Espionage In A Post-Privacy Society by KATE COLLINS WIRED MAY 21, 2014
We will soon have to live in a world with no such thing as privacy and no such thing as secrecy, says Richard Aldrich, speaking at PINC 15 in Amsterdam. "We will be living in a transparent society, it will be a bit like living in a nudist colony." Aldrich is a historian specialising in espionage and has recently published a book about GCHQ, but it is the future of espionage that he is interested in right now. We're used to the idea that secret intelligence agencies spy on us, but over the last ten years the big intelligence gatherers have become airlines, banks, internet providers and Tesco -- all of which have more information about us than GCHQ and the NSA put together. "These organisations are becoming cleverer and cleverer. Cleverer than the CIA; cleverer than the KGB." By studying everything he has bought over the last five years, a company could predict with about 90 percent accuracy how Aldrich will vote in the upcoming European elections -- something he claims he doesn't even know himself. He claims he has about 11 percent of his supposedly secret vote left. Citizens too though are increasingly becoming intelligence gatherers. By studying the reaction of the blogosphere to the Boston Marathon bombings -- which led to a mob forming outside the house of someone wrongly identified as the bomber from crowdsourced photos posted on Reddit-- we can understand how dangerous this can be. "Espionage is even scarier when it's controlled by you guys," Aldrich tells the audience. Much of this is driven by technology, and as technology becomes increasingly pervasive, so we will increasingly sacrifice our privacy and the level of control we have over our data. At the same time,
corporations and governments will be losing their ability to keep secrets. Ten years ago, to steal the amount of data Edward Snowden took from the NSA, you'd need a photocopier and a mass of shopping bags, Aldrich points out. Perhaps though, he continues, there are some things that need to stay secret -- computer viruses for example. For the last 60 years the NSA has focussed on codebreaking and gathering intelligence, but it has also been engaged in cyberwar. It is thought that the NSA deployed the Stuxnet worm in 2009, which it used to attack the Iranian nuclear programme. It managed to do this even though the computers were not connected to the internet, possibly by doing something as simple as dropping a flash drive in the car park. It then got out onto the internet and caused havoc. But, points out Aldrich, it was also created in 2007 or 2008, which in the world of computers "is very old" "The NSA is building right now even bigger and more powerful computer viruses to do cyberwar." What if, asks Aldrich, the next Edward Snowden works in the part of the agency that works on creating these viruses? It's quite conceivable that something leaked could be used to shut down all the power stations in Europe on the same day. "I can assure you that many of these things are very close," says Aldrich. "These things are going to be with you sooner than you think."
No End In Sight For Surveillance Police State by KURT NIMMO INFOWARS.COM MAY 21, 2014
Obama administration and Congrress work to seriously weaken bill designed to rein in NSA On Tuesday the House of Representatives gutted the so-called USA Freedom Act designed to curb surveillance abuse by the NSA. The version that emerged from Rules Committee is substantially different than the version approved by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees two weeks ago. The watered down and weakened version is the result of the Obama administration leaning on House leaders behind closed doors. “The USA FREEDOM Act had previously passed through two committees before being secretly watered down behind closed doors,” notes Amie Stepanovich, Senior Policy Counsel at Access, a digital rights organization. “The version we fear could now be negotiated in secret and introduced on the House floor may not move us forward on NSA reform.” “Before this bill becomes law, Congress must make clear – either through amendments to the bill, through statements in the legislative record, or both – that mass collection of innocent people’s records isn’t allowed,” the New America Foundation writes in a statement. “The Leadership of the House is demonstrating that it wants to end the debate about surveillance, rather than end bulk collection,” said Harley Geiger, Senior Counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology. “As amended, the bill may not prevent collection of data on a very large scale in a manner that infringes upon the privacy of Americans with no connection to a crime or terrorism. This is quite disappointing given the consensus by the public, Congress, the President, and two independent review groups that ending bulk collection is necessary.” The gutting of the USA Freedom Act was virtually ignored by the establishment media – and for good reason: the national security state needs all-encompassing surveillance to retain its hold on power.
A document released by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals the real reason the national security state has built and continues to build an unprecedented surveillance grid. “It revealed that the agency has been monitoring the online activities of individuals it believes express ‘radical’ ideas and who have a ‘radicalizing’ influence on others,” writes Glenn Greenwald for The Guardian. Because the NSA targets “broad categories of people,” it is capable and willing to conduct surveillance on “anyone anywhere, including in the US, whose ideas the government finds threatening,” Greenwald notes. Obama and the establishment media routinely criticize the panopticon surveillance state, but such criticism is less than worthless. The Obama administration, as noted above, has worked behind closed doors to make sure any legislation designed to rollback NSA violations of the Constitution and the privacy of the American people is seriously weakened. "USA Freedom Act" Has All Oversight Of NSA Gutted By Phony Gatekeepers! VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di78u3ALpv8
‘Schindler’s List’ Producer: Obama Wants To ‘Lock Up’ Foes by JEROME CORSI WORLD NET DAILY MAY 21, 2014
“Schindler’s List” producer Gerald Molen, who is working on a new film with conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, says he will be watching for a federal court to deliver justice when a sentencing hearing is held in the fall on D’Souza’s violation of campaign laws. D’Souza on Tuesday pleaded guilty to one part of a federal indictment in a plea bargain that had prosecutors give up on the worst counts. He will be sentenced in September. There have been claims the case was a politically charged prosecution from the outset. Molen said he will be among those watching to make sure politics don’t influence the sentencing. Molen issued a statement after D’Souza’s court hearing Tuesday. “This administration doesn’t see its opponents as dissenters but as enemies, and if they can’t refute you, they try to lock you up,” he said. “Normally these types of offenses are resolved with fines or community service. I and the American people will be watching closely to make sure that justice is done in the sentencing portion.” In January, Molen’s response to D’Souza’s indictment also was blunt. “When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie, every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’” Molen, the producer of “2016: Obama’s America,” told WND at the time. In addition to the 2012 campaign-rocking “2016,” D’Souza has an upcoming film called “America,” which imagines what the world would be like without the nation. D’Souza’s “2016″ was the No. 2 political documentary of all time, Molen noted, “and it obviously got the attention of our rulers.” See “2016: Obama’s America,” the film that Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Helle Dale said reveals an “aloof” and hard-to-understand president. Federal authorities accused D’Souza of donating more than the legal requirement to the campaign of Republican Wendy Long, who lost the race for the Senate seat in New York. The indictment charges D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds.
Dinesh D’Souza leaves federal court in New York Tuesday after pleading guilty to making illegal
campaign contributions to Wendy Long's failed 2012 Senate bid/Photo: AP Read about the plea submitted by D’Souza. Molen told WND in January that the prosecution of D’Souza “is the equivalent of prosecuting a political dissident in the Soviet Union for jay-walking.” “Yes, jaywalking in the Soviet Union is a crime, but it’s a minor crime. The real point is that you are a political dissenter and the government wants to put you away,” he said. D’Souza’s plea on Tuesday came to a count of campaign contribution violations in which he had friends donate to Long’s campaign and then he reimbursed them. The individual contribution limit for the race was $5,000. In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Richard Berman that lasted just under an hour, he admitted reimbursing the friends $10,000 in cash after they donated to Long’s challenge to Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a New York Democrat. The plea bargain had been expected. Berman scheduled a sentencing hearing for Sept. 23 and told D’Souza to report to the probation office for a pre-sentencing review. Court officials said the general range of sentencing for the count runs up to 24 months, although the judge has sentencing discretion. In a statement released by attorney Benjamin Brafman, D’Souza said he was accepting responsibility for “having urged two close associates to make contributions” to the unsuccessful campaign and then reimbursing them. The statement said because of the “technical nature” of the charges there was no “viable defense.” Brafman’s statement said: “Mr. D’Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever. He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and at worst, this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza.” Molen has charged the Obama administration’s Justice Department, which has been embroiled in numerous scandals and claims of illegal behavior on the part of appointed officials since Obama took office, “is engaging in a practice of ‘selective enforcement of the law’ where there is double standard such that if you oppose Obama politically, the IRS and the Department of Justice knock on your door, but if you’re a liberal who supports Obama, you can say anything you want.” In the eyes of the Obama administration, Molen contended, D’Souza’s crime was to dare to produce a movie that could damage President Obama at the polls. “This is not the America we grew up in,” Molen said at the time. “In the America I treasured, a president would go out of his way to protect those who disagreed with the president’s policy. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.”
INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND