattan Project, where I think 500,000 people new parts (but not all) of what the plan was.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 1691
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theresa May's GCHQ & MI5 securocrats take desperate measures today 2 bring their criminal bulk spying within the law http://gu.com/p/4dqj4/stw
3:08pm - 4 Nov 15

Theresa May unveils surveillance measures in wake of Snowden claims
Home secretary announces new powers for police and security services tracking UK citizens’ internet use without need for judicial check

Theresa May unveils new measures to spy on internet use
Alan Travis Patrick Wintour and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday 4 November 2015 13.57 GMT
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/theresa-may-surveillance- measures-edward-snowden

New surveillance powers will be given to the police and security services, allowing them to access records tracking every UK citizen’s use of the internet without any need for any judicial check, under the provisions of the draft investigatory powers bill unveiled by Theresa May.

It includes new powers requiring internet and phone companies to keep “internet connection records” – tracking every website visited but not every page – for a maximum of 12 months but will not require a warrant for the police, security services or other bodies to access the data. Local authorities will be banned from accessing internet records.


The proposed legislation will also introduce a “double-lock” on the ministerial approval of interception warrants with a new panel of seven judicial commissioners – probably retired judges – given a veto before they can come into force.

app

Download the free Guardian app
Read the latest news from across the world on the Guardian app for iOS and Android and save articles to read across your devices and desktop.

Click here
But the details of the bill make clear that this new safeguard for the most intrusive powers to spy on the content of people’s conversations and messages will not apply in “urgent cases” – defined as up to five days – where judicial approval is not possible.

The draft investigatory powers bill published on Wednesday by the home secretary aims to provide a “comprehensive and comprehensible” overhaul of Britain’s fragmented surveillance laws. It comes two-and-a-half years after the disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden of the scale of secret mass surveillance of the global traffic in confidential personal data carried out by Britain’s GCHQ and the US’s National Security Agency (NSA).

Advertisement

It will replace the current system of three separate commissioners with a senior judge as a single investigatory powers commissioner.

May told MPs that the introduction of the most controversial power – the storage of everyone’s internet connection records tracking the websites they have visited, which is banned as too intrusive in the US and every European country including Britain – was “simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill”.

Her recommendations were broadly welcomed by the shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, but received a more cautious welcome from the former Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis, the former shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister.

Advertisement

Some former ministers pressed May on the nature of the double-lock, whereby a warrant could be issued first by the home secretary and then endorsed by a specially appointed judge. They also asked whether some warrants could be issued by the home secretary outside this dual-lock process.

Burnham said it was important to stress the proposals were “neither a snooper’s charter nor a plan for mass surveillance”. The Labour frontbencher said the UK’s laws were outdated given that changes in technology had made the jobs of the security services and police much harder.

Burnham said: “In a world where the threats we face internationally and domestically are growing, parliament cannot sit on its hands and leave blind spots where the authorities can’t see.”

He said strong powers must be balanced by strong protections for the public, adding: “What the home secretary has said today, it seems clear to me both she and the government have been listening carefully to the concerns that were expressed about the original legislation presented in the last parliament.”

Burnham added: “I think it would help the future conduct of this important public debate if this House sent out a unified message today that this is neither a snooper’s charter nor a plan for mass surveillance.”

Davis questioned whether the new warrant process would cover all the current mechanisms for the intercept and use of communications data. He also questioned the independence of the judicary, asking if they will be appointed by the prime minister or by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Clegg, who in government blocked previous attempts to give spies sweeping new powers, was cautious, saying the proposals were “much improved” compared with the snooper’s charter. But he warned: “I have a feeling under the bonnet it still retains some of the flaws of its predecessor.”

The LibDem MP suggested it might be be simpler and faster to provide for direct judicial authorisation, rather than retaining a role for ministers. He also queried why it was necessary to hold so much internet browsing data.

The draft bill explicitly includes in statute for the first time powers for the bulk collection of large volumes of communications and other personal data by MI5, GCHQ, MI6 and for their use of “equipment interference powers” – the ability to hack computers and phones around the world – for purposes of national security, serious crime and economic wellbeing.

In her statement, May also revealed for the first time that successive governments since 1994 have issued secret directions to internet and phone companies to hand over the communications data of British citizens in bulk to the security services.

She said these secret “directions” had allowed the security services to thwart a number of attacks in Britain, including the plot to attack the London Stock Exchange in 2010.

May revealed that the use of these powers – which show that GCHQ was also engaged in mass surveillance programmes on British citizens using their communications data – under the 1984 Telecommunications Act will be put on a more explicit footing in the new legislation and be subject to the same safeguards as other bulk powers.

Live Theresa May secures backing of Labour and Lib Dems for surveillance plans – live
Read more
Home Office estimates put the extra costs of storing internet connection records and the new judicial oversight regime at £245m to £250m over 10 years after the legislation comes into force in December next year. This includes £175m for the cost of storing everyone’s internet records and £60m for the extra judicial oversight.

Welcoming the bill as a decisive moment in updating Britain’s surveillance laws, May said: “There should be no area of cyberspace which is a haven for those who seek to harm us to plot, poison minds and peddle hatred under the radar.

“But I am also clear that the exercise and scope of investigatory powers should be clearly set out and subject to stringent safeguards and robust oversight, including ‘double-lock’ authorisation for the most intrusive capabilities. This bill will establish world-leading oversight to govern an investigatory powers regime which is more open and transparent than anywhere else in the world.”

She said it could not be used to determine whether somebody had visited a mental health website or even a news website but only for the purpose of finding out whether they had visited a communications website, such as WhatsApp, an illegal website or to link their device to a specific website as part of a specific investigation.

But the detail of the bill makes clear that the authorisation arrangements for internet connection records will remain exactly the same as the current 517,000 requests for communications data made last year. These requests are made without any kind of warrant and signed off by either a police inspector or superintendent depending on the kind of data.

Jim Killock, the executive director of the privacy campaigning body Open Rights Group, sees the draft bill as an attempt to secure even more intrusive powers. “At first glance, it appears that this bill is an attempt to grab even more intrusive surveillance powers and does not do enough to restrain the bulk collection of our personal data by the secret services,” he said. “It proposes an increase in the blanket retention of our personal communications data, giving the police the power to access web logs. It also gives the state intrusive hacking powers that can carry risks for everyone’s internet security.”

A Microsoft spokesperson tentatively welcomed the bill while adding caveats about private data and protection for customers, saying: “We appreciate the government’s willingness to engage in an open debate about these important issues, and as this process unfolds, we will work to ensure that legislation respects these principles and protects the privacy of our customers.”

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:27 pm    Post subject: JTRIG Reply with quote

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Glenn Greenwald - Feb. 24 2014, 11:25 p.m.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:



Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:


Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Documents referenced in this article:
The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations

TonyGosling wrote:
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
By Glenn Greenwald24 Feb 2014, 6:25 PM EST673

Featured photo - How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to MA page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

[]
[]
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:


[]
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

[]
[]
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

[]
[]
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

[]
[]

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardianin the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

[]

[]



Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

[]

[]

[]

[]

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

[]

[]

[]

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
http://www.thenational.scot/news/secret-us-flight-flew-over-scottish-a irspace-to-capture-snowden.13226

February 3rd, 2016 - 12:28 am  Michael Gray

'THE UK GOVERNMENT is facing demands to reveal the details of a secret flight through Scottish airspace which was at the centre of a plot to capture whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The plane, which passed above the Outer Hebrides, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, was dispatched from the American east coast on June 24 2013, the day after Snowden left Hong Kong for Moscow. The craft was used in controversial US ‘rendition’ missions.

Reports by Scottish journalist Duncan Campbell claim the flight, travelling well above the standard aviation height at 45,000 feet and without a filed flight plan, was part of a mission to capture Snowden following his release of documents revealing mass surveillance by US and UK secret services.

That the flight passed over Scotland, airspace regulated by the UK, has raised questions over UK complicity in a covert mission to arrest Snowden and whether any police, aviation or political authorities in Scotland were made aware of the flight path.

Alex Salmond, the SNP foreign affairs spokesman and Scotland’s First Minister when the flight took place, has called for full transparency from the UK Government over the case.

He said: “As a matter of course and courtesy, any country, particularly an ally, should be open about the purposes of a flight and the use of foreign airspace or indeed airports.”

“What we need to know now is, was this information given to the UK Government at the time. If so, then why did they give permission? If not, then why not? As a minimum requirement, the UK authorities should not allow any activity in breach of international law in either its airspace or its airports.

“That is what an independent Scotland should insist on. Of course, since no rendition actually took place in this instance, it is a moot point as to whether intention can constitute a breach of human rights. However, we are entitled to ask what the UK Government knew and when did they know it.”

The flight took place after US federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Snowden on June 14. Regular meetings with the FBI and CIA, convened by US Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco, then planned Snowden’s arrest for alleged breaches of the Espionage Act, according to The Washington Post.

New documents, revealed by Danish media group Denfri, confirm that the N977GA plane was held at a Copenhagen airport for “state purposes of a non-commercial nature”. Two days later Danish authorities received an “urgent notification” from the US Department of Justice to cooperate in arresting Snowden.

N977GA was previously identified by Dave Willis in Air Force Monthly as an aircraft used for CIA rendition flights of US prisoners. This included the extradition of cleric Abu Hamza from the UK. Snowden accused the Danish Government of conspiring in his arrest. In response to flight reports, he said: “Remember when the Prime Minister Rasmussen said Denmark shouldn’t respect asylum law in my case? Turns out he had a secret.”

Snowden was behind the largest leak of classified information in history, revealing spying activities that were later deemed illegal on both sides of the Atlantic. He was elected rector at the University of Glasgow in February 2014, yet is unable to fully carry out his duties.

Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, echoed calls for an inquiry into the flight: “It will certainly raise suspicions that an aircraft previously identified as involved in rendition flew through UK airspace at that time. We have a right to know what UK and Scottish authorities knew about this flight given it is implicated in the US response to whistleblowing about global surveillance.”

ATTEMPTS to arrest Snowden have failed as Russian authorities refused to comply. However, pressure from US authorities made it dangerous for Snowden to travel from Russia to Latin America, where Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela have all offered him asylum.

The presidential plane of Bolivian leader Evo Morales was forced to ground in Vienna, after four EU nations refused airspace access on the mistaken belief that Snowden was hidden on board.

In 2013 Police Scotland launched an investigation into whether other US rendition flights – where prisoners were taken to blacklist torture sites – used Scottish airports or airspace.

In 2006 aviation expert Chris Yates said it was likely that a US rendition flight had passed through Scottish airspace to Syria, in a case where the prisoner, Maher Arar, said he was tortured.

In 2008 then foreign secretary David Miliband admitted that UK airports had been used for US rendition flights and apologised for previous government denials.

American politics lecturer John MacDonald, director of foreign policy group the Scottish Global Forum, said: “Given the constitutional arrangements, there are a number of areas in which the Scottish Government may well have interests or concerns but will be excluded because security arrangements with the US are deemed ‘out of bounds’ for Scotland.

“However, if you take serious the supposition that all responsible governments have a moral and legal obligation to raise questions about flights which may be involved in dubious security and intelligence activities, then the Scottish Government may well have an interest in – or even be obliged to –raise questions.

“Questions have already been raised about the nature of military and intelligence air traffic through Scotland and if this activity is raising concerns within Scottish civil society – and it seems to be – then it is surely incumbent upon the Scottish Government to raise the issue with London.”

National Air Traffic Control Systems (Nats), who control flight access to UK airspace, said rendition flights are an issue for the UK Government. In response to questions, the UK Government refused to provide details on attempts to arrest Snowden or on the passage of the N977GA flight.

The Scottish Government also avoided a direct statement on the case on legal grounds. A spokesman said: “There is already an ongoing Police Scotland investigation, directed by the Lord Advocate. This investigation will seek to gather all available evidence of rendition flights using Scottish airports. As this is a live investigation it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

During his two and a half years in Moscow, Snowden has caused diplomatic ruptures and a worldwide debate on privacy and state security. In October 2015 the European Parliament voted narrowly, in a non-binding motion, to drop charges against him in recognition of “his status as [a] whistle-blower and international human rights defender”.'

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2016 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Privacy International challenges Snooper's Charter blanket hacking warrants in High Court
http://www.itpro.co.uk/it-legislation/26505/privacy-international-chal lenges-snoopers-charter-blanket-hacking-warrants-in
Jane McCallion NEWS 10 May, 2016
Campaign group files for judicial review of Investigatory Powers Bill's cornerstone policy
Privacy International has appealed to the High Court to strike down a key part of the Investigatory Powers Bill that allows the government to issue blanket hacking warrants to GCHQ.
The so-called "thematic warrants" contained in the so-called Snooper's Charter allow the spy agency to hack into the computers and phones of people both inside and outside the UK.
Unlike normal warrants, they do not require a single target to be named and can instead be used to cover an entire class of unnamed property or persons, such as "all mobile phones in Nottingham" in the example given by the campaign group.
Privacy International initially raised a complaint about these general warrants in 2014, when it took its case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which oversees agencies including GCHQ.
The campaign group had argued that such blanket warrants have no basis in UK law and also violate Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - the rights to privacy and freedon of speech. However, the IPT ruled in favour of the government in February this year.
Consequently, the organisation has taken its case to the High Court, seeking to overturn the IPT's ruling. As well as its claims that thematic warrants violate the ECHR, the group is also claiming that it undermines 250 years of English common law, which it claimed "has long rejected general warrants".
"The IPT's decision grants the government carte blanche to hack hundreds or thousands of people's computers and phones with a single warrant," said Privacy International's legal officer, Scarlet Kim. "General warrants permit GCHQ to target an entire class of persons or property without proving to a judge that each person affected is suspected of a crime or a threat to national security."
"By sanctioning this power, the IPT has upended 250 years of common law that makes clear such warrants are unlawful. Combined with the power to hack, these warrants represent an extraordinary expansion of state surveillance capabilities with alarming consequences for the security of our devices and the internet," Kim added.
Saying that these thematic warrants are a keystone of the Snooper's Charter, Privacy International claimed the entire bill could be called into question should it win its case in the High Court.
The group is not the only body to express concern over the inclusion of the warrants in the IP Bill. In February, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) recommended "substantive amendments" to the wording of the bill, adding that it was unconvinced by some of the legal frameworks for its implementation, including various hacking warrants.
The lawfulness of bulk data collection under DRIPA - the emergency stop-gap regulation the government hopes will be replaced by the Investigatory Powers Bill - has also been challenged by MPs Tom Watson and David Davis, with the case currently progressing through the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
If DRIPA is found to break the rights to private and family life as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it could scupper many of the plans laid out in the Snooper's Charter as well.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/


Last edited by TonyGosling on Fri May 13, 2016 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2016 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brits blindly walking into Orwellian surveillance state, survey suggests
Published time: 20 Apr, 2016 17:16
https://www.rt.com/uk/340411-big-brother-surveillance-state/
Britain is sleep-walking into an Orwellian surveillance state, with most of its citizens unaware of or disinterested in the far-reaching implications of the government’s Investigatory Powers (IP) Bill, a new survey suggests.
A poll conducted by broadband comparison site Broadband Genie reveals the widespread confusion many Brits are experiencing with respect to the soon-to-be-implemented legislation.
Known to its opponents as the “snoopers’ charter,” the bill will give UK law enforcement bodies unprecedented access to citizens’ online activities.
It will allow them to force broadband providers such as BT and Virgin to store people’s internet browsing history and hand over this data to the state in the absence of judicial oversight.
Intelligence agencies and government bodies such as the National Crime Agency (NCA) will also be allowed to hack citizens’ internet networks, personal computers and other devices.
While the government says the legislation is vital to combating organized crime and terrorism, privacy rights advocates say it goes too far. They argue unlimited access to citizens’ private communications and devices should be a real concern for British people.
Of 1,600 respondents surveyed by Broadband Genie, 75 percent said they had not heard of the IP Bill. Asked if they backed the government’s plans to ramp up mass surveillance in Britain, a third said they didn’t care either way.
Fifty percent of those surveyed said law enforcement agencies should not have access to citizens’ encrypted communications and devices.
Privacy International (PI), which specializes in the field of mass surveillance and privacy rights, says the IP Bill will give police deeply intrusive snooping powers, allowing for the installation of malware on citizens’ computers.
Such a move would empower UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on citizens by activating their microphones and webcams. PI also warns the draft legislation would allow UK authorities to remotely gain access to files on citizens’ computers and erode data security on their personal devices, without them knowing.
It currently remains unclear who will pay for the implementation and maintenance of the infrastructure needed to accompany these legislative changes. Experts suggest the cost could spiral into billions of pounds.
Home Secretary Theresa May originally pushed for a similar bill to come into force in 2014. However, then-Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg withdrew his support in April 2013. His party, the Liberal Democrats, subsequently blocked it from being reintroduced while they remained part of a coalition government with the Conservative Party.
Soon after the Conservatives secured a majority in the May 2015 general election, however, the Home Secretary vowed to introduce broad-ranging new surveillance powers in 2016.
By November 2015, she had announced a new draft IP Bill similar to the one previously put forward, but with an added dimension of oversight that has been sharply criticized by observers.
PI has launched a campaign to raise awareness about the implications of the IP Bill. Among the charity's chief concerns, is the argument that police hacking will make citizens less safe because the very technology these people use on a daily basis will become more vulnerable to cybercriminals.
View image on Twitter
https://www.rt.com/uk/340411-big-brother-surveillance-state/

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disinformation and trivia right from the start from Tom Secker
Tom Secker : Operation Snowden?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3hLdzefxbk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3hLdzefxbk

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15218
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any computer connected to the internet can be hacked by the US Government without a warrant, court rules
Privacy International says the ruling will have 'astounding implications for privacy and security'

Harriet Agerholm @HarrietAgerholm Friday 1 July 20160 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/computer-internet-hac ked-us-government-privacy-international-a7113906.html

If a computer has a connection to the internet means no warrant is required for the US government to hack it, a Virginia court has ruled.

The judge angered privacy campaigners by reasoning that since no connected computer "is immune from invasion”, no user should ever expect their their activity to remain secret.

The decision was part of a case brought after an investigation into “Playpen”, a child porn website on the dark web, which the FBI hacked to find offenders.

Following the investigation, hundreds were prosecuted for offences relating to indecent imagery.

But despite the unsympathetic defendants in these cases, privacy campaigners warned the ruling had wider implications.

Scarlet Kim, legal officer at Privacy International, told The Independent the verdict would have "astounding implications for the privacy and security of anyone who owns an electronic device".

"The district court’s dangerous evisceration of a core constitutional protection would render all our personal digital devices susceptible to warrantless search or seizure by the government," she said.

"The justification that the rise in hacking destroys a reasonable expectation of privacy in these devices is illogical and absurd.

"Just because lock-picking is a well-known technique for breaking into homes hardly eliminates our expectation of privacy in that sphere."

7 people who helped create the internet and don’t get any credit
7
show all
According to court documents, Playpen had over 150,000 members. Over two weeks, the FBI hacked into over 1,000 computers using a single warrant.

Senior District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr upheld the use of the warrant.

“Here, the court finds that defendant possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer's IP address, so the Government's acquisition of the IP address did not represent a prohibited Fourth Amendment search," the judge wrote in his ruling.

“Generally, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address when using the Internet."

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5336
Location: East London

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Former NSA analyst: Russia 'can listen in on anything it wants':
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-nsa-analyst-russia-can-listen -in-on-anything-it-wants/article/2600029

'..."During the Cold War, the KGB referred to NSA as Target OMEGA, and for the Kremlin there was no higher-priority espionage target on earth," Schindler wrote. "That's because by penetrating NSA you get access not just to that agency's signals intelligence, the richest espionage source on earth, you can also crack into the top secret communications of the United States and its closest allies."

"If GRU wasn't interested in that when Delisle offered it to them, the only explanation is that Moscow already had that very sensitive information," he added. "Which means Russia can listen in on anything it wants."

Schindler clarified that the information could not have been passed along by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. "The mole who gave this up could not have been Snowden. Between 2007 and 2012, when Delisle was spying for GRU in Canada, Snowden was working for CIA as an IT contractor, and then for NSA in Japan and Hawaii in a similar role. In that capacity, he did not have the access he needed to betray what the Kremlin already knew about Five Eyes code-making.".....'

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group