Eventually everything that is used in the foreign arena for the purposes of "war" (various definitions), will eventually come home - I have been saying that since 2005. That is because the "wars" have nothing to do with right and wrong, good or evil, they have to do with maintaining and expanding current property relations of the moneyed few. So by a twist of definition and application, we are next:
Posted at 08:03 pm by deadringer
SNOWDEN INTERVIEW (ENGLISH)
30 Minutes of the Snowden Interview below:
Posted at 09:27 pm by deadringer
500 YEARS OF HISTORY SHOWS THAT MASS SPYING IS ALWAYS AIMED AT CRUSHING DISSENT
The reason I chose to replicate this article is because it is good historical shorthand. Keep in mind that the surveillance we are talking about is the symptom, that is, it points to a reason for it having grown over the years to its present massive state - the people are being divested of their life and along with that goes their liberty (that is why "life and liberty" are a phrase in our historical documents).
Poverty rides a pale horse at full speed in our country as the moneyed elite few are becoming richer then their wildest dreams. Unemployment is at an all time high, while bailouts proliferate for the rich, and the corporations are now the new we the people. Our environment is being raped daily and deeply, we have the highest prison population of all the so-called "developed" nations. Wars are engaged in all over the globe to enrich the few (financiers mostly), and to make a long story short people have had enough, and they are going to rise up in mass to stop these atrocities.
Our rising up is almost inevitable, and those who do not want property relations to change are worried, that is because they have no intention of stopping, but are reaching to make it worse! Our offices federal, all three branches do not represent us, they cater to the moneyed elite, so there is no effective redress - the people will inevitably take to the streets. That is the reason for the surveillance, it is the whole mass of abuse on the people that shows no sight of ending - look at TPP, they want to make it worse! Abuses and imprisonments of whistle blowers and journalists. So it is good to get a historical view of what surveillance is used for, resistance is going to approach legion soon, and the powers that be want to stop it by any means necessary. Please read the article below.
It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys
No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Stanford v. Texas (1965):
While the Fourth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] was most immediately the product of contemporary revulsion against a regime of writs of assistance, its roots go far deeper. Its adoption in the Constitution of this new Nation reflected the culmination in England a few years earlier of a struggle against oppression which had endured for centuries. The story of that struggle has been fully chronicled in the pages of this Court’s reports, and it would be a needless exercise in pedantry to review again the detailed history of the use of general warrants as instruments of oppression from the time of the Tudors, through the Star Chamber, the Long Parliament, the Restoration, and beyond.
What is significant to note is that this history is largely a history of conflict between the Crown and the press. It was in enforcing the laws licensing the publication of literature and, later, in prosecutions for seditious libel, that general warrants were systematically used in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. In Tudor England, officers of the Crown were given roving commissions to search where they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of dissent, both Catholic and Puritan. In later years, warrants were sometimes more specific in content, but they typically authorized of all persons connected of the premises of all persons connected with the publication of a particular libel, or the arrest and seizure of all the papers of a named person thought to be connected with a libel.
By “libel”, the court is referring to a critique of the British government which the King or his ministers didn’t like … they would label such criticism “libel” and then seize all of the author’s papers.
The Supreme Court provided interesting historical details in the case of Marcus v. Search Warrant(1961):
The use by government of the power of search and seizure as an adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications … was a principal instrument for the enforcement of the Tudor licensing system. The Stationers’ Company was incorporated in 1557 to help implement that system, and was empowered
“to make search whenever it shall please them in any place, shop, house, chamber, or building or any printer, binder or bookseller whatever within our kingdom of England or the dominions of the same of or for any books or things printed, or to be printed, and to seize, take hold, burn, or turn to the proper use of the aforesaid community, all and several those books and things which are or shall be printed contrary to the form of any statute, act, or proclamation, made or to be made. . . .
An order of counsel confirmed and expanded the Company’s power in 1566, and the Star Chamber reaffirmed it in 1586 by a decree
“That it shall be lawful for the wardens of the said Company for the time being or any two of the said Company thereto deputed by the said wardens, to make search in all workhouses, shops, warehouses of printers, booksellers, bookbinders, or where they shall have reasonable cause of suspicion, and all books [etc.] . . . contrary to . . . these present ordinances to stay and take to her Majesty’s use. . . . ”
Books thus seized were taken to Stationers’ Hall where they were inspected by ecclesiastical officers, who decided whether they should be burnt. These powers were exercised under the Tudor censorship to suppress both Catholic and Puritan dissenting literature.
Each succeeding regime during turbulent Seventeenth Century England used the search and seizure power to suppress publications. James I commissioned the ecclesiastical judges comprising the Court of High Commission
“to enquire and search for . . . all heretical, schismatical and seditious books, libels, and writings, and all other books, pamphlets and portraitures offensive to the state or set forth without sufficient and lawful authority in that behalf, . . . and the same books [etc.] and their printing presses themselves likewise to seize and so to order and dispose of them . . . as they may not after serve or be employed for any such unlawful use. . . .”
The Star Chamber decree of 1637, reenacting the requirement that all books be licensed, continued the broad powers of the Stationers’ Company to enforce the licensing laws. During the political overturn of the 1640′s, Parliament on several occasions asserted the necessity of a broad search and seizure power to control printing. Thus, an order of 1648 gave power to the searchers
“to search in any house or place where there is just cause of suspicion that Presses are kept and employed in the printing of Scandalous and lying Pamphlets, . . . [and] to seize such scandalous and lying pamphlets as they find upon search. . . .”
The Restoration brought a new licensing act in 1662. Under its authority, “messengers of the press” operated under the secretaries of state, who issued executive warrants for the seizure of persons and papers. These warrants, while sometimes specific in content, often gave the most general discretionary authority. For example, a warrant to Roger L’Estrange, the Surveyor of the Press, empowered him to “seize all seditious books and libels and to apprehend the authors, contrivers, printers, publishers, and dispersers of them,” and to
“search any house, shop, printing room, chamber, warehouse, etc. for seditious, scandalous or unlicensed pictures, books, or papers, to bring away or deface the same, and the letter press, taking away all the copies. . . .]”
Although increasingly attacked, the licensing system was continued in effect for a time even after the Revolution of 1688, and executive warrants continued to issue for the search for and seizure of offending books. The Stationers’ Company was also ordered
“to make often and diligent searches in all such places you or any of you shall know or have any probable reason to suspect, and to seize all unlicensed, scandalous books and pamphlets. . . .”
And even when the device of prosecution for seditious libel replaced licensing as the principal governmental control of the press, it too was enforced with the aid of general warrants authorizing either the arrest of all persons connected with the publication of a particular libel and the search of their premises or the seizure of all the papers of a named person alleged to be connected with the publication of a libel.
And see this.
General warrants were largely declared illegal in Britain in 1765. But the British continued to use general warrants in the American colonies. In fact, the Revolutionary War was largely launched to stop the use of general warrants in the colonies. King George gave various excuses of why general warrants were needed for the public good, of course … but such excuses were all hollow.
The New York Review of Books notes that the American government did not start to conduct mass surveillance against the American people until long after the Revolutionary War ended … but once started, the purpose was to crush dissent:
In the United States, political spying by the federal government began in the early part of the twentieth century, with the creation of the Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice on July 1, 1908. In more than one sense, the new agency was a descendant of the surveillance practices developed in France a century earlier, since it was initiated by US Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a great nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, who created it during a Congressional recess. Its establishment was denounced by Congressman Walter Smith of Iowa, who argued that “No general system of spying upon and espionage of the people, such as has prevailed in Russia, in France under the Empire, and at one time in Ireland, should be allowed to grow up.”
Nonetheless, the new Bureau became deeply engaged in political surveillance during World War I when federal authorities sought to gather information on those opposing American entry into the war and those opposing the draft. As a result of this surveillance, many hundreds of people were prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act for the peaceful expression of opinion about the war and the draft.
But it was during the Vietnam War that political surveillance in the United States reached its peak. Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and, to an even greater extent, Richard Nixon, there was a systematic effort by various agencies, including the United States Army, to gather information on those involved in anti-war protests. Millions of Americans took part in such protests and the federal government "as well as many state and local agencies" gathered enormous amounts of information on them. Here are just three of the numerous examples of political surveillance in that era:
- In the 1960s in Rochester, New York, the local police department launched Operation SAFE (Scout Awareness for Emergency). It involved twenty thousand boy scouts living in the vicinity of Rochester. They got identification cards marked with their thumb prints. On the cards were the telephone numbers of the local police and the FBI. The scouts participating in the program were given a list of suspicious activities that they were to report.
- In 1969, the FBI learned that one of the sponsors of an anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC, was a New York City-based organization, the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee, that chartered buses to take protesters to the event. The FBI visited the bank where the organization maintained its account to get photocopies of the checks written to reserve places on the buses and, thereby, to identify participants in the demonstration. One of the other federal agencies given the information by the FBI was the Internal Revenue Service.
The National Security Agency was involved in the domestic political surveillance of that era as well. Decades before the Internet, under the direction of President Nixon, the NSA made arrangements with the major communications firms of the time such as RCA Global and Western Union to obtain copies of telegrams. When the matter came before the courts, the Nixon Administration argued that the president had inherent authority to protect the country against subversion. In a unanimous decision in 1972, however, the US Supreme Court rejected the claim that the president had the authority to disregard the requirement of the Fourth Amendment for a judicial warrant.
Much of the political surveillance of the 1960s and the 1970s and of the period going back to World War I consisted in efforts to identify organizations that were critical of government policies, or that were proponents of various causes the government didn’t like, and to gather information on their adherents. It was not always clear how this information was used. As best it is possible to establish, the main use was to block some of those who were identified with certain causes from obtaining public employment or some kinds of private employment. Those who were victimized in this way rarely discovered the reason they had been excluded.
Efforts to protect civil liberties during that era eventually led to the destruction of many of these records, sometimes after those whose activities were monitored were given an opportunity to examine them. In many cases, this prevented surveillance records from being used to harm those who were spied on. Yet great vigilance by organizations such as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought a large number of court cases challenging political surveillance, was required to safeguard rights. The collection of data concerning the activities of US citizens did not take place for benign purposes.
Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI operated a program known as COINTELPRO, for Counter Intelligence Program. Its purpose was to interfere with the activities of the organizations and individuals who were its targets or, in the words of long-time FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize” them. The first target was the Communist Party of the United States, but subsequent targets ranged from the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference to organizations espousing women’s rights to right wing organizations such as the National States Rights Party.
A well-known example of COINTELPRO was the FBI’s planting in 1964 of false documents about William Albertson, a long-time Communist Party official, that persuaded the Communist Party that Albertson was an FBI informant. Amid major publicity, Albertson was expelled from the party, lost all his friends, and was fired from his job. Until his death in an automobile accident in 1972, he tried to prove that he was not a snitch, but the case was not resolved until 1989, when the FBI agreed to payAlbertson’s widow $170,000 to settle her lawsuit against the government.
COINTELPRO was eventually halted by J. Edgar Hoover after activists broke into a small FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971, and released stolen documents about the program to the press. The lesson of COINTELPRO is that any government agency that is able to gather information through political surveillance will be tempted to use that information. After a time, the passive accumulation of data may seem insufficient and it may be used aggressively. This may take place long after the information is initially collected and may involve officials who had nothing to do with the original decision to engage in surveillance.
Indeed, during the Vietnam war, the NSA spied on Senator Frank Church because of his criticism of the Vietnam War. The NSA also spied on Senator Howard Baker.
Senator Church, the head of a congressional committee investigating Cointelpro warned in 1975:
[NSA's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.
This is, in fact, what’s happened …
Initially, American constitutional law experts say that the NSA is doing exactly the same thing to the American people today which King George did to the Colonists … using “general warrant” type spying.
And it is clear that the government is using its massive spy programs in order to track those who question government policies. See this, this, this and this.
Todd Gitlin chair of the PhD program in communications at Columbia University, and a professor of journalism and sociology - notes:
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) has unearthed documents showing that, in 2011 and 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies were busy surveilling and worrying about a good number of Occupy groups during the very time that they were missing actual warnings about actual terrorist actions.
From its beginnings, the Occupy movement was of considerable interest to the DHS, the FBI, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, while true terrorists were slipping past the nets they cast in the wrong places. In the fall of 2011, the DHS specifically asked its regional affiliates to report on “Peaceful Activist Demonstrations, in addition to reporting on domestic terrorist acts and ‘significant criminal activity.’”
Aware that Occupy was overwhelmingly peaceful, the federally funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), one of 77 coordination centers known generically as “fusion centers,” was busy monitoring Occupy Boston daily. As the investigative journalist Michael Isikoff recently reported, they were not only tracking Occupy-related Facebook pages and websites but “writing reports on the movement’s potential impact on ‘commercial and financial sector assets.’”
It was in this period that the FBI received the second of two Russian police warnings about the extremist Islamist activities of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the future Boston Marathon bomber. That city’s police commissioner later testified that the federal authorities did not pass any information at all about the Tsarnaev brothers on to him, though there’s no point in letting the Boston police off the hook either. The ACLU has uncovered documents showing that, during the same period, they were paying close attention to the internal workings of…Code Pink and Veterans for Peace.
In Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, intelligence was not only pooled among public law enforcement agencies, but shared with private corporations and vice versa.
Nationally, in 2011, the FBI and DHS were, in the words of Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, “treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity.” Last December using FOIA, PCJF obtained 112 pages of documents (heavily redacted) revealing a good deal of evidence for what might otherwise seem like an outlandish charge: that federal authorities were, in Verheyden-Hilliard’s words, “functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.” Consider these examples from PCJF’s summary of federal agencies working directly not only with local authorities but on behalf of the private sector:
• “As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn’t start for another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest.”
“The FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to…  campus police officials… A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors.”
• An entity called the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the private sector,” sent around information regarding Occupy protests at West Coast ports [on Nov. 2, 2011] to “raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report contained “a ‘handling notice’ that the information is ‘meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel…’ Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) reported to DSAC on the relationship between OWS and organized labor.”
• DSAC gave tips to its corporate clients on “civil unrest,” which it defined as running the gamut from “small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting.” ***
• The FBI in Anchorage, Jacksonville, Tampa, Richmond, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Birmingham also gathered information and briefed local officials on wholly peaceful Occupy activities.
• In Jackson, Mississippi, FBI agents “attended a meeting with the Bank Security Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in which they discussed an announced protest for ‘National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day’ on December 7, 2011.” Also in Jackson, “the Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a ‘Counterterrorism Preparedness’ alert” that, despite heavy redactions, notes the need to ‘document…the Occupy Wall Street Movement.’”
In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee learned … that the Tennessee Fusion Center was “highlighting on its website map of ‘Terrorism Events and Other Suspicious Activity’ a recent ACLU-TN letter to school superintendents. The letter encourages schools to be supportive of all religious beliefs during the holiday season.”
Consider an “intelligence report” from the North Central Texas fusion center, which in a 2009 “Prevention Awareness Bulletin” described, in the ACLU’s words, “a purportedconspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department, and hip hop bands to spread tolerance in the United States, which would ‘provide an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish.’”
And those Virginia and Texas fusion centers were hardly alone in expanding the definition of “terrorist” to fit just about anyone who might oppose government policies. According to a 2010 report in the Los Angeles Times, the Justice Department Inspector General found that “FBI agents improperly opened investigations into Greenpeace and several other domestic advocacy groups after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and put the names of some of their members on terrorist watch lists based on evidence that turned out to be ‘factually weak.’” The Inspector General called “troubling” what the Los Angeles Times described as “singling out some of the domestic groups for investigations that lasted up to five years, and were extended ‘without adequate basis.’
Subsequently, the FBI continued to maintain investigative files on groups like Greenpeace, the Catholic Worker, and the Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburgh, cases where (in the politely put words of the Inspector General’s report) “there was little indication of any possible federal crimes… In some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘acts of terrorism’ classification.”
In Pittsburgh, on the day after Thanksgiving 2002 (“a slow work day” in the Justice Department Inspector General’s estimation), a rookie FBI agent was outfitted with a camera, sent to an antiwar rally, and told to look for terrorism suspects. The “possibility that any useful information would result from this make-work assignment was remote,” the report added drily.
“The agent was unable to identify any terrorism subjects at the event, but he photographed a woman in order to have something to show his supervisor. He told us he had spoken to a woman leafletter at the rally who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, and that she was probably the person he photographed.”
The sequel was not quite so droll. The Inspector General found that FBI officials, including their chief lawyer in Pittsburgh, manufactured postdated “routing slips” and the rest of a phony paper trail to justify this surveillance retroactively.
Moreover, at least one fusion center has involved military intelligence in civilian law enforcement. In 2009, a military operative from Fort Lewis, Washington, worked undercover collecting information on peace groups in the Northwest. In fact, he helped run the Port Militarization Resistance group’s Listserv. Once uncovered, he told activists there were others doing similar work in the Army. How much the military spies on American citizens is unknown and, at the moment at least, unknowable.
Do we hear an echo from the abyss of the counterintelligence programs of the 1960s and 1970s, when FBI memos I have some in my own heavily redacted files obtained through an FOIA request were routinely copied to military intelligence units? Then, too, military intelligence operatives spied on activists who violated no laws, were not suspected of violating laws, and had they violated laws, would not have been under military jurisdiction in any case. During those years, more than 1,500 Army intelligence agents in plain clothes were spying, undercover, on domestic political groups (according to Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-70, an unpublished dissertation by former Army intelligence captain Christopher H. Pyle). They posed as students, sometimes growing long hair and beards for the purpose, or as reporters and camera crews. They recorded speeches and conversations on concealed tape recorders. The Army lied about their purposes, claiming they were interested solely in “civil disturbance planning.”
Yes, we hear echoes to the Cointelpro program of the 60s and 70s … as well as King George’s General Warrants to the Colonies … and the Star Chamber of 15th century England.
Because whatever governments may say mass surveillance is always used to crush dissent.
1. Spying is also aimed at keeping politicians in check.
2. The East German Stasi obviously used mass surveillance to crush dissent and keep it’s officials in check … and falsely claimed that spying was necessary to protect people against vague threats. But poking holes in the excuses of a communist tyranny is too easy. The focus of this essay is to show that the British and American governments have used this same cynical ruse for over 500 years.
3. For ease of reading, we deleted the footnotes from the two Supreme Court opinions.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - GLOBALRESEARCHBelow you will find the Federal prosecutors manual (PDF) for the prosecution of "cyber crime." Look at it carefully, whereas there is little to no evidence for the stopping of terrorism by indiscriminate surveillance, there is plenty of criminalization using various hybrid applications of the CFAA with other draconian laws. There is a melding together of case law which takes drug laws that have exponentially risen the prison population since the 1980's applied to "cyber crime" - meaning that the same imprisonment trajectory is being used in the digital realm. It is COINTELPRO digital style -
Posted at 09:54 pm by deadringer
LOSS OF PRIVACY IS THE MEANS, NOT THE GOAL - GLOBAL POLICE STATE
"The US National Security Agency (NSA) is building the foundation for a global police state. This is not an exaggeration.
The lynch pin of the NSA system is the continuous gathering of all types of digital data on political leaders, economic institutions, and hundreds of millions of people around the world. Despite the recent revelations, the political leaders of the US government have never stated that such activities will stop.
However, the current massive cyber surveillance of the worlds' people and institutions is only the beginning of the threat from the NSA and its allied US government agencies. Unrestricted information technology (IT) power in the hands of the US government is a future threat which dwarfs anything the NSA has done to date.
Moore's law, a prediction originally formulated by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, states that microchips double in power and halve in price per unit power every two years. In the 47 years since this prediction appeared, it has always been validated, and experts expect this trajectory to continue for the foreseeable future.
By simple arithmetic of the 2x2x2x2x2 variety, we can see that ten years from now, chip power will be 32 times greater than today. The capabilities of a wide range of digital devices will also improve exponentially, as processing speed, memory capacity, sensors, and miniaturization are all linked to Moore's law.
This upward leap will have massive negative consequences if the US government is permitted to retain its current 'blank check' on the use - and manipulation - of IT.
To begin with, the power to gather - and to automate - the scanning and manipulation of...the worlds data will grow exponentially. The NSA has already anticipated this development by constructing a gigantic new center in the US state of Utah. Finished at the end of 2013, it will house unimaginable amounts of data amounts far greater than any it has so far gathered, at an estimated cost for construction plus hardware and software of 3.5 to 4 billion US dollars.
Second, the power of the NSA - and of other US government entities - to instantly control or kill anyone or any institution anywhere in the world will also grow exponentially. IT-controlled pilot-less drone airplanes, currently used by the US government to murder people thousands of miles away in a number of countries, are but a small harbinger of what will be possible.
One important development is what IT people call 'the internet of things,' something which is already under construction. The idea is to incorporate into the world network a large proportion of the inanimate objects which surround us. Grocery store products, appliances, vehicles, buildings, highways, factory systems, and machines, and more are all being added - or will be added - in various ways to the network. Many of these things, of course, already contain computer chips, and some are already networked.
Building backdoors and hacking - methods beloved by the NSA - into the chips, software, and network connections of this 'world of things' would turn everyday objects into potential drones.
Imagine, for example, a foreign government official is disliked by the US government - or just by the NSA. Or perhaps someone in the US posts something on the internet that the government really dislikes. Suddenly, that person is attacked by their toaster. Or they mysteriously lose control of their car. Or the airplane they're flying in crashes. Or the friendly house-cleaning robot they recently bought suddenly turns mean.
On a larger scale, the same kinds of methods can be used to disrupt or put out of action a foreign country's military systems, government systems, or economic enterprises.
What's more, there is every possibility that the NSA or similar agencies will attempt to infiltrate their spying, and potential for disruption, into the emerging realm of augmented reality technologies. Augmented reality involves looking at a real-world environment through an IT-enhanced pair of glasses - glasses which simultaneously display the real world and some digital content such as images, pictures, text, video, or whatever. Moreover, these glasses are connected wirelessly to the internet, so the augmented realities can be shared.
To cite a very simple example, you might be looking at a real world table, but seeing flowers on the table that aren't there. And you might be seeing and talking to people at the table who are actually in another place.
This isn't science fiction; it's on the way in various forms to widespread commercial availability in the next year or so from multiple IT companies - including Google, and several dozens more. Some experts believe that functions now done on computers, mobile phones, and other IT systems currently in use will ultimately 'collapse' into, or be absorbed into, this new technology.
As wonderful as it may prove to be, augmented reality technology is also not without dangers. Bear in mind the recent revelation that the NSA has already infiltrated false 'avatars' and engaged in other covert activity in World of Warcraft and Second Life, two of the most popular multi-player computer game systems, in which users immerse into a 'virtual world.' Such games are are used by millions of people around the world.
Information technology - powered by Moore's law - is, in fact, moving progressively closer to the human brain. From the post-WWII mainframe computers, to desktop computers, to notebooks and tablets, to smartphones, to augmented reality glasses.
What's next? The logical step beyond the glasses is apt to be something like augmented reality operating through contact lenses, followed after that by augmented reality operating through actual visual and auditory implants behind the eyes and ears, thereby creating real world 'augmented humans'. Such technology might greatly increase the capabilities and even intelligence of users. But it also has a dystopian potential for unprecedented state spying and interference.
Under ever-worsening life conditions for the American people, there is a real danger that IT-enabled 'security' - whether called the 'NSA' or something else - will increasingly be used for more illegal and unconstitutional surveillance and control of the population. Only a determined effort now to rein in the NSA - and the massive use of IT for so-called 'security' purposes - can help prevent this potential tragedy."
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - RT
Posted at 10:50 pm by deadringer
30C3 LIVESTREAM FROM HAMBURG
My recommendation is that you listen to all of this material, it will give you a sense of the global reaction working to a concerted response to the oppression of global surveillance. Instead of becoming a target, become the answer to the atrocity -
30c3: Sysadmins of the world, unite! (complete below from stream starts 3:44:30)
"We can can see that in the case of WikiLeaks, or the Snowden revelations, it's possible for even a single system administrator to have very significant constructive effect," he said. "This is not merely wrecking or disabling, not going on strikes, but rather shifting information from an information apartheid system from those with extraordinary power...to the digital common's.""This is the last free generation." he said. "The coming together of the systems of government and the information apartheid is such that none of us will be able to escape it in just a decade.""We are all becoming part of this state whether we like it or not," he said. "Our only hope is to help determine what kind of state we will be a part of."
EXCERPT, JACOB APPELBAUM - PROTECT AND INFECT PART 2 BELOW
"The US National Security Agency (NSA) is building the foundation for a global police state. This is not an exaggeration.
The lynch pin of the NSA system is the continuous gathering of all types of digital data on political leaders, economic institutions, and hundreds of millions of people around the world. Despite the recent revelations, the political leaders of the US government have never stated that such activities will stop."
You have been told the goal is simply no privacy, that is just the beginning. The surveillance is the reconnaissance before the war.
Posted at 08:12 am by deadringer
THE SURVEILLANCE - HOW BAD IS IT? AS BAD AS I ORIGINALLY TOLD YOU
I don't know why everyone is so surprised, and this does not make it ok - it just strains the bonds of my credulity that so many people did not know the players in this. Here, let me disabuse you of misconceptions you had about this indiscriminate surveillance, this is the whole enchilada (video Below):
I really have nothing else to say to you at this point, just listen to the above video. We have a digital Bellum omnium contra omnes taking place.
Hacking the System ►Reality Wars from @AnonymousVideo on Vimeo.
Posted at 08:24 pm by deadringer
USA STEPS TOWARD TOTAL TYRANNY
One rarely sees a sudden descent into total tyranny, instead it is built step by step until the trap is eventually swung on an semi-suspicious and totally unaware population of the entire process. It involves every branch of government in a conscious effort in this direction, executive, legislative and judicial - and it spreads to every level from federal, to state, to county and local.
The spread to tyranny is like an aggressive cancer, once it starts it goes to all of the parts of the body politic where eventually the entire whole is engulfed in the slow death of the peoples freedom. It has been a long time coming in the USA and what we are now seeing is the semi-advanced stages of the process. When you see the laws mutate it means activity has already begun, the laws are merely their to give a thin cloak of legitimacy and they are the last stage of an advancing process.
One of the branches of government which is being used like this is the executive, which has been "found" to have a "unitary executive," which has not been discussed openly or denied from the previous Bush administration to the current Obama administration. The pronouncement of "unitary executive" does not stand by itself, but the activity to enforce the unitary executive is delegated from the executive to the other branches and given the mandate to make such an ever present reality. So the legislative begins to reinforce the executive pronouncement through the enactment of laws which reflect the the unitary pronouncement. The judicial begins to play out the unitary in the interpretation of the law, so that which was already "on the books" becomes viral, and new interpretations are given to make it more intrusive and universally applicable, and it convenes secret conclaves. All of this is followed like a hunting dog on the scent of a victim by the various states, it is then picked up by the counties and plays out locally in an abusive policing force on the streets against the people.
There is no government which operates in a vacuum, it has a segment of the population, both national and global which it serves - a moneyed elite which is its primary boss and client. It makes all pretense to a free and democratic society a standing joke, and the punchline is always the people. Foreign enemies and domestic enemies are conjured up to maintain the wealth and social standing of the reigning oligarchy - there is never just some independent tyrant apart from society as a whole which works his will, it is always a group effort (even Hitler did not function in a vacuum as some isolated tyrant).
This always takes a form of centralism, whether it is communist and public or fascist and private, we have the fascist variety in the USA. To have totalitarianism it is necessary to impoverish the people, so that the weakened masses are perpetually fearful and hence malleable to any perceived "remedy" to the dire condition.
Somehow the people must be conceived of as the enemy, and the first process which takes place to bequeath enemy status is surveillance. In the surveillance the activity of the people are watched, and consequently outlawed as a form of criminality. Anything or anyone who shines a light on this clandestine process is the enemy - whistle blowers, journalists, and any form of resistance whether it be digital or physical in the common interpretation, or both, becomes treason - and old laws which are a tyrants dream are transformed into a vicious norm of overreach and new laws are feverishly designed creating new crimes like mushrooms after a spring rain.
The people are directed to find new enemies, whether it takes the classic form of Stasi like form, or as interest groups formed as the willing mouthpiece of elite ideas with delusional people thinking that they are preserving their own interest. Leaders rise up in the various government offices as the champions and people clamor to their side divesting themselves of their own interest for elite ideas. Racism abounds, immigrants become the new enemies, and the weak and poor become the existential threat.
In other words, everything you are watching today, and I have just scratched the surface, is the face of tyranny coming into focus. All this transpires while the national and global elite laugh their asses off all the way to the bank, the bank is bailed out, the people are left as homeless in their own country. Too big to fail and too big to jail becomes the norm, open negotiations for leniency thrives among the moneyed, while the prison industrial complex yawns with the targeted poor and weak, so that their pound of flesh becomes the cynical buck that is made.
Repeated attempts are made to blur the function military from civilian activity, enactment of military means is introduced into the policing forces and what can and will be done to the resistant citizenry is unclear. Techniques of suppression are brought from the foreign activity to the domestic, and all of this because of the illusory thrust of some empire. Agencies which are not Constitutionally mandated gain in strength and power and are used like the bludgeon on the people by a moneyed elite, and the agency of government is merely a tool of such activity (because government is merely a franchise of the lite).
There is only one answer to this entire tragic fiasco, and that is revolution because it is to far gone for any type of reform. People ask "why can't you give us any solid plans for what we should do?" It is impossible, revolution is an organic and unpredictable activity, it must be entered into and people are carried along by the only wave that is capable of saving them from total tyranny. You might say "I have children and a wife/husband," and I say you will have neither when this tyranny sweeps them away. Another retort might be "I have done well for myself," and it is a mere chimera or like smoke which fleetingly wafts away in the face of such tyranny.
In the meantime corporations prey on the people, there is nothing which is not stamped with the corporate image, and these minions move in a revolving door process through the government which is their willing handmaiden. People are divested of any form of recourse against the onslaught of these monstrous psychopathic entities which destroy the very planet upon which humanity must subsist. People are impoverished by the employment in these corporations, they are compromised because they have been made unable to live without their existence, everything is turned over to their abusive reign.
We are fracked to death, forests are denuded, streams-rivers-the oceans are polluted, the air is not fit to breath and we live on the edge of a nuclear apocalypse waiting for the next disaster to arrive unannounced. The unsustainable is the declared norm, while people are fed genetically modified shit and their bodies are consumed by diseases in a toxic environment for short term profits. AND it is all tyranny, fascistic tyranny, all of it, the only thing we can wait for in this fatal scenario is an ever worsening condition. Tyranny never asks the permission from the people, and revolution never waits on the hour, it should be assumed, declared and begun by the 99% disenfranchised.
Posted at 09:20 pm by deadringer
MEDIASTAN - WIKILEAKS REAL STORY
GET THE REAL STORY RATHER THAN THE MEDIA REDACTED AND HOLLYWOOD TWISTED AND HYPED VERSION (BELOW):
We are all pegged and penned by the same enemy, and now the bell tolls for all those who would resist oppression. This was not something that was just for the "others," it is threatening everyone. Yet those who have been privileged up until this point have allowed untold atrocity to be committed on the poor and weak, the disenfranchised. Listen carefully to just the introduction of this in the ongoing story of Mumia Abu Jamal, and understand that it is coming like a freight train for everyone unless we all band together to stop it.
GLENN GREENWALD NEW MEDIA VENTURE, AUDIO BELOW:
FreeAnons.TV 11 ►Payback13 from @AnonymousVideo on Vimeo.
Posted at 01:22 pm by deadringer
JEREMY HAMMOND - NO "CRIME" WITHOUT FBI ENTRAPMENT
In the subset of what I have called "new crimes,' by what becomes the interest of the State by definition, we have the case of Jeremy Hammond, Stratfor, and the FBI. It seems like the FBI cannot "solve" the governments definition of a crime without inciting one into being.
It cannot help but be noticed that these incitements of the FBI have a strong political flavor to them, anything which is against the encroachment of the current government activity, always marked by disenfranchising the people of any rights. Anything that threatens enfranchisement of their darling corporations, which participate in the divestiture of the people, and exposes the rear flank of corporate crony hordes - the people pay for their own suspect criminalization. In this case the veritable invisible army of spooks which think it is the right of the government to strip the people, both foreign and domestic of any privacy, right to free speech, freedom of press, or protection through whistle blowing, and place them in a forced panopticon to enrich the moneyed few.
This is nothing new for the FBI which is primarily the political police, no matter how much they get TV makeovers as "crime fighters." A federal policing force which has no right to even exist, if there were any adherence to Constitutional directives or principles. A group which has been used as a blackmail institution in Washington and a political bludgeon in the hands of tyranny of any resistance coming from the people.
In order to give this clandestine agency some legitimacy they need to give it all authority via malleable law (making up what they choose) open arms in the court room to bad jacket anyone the system wants to target. So it is an "anything goes," to get the pronounced "criminal," from creating the crime, inciting the cause, and providing the means. If the rank and file people get others to do this they become accessories to the crime, and are punished as the source of incitement, where the proverbial book is thrown at them - the FBI becomes "heroes" and unassailable in any court of so-called law.
The judges are bought and paid for, they do not have the decency to recuse themselves (like judge Loretta Preska, or for that matter judge Samuel Lindsay who presides over Barrett Browns case, http://notinhisname.blogdrive.com/archive/1001.html ), not because they do not need to - but because they really are the legal hit men for a system which strips the people and makes a mockery of any court of law, which delivers no justice but just a legal bullet between the eyes of anyone who has the temerity to care for the people, over the will of the powerful. Jeremy Hammond cannot help but be the victim in this poisoned atmosphere, and along with him all the rest of the people, both foreign and domestic. He is imprisoned because he dared to care about what is happening to the people, and did something to expose this fascist system with undeniable evidence.
Below, the author of the article I am citing gives an accurate account of the facts, but does no work to subtantively question the activity of the FBI, even though his title implies such, saying they stand on "solid legal ground (it becomes solid legal ground because legal ground is made up along the way)." The only advice he gives is to the corporations security teams, who he tells to shore up their security unless they want to become "hackbait." I provide a systemic critique in my comments above, because this deserves more then a mere description - it deserves to be exposed and to be stopped by the people quickly with all prejudice.
"Is the FBI allowed to entrap suspected computer criminals? That question is at the heart of a request for leniency by Jeremy Hammond, who's due to be sentenced on November 15 for hacking private intelligence contractor Stratfor, among other business and government sites.
Hammond, appearing in a Manhattan federal courtroom in May, pleaded guilty to one related count of computer fraud and abuse, as part of a plea agreement. "For each of these hacks, I knew what I was doing was wrong," Hammond told judge Loretta Preska, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. He now faces up to 10 years in jail, and the prospect of paying up to $2.5 million in restitution to Stratfor.
But in advance of his upcoming sentencing by Judge Preska, Hammond's supporters are asking for leniency, noting that Hammond hacked for ethical reasons, rather than to make a profit. They've also accused the FBI of entrapment, referring to tricking someone into committing a crime for the purpose of then arresting them. Hammond, notably, has accused former LulzSec leader turned FBI informant "Sabu" -- real name: Hector Xavier Monsegur -- of inciting participants of the Anonymous Operations (AnonOps) IRC channel, including himself, to hack into a number of systems, including Brazilian government servers for which Sabu reportedly distributed stolen access credentials.
"Sabu was used to build cases against a number of hackers, including myself. What many do not know is that Sabu was also used by his handlers to facilitate the hacking of targets of the government's choosing -- including numerous websites belonging to foreign governments," Hammond said in an August statement.
What proof can Hammond offer? Attorney Margaret Ratner Kunstler, who's a member of Hammond's defense team, told me via email that "all but publicly filed documents are covered by [a] protective order," meaning related evidence has been sealed, at the request of prosecutors. Accordingly, "proof is only in the form of failure of government to deny" Hammond's allegations, she said.
An FBI spokeswoman, reached by phone, declined to comment on Hammond's allegations.
This wouldn't be the first time that the bureau's computer crime investigators have been accused of employing these types of tactics. "The FBI intended to entrap me via Sabu for as long as possible to incriminate my activities at the highest level," said former LulzSec participant Jake Davis last month, in an ongoing Q&A session on the Ask.fm website. Davis, who used the handle "topiary," handled the LulzSec's PR, but didn't take part in any of its actual hacking activities. He was arrested by British police in July 2011.
"One week I told Sabu that I had no intention of involving myself in any more crime -- organized by him -- and that I wanted to switch to helping the activist movement solely through art and writing," said Davis, who's now served related jail time in the United Kingdom and been released. "That same week my home was raided. It's nothing new, we were just another set of pawns in the FBI's strategy."
If that was the FBI's strategy, however, what may surprise is that the bureau wouldn't have broken any laws or investigation guidelines. "Unfortunately, there are numerous cases holding that this type of scenario -- very common in child pornography cases where agents pose as either children or brokers of child pornography -- does not constitute impermissible entrapment," sentencing expert Jeff Ifrah, an attorney who's previously chaired American Bar Association criminal justice and white collar crime committees, told me via email.
It's clear that Monsegur, who was quietly arrested by the FBI in June 2011 and immediately turned informant -- before later pleading guilty to a number of charges -- was being run by the FBI. Furthermore, prosecutors have said that he's monitored around the clock, and restricted to using an FBI-provided computer that records everything he does.
That means that Sabu, and thus the FBI, knew about the Stratfor hack before it happened. Notably, Hammond, using the handle "Sup_g," told Sabu on Dec. 6, 2011, that he planned to hack Stratfor, then did so a week later. Sabu, meanwhile, directed Hammond to upload the stolen data to a server that was really controlled by the FBI. But on Dec. 24, after Sabu reportedly attempted to sell the Stratfor data to Julian Assange at WikiLeaks -- he declined the offer -- Hammond publicly released the data. Two days later, Sabu tied Sup_g to another alias, "Anarchaos," that the bureau knew belonged to Hammond. But several months followed before the FBI arrested Hammond.
Could Stratfor's customer database have been protected -- and $2.5 million in damages and cleanup costs avoided? "Jeremy is about to get sentenced for the Stratfor part based on their assessed damages," alternative media expert Nigel Parry, who's been following Hammond's case, told me via email. "And a lot of those damages -- after we get beyond the early part of the hack that netted the credit card numbers (i.e. Stratfor's email losses, its data deletion) -- seem to me to be the direct result of the FBI's blatant hands-off approach and Stratfor's inept sysadmins, who didn't have a single backup of their data?!"
The FBI appears to stand on solid legal ground here. "Unfortunately, there are numerous cases holding that the government has no obligation to mitigate damages, or intervene in a criminal investigation to mitigate the fallout or consequences," attorney Jeff Ifrah said. "There have been cases that have held in different contexts that the government may have been a contributing factor or intervening factor in the loss, but that type of logic ... has not been applied in a loss calculation scenario at a federal criminal sentencing proceeding," he said.
In other words, there's no precedent for getting a sentence -- or restitution -- reduced, owing to FBI entrapment. "In a sentencing context, the only relevant determination is foreseeable loss, or in some circumstances, actual loss," Ifrah said. "But courts default to the former and thus that becomes a crutch to ignore what role the FBI -- in this case -- did or did not play," he said.
The moral of the story: the FBI can entrap hackers, and businesses that have been owned by said hackers may get used as bait. So, would-be hackers, beware the FBI. And businesses -- especially ones that bill themselves as being private intelligence contractors, yet which store credit card data in plaintext format and see a crucial database get owned by a simple SQL injection attack -- make sure your information security defenses are strong enough to prevent you becoming hackbait."
Posted at 09:37 am by deadringer
GOD'S CHOSEN BANKERS ON EARTH...
For those who like "in your face" reporting on the current financial debacle for the 99%, you cannot do better then this video. The question that remains, what are the people going to do about it? Long overdue inclusive movement waiting in the wings? If not why not? I will throw the first stone, but refuse to die alone - you can keep the crown, the jesters and the fools -
Posted at 11:30 am by deadringer