Saturday, August 17, 2013

CIA Funding Citizen Tracking Software Given to Big Banks, Police

Daniel G. J.
by
August 16th, 2013
Updated 08/16/2013
The CIA is funding the development of software that’s used to track citizens using their personal data, and among the new clients are mega banks like JP Morgan Chase.
CIA funding Palantir spy company.A new mainstream report from Forbes finds that the agency has financed a company called Palantir, which creates data mining programs that allow spies to sift through vast amounts of data and pinpoint individuals.
Forbes reports that the software has already been used to track down individuals, including Bin Laden and Mexican drug cartel members. The software can also track payments to their source, and Palantir is making it available to banks and other financial companies.

CIA Funded Spying Makes Money for Billionaires

The CIA put up the money to start Palantir, which is run by a Dr. Strangelove-type character named Alex Karp. Karp lives and works in Silicon Valley and has a bodyguard with him wherever he goes. Karp owns around 10% of Palantir; other investors include PayPal and Facebook billionaire Peter Thiel.
Palantir is now worth several billion dollars, and it might soon go public. Billionaires, it seems, are profiting from the military industrial complex’s assault on our privacy. Worse, the tools developed to spy on us by big government are now falling into the hands of big business. The result, as Anthony Gucciardi has reported, is corrupt corporations getting paid millions of dollars by US spying agencies to continue spying on as the US economy as a whole collapses.

From CIA to Corporations

When Palantir started, the CIA was its only customer, but now it is trying to sign up companies like JPMorgan Chase. The most disturbing customer is the New York Police Department. It isn’t clear what the police are doing with Palantir.
Forbes has exposed a dangerous relationship between the intelligence community and technology companies. One has to wonder how many of them are really funded by the CIA or NSA and what they do for Palantir.
Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Palantir actually plotted to launch a cyber attack on WikiLeaks. In other words, it tried to destroy a politically motivated group that has embarrassed the federal government on numerous occasions. The sinister culture in intelligence agencies that is threatening our privacy is beginning to corrupt the business community.
Congress needs to do its job and take a hard look at Palantir and its activities. Those who profit from the violation of our rights need to be held accountable.

Google Admits That It Reads Your Email

Daniel G. J.
by
August 16th, 2013
Updated 08/16/2013
Google has admitted that it actually reads the content of  your emails. In an outrageous court filing, the Internet giant also claimed that Gmail users have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Google email reading.The statement was made in a response to a lawsuit filed by a group called Consumer Watchdog. Consumer Watchdog alleged that Google broke laws that ban wiretapping when it scanned emails from non-Google accounts in order to tailor ads to Gmail users.
Google would also be violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars unreasonable search and seizure of letters. Consumer Watchdog didn’t say whether Google was sharing the email contents with anybody else, such as the National Security Agency. But then again, the government itself continues to disregard our Constitution time and time again. This is exemplified in the DHS’ dismissal of the Fourth Amendment at large for 197 million citizens, as Anthony Gucciardi has broken down in numerous exclusive reports.

Is Google in Bed with the NSA?

If the NSA or anybody else, such as Chinese or Russian spies, wanted to read Gmail, all they would have to do is to hack into Google’s servers. Google has not disclosed its relationship with the National Security Agency or its British counterpart, the GCHQ.
Even Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, admitted that Google’s email reading was creepy, stating:
“Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.”
Google’s whole business model is based on the tracking of Internet users and data mining. These operations are similar to the NSA’s Project Prism, which used data mining to determine which emails to intercept.
The Gmail revelations are particularly troubling because they come after reports that the U.S. government forced companies that offer encrypted email services to shut down. It seems as if big business and big government are trying to destroy the whole concept of privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

War on Privacy

Basically, if you want online privacy, you cannot rely on companies like Google and Microsoft (which offers Outlook and Hotmail). They don’t respect the privacy of their customers, and they are probably violating the laws of the United States and other countries.
Google has filed court documents to get Consumer Watchdog’s lawsuit dismissed. Hopefully this lawsuit will go forward because it could be used as a precedent against Google and against the NSA and Microsoft. One has to wonder where the U.S. Justice Department is and why it isn’t defending the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

Right Before Snowden Leaks, President Obama Fired Nearly All Members On Key Intelligence Advisory Board

from the this-is-where-we-were-headed-all-along? dept

Remember last week's press conference, where President Obama insisted that he had already kicked off the process of a major review of the way we do intelligence and surveillance in this country -- and about how he was going to set up an "outside" review group to look all this over? The same review group that will be set up by and report to James Clapper (but, the White House assures us, not run by him)?

Right, so a few people pointed out that President Obama already has an independent group that's supposed to do that thing: called the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB). There's just one tiny, tiny problem in all of this. It now appears that, back in May, just before all the Snowden stuff started coming out, it appears that the administration basically kicked nearly everyone off of the PIAB board. It went from 14 members down to just four. And those members were basically asked to leave:
“They kicked me off,” said former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.). “I was on it a long time under Bush and under Obama. They wanted to make some changes.”

“I don’t know anything about whether they’ve brought in new members. They thanked me and that’s about all I know,” added Hamilton, widely known for his service as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

[....] Philip Zelikow, who served as executive director of the 9/11 Commission and later as a top aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was also asked recently to step off the PIAB.

“I’ve resigned from the Board, one of ten of the fourteen earlier members who have done so,” Zelikow said via email. “Four of the earlier members have remained, pending a reconstitution of the Board at some point for the balance of the President’s second term. The White House website displays the current situation, pending that.”
Hamilton's ouster is particularly interesting, given that just a month ago, he wrote an oped piece about how the NSA's surveillance efforts have gone too far. Seems like he'd be handy to have on this committee reviewing the NSA surveillance, no? So, forgive us for, once again, finding it difficult (or laughable) to believe President Obama's claims that he had a serious revamp of the NSA's surveillance activity in his priorities before the Snowden leaks happened. It seems clear that things were going in the other direction: ramping up the spying, while cutting back on the oversight and review.

Feds Threaten To Arrest Lavabit Founder For Shutting Down His Service

Feds Threaten To Arrest Lavabit Founder For Shutting Down His Service

Should Authorities Decrypt VPNs and Tor – or Ban Them Altogether?

There are many legitimate uses for technology such as VPNs and Tor but of course there are those who use them for criminal and objectionable practices. As Russia prepares an attempt to ban Tor completely, police in Sweden now want to be able to gain access to encrypted communications in cases of serious abuse. But should the privacy rights of millions be utterly compromised because of the activities of the few?
encryptionIf the revelations of Edward Snowden have taught us anything, it’s that our activities online can hardly be considered private.
When we write private emails or fire off instant messages, someone somewhere has the ability to access their contents and, if necessary, act on what they’ve seen.
We’re told that this is a necessary evil, that our countries’ security depends on us giving up some of our freedoms, indeed some of our rights – including the right to privacy – in order to keep us all safe from the ill intentions of the world’s bogeymen.
But despite the assurances of our leaders, most of us simply don’t want to be spied on.
You almost certainly can’t tell, but this article was placed on TorrentFreak’s servers using an encrypted connection. There’s nothing illegal about this article or the way it was written and its author isn’t wanted for crimes anywhere and isn’t trying to cover any up. Encryption has simply become part of life and turning on a VPN here is now as natural as firing up a browser.
But with the perhaps needlessly over-cautious cast aside for a moment, there are those who really do need to stay encrypted for genuinely important reasons. For dissidents around the globe privacy can be a matter of life and death and for whistle-blowers the need to remain in the shadows is paramount, as the unfortunate cases of Manning and Snowden illustrate.
Sadly, and despite all the good carried out via encrypted communications such as Tor, there’s a bitter pill to swallow. There are criminals – serious criminals committing horrible crimes – that use these very same systems in order to hide their identities. What’s to be done about these individuals when their online activities are cloaked? Swedish police think they have the answer.
“We must have a law that allows us to get access to the encrypted services. We need to get a key to access the serious crime,” says Per-Åke Wecksell from the Cybercrime Section of the National Criminal Investigation Department.
Wecksell says gaining back-door access to encryption services is necessary to clamp down on the growing problem of child abuse. Those who engage in such activities are now acutely aware they’re targets for the police so they’re increasingly taking special steps to ensure they remain untraceable.
But of course, once police have the authority to decrypt encryption (and it’s currently extremely unclear how that could be achieved from a technical standpoint), the security of non-abusers using these systems take a massive hit too, through no fault of their own.
data“In the world outside the Internet, the police do not go to any lengths to try to chase criminals, for the simple reason that it would hurt other people. It’s the same online,” says Anna Troberg, chairman of the Pirate Party.
“For example, I have talked with a lot with human rights organizations that are totally dependent on having encrypted information to do their work with activists in other countries, that opportunity would surely be threatened if the police have the ability to decrypt things.”
Of course, it could be argued that restraints could be put on the police so that any new law states clearly that decryption could only take place in cases of suspected child abuse. However, during the crafting of any new legislation there would be calls by interested parties to throw other crimes into the mix – terrorism and issues of national security for instance.
A likely catch-all term of decryption for only “serious crimes” would then be wide open for manipulation by interested parties, meaning that while today abusers and terrorists would be hunted down, tomorrow’s targets would include whistleblowers traitors such as Edward Snowden and alleged copyright infringers master criminals such as Kim Dotcom.
Russia is currently grappling with the same issue, although they appear to be going down a different route. According to local news reports, the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) has initiated a process which will see the introduction of laws that will not allow the decryption of Tor and other anonymous networks, but will ban them completely from the Russian controlled Internet.
The process was uncovered when a request to have Tor blocked on the grounds it is used by child abusers was sent to the FSB by the Bounty Hunters civil movement. But even the movement have their doubts about blocking. Their chief, Sergey Zhuk, told Russian media that he would prefer it if Tor operators were forced to work with the authorities instead.
So it appears we are left with three current approaches.
1 – The status quo where everyone keeps their privacy, serious criminals included.
2 – Trusting the police with the keys in the hope they only go after the really bad guys.
3 – Blocking anonymity tools altogether.
The battle now, to maintain a free and open Internet and the privacy rights of millions, is to find a way to weed out the bad guys without ruining it for everyone else. It might be the most complicated Internet task ever carried out, but someone is going to have to find a fourth option.

US Copyright Foe to Address Piracy, But Won’t Restrict Citizens’ Freedom

Ukraine, former home of Demonoid and current home to many torrent and similar file-sharing sites, has been subjected to regular criticism by the United States over copyright. This year the U.S. went further still, listing Ukraine as a priority in its Special 301 report and opening up the country to sanctions. Now Ukraine says it will address its online piracy problems, but states that it will not deny its citizens their right to freely access information.
Every year the United States government produces its Special 301 report. Prepared by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the report identifies countries which are under-performing on issues such as intellectual property protection.
After being present on the standard ‘Watch List’ in 2011, Ukraine found itself upgraded to the Priority Watch List in 2012. The United States complained that Ukraine had done little to address counterfeiting and piracy and in some cases had actually taken steps backwards, such as when it took down large file-hosting site EX.ua and then allowed it to reopen days later. The U.S. said that Ukraine had also failed to introduce a formal notice-and-takedown regime.
By 2013 things had failed to improve, in fact so much so that in May Ukraine was designated a Priority Foreign Country by the USTR, meaning that the United States government could impose trade sanctions.
“This designation is the culmination of several years of growing concern over widespread
IP theft, including the growing entrenchment of IPR infringement that is facilitated by government actors,” the damning report read.
Amid an extremely long list of criticisms, the USTR said Ukraine needed to establish a “predictable and transparent system” to combat online piracy, including consultation with rightsholders, legal reform, and deterrent-level sentences for infringement.
Now, three months after its 301 disaster, the Ukranian government says it’s prepared to address its online piracy issues.
“Today, all countries have to solve a complex dilemma between the free dissemination of information and the violation of intellectual property rights. Many are forced to take legislative measures against piracy on the Internet,” says Volodymyr Seminozhenko, head of Ukraine’s State Agency on Science, Innovations and Information.
“It is logical, because with more rapid development of information technology general Internet users are able to share any audio visual material, texts or computer programs online. It is clear that among the array of information available will be pirated content, which naturally causes concern to rightsholders.”
ukraineSeminozhenko, a former Vice Premier Minister of Ukraine and current head of the Association of Ukrainian Scientists, says that a similar law to the one just implemented by Russia is being prepared by the State Intellectual Property Service.
However, having seen the backlash over Russia’s site and content blocking provisions (and a failure to properly engage the information technology sector when preparing legislation) it seems likely that Ukraine will tread more cautiously.
“The status quo on this complex issue can only be achieved when taking into account all stakeholders – that includes rightsholders, representatives of the IT community, and users of the network. The fact that such a compromise is necessary is confirmed by the recent events surrounding the Russian anti-piracy law,” the minister adds.
Semynozhenko has worked hard for more than a decade promoting innovation and a thriving business environment in Ukraine and says that in any regime the interests of citizens should be paramount, including their right to freely access information.
“Fighting Internet piracy should not create artificial conditions for blocking of Internet resources that are fully transparent and legitimate, and even more so should not restrict the freedom of citizens to access information,” Seminozhenko says.
The exact system Ukraine has mind is still not finalized, but there are suggestions that current law will be amended to allow rightsholders to file complaints against pirate sites with the State Intellectual Property Service. Within 10 days of receipt of the complaint an investigation will be launched to determine if content is indeed online illegally.
In the final step – and one likely to cause controversy if it’s pushed through – there are suggestions that those putting content online illegally will be required to pay some kind of fee for the items listed in copyright complaints, with the money raised being transferred directly into state coffers.
Since the USTR has already criticized the Ukranian government for allowing “rogue” music collection societies to operate freely in the country (even going as far as stating that one such outfit has “strong ties” to government officials), further enrichment of the state at the expense of copyright holders isn’t likely to be well received.
Only time will tell if the reforms will be enough to downgrade Ukraine in the 2014 Special 301 report, or if they will be viewed by the U.S. as a day late and a dollar short.

Colbert On NSA Surveillance: Expect The Most Transparent Bulls**t Legally Allowed

Colbert On NSA Surveillance: Expect The Most Transparent Bulls**t Legally Allowed

Confirmed: There Is No Real Oversight Of The NSA's Surveillance

Confirmed: There Is No Real Oversight Of The NSA's Surveillance

Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana

More and more police officers are realizing the War on Drugs is a mistake

Region:
marihuana
By Kristen Gwynne
Most people don’t think “cops” when they think about who supports marijuana legalization. Police are, after all, the ones cuffing stoners, and law enforcement groups have a long history of lobbying against marijuana policy reform. Many see this as a major factor in preventing the federal government from recognizing that a historic majority of Americans – 52 percent  favors legalizing weed.
Top 10 Marijuana Myths and Facts
But the landscape is changing fast. Today, a growing number of cops are part of America’s “marijuana majority.” Members of the non-profit group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) say that loosening our pot policy wouldn’t necessarily condone drug use, but control it, while helping cops to achieve their ultimate goal of increasing public safety. Here are the five biggest reasons why even cops are starting to say, “Legalize It!”
1. It’s about public safety.
While marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, the black market associated with it can cause significant harm. Much like the prohibition of alcohol, marijuana’s illegality does not erase the profit incentive – instead, it establishes a risky, unregulated market in which violence and intimidation are used to settle disputes.
“When we ended the prohibition of alcohol, Al Capone was out of work the next day,” says Stephen Downing, Los Angeles’ former Deputy Chief of Police. “Our drug policy is really anti-public safety and pro-cartel, pro-street gang, because it keeps them in business.”
Marijuana trafficking represents a significant chunk of business for black-market cartels. Though the exact percentage of cartel profits from pot is disputed, lowball estimates fall at around 20 percent.
“During my time on the border, I saw literally tons of marijuana come over the border from Mexico,” says Jamie Haase, a former special agent in the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division. “Competition over the profits to be made from this illicit industry has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals in that country, and an ever-increasing amount of violence spilling over into the United States, where the Justice Department estimates Mexican cartels now operate in more than 1,000 American cities.”
2. Cops want to focus on crimes that hurt real victims.
In the past decade, police made more than 7 million marijuana arrests, 88 percent of them for possession alone. In 2010, states spent $3.6 billion enforcing the war on pot, with blacks nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested. That’s a lot of police time and resources wasted, says former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper, who had an “aha moment” about marijuana policy while working for the San Diego Police Department in the late 1960s.
“I had arrested a 19-year-old in his parents’ home for the possession of a very small quantity of marijuana, and put him in the backseat of a caged police car, after having kicked down his door,” recalls Stamper. While driving the prisoner to jail, he says, “I realized, mainly, that I could have been doing real police work, but instead I’m going to be out of service for several hours impounding the weed, impounding him, and writing arrest, impound, and narcotics reports. I was away from the people I had been hired to serve and in no position to stop a reckless drunk driver swerving all over the road, or to respond to a burglary in progress, or intervene in domestic violence situation.”
Cops have limited resources, and spending them on marijuana arrests will inevitably divert them from other policing. Adds Stamper, “In short, making a marijuana arrest for a simple possession case was no longer, for me, real police work.”
3. Cops want strong relationships with the communities they serve.
Baltimore narcotics veteran Neil Franklin says the prevalence of marijuana arrests, especially among communities of color, creates a “hostile environment” between police and the communities they serve. “Marijuana is the number one reason right now that police use to search people in this country,” he says. “The odor of marijuana alone gives a police officers probable cause to search you, your person, your car, or your home.”
Legalizing pot, says Franklin, could lead to “hundreds of thousands of fewer negative police and citizen contacts across this country. That’s a hell of an opportunity for law enforcement to rebuild some bridges in our communities – mainly our poor, black and Latino communities.”
Franklin adds that this would increase citizens’ trust in police, making them more likely to communicate and help solve more serious crimes. Building mutual respect would also protect cops on the job. Adds Franklin, “Too many police officers are killed or injured serving the War on Drugs as opposed to protecting and serving their communities.”
4. The war on pot encourages bad – and even illegal – police practices.
Downing says that monetary incentives for drug arrests, like asset forfeiture and federal grants, encourage an attitude where police will make drug arrests by any means necessary, from militarized SWAT raids to paid informants who admit to lying. “The overall effect is that we are losing ground in terms of the traditional peace officer role of protecting public safety, and morphing our local police officers into federal drug warriors,” Downing says.
Quotas and pressure for officers to make drug arrests – which profit police departments via federal funding and asset forfeiture – also encourage routine violations of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The NYPD, for example, stops and sometimes frisks well over 500,000 people a year, the vast majority of them youths of color – the basis for a pending federal lawsuit challenging the policy on constitutional grounds. While New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended stop-and-frisk as a way to get guns off the street, in fact, it’s more often used to arrest kids with small amounts of weed. Stamper adds that legalization would allow police officers “to see young adults not as criminals, but members of their community” – and start respecting those young people’s civil liberties.
5. Cops want to stop kids from abusing drugs.
Marijuana’s illegality has done very little to stop its use. A recent survey by the National Institutes of Health found that 36 percent of high school seniors had smoked marijuana in the past year.  Legalization would most likely involve age restrictions on marijuana purchases, while at the same time providing quality control over product. “The only way we can effectively control drugs is to create a regulatory system for all of them,” says Stamper.
“If you are truly a proponent of public safety, if you truly want safer communities, then it’s a no-brainer that we have to end drug prohibition and treat [marijuana] as a health issue, like we did with tobacco,” says Franklin. “Education and treatment is the most effective and cost-efficient way to reduce drug use.”
On the other hand, adds Franklin, “If you support a current system of drug prohibition, then you support the very same thing that the cartel and neighborhood gangs support. You might as well be standing next to them, shaking hands.  Because they don’t want an end to prohibition, either.”
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-reasons-cops-want-to-legalize-marijuana-20130627#ixzz2cD52CS1s

Polls: Huge majority wants National Intelligence Director Clapper prosecuted for perjury

Polls: Huge majority wants National Intelligence Director Clapper prosecuted for perjury

McDonald's Chicken McNuggets found to contain mysterious fibers, hair-like structures; Natural News Forensic Food Lab posts research photos, video

McDonald's Chicken McNuggets found to contain mysterious fibers, hair-like structures; Natural News Forensic Food Lab posts research photos, video

New study shows soda consumption linked to increased violence in children - Buzz.NaturalNews.com

New study shows soda consumption linked to increased violence in children - Buzz.NaturalNews.com

What Is Going To Happen If Interest Rates Continue To Rise Rapidly?

What Is Going To Happen If Interest Rates Continue To Rise Rapidly?

Record High Demand For Physical Gold Threatens To Break The Back Of The Paper Gold Market

Record High Demand For Physical Gold Threatens To Break The Back Of The Paper Gold Market

The Hidden (And Not So Hidden) Messages in Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut” (pt. III)

The Hidden (And Not So Hidden) Messages in Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut” (pt. III)