117 days left to shut down the FBI

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:05 am

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... nces.shtml

Mon, Aug 18th 2014 2:24pm



Government's Response To Snowden? Strip 100,000 Potential Whistleblowers Of Their Security Clearances
from the surface-issues-neutralized.-underlying-causes-unaddressed. dept

Snowden just re-upped for three years in picturesque Russia, a land best known for not being a US military prison. Not exactly ideal, but under the circumstances, not entirely terrible. The government knows where Snowden is (more or less) and many officials have a pretty good idea what they'd like to do to him if he returns, but the NSA is still largely operating on speculation when it comes to what documents Snowden took.

But they do have someone looking into this. The government has tried to assess the damage posed by Snowden's leaks, but so far all it has come up with is vague proclamations that the released have caused grave and exceptional damage to US security and an even vaguer CIA report claiming that a bunch of documents Snowden theoretically has in his possession might severely harm the US if a) they are released and b) they exist.

Charlie Clark at Defense One has a fascinating article on the man tasked with handling the intelligence community's post-Snowden world.

The man filling that role, or the “NCIX,” as acronym-inclined national security feds call the National Counterintelligence Executive, is Bill Evanina, 47, a former FBI special agent with a counter-terrorism specialty.

Tapped in May 2014 by James Clapper, director of the Office of National Intelligence, Evanina is now immersed in coordinating multi-agency efforts to mitigate the risk of foreign infiltration, assess damage from intelligence leaks and tighten the security clearance process.

This means teaming up with the "'most transparent administration" to help sniff out and stamp out so-called "insider threats." This has always been a priority during Obama's term and its efforts are now being redoubled. On one hand, the ODNI (James Clapper's office) is dipping its toes in the transparency waters. (But mainly it's trying to keep from being pushed into the transparency pool by a variety of litigants.) Evanina is working towards the "discussion" of security vs. privacy, but most of his efforts are focused on locking everything down.

The appearance of new leakers has the government even more concerned.

[W]hen queried about an Aug. 6 New York Times report of leaked internal documents showing “secret terror lists” that include 28,000 Americans kept by the National Counterterrorism Center, Evanina was firmer. “No unauthorized leak is routine,” he said. “It’s a criminal act that has us very concerned. In the intelligence community’s view, every disclosure is a problem because it betrays the people who collected that data. There’s a rationale on why it was classified,” he added, citing a need to protect “both the collection methods and lives.” The FBI is moving forward,” he said, with a probe into how the lists were leaked to an online magazine called The Intercept.

The government swears it protects whistleblowers but the efforts it makes undermines its assertions. Telling people the government is targeting them for reasons it doesn't seem to be able to put into words is called a "criminal act." But here's the most surprising fact from Evanina's profile.

One crisp action taken following agency auditing after Snowden’s exposure: 100,000 fewer people have security clearances than did a year ago, Evanina said. “That’s a lot.”

This looks like the proper response to someone like Snowden. Handing out too many security clearances undermines security. But it's more than that: it's a consolidation of power. By stripping 100,000 people of their clearances, the government eliminates 100,000 potential whistleblowers. With fewer eyes watching surveillance programs, odds of abuse multiply. Someone has to watch the watchers and sometimes that someone is nothing more than a government contractor.

This response doesn't fix the underlying problems -- the government's broad surveillance programs that sweep up Americans' data and communications. All it does is make it that much harder to expose wrongdoing.

If the government wants to solve its problems, it needs to listen to its whistleblowers rather than simply writing them off as security risks or criminals. The internal channels are a joke and no serious effort is being made to improve them
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:21 pm

http://www.farsight.org/

Remote Viewing 9/11: Forbidden Questions, Forbidden Perceptions

Project Release Date: 11 September 2014 (expected)

This page describes the targets use in the 9/11 project conducted at The Farsight Institute. These targets are being published prior to the release of the project results (with an anticipated release date of 11 September 2014).

Trailers and Shorts
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:48 am

Taxpayer funded FBI agents arranged to have forensic investigator Angela Clemente given a life threatening beating
after she had murder charges filed against FBI agent Lyndley De Vecchio
I call Angela every month or so to see how she is



Thursday, August 21, 2014Last Update: 6:13 AM PT

FBI Ordered to Cough Up Outdated Mafia Docs

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/08/21/70630.htm


- The FBI must give a terminally ill mafia expert the name of a special agent allegedly involved in agency corruption, and other related information, a federal judge ruled.
Forensic analyst Angela Clemente sued the FBI on July 21, 2008, alleging that Special Agent Lindley Devecchio and others helped cover up murders and other violent crimes committed by agency informants, like Colombo family capo Gregory Scarpa.
Clemente has spent the last decade researching the FBI's relationship with Scarpa, aka "The Grim Reaper" or "The Mad Hatter," who served as an FBI informant since 1961.
Devecchio was charged with aiding and abetting four murders in 2006, but the judge dismissed the case after finding that Scarpa's former mistress lacked witness credibility.
After Clemente requested an unredacted copy of the FBI's file on Scarpa under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman directed the agency to supplement its Vaughn index of about 192 sample documents.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein deemed the FBI's search adequate in 2012 but directed the agency to reprocess the 1,153 pages.
Meanwhile another Washington, D.C-based federal judge heard Clemente's request to expedite a 2011 FOIA request she made for records pertaining to Scarpa.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan noted earlier this year that Clemente is running against the clock for the information because doctors tell her she is unlikely to receive a life-saving liver transplant on time.
Clemente did not receive any files until June 2013, and although the FBI first said it had 1,420 responsive pages, it later identified about 30,000 additional documents.
Hogan's January decision granted Clemente's request for the FBI to increase its customary FOIA release rate of 500 pages per month to 5,000 per month, in light of her ill health and the public importance of her research.
Rothstein, the judge on the 2008 case, granted the FBI partial summary judgment Monday.
"Here, plaintiff raises the same arguments that this court has thrice addressed and rejected; the court declines to address those arguments yet again," Rothstein wrote.
Citing findings by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, the first judge on the case, Rothstein said that the content of some records supports "the FBI's assertion that they were created for law enforcement purposes," and thus exempt from disclosure.
The FBI must supplement its Vaughn index, however, to clarify its attempt to ascertain the life status of those whose information it redacted from the responsive documents, the ruling states.
"While this court finds that these individuals have a substantial privacy interest here, such an interest may be diminished if the individuals are deceased," Rothstein wrote. "The court is unable to appropriately balance the privacy interest at stake against the public interest in disclosure until this court knows the life status of the affected individuals."
The FBI must disclose "names of an FBI support employee and a third party who are still living and continue to maintain a privacy interest," the judge ruled.
"Given the facts of this particular FOIA request - namely that plaintiff implicates FBI agents in wrongdoing and that the document in question dates back to 1965 - this court finds that the public's interest in disclosure outweighs the FBI agent's privacy interest," Rothstein wrote.
The FBI has 30 days to supplement its affidavit, according to the r
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:23 pm

Ed Tatro sent me this link
of a new documentary that you
can watch for free only during august.
This film is the reason we will be hit again soon by the FBI.
If the link is changed google title with word vimeo
[vimeo][/vimeo]
http://vimeo.com/102327635

The Zapruder Film Mystery
from E2 Films PRO 3 weeks ago All Audiences

Was the Zapruder Film altered by the CIA in the days after the JFK assassination to hide evidence of a conspiracy? Legendary CIA photo interpreter Dino Brugioni thinks it was.

In this film, Brugioni speaks for the first time about his examination of the film at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center on the Saturday evening after the assassination. As researcher Doug Horne discovers, Brugioni was not aware of a second examination of the film at NPIC the following evening by a completely different team and believes the Zapruder Film in the archives today is not the film he saw the day after the assassination.

Drawing on Volume 4 of his book Inside the ARRB, Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records at the Assassination Records Review Board, sets the scene for his interview with Brugioni and presents his disturbing conclusions.

Edited and Produced by Shane O’Sullivan as an extra feature to Killing Oswald: killingoswald.com
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:35 pm

the reason no investigation...
Boston Marathon bombers are FBI. informants.



see link for full story

http://www.milforddailynews.com/article ... /140909712


Holmes: The Tsarnaev questions

By By Rick Holmes
Local Columnist
Posted Sep. 1, 2014

From the beginning, there have been unanswered questions about the Marathon bombing. Police and prosecutors avoided them by saying there was still an investigation in progress. Politicians and public officials resisted calls for a review of what worked and what didn’t in the days between the blasts on Monday and the capture of the second Tsarnaev brother Friday night, probably to avoid having something come out that might reflect badly on them.

It’s even been hard to find an opportunity to put these questions to someone who might know the answers, especially in a public setting. So when I moderated a debate in Framingham last week between the two candidates for Middlesex District Attorney, I took the opportunity to ask a Tsarnaev question.

"On Sept. 11, 2011, three men were murdered in a Waltham apartment," I explained. Their throats were cut – "the worst bloodbath I’ve ever seen," a veteran Waltham investigator said. More than eight pounds of marijuana was left behind, and $5,000 in cash was scattered on top of the bodies.

The Middlesex DA – Gerry Leone, at the time - held a press conference, but the investigation of the triple murder seemed to go nowhere. Years later, after an even deadlier crime, journalists learned that the phone records of the victims and the statements of their friends pointed to an associate of the men named Tamerlan Tsarnaev. For some reason, investigators working in the Middlesex DA’s office never questioned him.

Marian Ryan was appointed Middlesex DA a week after the Boston Marathon bombings, and five days after Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in a shootout with police in Watertown. She has worked in the DA’s office for 34 years, and is now campaigning for a full term. So I asked her what part she played in the triple murder investigation, what happened with the case and, as some have speculated, whether the FBI called the DA’s off the investigation.

Ryan’s response left much unanswered. She was plugged into the case as a senior manager in the DA’s office, she said, but she wasn’t in command. "Great progress" is being made in the investigation, she said, but she wouldn’t say anything more, because she doesn’t want to tip off the guilty. No one from the FBI had told her to cool it.

Implied in my question was the question her opponent, Middlesex Clerk of Courts Michael Sullivan, made explicit in his rebuttal: Did the DA's office drop the ball on the triple murder, and did that lead to the deaths of four and the injuries to hundreds at the Marathon finish line?

Ryan replied with outrage over irresponsible "speculation" that was insensitive to the victims of the Marathon bombings. Sullivan came back with outrage over her implication that he, a family friend of one of those killed at the Marathon, was being insensitive. Then he mentioned another victim: the suspect killed while being interrogated as part of the triple murder investigation.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:08 pm

see link for full story

A JOURNAL SENTINEL WATCHDOG UPDATE
FBI mum on why former Milwaukee chief still holds top job
Teresa L. Carlson, formerly the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Milwaukee, remains in a high-ranking position despite the belief that she ​encouraged perjury and ​then lied to investigators​.
Mike De Sisti
Teresa L. Carlson, formerly the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Milwaukee, remains in a high-ranking position despite the belief that she ​encouraged perjury and ​then lied to investigators​.
By John Diedrich of the Journal Sentinel
September 4. 2014

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchd ... 49651.html


The former ​chief ​of the FBI Milwaukee office — ​believed to have ​encouraged perjury and ​then lied to investigators​ — is worthless as a witness ​and ​dishonors an agency that places a premium on integrity, according to bureau veterans and law enforcement experts.​

But ​Teresa ​Carlson ​remains a high-ranking FBI official in Washington, D.C., and the agency won't say whether she has been demoted, suspended or disciplined in any way.

A Justice Department report issued last week concluded that Carlson, then special agent in charge of the Milwaukee office, instructed a subordinate to commit perjury in the case of a wounded veteran who wanted to become an agent. Carlson then likely lied to investigators from the Inspector General's Office and the FBI as well as federal prosecutors, the report says.

An investigation into her conduct has dragged on for months, underscoring the perception among some agents that top officials are given special treatment.

Five years ago, the inspector general found that allegations ​of wrongdoing by top FBI​ leaders often were not pursued. A third of FBI employees surveyed for that report believed there was a double standard for top officials in the bureau.

"That is the basis of everything the FBI does — trust, integrity, honesty. Everything you do involves that," said retired FBI agent Jack Blair. "When you go to trial, the case is based on the testimony, many times, of the agent. If they are lying, you got a serious problem with the whole agency. That is one thing we get fired for."

Inspector General Michael Horowitz's office found Carlson "conducted herself unprofessionally and exhibited extremely poor judgment" when she coached Special Agent Mark Crider on how to testify in the case of Justin Slaby, a wounded war veteran trying to become an FBI agent.

According to Crider, Carlson told him to "come down" on the FBI's side in the case. Carlson denied she told Crider how to testify, but the inspector general staff concluded her version of events was not credible.

Carlson invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination last year after she was subpoenaed to explain the conversation. Likewise, she refused to speak to inspector general staff until she was forced to do so. She has not returned calls for comment.

FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce quietly moved Carlson out of Milwaukee last summer. More than a year later, Carlson remains in a high-level job as acting deputy assistant director of the Facilities and Logistics Division at headquarters in Washington — which manages FBI facilities and an $800 million budget.

The FBI will not say how much Carlson makes — but government pay scales show it is between $120,000 and $180,000 year. The agency also will not say if any disciplinary action has been taken against her.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:43 pm

see link for full story

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/10/669623 ... tment.html

Misconduct at Justice Department isn’t always prosecuted

Published: Wednesday, Sep. 10, 2014 - 1:49 pm
Last Modified: Wednesday, Sep. 10, 2014 - 2:29 pm

WASHINGTON -- Dozens of Justice Department officials, ranging from FBI special agents and prison wardens to high-level federal prosecutors, have escaped prosecution

or firing in recent years despite findings of misconduct by the department’s own internal watchdog.

Most of the names of the investigated officials, even the highest-ranking, remain under wraps. But documents McClatchy obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal for the first time a startling array of alleged transgressions uncovered by the department’s inspector general.

These include:

– Investigators concluded an assistant U.S. attorney “lacked candor” when interviewed by FBI agents investigating her husband’s “embezzlement activity.” The prosecutor also “made misleading and contradictory” statements to other investigators who were asking about her husband’s criminal activities. She was “verbally admonished” this year, but the Justice Department opted not to prosecute.

– A U.S. attorney violated federal laws and regulations by accepting a partially paid trip to a foreign country by a nonprofit organization, according to investigators. The unnamed presidential appointee was given a written admonishment and he was ordered to reimburse the organization. Prosecution was declined.

– Two FBI supervisory special agents accepted free tickets to the NBA All-Star Game and gave them to family members. One agent “lied under oath” about his actions, and was found to have misused government resources to “engage in extramarital affairs with three women.” That agent resigned after the bureau proposed his dismissal and the other was suspended for three days. Neither was prosecuted.

– An FBI assistant special agent in charge sexually harassed female subordinates, retaliated against a female special agent who refused to have a relationship with him and used his FBI-issued BlackBerry to pursue romantic relationships with 17 FBI employees, nine of whom were direct subordinates, as well as 29 other women. In January, the FBI told the inspector general it had issued an undisclosed disciplinary action. No charges were brought. In a statement to McClatchy, the FBI said it couldn’t comment on an “ongoing personnel matter.”

The records, which cover the period from January 2010 to March 2014, detail some 80 cases, only a few of which appear to have been previously made public. The accused officials work for agencies that include the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

In at least 27 cases, the inspector general identified evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing but no one was prosecuted.

These previously undisclosed cases, and dozens of others like them reviewed by McClatchy, reveal more than an underside to federal law enforcement. The cases underscore how much discretion federal prosecutors have in deciding whether to press charges, and they raise questions about when and why this discretion is applied.

“I think it’s fair to ask why some of these cases weren’t prosecuted,” Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said in an interview. “That’s clearly a concern we have: To make sure there are not two standards of justice at the Department of Justice.”

However, he said it’s understandable in many cases that criminal charges aren’t filed. His office presents a case for prosecution in every instance where there’s “credible evidence that could support elements of a crime, even when it’s weak.”


The reports come, however, amid an overall decline in public corruption prosecutions during the Obama administration. So far this year, records obtained by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University show that 34 percent of investigators’ referrals of public corruption allegations were accepted for prosecution.

During the George W. Bush presidency, records show, 41.6 percent of the official corruption referrals resulted in prosecution.

Gauging the reasons behind an individual prosecutor’s decision-making is nearly impossible, because the Justice Department and inspector general’s office won’t release most of the names or discuss the details of the cases.

Justice Department records show that federal prosecutors nationwide declined a total of 25,629 criminal matters during fiscal year 2013. The reasons most commonly reported included weak or insufficient evidence and lack of criminal intent.

Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said prosecutors followed federal rules when deciding whether to initiate or decline charges in a case.

Carr pointed to the U.S Attorney’s Manual, which says, “Federal law enforcement resources and federal judicial resources are not sufficient to permit prosecution of every alleged offense over which federal jurisdiction exists.”

“Public corruption cases are very fact-specific, and statistics fluctuate routinely year by year,” Carr said Tuesday. “The decision to bring a case involves a number of factors, all covered by the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which may include the seriousness of the allegation, the admissible evidence and whether there is a substantial federal interest in pursuing charges.”

The inspector general’s summary of unprosecuted cases was provided to Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and independently obtained by McClatchy through a FOIA request.

Grassley said he agreed that not all cases warranted prosecution. However, he called for more transparency in the decisions “because of the obvious appearance of a conflict of interest.”

“The public needs to be reassured that the department doesn’t have one standard for its own employees and another standard for everybody else,” he said.

Other cases federal prosecutors declined that were cited in the documents obtained by McClatchy include:

– Allegations against an unnamed prosecutor who was recused from involvement with a criminal investigation because of a personal relationship with a criminal target. The inspector general, however, concluded the prosecutor had disclosed information about the investigation and the wiretap to her spouse, “who subsequently disclosed it to the target.” The prosecutor initially denied revealing the information to her spouse, but subsequently acknowledged that she might have “said something” about the investigation. The prosecutor retired last November.

The husband of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Paula Burnett in New Mexico was convicted last September of leaking details of an investigation to Mexican drug cartel members. Burnett retired late last year, according to news accounts. The inspector general and the U.S. attorney’s office in New Mexico wouldn’t confirm whether it was the same case. Burnett declined to comment.

– The inspector general’s review found $211,000 in questionable purchases at a district U.S. marshals’ office, including “ceremonial and promotional” items previously banned by headquarters, personal or other wasteful items. The investigators concluded that the marshal and the chief deputy marshal had misspent funds, knowingly misused the government purchase card program and violated public service laws. Disciplinary action was still pending this year.

– Investigators concluded that an immigration judge had solicited attorneys to purchase jewelry from her, borrowed money from a lawyer and interpreter, and failed to recuse herself from cases that involved lawyers representing her relatives in criminal matters. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration judges, “proposed disciplinary action” in January. Spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said her office “does not comment on personnel matters.”

Several cases also involve prosecutors misusing their positions, including one who’d sent emails on behalf of her boyfriend, disclosed sensitive information to him without authorization, used government databases to conduct legal research for him, gave him access to government computer accounts and sent a gift to an attorney to get her boyfriend legal assistance. In December 2011, she received a letter of suspension for 14 days.

In the interview, Horowitz wouldn’t comment on specific cases but he added that he’s personally appealed to U.S. attorneys to consider prosecution in some instances.

“I pick up the phone and call them,” said Horowitz, a former longtime federal prosecutor who handled corruption cases in New York.

Horowitz’s role is not to make the prosecution decisions, but to ensure that prosecutors get the information they need .

“There are some where I might have pulled the trigger. But I’m not a prosecutor anymore so I respect the discretion not to. I can’t think of any case where a decision was made not to prosecute that I thought was unreasonable,” he said.

Some of the misconduct cases may not be pursued because they involve “low-dollar” waste or abuse, Horowitz said. Or cases may be seen as too tough to prosecute, sometimes for the wrong reasons, he added, such as the sexual abuse of prisoners. Prosecutors can view prisoners as unsympathetic witnesses.

Before Horowitz took over in 2012, the inspector general’s office disagreed with a federal prosecutor who didn’t want to file charges. In that case, a correctional officer had accepted $1,300 from an undercover agent in exchange for agreeing to smuggle tobacco into a correctional facility. After prosecutors from the federal district based in Houston declined to pursue criminal charges, a local district attorney took the case. The officer later pleaded guilty to bribery, was sentenced to probation and was fined $2,000.

Earl Devaney, a former inspector general for the Department of Interior, said a decision not to pursue criminal charges didn’t necessarily mean investigators or prosecutors were pulling their punches.

“There are always a lot of good reasons to not prosecute,” he said. “Also, you can have a thousand little crappy cases that just make you look good and just one case that has enormous impact.”

Devaney nonetheless added that he’d found the Justice Department’s public integrity unit, which is set up to prosecute cases of high-level corruption, to be “risk adverse” in the past. He worked with it as part of a federal task force that investigated superlobbyist Jack Abramoff and his influence peddling.

Sometimes, alleged misconduct by prosecutors and investigators might be handled less aggressively because of concern that it would taint criminal cases, Devaney said. At trial, defense attorneys are permitted to learn of serious misconduct of the agents and prosecutors involved in their cases.

According to the most recent report by the office, the Justice Department’s inspector general received nearly 5,900 allegations of misconduct, opened 195 investigations and was involved in 32 arrests and 38 convictions from October through March.

This year, for instance, a former federal correctional officer in Missouri was sentenced for trying to hire an inmate to murder his wife’s ex-husband.

However, the Justice Department’s inspector general doesn’t break down details on prosecutions. As a result, McClatchy couldn’t determine the prosecution rate for the office’s cases.

At least one other inspector general does report such statistics. The Interior Department Inspector General’s Office opened 742 cases in the year that ended March 31. During the same period, the office reported referring 44 cases for possible prosecution. Nineteen cases were declined.

During the same year, the Department of Homeland Security opened 551 investigations, referred 322 for prosecution and had 196 declined.

Horowitz is one of some 72 federal inspectors general, spanning myriad federal agencies. They are auditors, in part, scrutinizing government agencies in hopes of rooting out waste and inefficiencies. In fiscal 2013, for instance, the inspectors general identified $44.9 billion in funds that could be “put to better use.”

Inspectors general also investigate criminal allegations. In fiscal 2013, their work led to 6,705 successful criminal prosecutions.

The agencies make the calls on disciplinary action.

In the Justice Department cases, Devaney said he was struck by instances of weak punishment.

“An oral admonishment is not a deterrent,” Devaney said.

One case was triggered by a complaint by Grassley about FBI Assistant Director Stephen Kelly. Kelly, who managed the bureau’s Office of Congressional Affairs, told Grassley’s staff that the FBI knew that the senator planned to attend the wedding of a “subject” of an FBI investigation, according to the inspector general’s report.

“He assured Senator Grassley that he was not a focus of the FBI investigation,” the documents say.

“The OIG concluded that Kelly did not have the authority to disclose nonpublic information about an ongoing criminal investigation to Senator Grassley or his staff, and in doing so exhibited poor judgment,” the report states.

Grassley’s office said the senator never planned to attend the wedding and was invited by the son of the target of the investigation. The target was Russell Wasendorf Sr., founder of Peregrine Financial Group Inc., who pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $100 million from customers.

“Senator Grassley and the staff member who spoke with Mr. Kelly both thought the disclosure was inappropriate, and could have been intimidating to somebody who hasn’t dealt with the FBI like Senator Grassley and his staff have,” said Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine.

This year, the FBI concluded that the allegation Kelly had violated internal policy was “unsubstantiated” and gave him “nondisciplinary counseling.”

“FBI concluded that Kelly’s disclosure of nonpublic information derived from an ongoing investigation was improper, for which he received nondisciplinary counseling,” the bureau said in a statement. “The FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs must be afforded some measure of latitude and flexibility in dealing with members of Congress. As this instance did not result in harm to the ongoing investigation, and was done with good intentions, the matter did not constitute official misconduct.”
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:25 pm

http://boingboing.net/2014/09/13/radica ... w-nin.html


Radical Librarianship: how ninja librarians are ensuring patrons' electronic privacy

Librarians in Massachusetts are working to give their patrons a chance to opt-out of pervasive surveillance. Partnering with the ACLU of Massachusetts, area librarians have been teaching and taking workshops on how freedom of speech and the right to privacy are compromised by the surveillance of online and digital communications -- and what new privacy-protecting services they can offer patrons to shield them from unwanted spying of their library activity.

It's no secret that libraries are among our most democratic institutions. Libraries provide access to information and protect patrons' right to explore new ideas, no matter how controversial or subversive. Libraries are where all should be free to satisfy any information need, be it for tax and legal documents, health information, how-to guides, historical documents, children's books, or poetry.

And protecting unfettered access to information is important whether that research is done using physical books or online search engines. But now it has become common knowledge that governments and corporations are tracking our digital lives, and that surveillance means our right to freely research information is in jeopardy.

When you know that people are recording what you are doing online or if you know cops, the FBI, the DEA, or ICE could access your library or digital history, chances are you are not going to say or research what you might otherwise. Self-censorship ensues because surveillance chills speech.
Library Patrons Are At Risk
Researching online often means leaving a trail of information about yourself, including your location, what websites you visited and for how long, with whom you chatted or emailed, and what you downloaded and printed. All of these details are all easy to associate with a particular computer user when insufficient privacy protections are in place.

This information is often thoughtlessly collected and stored, allowing government or law enforcement to make requests for library computer records. Meanwhile, companies may already have these records and use them to manipulate your search results and refine their contextual advertising. Worse a government may assert that users have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when we "hand over" information to companies like Google and Twitter, and thus no constitutional protection against a government's searching of these records.

But libraries need not fully participate in this surveillance; libraries can strive to give users the chance to opt-out.
Librarians Take Action
One of the authors of this article, Alison Macrina, is an IT librarian at the Watertown Free Public Library in Massachusetts, a member of Boston's Radical Reference Collective, and an organizer working to bring privacy rights workshops to libraries throughout the northeast. Librarians know that patrons visit libraries for all kinds of online research needs, and therefore have a unique responsibility in helping keep that information safe. It's not just researchers who suffer; our collective memory, culture, and future are harmed when writers and researchers stop short of pursuing intellectual inquiry.

In addition to installing a number of privacy-protecting tools on public PCs at the Watertown library, Alison has been teaching patron computer classes about online privacy and organized a series of workshops for Massachusetts librarians to get up to speed on the ins and outs of digital surveillance.

It all started with a zine Alison and some cohorts from Radical Reference made as a quick and dirty introduction to basic privacy and security tools. These zines were distributed at two conferences for information professionals: Urban Librarians Unite and Radical Archives.

The zines were a huge hit, and from there, Alison was inspired. She contacted the ACLU of Massachusetts, and invited them to join her in teaching privacy workshops to other librarians all over the state. It was an obvious choice: the ACLU of Massachusetts' Technology for Liberty project has done ground-breaking work on privacy, and the privacysos.org website and blog (run by Kade Crockford) is an incredible resource for privacy news, legislation, and advocacy.

Jessie Rossman, ACLU staff attorney, and Kade Crockford, Director of the Technology for Liberty Project at the ACLU of Mass., worked with Alison to create a three-hour workshop. Offering a broad outline of digital surveillance issues, the legal rights and responsibilities of librarians in Massachusetts, and an online privacy toolkit of software that can be installed on library PCs or taught to patrons in computer classes, the workshop has now been replicated multiple times and more have been scheduled across the state.
Digital Privacy is an Intellectual Freedom Issue
Although many librarians may be understandably new to the topic of online surveillance, information professionals are not new to defending intellectual freedom and the right to read and voice dissenting opinions, as well as the rights of historically marginalized people who continue to be under the most surveillance.

Librarians are known for refusing requests from local law enforcement soliciting details on user browsing and borrowing records. The ALA has counted privacy among its core values since 1939, recognizing it as essential to free speech and intellectual freedom. And the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions is a signatory on the Thirteen International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. As Kade Crockford puts it, "Perhaps more than anyone in our society, librarians represent the values that make a democracy strong, intellectual freedom foremost among them."
Branching Out
Since attending these workshops, multiple Massachusetts libraries have installed the Tor browser on all of their public PCs. Several libraries are coordinating their own computer privacy classes. Others have installed Firefox with privacy-protecting browser plugins like Disconnect.me, Ad-Block Plus, and The Electronic Frontier Foundation's HTTPS Everywhere and Privacy Badger tools. Still more are setting up Tor middle relays on their libraries' networks. One librarian said that the workshop made her feel "thoroughly empowered...[to] help stop illegal surveillance against my patrons." Amazing.

If you're a patron, share this article with your librarian. If you're a librarian, contact us to get information on how to become more engaged in digital privacy. We've listed some great tools for you to explore and download, so please be in touch and let us know how it goes.

Contact april@eff.org to share your story or request more information, or contact macrina@riseup.net to host the privacy workshop at your library. Together, we'll protect the users and preserve our right to research and learn, unhindered by the pernicious effects of overbroad surveillance. We hope you'll join us.

(Images: ACLU; Jessamyn)

Alison Macrina and April Glaser
Published 9:29 am Sat, Sep 13, 2014
About the Author
Alison Macrina is a librarian and IT manager at the Watertown Free Public Library and an activist fighting for patron privacy rights and education in Massachusetts libraries and beyond.

April Glaser is a staff activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where she focuses on net neutrality and leads community outreach on a wide range of digital rights issues, working directly with organizations and activists interested in promoting free speech, privacy, and innovation in digital spaces.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby fruhmenschen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:08 pm

it is all about maintaining the FBI brand. eh?


A New FBI Show Is Coming Back to Prime-Time TV This Season on CBS
By Alan Stamm
ticklethewire.com

Josh Dunhamel is no Efrem Zimbalist Jr., and his new TV show is unlike “The F.B.I.” But another show starring an FBI agent is coming to TV.

The 2014 version is “Battle Creek,” a drama-comedy set in that Michigan city and picked up by CBS for at least 13 episodes. No date is announced for its “coming soon” mid-season debut.

Dunhamel plays Special Agent Milt Chamberlain, sent to open a field office in the economically depressed Midwestern city of 52,000.

“It’s a throwback old-school cop show,” Dunhamel tells Lauren Moraski of CBS News. “I play an FBI agent who’s setting up a satellite office in Battle Creek.

“We work together with some of the local detectives in this underfunded run-down department. So my character has all the resources in the world and this poor police department has almost nothing. So it’s a contrast between local law enforcement and the FBI. It’s funny, but it’s also a serious procedural at the same time.”

His main co-star is Dean Winters as local Det. Russ Agnew. They spar as a mismatched pair, much as Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy do in “The Heat,” a 2013 comedy film. And as Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy do in “48Hrs.” (1982) and its 1990 sequel. Similarly, Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell played “Tango & Cash” on the big screen in 1969. Hey, no one pitches this as a breakthrough concept.

Here’s how CBS promotes the new series, shot in Los Angeles:

“As Russ and Milt work long hours together, the question is: Will it be Milt’s charm and endless supply of high-end resources or Russ’ old-fashioned cynicism, guilt and deception that prove to be the keys to catching the bad guys in his beloved hometown?

The executive producer is Vince Gilligan, who produced “Breaking Bad,” which goes a long way toward explaining why USAToday this summer called it “one of next season’s most-anticipated new series.”

Gilligan says he’s “never actually been to Battle Creek,” but likes the name and will portray it as “a city of underdogs.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/josh-duhame ... -cop-show/

Here’s a partial list of earlier FBI shows:

“The F.B.I.,” 1965-74: Insp. Lewis Erskine (Zimbalist) and several agents handled cases based on real FBI files. Erskine reported to Arthur Ward (Phillip Abbott), assistant to the director. The technical adviser was W. Mark Felt, an associate director of the bureau later unmasked as Watergate informant “Deep Throat.” It ran for 241 episodes.
“Mancuso, F.B.I.” 1989-90: Robert Loggia starred on NBC as Nick Mancuso, a bureau veteran assigned to headquarters, where superiors saw him as a maverick with little regard for agency rules and procedures. Low ratings limited it to one season and prime-time summer reruns in 1993.
“The FBI Files,” 1998-2006: This 120-episode documentary series ran on the Discovery Channel cable network, using reenactments and interviews with agents and forensic scientists to dramatize real cases.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:28 pm

Now only 61 days left to shut down the FBI. What on earth will you do if you haven't managed the task by then? Start yet another vanity-thread with an even more idiotic title? The question answers itself.

I bet you'll bump at least two of your other half-dozen little vanity-threads along with this one. Killing the RI discussion board is not an easy task, but let no one say you've not contributed more than your fair share of the Thousand Cuts.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:43 pm

MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:28 pm wrote:Now only 61 days left to shut down the FBI. What on earth will you do if you haven't managed the task by then? Start yet another vanity-thread with an even more idiotic title? The question answers itself.

I bet you'll bump at least two of your other half-dozen little vanity-threads along with this one. Killing the RI discussion board is not an easy task, but let no one say you've not contributed more than your fair share of the Thousand Cuts.


I'm no fan of fruhmenschen's endless fbi data dump either, for my own reasons which I'll keep to myself, but after recently reviewing the crisis actor threads I was made aware again of your insinuations about c2w toward the end of her time here and I think it is fair to say you were a part of the thousand cuts that finally pushed her out and for that alone I'd say you shoulder a greater share of the blame than fruhmenschen for the slow demise of the quality of discussion here .
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5088
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:03 pm

brainpanhandler » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:43 pm wrote:
MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:28 pm wrote:Now only 61 days left to shut down the FBI. What on earth will you do if you haven't managed the task by then? Start yet another vanity-thread with an even more idiotic title? The question answers itself.

I bet you'll bump at least two of your other half-dozen little vanity-threads along with this one. Killing the RI discussion board is not an easy task, but let no one say you've not contributed more than your fair share of the Thousand Cuts.


I'm no fan of fruhmenschen's endless fbi data dump either, for my own reasons which I'll keep to myself,


Why?

In other words, you agree with me, but you don't have the guts or the gumption or the elementary honesty to say why! This is the quality of your "discussion". You just nipped in here to throw horseshit in my general direction, but you thought it best to cover your ass while doing so.

but after recently reviewing the crisis actor threads I was made aware again of your insinuations about c2w toward the end of her time here and I think it is fair to say you were a part of the thousand cuts that finally pushed her out and for that alone I'd say you shoulder a greater share of the blame than fruhmenschen for the slow demise of the quality of discussion here .


If this is the quality of your discussion -- and it is (QED) -- then I can only suggest you take a good long look in the mirror. How dare you piggyback on the long-absent c2w in order to accuse me of lowering the tone of this moribund board? Did you even take part in that discussion, way back then, while it was happening? You don't condescend to say. Have you ever PM'd c2w? I have. And more than once too, long before that thread, and after it too. The content of those communications is none of your business but I can assure you they were neither unfriendly nor disrespectful, on either side. But this is actually none of your business.

You will of course accuse me (at least in your head) of lowering the tone again, because I've had the temerity to be annoyed by your cheap horseshit and to say why it is horseshit and why it annoys me. That''s the quality of your discussion. If you insist on seething with resentment about some ancient thread that has nothing to do with this one, then go ahead, seethe. But leave me and c2w out of it.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:48 pm

MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:03 pm wrote: How dare you piggyback on the long-absent c2w in order to accuse me of lowering the tone of this moribund board?


You lowered it by contributing to c2w's departure. Sorry you take umbrage, but I understand why. You can take solace in the fact that she would no doubt disagree with me.

Did you even take part in that discussion, way back then, while it was happening?


Does that disqualify me from saying something now?

Have you ever PM'd c2w? I have.


I had a lengthy correspondence with c2w going back to when she joined here.

And more than once too, long before that thread, and after it too. The content of those communications is none of your business but I can assure you they were neither unfriendly nor disrespectful, on either side. But this is actually none of your business.


Your private messages with c2w are indeed none of my business and I have no interest in them so you need not act as though I had asked you to reveal them. Your interactions with other members here is my business if I want it to be. This is a public message board. Get used to it.

You will of course accuse me (at least in your head) of lowering the tone again, because I've had the temerity to be annoyed by your cheap horseshit and to say why it is horseshit and why it annoys me.


Nope. Not even in my head. How dare you presume to know what I am thinking. Turn about is fair play though. I think you're annoyed because in your head you know I'm right.

If you insist on seething with resentment about some ancient thread that has nothing to do with this one, then go ahead, seethe


Not very ancient at all and even if it was, so what? The record is there. You know what I'm talking about. I pm'd you about it at the time. Got no response.

But leave me and c2w out of it.


That was your doing, not mine.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5088
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:10 pm

You are addressing me, for the first time, about something that happened on what? the 100th? 130th? 150th? page of a 167-page thread from sixteen months ago? A sometimes acrimonious thread -- on all sides -- commenting on an ongoing massive public event at that time? A thread you personally took no part in at all while it was happening? (Possibly the longest thread ever on this board, except for AD's numerous Personal Data Dumps.)

You are doing this now, sixteen months later, in order to complain about

brainpanhandler wrote:the slow demise of the quality of discussion here


Really?

Really. Ffs.

brainpanhandler wrote:This is a public message board. Get used to it.


Beyond parody. Shame on you.

Enough.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 117 days left to shut down the FBI

Postby norton ash » Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:19 pm

HEY. Take it outside. We're trying to shut down the FBI in here, goddammit.

Although it gives me an idea. I think I'll go fill AD's threads with cat videos and Toby Keith songs while he's away.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: stickdog99 and 37 guests