The SNOWDEN Saga continues...

[Harry Gypsna]

They knew all along.....

They knew all along.....

From the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de

The senior lawyer for the National Security Agency stated unequivocally on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s widespread collection of data, contradicting month of angry denials from the firms.

Rajesh De, the NSA general counsel, said all communications content and associated metadata harvested by the NSA under a 2008 surveillance law occurred with the knowledge of the companies – both for the internet collection program known as Prism and for the so-called “upstream” collection of communications moving across the internet.

Asked during at a Wednesday hearing of the US government’s institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the Fisa Amendments Act, occurred with the “full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained,” De replied: “Yes.”

When the Guardian and the Washington Post broke the Prism story in June, thanks to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, nearly all the companies listed as participating in the program – Yahoo, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL – claimed they did not know about a surveillance practice described as giving NSA vast access to their customers’ data. Some, like Apple, said they had “never heard” the term Prism.

De explained: “Prism was an internal government term that as the result of leaks became the public term,” De said. “Collection under this program was a compulsory legal process, that any recipient company would receive.”

After the hearing, De said that the same knowledge, and associated legal processes, also apply when the NSA harvests communications data not from companies directly but in transit across the internet, under Section 702 authority.

The disclosure of Prism resulted in a cataclysm in technology circles, with tech giants launching extensive PR campaigns to reassure their customers of data security and successfully pressing the Obama administration to allow them greater leeway to disclose the volume and type of data requests served to them by the government.

Last week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said he had called US president Barack Obama to voice concern about “the damage the government is creating for all our future.” There was no immediate response from the tech companies to De’s comments on Wednesday.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Corporate companies have all been outed Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc, etc all denied knowledge of the NSA's spying programs. All false. All lies. They are all wholly complicit.

Fascism at it's finest.

Busted! – U.S. Tech Giants Knew Of NSA Spying Says Agency's Senior Lawyer

This is why I’ve been so confused and frustrated by the repeated reports of the behavior of the US government. When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we’re protecting you against criminals, not our own government.

The US government should be the champion for the internet, not a threat. They need to be much more transparent about what they’re doing, or otherwise people will believe the worst.

I’ve called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future. Unfortunately, it seems like it will take a very long time for true full reform.

So it’s up to us — all of us — to build the internet we want. Together, we can build a space that is greater and a more important part of the world than anything we have today, but is also safe and secure. I‘m committed to seeing this happen, and you can count on Facebook to do our part.
- Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg in a post last week

Last week, Mark Zuckerberg made headlines by posting about how he called President Barack Obama to express outrage and shock about the government’s spying activities. Of course, anyone familiar with Facebook and what is going on generally between private tech behemoths and U.S. intelligence agencies knew right away that his statement was one gigantic heap of stinking bullshit. Well now we have the proof.

Earlier today, the senior lawyer for the NSA made it completely clear that U.S. tech companies were fully aware of all the spying going on, including the PRISM program (on that note read my recent post: The Most Evil and Disturbing NSA Spy Practices To-Date Have Just Been Revealed).

So stop the acting all of you Silicon Valley CEOs. We know you are fully on board with extraordinary violations of your fellow citizens’ civil liberties. We know full well that you have been too cowardly to stand up for the values this country was founded on. We know you and your companies are compromised. Stop pretending, stop bullshitting. You’ve done enough harm.

From The Guardian:

The senior lawyer for the National Security Agency stated unequivocally on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s widespread collection of data, contradicting month of angry denials from the firms.

Rajesh De, the NSA general counsel, said all communications content and associated metadata harvested by the NSA under a 2008 surveillance law occurred with the knowledge of the companies – both for the internet collection program known as Prism and for the so-called “upstream” collection of communications moving across the internet.

Asked during at a Wednesday hearing of the US government’s institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the Fisa Amendments Act, occurred with the “full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained,” De replied: “Yes.”

When the Guardian and the Washington Post broke the Prism story in June, thanks to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, nearly all the companies listed as participating in the program – Yahoo, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL –claimed they did not know about a surveillance practice described as giving NSA vast access to their customers’ data. Some, like Apple, said they had “never heard” the term Prism.

The disclosure of Prism resulted in a cataclysm in technology circles, with tech giants launching extensive PR campaigns to reassure their customers of data security and successfully pressing the Obama administration to allow them greater leeway to disclose the volume and type of data requests served to them by the government.

The NSA’s Wednesday comments contradicting the tech companies about the firms’ knowledge of Prism risk entrenching tensions with the firms NSA relies on for an effort that Robert Litt, general counsel for the director of national intelligence, told the board was “one of the most valuable collection tools that we have.”

Zuckerberg is a psychopath.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I didn't see that Harry had posted this before I had.

 

[Harry Gypsna]

I didn't see that Harry had posted this before I had.

Great minds mate

 

[SpasticGramps]

Great minds mate

Indeed.

:friends:

 

[trichrider]

NSA hacks system administrators, new leaks reveal


Published time: March 21, 2014 15:55

In its quest to take down suspected terrorists and criminals abroad, the United States National Security Agency has adopted the practice of hacking the system administrators that oversee private computer networks, new documents reveal.

The Intercept has published a handful of leaked screenshots taken from an internal NSA message board where one spy agency specialist spoke extensively about compromising not the computers of specific targets, but rather the machines of the system administrators who control entire networks.

Journalist Ryan Gallagher reported that Edward Snowden, a former sys admin for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, provided The Intercept with the internal documents, including one from 2012 that’s bluntly titled “I hunt sys admins.”

According to the posts — some labeled “top secret” — NSA staffers should not shy away from hacking sys admins: a successful offensive mission waged against an IT professional with extensive access to a privileged network could provide the NSA with unfettered capabilities, the analyst acknowledged.

“Who better to target than the person that already has the ‘keys to the kingdom’?” one of the posts reads.

“They were written by an NSA official involved in the agency’s effort to break into foreign network routers, the devices that connect computer networks and transport data across the Internet,” Gallagher wrote for the article published late Thursday. “By infiltrating the computers of system administrators who work for foreign phone and Internet companies, the NSA can gain access to the calls and emails that flow over their networks.”

Since last June, classified NSA materials taken by Snowden and provided to certain journalists have exposed an increasing number of previously-secret surveillance operations that range from purposely degrading international encryption standards and implanting malware in targeted machines, to tapping into fiber-optic cables that transfer internet traffic and even vacuuming up data as its moved into servers in a decrypted state.

The latest leak suggests that some NSA analysts took a much different approach when tasked with trying to collect signals intelligence that otherwise might not be easily available. According to the posts, the author advocated for a technique that involves identifying the IP address used by the network’s sys admin, then scouring other NSA tools to see what online accounts used those addresses to log-in. Then by using a previously-disclosed NSA tool that tricks targets into installing malware by being misdirected to fake Facebook servers, the intelligence analyst can hope that the sys admin’s computer is sufficiently compromised and exploited.

Once the NSA has access to the same machine a sys admin does, American spies can mine for a trove of possibly invaluable information, including maps of entire networks, log-in credentials, lists of customers and other details about how systems are wired. In turn, the NSA has found yet another way to, in theory, watch over all traffic on a targeted network.

“Up front, sys admins generally are not my end target. My end target is the extremist/terrorist or government official that happens to be using the network some admin takes care of,” the NSA employee says in the documents.

When reached for comment by The Intercept, NSA spokesperson Vanee Vines said that, “A key part of the protections that apply to both US persons and citizens of other countries is the mandate that information be in support of a valid foreign intelligence requirement, and comply with US Attorney General-approved procedures to protect privacy rights.”

Coincidentally, outgoing-NSA Director Keith Alexander said last year that he was working on drastically cutting the number of sys admins at that agency by upwards of 90 percent — but didn’t say it was because they could be exploited by similar tactics waged by adversarial intelligence groups. Gen. Alexander’s decision came just weeks after Snowden — previously one of around 1,000 sys admins working on the NSA’s networks, according to Reuters — walked away from his role managing those networks with a trove of classified information.

http://rt.com/usa/nsa-hunt-sys-admins-369/

 

[trichrider]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Intelligence Committee three years ago secretly considered — but ultimately rejected — alternate ways for the National Security Agency to collect and store massive amounts of Americans' phone records, The Associated Press has learned.


One of those options, outlined in a classified 2011 NSA analysis and reviewed in detail during closed committee meetings, was similar to what President Barack Obama is now advocating: that the government stop the bulk collection of Americans' phone records and instead ask phone companies to search their own business records for terrorism connections.

After reviewing the 2011 NSA analysis, the Senate overseers decided not move forward with any alternate arrangement, according to two government officials familiar with the review. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified report.

The 2011 report is significant because not much has changed — operationally — with the NSA's phone records program in the past three years. What has changed is that Americans now know the extent of the once-classified, massive surveillance operation, and they're not happy with what they consider to be invasions of privacy.

Obama's decision to call for changes in the program is not because he believes the program is flawed. It's because he needs to regain the trust of the American public.

"I want to emphasize once again that some of the dangers that people hypothesize when it came to bulk data, there were clear safeguards against," Obama said Tuesday in the Netherlands at the close of a summit on nuclear security. "But I recognize that people were concerned about what might happen in the future with that bulk data."

The bulk collection of Americans' phone records is authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. When the program was up for reauthorization in 2011, it was hotly debated behind closed doors among members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a member of the committee.

Most members of that committee decided that the current system in which the NSA holds the phone records was better than the alternatives, Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said.

"It's the only way," Rockefeller said. Shifting the sole custody of the records to the phone companies, he said, would be "disastrous."

Sen. Ron Wyden, however, was an advocate of the phone company approach back in 2011, Rockefeller said. Wyden is happy to see that more of his peers are coming around to his view.

Wyden, D-Ore., has opposed the NSA's bulk collection program for years and he has tried to compel the administration to disclose the details about the dragnet surveillance to the American public. But the details remained classified until a former NSA systems analyst, Edward Snowden, leaked classified documents last year, spelling out the magnitude of the NSA's collection.

These revelations prompted dozens of legislative proposals to change, strengthen or eliminate the program. The latest came Tuesday from leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, who introduced a bill similar to what the White House is advocating.

"I'm encouraged that more and more legislators and others who have supported the present system are now calling for dramatic reform," Wyden said Monday. "My sense is, increasingly on a bipartisan basis, legislators are seeing how fraught it is for the government to hold the records."

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., co-authored the legislation that was introduced Tuesday. But he is not convinced, as Wyden is, that the surveillance violates Americans' constitutional rights.

"We're changing the program based on a perception, not a reality," Rogers said shortly before he introduced a measure that would end the program in its current form. Americans, he said, don't want the government holding onto their data.

"They just didn't have a comfort level with the NSA holding, in bulk, metadata, even though we had huge levels of protection," Rogers said. "I do believe that privacy was better protected than you're going to see in the phone companies."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was among the senators who in 2011 believed the current bulk collection program was preferable to the alternatives at the time.

However, those options were not only classified in 2011, the debate about alternatives was classified, too. This made it difficult to enact legislation to change a classified program without disclosing details of the program, one of the government officials familiar with the review said.

Feinstein, D-Calif., has been a staunch supporter of the NSA phone records collection program and came to the agency's defense in the wake of the Snowden disclosures. Yet, she's said she's open to potential reforms, as long as the effectiveness of the program and security of the data are not harmed.

"I believe the president's plan is a worthy effort," Feinstein said Tuesday. "I am open to reforming the call records program as long as any changes meet our national security needs and address privacy concerns, and that any changes continue to provide the government with the means to protect against future terrorist attacks."

Feinstein said she intends to schedule a hearing to examine the White House proposal and that of her counterparts in the House.

As of Tuesday night, the committee had not decided whether that hearing would be open to the public or held behind closed doors.

http://news.msn.com/us/officials-senate-considered-phone-company-option

 

[trichrider]

Spies Like Us: The NSA Is Intrusive and Incompetent

By
Liz Peek,
The Fiscal Times


March 26, 2014

Public opinion has turned against the NSA. Widespread spying on ordinary citizens and on friendly world leaders has led a growing majority of Americans to disapprove of the security agency. Even those who, like myself, have given the NSA the benefit of the doubt – assuming that government spooks are only doing what they must to protect us from terrorism – are starting to wonder.

My biggest concern is not that spies are eavesdropping on what I’m planning for dinner – in this Internet age, I’ve relinquished any expectation of privacy – but rather that our intelligence efforts are misdirected or just plain incompetent. The most recent data point: revelations that our super-spies completely missed Russia’s planned attack on Crimea.

According to The Wall Street Journal, though satellites showed troops massing at the Ukraine border, intelligence analysts intercepted no communications from those planning to attack. Shockingly, it appears the Russians evaded our eavesdropping effort.

That’s the same eavesdropping effort that tapped Angela Merkel’s cell phone and scooped up telephone data from millions of Americans--the data mining that just yesterday President Obama was apologizing for, again. How is this possible? Presumably, we have our monitors directed elsewhere. A senior official said, “We’ve gone into crisis-response mode.”

The Journal reports, “U.S. spy agencies and the military are rushing to expand satellite coverage and communications efforts across Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic states,” hoping to close the “information gap.” Another official is quoted as saying the Obama administration is “very nervous” because “this is uncharted territory.”

What does that even mean? Presumably, since the end of the Cold War we have sensibly directed most of our intelligence gathering towards the Middle East and Asia, targeting terrorism. Still, doesn’t the ever-aggressive Russia deserve oversight, especially after Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia? Alternatively, was this inattention part of Hillary Clinton’s famous “reset”?

It turns out that as early as December there were those warning that Putin might strike in Crimea. Even though the Pentagon asked our intelligence agencies to ramp up their surveillance, we were left in the dark. Apparently, those thousands of Russian troops massed at the borders never blabbed to their girlfriends via cellphone about the coming strike, posted no “selfies” on Facebook, and sent no Tweets. Bugs caught no official communications, either. Moreover, there were no Americans in Crimea able to confirm Russian aggressions, and no drones.

On February 28, President Obama yet again warned Putin against invading Crimea; by then the peninsula was fully controlled by Russians. Security head Clapper’s office, according to the Journal, could not say with “high confidence” that the takeover had occurred.

Talk about a complete security bust. It makes you wonder where else we are vulnerable. It also raises questions: are we bad at listening in, or are we spread too thin? Since we’re spending about $70 billion annually for our intelligence gathering, that’s hard to imagine. Or…are other countries further ahead in these technologies? In his lengthy January speech about the NSA, President Obama claimed, “America’s capabilities are unique…” Are they?

There are other reasons to doubt our intelligence community, starting with the Arab Spring. As uprisings in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere ignited, the United States appeared consistently surprised. How about this? In 2011, it took more than two days for the U.S. to find out that North Korea leader Kim Jong-il had died; reports from the North Korean news media slowly trickled out. North Korea is an especially closed country, but isn’t that the kind of place – especially given its nuclear weapons – where we should have intelligence capabilities?

It is impossible to know whether our data gathering has been deficient, or whether those charged with interpreting and responding to the flow of information have been derelict. President Obama came into office desperate to pluck the United States from entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan. He viewed his predecessor and historical transgressions as responsible for America’s rocky relationships with our adversaries. His worldview has been little altered by events. He declares the global war on terror over, though we daily confront hostilities both actual and virtual. His myopia may impact our intelligence posture--we know it has led to ineffectual policies and worsening relations with Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Russia, among others.

The NSA of course is just one of many agencies providing intelligence, but it is our lead eavesdropper. The agency’s credibility suffered from the data dump provided by Edward Snowden. But that the former operative was allowed access to such a monster cache of sensitive documents, and that he was able to release them to the media, is in itself a travesty. His boss at the CIA, where Snowden worked before joining the NSA, sent him home from Geneva after voicing suspicions that the young man was trying to access classified documents and had adopted disturbing work habits and attitudes. Snowden had become a “prolific online commenter” complaining, among other things, about surveillance of civilians. He should never have been hired.

In his January speech, President Obama attempted to convince Americans and our allies of our commitment to walking that fine (maybe impossible) line between security and privacy. To his credit, he did not back down from our right to collect and analyze data. Obama promised that the U.S. would no longer monitor “the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies.”

We surely hope that doesn’t include Putin.

See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...ntrusive-and-Incompetent#sthash.X6F30axE.dpuf

 

[Bennyweed1]

At the end of the day, don't you wonder why they do it?

It takes an ungodly amount of power to protect the largest lies in which western societies are based on.

Dissidents won't be tolerated and is heavily heavily monitored.

And I'll believe terrorism is actually a real thing when someone doesn't hate me for a drown that killed their entire family, or an MRAP that crushed their home gowning the red white and blue.

Ignorant bunch, this shit has only invented itself after the federal reserve established it self. Why else do we need an NSA?

lol national security, supposedly some fag can bring down two buildings from inside a cave half way around the world and entire passenger planes can up and go missing.


What a scared little bunch. Don't step on a crack or a terrorist might jump out and take a whack! But don't worry, the NSA will intervene and catch it before it happens.

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

I'd pick freedom over safety any day of the week.

edit: But to think that the two are diametrically opposed is a mistake.

 

[trichrider]

US secretly created 'Cuban Twitter' to stir unrest


A woman uses her cellphone in Camajuani, Cuba. The U.S. Agency for International Development masterminded the creation of a "Cuban Twitter," a communications network designed to undermine the communist government in Cuba, built with secret shell companies and financed through foreign banks, The Associated Press has learned.: A woman uses her cellphone in Camajuani, Cuba. The U.S. Agency for International Development masterminded the creation of a "Cuban Twitter," a communications network designed to undermine the communist government in Cuba, built with secret shell companies and financed through foreign banks, The Associated Press has learned. AP Photo: Franklin Reyes

WASHINGTON (AP) — In July 2010, Joe McSpedon, a U.S. government official, flew to Barcelona to put the final touches on a secret plan to build a social media project aimed at undermining Cuba's communist government.


McSpedon and his team of high-tech contractors had come in from Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Washington and Denver. Their mission: to launch a messaging network that could reach hundreds of thousands of Cubans. To hide the network from the Cuban government, they would set up a byzantine system of front companies using a Cayman Islands bank account, and recruit unsuspecting executives who would not be told of the company's ties to the U.S. government.

McSpedon didn't work for the CIA. This was a program paid for and run by the U.S. Agency for International Development, best known for overseeing billions of dollars in U.S. humanitarian aid.

According to documents obtained by The Associated Press and multiple interviews with people involved in the project, the plan was to develop a bare-bones "Cuban Twitter," using cellphone text messaging to evade Cuba's strict control of information and its stranglehold restrictions over the Internet. In a play on Twitter, it was called ZunZuneo — slang for a Cuban hummingbird's tweet.

Documents show the U.S. government planned to build a subscriber base through "non-controversial content": news messages on soccer, music, and hurricane updates. Later when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize "smart mobs" — mass gatherings called at a moment's notice that might trigger a Cuban Spring, or, as one USAID document put it, "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society."

At its peak, the project drew in more than 40,000 Cubans to share news and exchange opinions. But its subscribers were never aware it was created by the U.S. government, or that American contractors were gathering their private data in the hope that it might be used for political purposes.

"There will be absolutely no mention of United States government involvement," according to a 2010 memo from Mobile Accord, one of the project's contractors. "This is absolutely crucial for the long-term success of the service and to ensure the success of the Mission."

The program's legality is unclear: U.S. law requires that any covert action by a federal agency must have a presidential authorization. Officials at USAID would not say who had approved the program or whether the White House was aware of it. McSpedon, the most senior official named in the documents obtained by the AP, is a mid-level manager who declined to comment.

USAID spokesman Matt Herrick said the agency is proud of its Cuba programs and noted that congressional investigators reviewed them last year and found them to be consistent with U.S. law.

"USAID is a development agency, not an intelligence agency, and we work all over the world to help people exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms, and give them access to tools to improve their lives and connect with the outside world," he said.

"In the implementation," he added, "has the government taken steps to be discreet in non-permissive environments? Of course. That's how you protect the practitioners and the public. In hostile environments, we often take steps to protect the partners we're working with on the ground. This is not unique to Cuba."

But the ZunZuneo program muddies those claims, a sensitive issue for its mission to promote democracy and deliver aid to the world's poor and vulnerable — which requires the trust of foreign governments.

"On the face of it there are several aspects about this that are troubling," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and chairman of the Appropriations Committee's State Department and foreign operations subcommittee.

"There is the risk to young, unsuspecting Cuban cellphone users who had no idea this was a U.S. government-funded activity. There is the clandestine nature of the program that was not disclosed to the appropriations subcommittee with oversight responsibility. And there is the disturbing fact that it apparently activated shortly after Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who was sent to Cuba to help provide citizens access to the Internet, was arrested."

The Associated Press obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents about the project's development. The AP independently verified the project's scope and details in the documents — such as federal contract numbers and names of job candidates — through publicly available databases, government sources and interviews with those directly involved in ZunZuneo.

Taken together, they tell the story of how agents of the U.S. government, working in deep secrecy, became tech entrepreneurs — in Cuba. And it all began with a half a million cellphone numbers obtained from a communist government.

http://news.msn.com/in-depth/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-to-stir-unrest

 

[recent guest]

To be truthful I haven't had time to read this whole thread before posting, but I'll share a quick opinion:

The NSA activity is a SYMPTOM of a much larger and much more disastrous national and global crisis which is so complex that nobody can be expected to be able to articulate or even fully understand it.

I don't (completely) buy into the somewhat popular 'illuminati' line of thinking, but an objective institutional analysis of American politics and society will show that Democracy in this country has been under nearly constant attack from elite sectors of the population since before America was even a nation.

These latest developments are no different.

Im sure everyone has at some point heard (or made) the argument "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to be afraid of" - this can be difficult to respond to, but the fact is that Democracy cannot possibly function properly and healthily if the potential participants are even slightly afraid to express opinions, beliefs, or dissent.

The former NSA director recently made a statement to the effect that the NSA protects America and American interests from those that wish to challenge, destroy, harm, or stop them. Peaceful activism on the part of Americans who wish to see, for example, all destructive american corporations dismantled, would definitely qualify as people who intend to do harm to American interests.

The point is, even if you feel subtle or slight reluctance to express peaceful dissent, and even if only a small minority of a dissenting minority feels this way, Democracy has taken a blow.

 

[recent guest]

Trying to make this picture more complete, i'll add that, as a philosophical truism, in a hypothetical healthily functioning PURE democracy, the poor will use their voting power to take resources away from the rich. This is unjust (in theory), and there are two ways to prevent this from happening:

a) reduce inequality

b) reduce democracy


it doesn't take much hard thinking to figure out which path the United States is on.

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zADNlKZBqnA

[YOUTUBEIF]zADNlKZBqnA[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

To what extent have the major US tech companies benefited from industrial espionage gained through their NSA collaboration? It's been well documented that information flows from these tech firms into the NSA, but I'm now more interested in the flow of information in the other direction. Imagine the competitive advantage from having the largest spying operation ever conceived feeding information directly from your competitors, both foreign and domestic.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

 

[idiit]

US officials on Friday slammed plans to construct an EU-centric communication system, designed to prevent emails and phone calls from being swept up by the NSA, warning that such a move is a violation of trade laws.

RT: US blasts Europe’s plan for anti-snooping network as ‘unfair advantage’
Posted on April 5, 2014

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/...or-anti-snooping-network-as-unfair-advantage/

 

[idiit]

Telecoms could be forced to collect even more metadata under Obama’s NSA overhaul
Posted on April 5, 2014

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/...even-more-metadata-under-obamas-nsa-overhaul/

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

List of Primary Sources for Timeline of Domestic Spying:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/nsadocs

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

Has anyone here done any real research into the supposed FEMA "concentration" camps? Is this just someone's overactive imagination, or do you think that somewhere in Snowden's trove of data there exists plans to move vast quantities of American citizens into FEMA camps in response to a declaration of martial law? It's hard to separate the plausible from the implausible in this fucked up Orwellian dystopia.

 

[gaiusmarius]

i do wonder what else he has, i know Greenwald said in about 2 months he was gonna blow our socks off again with more from the leaked info being exposed.

hehe i had to laugh when i say the US reaction to the EU plan for a protected internet. someone most definitely got their nickers in a twist at the thought of the eu having a private internet connection, roflmao. they wine about unfair trade advantage lol what a joke, they just don't want the info to stop flowing to their servers.