Top Secret America

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Top Secret America

Postby Byrne » Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:39 pm

LilyPatToo wrote:I think I recall threads here in the past that mentioned Prouty, but can't remember whether he ended up outed as a disinfo guy or not and today I have no time to search for 'em. But I do know he's been associated with The Church of Scient0l0gy, which is interesting given his retired military brass status and connection to conspiracy subjects. Is he considered a reliable source?

LilyPat


Lilypat,
Anyone who has dished the dirt on such CIA activities would be subject to smears of sorts....

I did do a RI search & found this thread & Hugh's worthy post here useful.
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby LilyPatToo » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:31 am

Thank you for the links, Byrne--tonight I have time to actually read them and see if I can figure Prouty out...again. I remember trying that once before and getting tangled up in the disinfo stew that surrounds the subjects on which he wrote.

LilyPat
User avatar
LilyPatToo
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Oakland, CA USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:40 am

.

New appraisal of technologies for political control (thread).
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33300

elfismiles wrote:We need a new "appraisal of technologies for political control" ... I know the data for one is all around us here in RI-space.


CIA's 'Facebook' Program Dramatically Cuts Agency's Costs
Wired News - Roy Wood - Sep 29, 2011
... this bit is equally hilarious and disturbing, particularly in light of things like the Echelon program and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. ...
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/09/ci ... cys-costs/

...

If you missed this one when it first came out, now is a good time to take a look at The Onion’s satirical take on the true nature of Facebook:

CIA’s ‘Facebook’ Program Dramatically Cut Agency’s Costs

As with all great satire, this bit is equally hilarious and disturbing, particularly in light of things like the Echelon program and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. But it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you, right?

Tags: CIA, Facebook, humor, satire, The Onion News Network

...AND...

When Machines Get Ahead Of Us
Forbes (blog) - Roger Kay - Sep 20, 2011
However, Projects Etymon and Echelon illustrate what could be done two decades ago in terms of mass surveillance. Obviously, hardware is more powerful, ...
...

Many years ago, I was involved with the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) Project Etymon, a computational linguistics effort designed to help find the needle in the intelligence haystack. None of the people in our little software firm had a security clearance, and it’s quite possible that some of our programmers might not have been able to get one. So, Fort Meade threw its requirements over the wall, and we threw our software back.

But the working mechanism of the project could readily be deduced from things we did know. For example, when our contact asked for script support for Oriya, Telugu, Burmese, and Amharic, we knew that only one was of real interest. And which one could be inferred pretty quickly by reading the front page of the New York Times, which in the early 1990s was carrying on about President Bill Clinton’s debacle in Somalia, where they happen to share a script set (written language) with the Ethiopians called Amharic (the only native African script, as it happens).

Now, our software did something fairly pedestrian long since taken over by Unicode, which created the standard index for all the world’s written languages and then some (e.g., smiley faces and other random digital art). It mapped script elements (characters) to code points (index numbers). In itself, this capability was pretty boring, and we had aspirations to do higher-level linguistic analysis, but none of that came to fruition.

We also knew what some of the other subcontractors were doing because we had to make our stuff work with their stuff. One particularly interesting partner was Lincoln Labs, which had created a speech-to-text converter that took audio voice and spit out International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA, not the ale, the script), a code set that enumerates every meaningful sound a human being can make when communicating with another human being. All language sounds from Bushman clicks to the Russian whispering щ (shch) or buzzing ж (zh) have an IPA number and a font element.

We worked on the converter that could match IPA to other script sets. How could this be interesting? Let’s say a machine captured a recording of someone speaking as an analog sound file, and another machine took that and generated a digital IPA file. Our stuff could take the IPA file and match script sets against it until a meaningful language popped out.

What could one do with that? Well, TRW was another subcontractor, and it had created a hardware hammering engine that could compare text strings against each other very fast. Of course, such engines are much faster now, but TRW had state of the art at the time. So, let’s say we’ve got our strings in native text now in whatever language, and we start looking for words like “bomb,” “missile,” “North Korea,” “trigger,” “shipment,” “Iran,” you get the idea, say, within 15 words of each other.

The concept was simple even if the implementation was not. There were fine points (e.g., How would the word Gorbachev look when spoken in Arabic?).

So, now we have a way of snagging audio streams and making them into files, converting those files into the relevant text, and checking that text for interesting words.

Where could the NSA get all those audio files? Well, it had another project call Echelon, which basically captured all communications traffic, clear and otherwise, going over the air (e.g., microwave, satellite) in Europe. Now, that’s a heck of a lot of people to be listening to all at the same time, and the one thing the NSA let slip during a meeting that they probably shouldn’t have was that most of this information went “into the ground unexamined.” In other words, all they were doing was poking around at the haystack in a cursory fashion and moving on to the next haystack.

That was the problem we were trying to solve.

At the other end of the NSA’s process were language specialists of an exceedingly rare breed. They had to know tongues like Yoruba (a West African language) or Tamil (a South Asian) down to the slang and metaphor level AND they had to be able to get a security clearance. The intersection of those two sets is tiny. Essentially, children of American evangelists who grew up natively in those locations while their fathers tried to convert the local residents to Christianity.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/20 ... d-of-us/2/

...

One of the NSA’s operating principles is to “hit ‘em where they ain’t,” to quote Wee Willie Keeler. So, rather than going after heavily encrypted messages in the middle of transmission, for example, the spooks would prefer to simply read the clear text off someone’s screen through his window with a high-power telescope. In the same way, if you don’t know what they can do, you don’t protect against it. Thus, back then, there was lots of clear voice traffic to analyze. Different techniques are required now, what with all the digitization, packetization, and encryption.

So, now we have a dragnet that can capture, if only momentarily, a huge quantity of available conversation in any language and have a machine look at it quickly for a minimum score of “interestingness.” If it reaches that threshold, we flag it and print it out for the endomorphs to take a closer look. If an endomorph marks it as truly interesting, it can be passed up channels for further analysis.

The second news story mentioned way back above, which describes a software program’s ability to write news stories from data, is rather amusing (if you’re not a journalist) in that this technology threatens the jobs of some journalists who thought that a machine couldn’t replace them. More importantly, though, it demonstrates how far computational linguistic analysis has come since Project Etymon. This stuff is rocket science compared to what we could do 20 years ago.

Because the work we did is ancient history, and what we learned wasn’t classified in the first place, I don’t feel as if I’m doing the NSA any particular harm. However, Projects Etymon and Echelon illustrate what could be done two decades ago in terms of mass surveillance. Obviously, hardware is more powerful, software more sophisticated, and communications more evolved today.

The bad guys have also improved their techniques. So, the cat-and-mouse game continues.

But we should be aware that it is feasible — even easy, these days, what with wide data capture, huge data storage (think Amazon cloud services), and powerful data mining — for someone to keep an eye on us all. Machines look for interesting patterns, and people take a closer look at what the machines find.

Did we really do this to ourselves?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/20 ... d-of-us/3/





Statewatch article: RefNo# 28550
UK-USA: 1948 UK-USA agreement and ECHELON states behind "Server in the Sky" project

Statewatch News Online, January 2008

Press coverage reporting that the FBI is seeking to set up a global alliance to target suspected terrorists and criminals has not so far noted the historical origins of "Server in the Sky" project to collect and exchange personal biometrics and data. The group behind the initiative is the "International Information Consortium" comprised of the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The same five states started intelligence gathering in the Cold War era under the 1948 UKUSA agreement which set up a global monitoring system led by the NSA (USA) and Government Communications HQ in the UK (GCHQ).

And the very same five states set up the ECHELON surveillance system in the 1980s which extended communications gathering on a huge scale from military objectives to political and economic targets by trawling the ether for keywords, phrases and groups.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:

"The USA and the UK have been running global surveillance systems since the start of the Cold War through the NSA and GCHQ and their scope was extended by the ECHELON system in the 1980s. For nearly 60 years, since 1948, these hidden systems have been beyond democratic control and now we see this alliance extending its tentacles to cover not just suspected terrorists but criminals as well. Its activities are likely to be as unaccountable as ever, by-passing standards of privacy and data protection."

Background

- European Parliament: Echelon report (pdf)

- Appraisal of technologies of political control (for the EP STOA Committee, pdf)

- European Union and the FBI launch global surveillance system: A Statewatch report, 10 February 1997 (link)

- News report: FBI wants instant access to British identity data - Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm and finger prints (Guardian, link)

http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=28550





EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
_________________________________________
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT - STOA
AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL

Working document (Consultation version)

Luxembourg, 6 January 1998
PE 166 499
Directorate General for Research

Cataloguing data:
Title: An appraisal of technologies for political control
Publisher: European Parliament
Directorate General for Research
Directorate B
The STOA Programme
Author: Mr. Steve Wright - Omega Foundation - Manchester
Editor: Mr. Dick Holdsworth
Head of STOA Unit
Date: 6 January 1998
PE Number: PE 166 499

This document is a working document. The current version is being circulated for consultation. It is not an official publication of STOA or of the European Parliament.
This document does not necessarily represent the views of the European Parliament.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF POLITICAL CONTROL

ABSTRACT

The objectives of this report are fourfold: (i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a guide to recent advances in the technology of political control; (ii) to identify, analyse and describe the current state of the art of the most salient developments; (iii) to present members with an account of current trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and (iv) to develop policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for their management and future control.

The report contains seven substantive sections which cover respectively:

(i) The role and function of the technology of political control;

(ii) Recent trends and innovations (including the implications of globalisation, militarisation of police equipment, convergence of control systems deployed worldwide and the implications of increasing technology and decision drift);

(iii) Developments in surveillance technology (including the emergence of new forms of local, national and international communications interceptions networks and the creation of human recognition and tracking devices);

(iv) Innovations in crowd control weapons (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA).

(v) The emergence of prisoner control as a privatised industry, whilst state prisons face increasing pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost cutting exercises and the social and political implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with strategies of human warehousing.

(v) The use of science and technology to devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe.

(vi) The implications of vertical and horizontal proliferation of this technology and the need for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor reaches the hands of tyrants.

The report makes a series of policy recommendations including the need for appropriate codes of practice. It ends by proposing specific areas where further research is needed to make such regulatory controls effective. The report includes a comprehensive bibliographical survey of some of the most relevant literature.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF POLITICAL CONTROL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of this report are fourfold: (i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a guide to recent advances in the technology of political control; (ii) to identify. analyze and describe the current state of the art of the most salient developments; (iii) to present members with an account of current trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and (iv) to develop policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for their management and future control. The report includes a large selection of illustrations to provide Members of Parliament with a good idea of the scope of current technology together with a representative flavour of what lies on the horizon. The report contains seven substantive sections, which can be summarised as follows:
THE ROLE & FUNCTION OF POLITICAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

This section takes into account the multi-functionality of much of this technology and its role in yielding an extension of the scope, efficiency and growth of policing power. It identifies the continuum of control which stretches from modem law enforcement to advanced state suppression, the difference being the level of democratic accountability in the manner in which such technologies are applied.
RECENT TRENDS & INNOVATIONS

Taking into account the problems of regulation and control and the potential possessed by some of these technologies to undermine international human rights legislation, the section examines recent trends and innovations. This section covers the trend towards militarisation of the police technologies and the paramilitarisation of military technologies with an overall technological and decision drift towards worldwide convergence of nearly all the technologies of political control. Specific advances in area denial, identity recognition, surveillance systems based on neural networks, discreet order vehicles, new arrest and restraint methods and the emergence of so called 'less lethal weapons' are presented. The section also looks at a darker side of technological development including the rise of more powerful restraint, torture, killing and execution technologies and the role of privatised enterprises in promoting it.

The EU is recommended to: (i) develop appropriate structures of accountability to prevent undesirable innovations emerging via processes of technological creep or decision drift; (ii) ensure that the process of adopting new systems for use in internal social and political control is transparent, open to appropriate political scrutiny and subject to democratic change should unwanted or unanticipated consequences emerge; (iii) prohibit, or subject to stringent and democratic controls, any class of technology which has been shown in the past to be excessively injurious, cruel, inhumane or indiscriminate in its effects.
DEVELOPMENTS IN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

This section addresses the rapid and virtually unchecked proliferation of surveillance devices and capacity amongst both the private and public sectors. It discusses recent innovations which allow bugging, telephone monitoring, visual surveillance during night or day over large distances and the emergence of new forms of local, national and international communications interceptions networks and the creation of human recognition and tracking devices.

The EU is recommended to subject all surveillance technologies, operations and practices to: (i) procedures ensuring democratic accountability; (ii) proper codes of practice consistent with Data protection legislation to prevent malpractice or abuse; (iii) agreed criteria on what constitutes legitimate surveillance targets, and what does not, and how such surveillance data is stored, processed and shared. These controls should be more effectively targeted at malpractice or illegal tapping by private companies and regulation further tightened to include additional safeguards against abuse as well as appropriate financial redress.

The report discusses a massive telecommunications interceptions network operating within Europe and targeting the telephone, fax and email messages of private citizens, politicians, trade unionists and companies alike. This global surveillance machinery (which is partially controlled by foreign intelligence agencies from outside of Europe) has never been subject to proper parliamentary discussion on its role and function, or the need for limits to be put on the scope and extent of its activities. This section suggests that that time has now arrived and proposes a series of measures to initiate this process of reclaiming democratic accountability over such systems. It is suggested that all telephone interceptions by Member States should be subject to consistent criteria and procedures of public accountability and codes of practice. These should equally apply to devices which automatically create profiles of telephone calls and pattern analysis and require similar legal requirements to those applied for telephone or fax interception.

It is suggested that the rapid proliferation of CCTV systems in many Member States should be subject to a common and consistent set of codes of practice to ensure that such systems are used for the purpose for which they were authorised, that there is an effective assessment and audit of their use annually and an adequate complaints system is in place to deal with any grievances by ordinary people. The report recommends that such codes of practice anticipate technical change including the digital revolution which is currently in process, and ensure that each and every such advance is subject to a formal assessment of both the expected as well as the possible unforeseen implications.
INNOVATIONS IN CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS

This section addresses the evolution of new crowd control weapons, their legitimation, biomedical and political effects. It examines the specific introduction of new chemical, kinetic and electrical weapons, the level of accountability in the decision making and the political use of such technologies to disguise the level of violence being deployed by state security forces. The research used to justify the introduction of such technologies as safe is reanalysed and found to be wanting. Areas covered in more depth include CS and OC gas sprays, rubber and plastic bullets, multi-purpose riot tanks, and the facility of such technologies to exact punishment, with the possibility that they may also bring about anti-state retaliatory aggression which can further destabilise political conflict.

This section briefly analyses recent innovations in crowd control weapons (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA) and concludes that they are dubious weapons based on dubious and secret research. The Commission should be requested to report to Parliament on the existence of formal liaison arrangements between the EU and the USA to introduce such weapons for use in streets and prisons here. The EU is also recommended to (i) establish objective common criteria for assessing the biomedical effects of all so called less lethal weapons and ensure any future authorization is based on independent research; (ii) ensure that all research used to justify the deployment of any new crowd control weapon in the EU is published in the open scientific press and subject to independent scientific scrutiny, before any authorization is given to deploy. In the meantime the Parliament is asked to reaffirm its current ban on plastic bullets and that all deployment of devices using peppergas (OC) be halted until such a time as independent European research on its risks has been undertaken and published.
NEW PRISON CONTROL SYSTEMS

This section reports on the emergence of prisoner control as a privatised industry, whilst state prisons face increasing pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost cutting exercises. It expresses concern about the social and political implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with strategies of human warehousing and recommends common criteria for licensing all public and private prisons within the EU. At minimum this should cover operators responsibilities and prisoners rights in regard to rehabilitation requirements; UN Minimum Treatment of Prisoners rules banning the use of leg irons; the regulation and use of psychotropic drugs to control prisoners; the use of riot control, prisoner transport, restraint and extraction technologies. The report recommends a ban on (i) all automatic, mass. indiscriminate prisoner punishment technologies using less lethal instruments such as chemical

irritant or baton rounds; (ii) kill fencing and lethal area denial systems; and (iii) all use of electro-shock, stun and electric restraint technology until and unless independent medical evidence can prove that it safe and will not contribute to either deaths in custody or inhumane treatment, torture or other cruel and unusual punishments.
INTERROGATION, TORTURE TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES

This section discusses the use of science and technology to devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe. Of particular concern is the use and abuse of electroshock devices and their proliferation. It is recommended that the commercial sale of both training in counter terror operations and any equipment which might be used in torture and execution, should be controlled by the criteria and measures outlined in the next section.
REGULATION OF HORIZONTAL PROLIFERATION

The implications for civil liberties and human rights of both the vertical and horizontal proliferation of this technology are literally awesome. There is a pressing need for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor reaches the hands of tyrants. The European Council agreed in Luxembourg in 1991 and in Lisbon in 1992 a set of eight Common Criteria for Arms Exports which set out conditions which should govern all decisions relating to the issue of licences for the export of arms and ammunition, one condition of which was "the respect of human rights in the country of final destination." Other conditions also relate to the overall protection of human rights. However these eight criteria are not binding on member states and there is no common interpretation on how they should be most effectively implemented. However, a code of conduct to achieve such an agreement was drawn up and endorsed by over 1000 Non-Governmental Organizations based in the European Union.

Whilst it is recognised that it is not the role of existing EU institutions to implement such measures as vetting and issuing of export licences, which are undertaken by national agencies of the EU Member States, it has been suggested by Amnesty International that the joint action procedure which was used to establish EU regulations on Export of Dual use equipment could be used to take such a code of practice further.

Amnesty suggest that the EU Member States should use the Joint Action procedures to draw up common lists of (i) proscribed military, security and police equipment and technology, the sole or primary use of which is to contribute to human rights violations; (ii) sensitive types of military, security or police equipment and technology which has been shown in practice to be used for human rights violations; and (iii) military, security and police units and forces which have been sufficiently responsible for human rights violations and to whom sensitive goods and services should not be provided. The report makes recommendations to help facilitate this objective of denying repressive regimes access to advanced repression technologies made or supplied from Europe.
FURTHER RESEARCH

The report concludes by proposing a series of areas where new research is required including: (i) advanced area denial and less-lethal weapon systems; (ii) human identity recognition and tracking technologies; (iii) the deployment of 'dum-dum' ammunition within the EU; (iv) the constitutional issues raised by the U.S. National Security Agency's access and facility to intercept all European telecommunications; (v) the social and political implications of further privatisation of the technologies of political control and (vi) the extent to which European based companies have been complicit in supplying equipment used for torture or other human rights violations and what new independent measures might be instituted to track such transfers.

CONTENTS

Abstract
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
Table of Charts and Figures
1 Introduction 1
2 Role and Function of Political Control Technologies 3
3 Recent Trends and Innovations 6
4 Developments in Surveillance Technology 15
5 Innovations in Crowd Control Weapons 22
6 New Prison Control Systems 40
7 Interrogation, Torture Techniques and Technologies 44
8 Regulation of Horizontal Proliferation 53
9 Conclusions 59
10 Notes and References 60
11 Bibliography [Separate file (85K); Zip-compressed version 32K] 73
Appendix 1. Military, Security & Police Fairs. [Not provided with report]

MORE: http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm




AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL

An Omega Foundation Summary & Options Report
For The European Parliament


SEPTEMBER 1998

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE ROLE & FUNCTION OF POLITICAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

3. RECENT TRENDS & INNOVATIONS

3.1 Policy Options

4. INNOVATIONS IN CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS

4.1 Policy Options

5. NEW PRISON CONTROL SYSTEMS

5.1 Policy Options

6. INTERROGATION, TORTURE TECHNIQUES & TECHNOLOGIES

6.1 Policy Options

7. DEVELOPMENTS IN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

7.1 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Surveillance Networks
7.2 Algorithmic Surveillance Systems
7.3 Bugging & Tapping Devices
7.4 National & International Communications Interceptions Networks

7.4.1 NSA Interception of All EU Telecommunications
7.4.2 EU-FBI Global Telecommunications Surveillance System

7.5 Policy Options

8. REGULATION OF HORIZONTAL PROLIFERATION

8.1 Policy Options

9. CONCLUSIONS

NOTES

ANNEX 1 - BIBLIOGRAPHY

MORE: http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc-so.htm

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby Allegro » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:32 am

.
The Invisible Planners | Part II of II | Part I
by Michael Barker | Swans dot com
— first paragraph only

    (Swans - October 10, 2011) In the early 1920s, Herbert Hoover -- who served as secretary of commerce (1921-28) before becoming president of the United States -- was the single individual who "contributed the most to the setting of its ideological and organizational limits" of the evolving countercyclical machinery that aimed to maintain macroeconomic stability in the United States. But Alchon adds that other significant factors that promoted such changes included Wesley Mitchell's "agenda for the advance of social science" (as seen through the activities of the National Bureau), and the "increasing willingness of the major foundations to support the development of social science and its application to public policy."

    [RESUME.]
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby American Dream » Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:38 am

Governments Turn to Hacking Techniques for Surveillance of Citizens

November 02, 2011

By Ryan Gallagher
Source: The Guardian



In a luxury Washington, DC, hotel last month, governments from around the world gathered to discusssurveillance technology they would rather you did not know about. The annual Intelligence Support Systems (ISS) World Americas conference is a mecca for representatives from intelligence agencies and law enforcement. But to the media or members of the public, it is strictly off limits.

Gone are the days when mere telephone wiretaps satisfied authorities' intelligence needs. Behind the cloak of secrecy at the ISS World conference, tips are shared about the latest advanced "lawful interception" methods used to spy on citizens – computer hacking, covert bugging and GPS tracking. Smartphones, email, instant message services and free chat services such as Skype have revolutionised communication. This has been matched by the development of increasingly sophisticated surveillance technology.

Among the pioneers is Hampshire-based Gamma International, a core ISS World sponsor. In April, Gamma made headlines when Egyptian activists raided state security offices in Cairo and found documents revealing Gamma had in 2010 offered Hosni Mubarak's regime spy technology named FinFisher. The "IT intrusion" solutions offered by Gamma would have enabled authorities to infect targeted computers with a spyware virus so they could covertly monitor Skype conversations and other communications.

The use of such methods is more commonly associated with criminal hacking groups, who have used spyware and trojan viruses to infect computers and steal bank details or passwords. But as the internet has grown, intelligence agencies and law enforcement have adopted similar techniques.

"Traditionally communications flowed through phone companies, but consumers are increasingly using communications that operate outwith their jurisdiction. This changes the way interception is carried out … the current method of choice would seem to be spyware, or trojan horses," said Chris Soghoian, a Washington-based surveillance and privacy expert. "There's now a thriving outsourced surveillance industry and they are there to meet the needs and wants of countries from around the world, including those who are more – and less – respectful to human rights."

In 2009, while a government employee, Soghoian attended ISS World. He made recordings of seminars and later published them online – which led him to be the subject of an investigation and, ultimately, cost him his Federal Trade Commission job. The level of secrecy around the sale of such technology by western companies, he believes, is cause for alarm.

"When there are five or six conferences held in closed locations every year, where telecommunications companies, surveillance companies and government ministers meet in secret to cut deals, buy equipment, and discuss the latest methods to intercept their citizens' communications – that I think meets the level of concern," he said. "They say that they are doing it with the best of intentions. And they say that they are doing it in a way that they have checks and balances and controls to make sure that these technologies are not being abused. But decades of history show that surveillance powers are abused – usually for political purposes."

Another company that annually attends ISS World is Italian surveillance developer Hacking Team. A small, 35-employee software house based in Milan, Hacking Team's technology – which costs more than £500,000 for a "medium-sized installation" – gives authorities the ability to break into computers or smartphones, allowing targeted systems to be remotely controlled. It can secretly enable the microphone on a targeted computer and even take clandestine snapshots using its webcam, sending the pictures and audio along with any other information – such as emails, passwords and documents – back to the authorities for inspection. The smartphone version of the software has the ability to track a person's movements via GPS as well as perform a function described as "remote audio spy", effectively turning the phone into a bug without its user's knowledge. The venture capital-backed company boasts that its technology can be used "country-wide" to monitor more than 100,000 targets simultaneously, and cannot be detected by anti-virus software.

"Information such as address books or SMS messages or images or documents might never leave the device. Such data might never be sent to the network. The only way to get it is to hack the terminal device, take control of it and finally access to the relevant data," says David Vincenzetti, founding partner of Hacking Team, who adds that the company has sold its software in 30 countries across five continents. "Our investors have set up a legal committee whose goal is to promptly and continuously advise us on the status of each country we are talking to. The committee takes into account UN resolutions, international treaties, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International recommendations."

Three weeks ago Berlin-based hacker collective the Chaos Computer Club (CCC)exposed covert spy software used by German police forces similar to that offered by Hacking Team. The "Bundestrojaner [federal trojan]" software, which state officials confirmed had been used, gave law enforcement the power to gain complete control over an infected computer. The revelation prompted an outcry in Germany, as the use of such methods is strictly regulated under the country's constitutional law. (A court ruling in 2008 established a "basic right to the confidentiality and integrity of information-technological systems".)

"Lots of what intelligence agencies have been doing in the last few years is basically computer infiltration, getting data from computers and installing trojans on other people's computers," said Frank Rieger, a CCC spokesman. "It has become part of the game, and what we see now is a diffusion of intelligence methods into normal police work. We're seeing the same mindset creeping in. They're using the same surreptitious methods to gain knowledge without remembering that they are the police and they need to follow due process."

In the UK there is legislation governing the use of all intrusive surveillance. Covert intelligence-gathering by law enforcement or government agencies is regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), which states that to intercept communications a warrant must be authorised by the home secretary and be deemed necessary and proportionate in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country. There were 1,682 interception warrants approved by the home secretary in 2010, latest official figures show.

According to Jonathan Krause, an IT security expert who previously worked for Scotland Yard's hi-tech crime unit, bugging computers is becoming an increasingly important methodology for UK law enforcement. "There are trojans that will be customer written to get past usual security, firewalls, malware scanning and anti-virus devices, but these sorts of things will only be aimed at serious criminals," he said.

Concerns remain, however, that despite export control regulations, western companies have been supplying high-tech surveillance software to countries where there is little or no legislation governing its use. In 2009, for instance, it was reported that American developer SS8 had allegedly supplied the United Arab Emirates with smartphone spyware, after about 100,000 users were sent a bogus software update by telecommunications company Etisalat. The technology, if left undetected, would have enabled authorities to bypass BlackBerry email encryption by mining communications from devices before they were sent.

Computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum is well aware what it is like to be a target of covert surveillance. He is a core member of theTor Project, which develops free internet anonymising software used by activists and government dissidents across the Middle Eastand north Africa to evade government monitoring. A former spokesman for WikiLeaks,Appelbaum has had his own personal emails scrutinised by the US government as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation into the whistleblower organisation. On 13 October he was in attendance at ISS World where he was planning to give a presentation about Tor – only to be ejected after one of the surveillance companies complained about his presence.

"There's something to be said about how these guys are not interested in regulating themselves and they're interested in keeping people in the dark about what they're doing," he says. "These people are not unlike mercenaries. The companies don't care about anything, except what the law says. In this case, if the law's ambiguous, they'll do whatever the law doesn't explicitly deny. It's all about money for them, and they don't care.

"This tactical exploitation stuff, where they're breaking into people's computers, bugging them … they make these arguments that it's good, that it saves lives," he said. "But we have examples that show this is not true. I was just in Tunisia a couple of days ago and I met people who told me that posting on Facebook resulted in death squads showing up in your house."

The growth in the use of these methods across the world, Appelbaum believes, means governments now have a vested interest in keeping computer users' security open to vulnerabilities. "Intelligence [agencies] want to keep computers weak as it makes it easier to surveil you," he says, adding that an increase in demand for such technology among law enforcement agencies is of equal concern.

"I don't actually think breaking into the computer of a terrorist is the world's worst idea – it might in fact be the only option – but these guys [surveillance technology companies] are trying to sell to any police officer," he says. "I mean, what business does the Baltimore local police have doing tactical exploitation into people's computers? They have no business doing that. They could just go to the house, serve a warrant, and take the computer. This is a kind of state terror that is simply unacceptable in my opinion."

Jerry Lucas, the president of the company behind ISS World, TeleStrategies, does not deny surveillance developers that attend his conference supply to repressive regimes. In fact, he is adamant that the manufacturers of surveillance technology, such as Gamma International, SS8 and Hacking Team, should be allowed to sell to whoever they want.

"The surveillance that we display in our conferences, and discuss how to use, is available to any country in the world," he said. "Do some countries use this technology to suppress political statements? Yes, I would say that's probably fair to say. But who are the vendors to say that the technology is not being used for good as well as for what you would consider not so good?"

Would he be comfortable in the knowledge that regimes in Zimbabwe and North Korea were purchasing this technology from western companies? "That's just not my job to determine who's a bad country and who's a good country. That's not our business, we're not politicians … we're a for-profit company. Our business is bringing governments together who want to buy this technology."

TeleStrategies organises a number of conferences around the world, including in Europe, the Middle East and Asia Pacific. Every country has a need for the latest covert IT intrusion technology, according to Lucas, because modern criminal investigations cannot be conducted without it. He claimed "99.9% good comes from the industry" and accused the media of not covering surveillance-related issues objectively.

"I mean, you can sell cars to Libyan rebels, and those cars and trucks are used as weapons. So should General Motors and Nissan wonder, 'how is this truck going to be used?' Why don't you go after the auto makers?" he said. "It's an open market. You cannot stop the flow of surveillance equipment."

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/governme ... -gallagher
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby American Dream » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:21 am

Twenty Examples of the Obama Administration Assault on Domestic Civil Liberties

December 03, 2011

By Bill Quigley


The Obama administration has affirmed, continued and expanded almost all of the draconian domestic civil liberties intrusions pioneered under the Bush administration. Here are twenty examples of serious assaults on the domestic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience that have occurred since the Obama administration has assumed power. Consider these and then decide if there is any fundamental difference between the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency in the area of domestic civil liberties.

Patriot Act

On May 27, 2011, President Obama, over widespread bipartisan objections, approved a Congressional four year extension of controversial parts of the Patriot Act that were set to expire. In March of 2010, Obama signed a similar extension of the Patriot Act for one year. These provisions allow the government, with permission from a special secret court, to seize records without the owner’s knowledge, conduct secret surveillance of suspicious people who have no known ties to terrorist groups and to obtain secret roving wiretaps on people.

Criminalization of Dissent and Militarization of the Police

Anyone who has gone to a peace or justice protest in recent years has seen it – local police have been turned into SWAT teams, and SWAT teams into heavily armored military. Officer Friendly or even Officer Unfriendly has given way to police uniformed like soldiers with SWAT shields, shin guards, heavy vests, military helmets, visors, and vastly increased firepower. Protest police sport ninja turtle-like outfits and are accompanied by helicopters, special tanks, and even sound blasting vehicles first used in Iraq. Wireless fingerprint scanners first used by troops in Iraq are now being utilized by local police departments to check motorists. Facial recognition software introduced in war zones is now being used in Arizona and other jurisdictions. Drones just like the ones used in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan are being used along the Mexican and Canadian borders. These activities continue to expand under the Obama administration.

Wiretaps

Wiretaps for oral, electronic or wire communications, approved by federal and state courts, are at an all-time high. Wiretaps in year 2010 were up 34% from 2009, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

Criminalization of Speech

Muslims in the US have been targeted by the Obama Department of Justice for inflammatory things they said or published on the internet. First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, most recently stated in a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenberg v Ohio, says the government cannot punish inflammatory speech, even if it advocates violence unless it is likely to incite or produce such action. A Pakistani resident legally living in the US was indicted by the DOJ in September 2011 for uploading a video on YouTube. The DOJ said the video was supportive of terrorists even though nothing on the video called for violence. In July 2011, the DOJ indicted a former Penn State student for going onto websites and suggesting targets and for providing a link to an explosives course already posted on the internet.

Domestic Government Spying on Muslim Communities

In activities that offend freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and several other laws, the NYPD and the CIA have partnered to conduct intelligence operations against Muslim communities in New York and elsewhere. The CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans, works with the police on “human mapping”, commonly known as racial and religious profiling to spy on the Muslim community. Under the Obama administration, the Associated Press reported in August 2011, informants known as “mosque crawlers,” monitor sermons, bookstores and cafes.

Top Secret America

In July 2010, the Washington Post released “Top Secret America,” a series of articles detailing the results of a two year investigation into the rapidly expanding world of homeland security, intelligence and counter-terrorism. It found 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence at about 10,000 locations across the US. Every single day, the National Security Agency intercepts and stores more than 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other types of communications. The FBI has a secret database named Guardian that contains reports of suspicious activities filed from federal, state and local law enforcement. According to the Washington Post Guardian contained 161,948 files as of December 2009. From that database there have been 103 full investigations and at least five arrests the FBI reported. The Obama administration has done nothing to cut back on the secrecy.

Other Domestic Spying

There are at least 72 fusion centers across the US which collect local domestic police information and merge it into multi-jurisdictional intelligence centers, according to a recent report by the ACLU. These centers share information from federal, state and local law enforcement and some private companies to secretly spy on Americans. These all continue to grow and flourish under the Obama administration.

Abusive FBI Intelligence Operations

The Electronic Frontier Foundation documented thousands of violations of the law by FBI intelligence operations from 2001 to 2008 and estimate that there are over 4000 such violations each year. President Obama issued an executive order to strengthen the Intelligence Oversight Board, an agency which is supposed to make sure the FBI, the CIA and other spy agencies are following the law. No other changes have been noticed.

Wikileaks

The publication of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks and then by main stream news outlets sparked condemnation by Obama administration officials who said the publication of accurate government documents was nothing less than an attack on the United States. The Attorney General announced a criminal investigation and promised “this is not saber rattling.” Government officials warned State Department employees not to download the publicly available documents. A State Department official and Columbia officials warned students that discussing Wikileaks or linking documents to social networking sites could jeopardize their chances of getting a government job, a position that lasted several days until reversed by other Columbia officials. At the time this was written, the Obama administration continued to try to find ways to prosecute the publishers of Wikileaks.

Censorship of Books by the CIA

In 2011, the CIA demanded extensive cuts from a memoir by former FBI agent Ali H. Soufan, in part because it made the agency look bad. Soufan’s book detailed the use of torture methods on captured prisoners and mistakes that led to 9-11. Similarly, a 2011 book on interrogation methods by former CIA agent Glenn Carle was subjected to extensive black outs. The CIA under the Obama administration continues its push for censorship.

Blocking Publication of Photos of U.S. Soldiers Abusing Prisoners

In May 2009, President Obama reversed his position of three weeks earlier and refused to release photos of US soldiers abusing prisoners. In April 2009, the US Department of Defense told a federal court that it would release the photos. The photos were part of nearly 200 criminal investigations into abuses by soldiers.

Technological Spying

The Bay Area Transit System, in August 2011, hearing of rumors to protest against fatal shootings by their police, shut down cell service in four stations. Western companies sell email surveillance software to repressive regimes in China, Libya and Syria to use against protestors and human rights activists. Surveillance cameras monitor residents in high crime areas, street corners and other governmental buildings. Police department computers ask for and receive daily lists from utility companies with addresses and names of every home address in their area. Computers in police cars scan every license plate of every car they drive by. The Obama administration has made no serious effort to cut back these new technologies of spying on citizens.

Use of “State Secrets” to Shield Government and Others from review

When the Bush government was caught hiring private planes from a Boeing subsidiary to transport people for torture to other countries, the Bush administration successfully asked the federal trial court to dismiss a case by detainees tortured because having a trial would disclose “state secrets” and threaten national security. When President Obama was elected, the state secrets defense was reaffirmed in arguments before a federal appeals court. It continues to be a mainstay of the Obama administration effort to cloak their actions and the actions of the Bush administration in secrecy.

In another case, it became clear in 2005 that the Bush FBI was avoiding the Fourth Amendment requirement to seek judicial warrants to get telephone and internet records by going directly to the phone companies and asking for the records. The government and the companies, among other methods of surveillance, set up secret rooms where phone and internet traffic could be monitored. In 2008, the government granted the companies amnesty for violating the privacy rights of their customers. Customers sued anyway. But the Obama administration successfully argued to the district court, among other defenses, that disclosure would expose state secrets and should be dismissed. The case is now on appeal.

Material Support

The Obama administration successfully asked the US Supreme Court not to apply the First Amendment and to allow the government to criminalize humanitarian aid and legal activities of people providing advice or support to foreign organizations which are listed on the government list as terrorist organizations. The material support law can now be read to penalize people who provide humanitarian aid or human rights advocacy. The Obama administration Solicitor General argued to the court “when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.” The Court agreed with the Obama argument that national security trumps free speech in these circumstances.

Chicago Anti-war Grand Jury Investigation

In September 2010, FBI agents raided the homes of seven peace activists in Chicago, Minneapolis and Grand Rapids seizing computers, cell phones, passports, and records. More than 20 anti-war activists were issued federal grand jury subpoenas and more were questioned across the country. Some of those targeted were members of local labor unions, others members of organizations like the Arab American Action Network, the Columbia Action Network, the Twin Cities Anti-War Campaign and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Many were active internationally and visited resistance groups in Columbia and Palestine. Subpoenas directed people to bring anything related to trips to Columbia, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Israel or the Middle East. In 2011, the home of a Los Angeles activist was raided and he was questioned about his connections with the September 2010 activists. All of these investigations are directed by the Obama administration.

Punishing Whistleblowers

The Obama administration has prosecuted five whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, more than all the other administrations in history put together. They charged a National Security Agency advisor with ten felonies under the Espionage Act for telling the press that government eavesdroppers were wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on misguided and failed projects. After their case collapsed, the government, which was chastised by the federal judge as engaging in unconscionable conduct allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor and walk. The administration has also prosecuted former members of the CIA, the State Department, and the FBI. They even tried to subpoena a journalist and one of the lawyers for the whistleblowers.

Bradley Manning

Army private Bradley Manning is accused of leaking thousands of government documents to Wikileaks. These documents expose untold numbers of lies by US government officials, wrongful killings of civilians, policies to ignore torture in Iraq, information about who is held at Guantanamo, cover ups of drone strikes and abuse of children and much more damaging information about US malfeasance. Though Daniel Ellsberg and other whistleblowers say Bradley is an American hero, the US government has jailed him and is threatening him with charges of espionage which may be punished by the death penalty. For months Manning was held in solitary confinement and forced by guards to sleep naked. When asked about how Manning was being held, President Obama personally defended the conditions of his confinement saying he had been assured they were appropriate and meeting our basic standards.

Solitary Confinement

At least 20,000 people are in solitary confinement in US jails and prisons, some estimate several times that many. Despite the fact that federal, state and local prisons and jails do not report actual numbers, academic research estimates tens of thousands are kept in cells for 23 to 24 hours a day in supermax units and prisons, in lockdown, in security housing units, in “the hole”, and in special management units or administrative segregation. Human Rights Watch reports that one-third to one-half of the prisoners in solitary are likely mentally ill. In May 2006, the UN Committee on Torture concluded that the United States should “review the regimen imposed on detainees in supermax prisons, in particular, the practice of prolonged isolation.” The Obama administration has taken no steps to cut back on the use of solitary confinement in federal, state or local jails and prisons.

Special Administrative Measures

Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) are extra harsh conditions of confinement imposed on prisoners (including pre-trial detainees) by the Attorney General. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons imposes restrictions such segregation and isolation from all other prisoners, and limitation or denial of contact with the outside world such as: no visitors except attorneys, no contact with news media, no use of phone, no correspondence, no contact with family, no communication with guards, 24 hour video surveillance and monitoring. The DOJ admitted in 2009 that several dozen prisoners, including several pre-trial detainees, mostly Muslims, were kept incommunicado under SAMS. If anything, the use of SAMS has increased under the Obama administration.

These twenty concrete examples document a sustained assault on domestic civil liberties in the United States under the Obama administration. Rhetoric aside, how different has Obama been from Bush in this area?



Bill is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He also serves as Associate Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.


From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/twenty-e ... ll-quigley
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby American Dream » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:21 pm

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15665

State of Surveillance

by Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch/The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
December 1st, 2011


A German tech company is selling the ability to track "political opponents." An Italian company promises to remotely seize control of smartphones and photograph their owners. A U.S. company allows security services to "see what they [the targets]see." A South African company can store recordings of billions of phone calls, forever.

Welcome to the new covert world of surveillance contractors. Shining a light on this $5 billion (and growing) industry, Wikileaks today released "Spy Files": hundreds of secret sales brochures. The companies involved hand this promotional material only to key contacts -- often government agencies and police forces -- at trade shows that are closed to the public and the press.

“The tools revealed in these brochures demonstrate the previously unfathomable power of mass surveillance. It makes phone-hacking look like a schoolboy's game,” says Eric King of Privacy International. “Some of the most tyrannical regimes in the world are buying the power to monitor the behavior and communications of every single citizen -- and the technology is so effective that they are able to accomplish this with minimal manpower.”

An analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Privacy International of the brochures shows that at least 160 companies in 25 countries from Brazil to Switzerland are selling an array of technologies so sophisticated that they often seem to have come of a Hollywood studio.

But what the “Spy Files” reveal is real. The documents add weight to campaigners’ claim that these proliferating technology companies constitute a new, unregulated arms industry. "What we are seeing is the militarization of cyber-space. It's like having a tank in your front garden," says Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks.

The industry brochures state that they only sell “lawful interception” gear to official authorities: the police, the military and intelligence agencies.

But the sales brochures also boast of vast powers of covert observation using off-the-shelf gear that, activists worry, repressive security forces and corrupt officials can easily abuse.

"Why sample, when you can monitor all network traffic inexpensively?” trumpets a brochure from Endace, a New Zealand-based company. “Total monitoring of all operators to plug any intelligence leakage is critical for government agencies,” offers Indian-based ClearTrail.

China Top Communications, in Beijing, claims to be able to crack passwords of more than 30 email service providers, including Gmail, “in real time by a PASSIVE WAY [sic].” In the obfuscating language of the surveillance industry, “passive” is a euphemism for intercepting data without the targets’ knowledge.

The surveillance technology being offered for sale falls into four broad categories: tracking real-time locations of mobile phones and vehicles, hacking into electronic devices such as computers and phones to monitor every keystroke, recording and storing data traffic of an entire telecommunications network, and analyzing vast streams of data to track individual users.

In recent months, news has filtered out on how repressive governments are using these technologies to crack down on dissent. In October, for example, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Privacy International revealed that Syria, despite US export ban, is deploying web filtering equipment from California-based Blue Coat Systems to censor internet traffic. The company later explained the equipment had been diverted from an importer based in the United Arab Emirates.

The Italian company, Area SPA, also aided Syrian government’s repressive policies by installing a surveillance system, an investigation by Bloomberg recently uncovered. The news emerged as Syria was convulsed by mass protests that have left 3,500 dead at the hands of state security forces. Area's lawyers announced last Monday that the company had cancelled the project.

The speed at which this technology is advancing, and the way it is being used raise serious concerns. As technological capacity expands, "the dominant use of surveillance technologies is increasingly the wholesale spying on entire populations, rather than targeted monitoring of a few individuals," says Dr. Steven Murdoch, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University. "As communication becomes ever more critical to civil society, the abuse of surveillance is a rapidly increasing, and already substantial, threat to democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights in general."

Phone Tracking

One popular mobile-phone tracking technology is an IMSI catcher. This highly portable device poses as a mini mobile phone tower that can capture all the mobile phones signals in an area, effectively identifying all phone users in a particular place. Today, dozens of companies sell IMSI catchers. Some can fit into a briefcase; others are as small as a mobile phone.

Once up, the IMSI catcher tricks phones into wirelessly sending it data. By setting up several IMSI catchers and measuring the speed of the responses or 'pings' from a phone, the surveiller can follow on a computer screen the location and movement of anyone with turned-on mobile, anywhere within the parameters of the IMSI catchers -- even when they are not using their phones.

Companies that offer this equipment include Ability in Israel, Rohde & Schwarz in Germany, and Harris Corporation in the US.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which uses these devices to track suspects, claims it can do so without a court order. Many police forces around the world have also bought, or are considering buying, IMSI catchers.

Other companies offer passive surveillance devices that can be installed at phone exchanges, or even stand-alone equipment that can covertly vacuum up all the mobile phone signals in an area.

Specialized gadgets attached to a vehicle can track where it goes. While logistics and trucking companies have long used these devices to ensure on-time delivery of goods, UK-based Cobham sells Orion Guardian covert devices that can be secretly attached to the bottom of a car. Hidden Technology, another British company, sells similar devices.

“For years, there has been a gentleman's agreement on how these technologies are used,” says Chris Soghoian, a Washington DC-based fellow at the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research. “The US and the UK know that the Chinese and the Russians are using IMSI catchers -- but so are we. Each government believes that the benefit of being able to use it abroad outweighs the risk to their own citizens.

"But today, anyone -- a stalker or a private company- - can show up in Chelsea or Tottenham Court Road [London] and listen to everyone else,” adds Soghoian. “It is time to switch to more encrypted systems that keep everyone safe.”

Hacking

Several companies offer “Trojan” software and phone “malware” that allow the user to take control of a target's computer or phone.

The software can be installed from a USB drive, or delivered remotely by disguising itself as an email attachment or software update. Once in place, a surveiller can riffle through a target's files, log every keystroke, and even remotely turn on phone and computer microphones and cameras to spy on the target in real-time.

Hacking Team of Italy, Vupen Security in France, Gamma Group in the UK, and SS8 in the US, each offer such products, which they variously claim can hack the Apple iPhone, BlackBerry, Skype, and the Microsoft operating system.

Hacking Team is probably the most public of these companies, advertising on a public website that its “Remote Control System” can “monitor a hundred thousand targets.”

SS8 of Milpitas, California, claims that its Intellego product allows security forces to “see what they [the targets] see, in real time” including a “draft-only emails, attached files, pictures and videos.”

These technologies often rely on software vulnerabilities. While major software manufacturers claim to fix these flaws as soon as they are discovered, at least one company, Vupen, boasts dedicated researchers in its “Offensive Solutions” division who are constantly looking to exploit new security holes in popular software.

Hacking systems have recently surfaced in countries with repressive governments. In March when Egyptian democracy activists raided the intelligence headquarters of Hosni Mubarak's regime, they uncovered contract documents for a hacking program called FinFisher that is marketed by Gamma Group, a UK company. Governments can use this product to “identify an individual's location, their associates and members of a group, such as political opponents,” according to a brochure from Elaman, a German company with close links to Gamma which also sells FinFisher.

Massive Surveillance

While hacking software targets individuals, other technologies on the market can monitor and censor an entire data or telecommunications network. Massive surveillance works by capturing everyone's activities -- whether they are a suspect or not -- and then sifting it for valuable information. For example, US companies Blue Coat Systems and Cisco Systems offer corporate and government buyers technology that can filter web access based on commercial, political, religious or cultural criteria.

Businesses routinely these web-filtering products to catch employees surfing the web when they should be working. But the same technologies can also be used to block social networking websites such as Facebook, multimedia services including Flickr and YouTube, and internet phone services like Skype in countries ranging from China to the United Arab Emirates.

An extension of this technology, “deep packet inspection,” allows the user to scan web and email traffic, and to read through huge volumes of web searches and emails searching for keywords:

--Companies including ipoque in Germany and Qosmos in France offer the ability to peer inside email traffic and block specific users such as dissidents.

--Datakom, a German company, sells a product called Poseidon that can “'search and reconstruct... web, mail, instant messaging etc.” The company also claims Poseidon “collects, records and analyses VoIP calls,” such as Skype conversations.

--Datakom, which offers “monitoring of a complete country,” says it has sold two “large IP monitoring'” systems to unnamed buyers in the Middle East and North Africa region.

--South African VASTech sells Zebra, a product that gives governments the ability to compress and store billions of hours of phone calls and petabytes (a billion megabytes) of information for future analysis. In August, the Wall Street Journal reported that VASTech devices had been installed at the country's international phone exchanges.

Data Analysis


Needless to say, the sheer volume of data form internet traffic, the locations of individuals and their phone conversations could overwhelm. But a parallel analytical technology is providing intelligence agencies, the military, and the police with sophisticated tools that compile and sift information for use in criminal investigations and even in the battlefield.

For example, Speech Technology Center, based in Russia, offers a product called STC Grid ID that it claims provides “reliable identification [of a] nation-wide database of speakers.”

Czech Republic-based Phonexia, with the help of the Czech military, claims to have developed a similar voice-recognition program. Italian-based Loquendo uses 'voice-prints' -- the unique signature of the human voice -- to identify targets and flag up their calls in real-time. And yet another company, Massachusetts-based Intelligent Integration Systems (IISi), sells Geospatial Toolkit, a “location-based analytics' program.”

But legal documents filed in the US show that these technologies do not always work as promised.

Another Massachusetts company, Netezza, allegedly bought a copy of Geospatial Toolkit, reverse-engineered the code, and then sold a hacked version to the CIA for use in remotely piloted drone aircraft. IISi, which says that the software could be wrong by a distance of up to 40 feet, sued Netezza to prevent the use of this software. Company founder Rich Zimmerman stated in court that his “reaction was one of stunned amazement that they (CIA) want to kill people with my software that doesn't work.”

The two companies settled out of court in November 2010. The CIA has refused to comment.

Digital Past, Dystopian Future

Wikileaks warns that the surveillance contractors revealed in the Spy Files are selling the ability to irrevocably alter our lives with their ability to delve into the digital past.

"We all aware of traditional spy stories of intelligence agencies like MI5 bugging the phone of one or two people," says Julian Assange. “In the last ten years, something else has happened. We now see mass surveillance, where computer systems of an entire country are infected by surveillance programs, where the entire phone calls of a nation can be and are recorded by a company.”

"Previously we had all thought, why would the government be interested in me, my brother? My business is not interesting, I am not a criminal,” Assange told the Bureau earlier this week. “Now these companies sell to state intelligence agencies the ability to spy on the entire population at once and keep that information permanently. In five or six years’ time, if your brother or someone becomes of interest to that company or the government, they can go back in time and look to see what you said or what you emailed."
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:28 pm


http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/23/ ... boot/print

Weekend Edition December 23-25, 2011
CounterPunch Diary

Thud of the Jackboot

by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Too bad Kim Jong-il kicked the bucket last weekend. If the divine hand that laid low the North Korean leader had held off for a week or so, Kim would have been sustained by the news that President Obama is signing into law a bill that puts the United States not immeasurably far from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in contempt of constitutional protections for its citizens, or constitutional restraints upon criminal behavior sanctioned by the state.

At least the DPRK doesn’t trumpet its status as the last best sanctuary of liberty. American politicians, starting with the president, do little else.

A couple of months ago came a mile marker in America’s steady slide downhill towards the status of a Banana Republic, with Obama’s assertion that he has the right as president to order secretly the assassination, without trial, of a US citizen he deems to be working with terrorists. This followed his betrayal in 2009 of his pledge to end the indefinite imprisonment without charges or trial of prisoners in Guantanamo.

Now, after months of declaring that he would veto such legislation, Obama has now crumbled and will soon sign a monstrosity called the Levin/McCain detention bill, named for its two senatorial sponsors, Carl Levin and John McCain. It’s snugged into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

The detention bill mandates – don’t glide too easily past that word - that all accused terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; this includes US citizens within the borders of the United States. Obama supporters have made strenuous efforts to suggest that US citizens are excluded from the bill’s provisions. Not so. “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” says Senator Lindsay Graham, a big backer of the bill. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’” The bill’s co-sponsor, Democratic senator, cosponsor of the bill, Carl Levin says it was the White House itself that demanded that the infamous Section 1031 apply to American citizens.

Anyone familiar with this sort of “emergency” legislation knows that those drafting the statutes like to cast as wide a net as possible. In this instance the detention bill authorizes use of military force against anyone who “substantially supports” al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces”. Of course “associated forces” can mean anything. The bill’s language mentions “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” This is exactly the sort of language that can be bent at will by any prosecutor. Protest too vigorously the assassination of US citizen Anwar al Awlaki by American forces in Yemen in October and one day it’s not fanciful to expect the thud of the military jackboot on your front step, or on that of any anti-war organizer, or any journalist whom some zealous military intelligence officer deems to be giving objective support to the forces of Evil and Darkness.

Since 1878 here in the US, the Posse Comitatus Act has limited the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. The detention bill renders the Posse Comitatus Act a dead letter.

Governments, particularly those engaged in a Great War on Terror, like to make long lists of troublesome people to be sent to internment camps or dungeons in case of national emergency. Back in Reagan’s time, in the 1980s, Lt Col Oliver North, working out of the White House, was caught preparing just such a list. Reagan speedily distanced himself from North. Obama, the former lecturer on the US constitution, is brazenly signing this authorization for military internment camps.

There’s been quite a commotion over the detention bill. Civil liberties groups such as the ACLU have raised a stink. The New York Times has denounced it editorially as “a complete political cave-in”. Mindful that the votes of liberals can be useful, even vital in presidential elections, pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn’t codify “indefinite detention.” But indeed it does. The bill explicitly authorizes “detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities.”

Will the bill hurt Obama? Probably not too much, if at all. Liberals are never very energetic in protecting constitutional rights. That’s more the province of libertarians and other wackos like Ron Paul actually prepared to draw lines in the sand in matters of principle.

Simultaneous to the looming shadow of indefinite internment by the military for naysayers, we have what appears to be immunity from prosecution for private military contractors retained by the US government, another extremely sinister development. Last Wednesday we ran here an important article on the matter from Laura Raymond of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The US military has been outsourcing war at a staggering rate. Even as the US military quits Iraq, thousands of private military contractors remain. Suppose they are accused of torture and other abuses including murder?

The Centre for Constitutional Rights is currently representing Iraqi civilians tortured in Abu Ghraib and other detention centers in Iraq, seeking to hold accountable two private contractors for their violations of international, federal and state law. In Raymond’s words, “By the military’s own internal investigations, private military contractors from the US-based corporations L-3 Services and CACI International were involved in the war crimes and acts of torture that took place, which included rape, being forced to watch family members and others be raped, severe beatings, being hung in stress positions, being pulled across the floor by genitals, mock executions, and other incidents, many of which were documented by photographs. The cases – Al Shimari v. CACI and Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla and L-3 – aim to secure a day in court for the plaintiffs, none of whom were ever charged with any crimes.”

But the corporations involved are now arguing in court that they should be exempt from any investigation into the allegations against them because, among other reasons, the US government’s interests in executing wars would be at stake if corporate contractors can be sued. And Raymond reports that “they are also invoking a new, sweeping defense. The new rule is termed ‘battlefield preemption’ and aims to eliminate any civil lawsuits against contractors that take place on any ‘battlefield’.”

You’ve guessed it. As with “associated forces”, an elastic concept discussed above, in the Great War on Terror the entire world is a “battlefield”. So unless the CCR’s suit prevails, a ruling of a Fourth Circuit federal court panel will stand and private military contractors could be immune from any type of civil liability, even for war crimes, as long as it takes place on a “battlefield”.

Suppose now we take the new powers of the military in domestic law enforcement, as defined in the detention act, and anticipate the inevitable, that the military delegates these powers to private military contractors. CACI International or a company owned by, say Goldman Sachs, could enjoy delegated powers to arrest any US citizen here within the borders of the USA, “who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces,” torture them to death and then claim “battlefield preemption”.

Don’t laugh.

On this issue of the “privatization” T.P.Wilkinson has a brilliant essay in our latest newsletter on “corporate nihilism and the roots of war”. Wilkinson starts with a critique of the familiar argument that a return to the draft would bring America’s wars home to the citizenry and the prospect of their children being sent off to possible mutilation by IEDs or death would spark resistance. Wilkinson suggests that this underestimates the saturation of our society by militarism. He goes on:

“But does the new warfare even need the large battalions of expendable troops? Just as financial “engineering” has replaced industrial production as a means of wealth extraction, remote-control weapons deployment and mercenary subcontracting have largely replaced the mass armies that characterized U.S. and U.K. warfare in Korea and Vietnam. In this sense, warfare has become even more “corporate.” The fiction that wars of invasion and conquest are the result of state action is obsolete. The entire “national security” process has been fully depoliticized; in other words, the state is more clearly than ever a mere conduit for policies and practices whose origin and essential characteristics are those of boardroom strategic planning and marketing. The difference between global business and global warfare has, in fact, dissolved.

“This presents a serious cognitive problem for anyone trying to find the root of this poisonous plant in order to tear it from the ground that nurtures it. The military sustained by the draft was mimetic of the steel mill in Gary, Indiana, or the cotton plantation in the south? Today’s military operates like the headquarters of Microsoft or USX – the actual physical violence has been outsourced.”


We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:18 pm

You must follow following link to Electronic Frontier Foundation to give them hits and because every single one of these points links to a story, one of which I have added below. We've covered a few of them on this board.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2 ... mped-shark

December 23, 2011 | By Trevor Timm
2011 in Review: The Year Secrecy Jumped the Shark

As the year draws to a close, EFF is looking back at the major trends influencing digital rights in 2011 and discussing where we are in the fight for a free expression, innovation, fair use, and privacy.

The government has been using its secrecy system in absurd ways for decades, but 2011 was particularly egregious. Here are a few examples:

Government report concludes the government classified 77 million documents in 2010, a 40% increase on the year before. The number of people with security clearances exceeded 4.2. million, more people than the city of Los Angeles.

Government tells Air Force families, including their kids, it’s illegal to read WikiLeaks. The month before, the Air Force barred its service members fighting abroad from reading the New York Times—the country’s Paper of Record.

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainees were barred from reading the WikiLeaks Guantanamo files, despite their contents being plastered on the front page of the New York Times.
President Obama refuses to say the words “drone” or “C.I.A” despite the C.I.A. drone program being on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers every day.

CIA refuses to release even a single passage from its center studying global warming, claiming it would damage national security. As Secrecy News' Steven Aftergood said, “That’s a familiar song, and it became tiresome long ago.”

The CIA demands former FBI agent Ali Soufan censor his book criticizing the CIA’s post 9/11 interrogation tactics of terrorism suspects. Much of the material, according to the New York Times, “has previously been disclosed in open Congressional hearings, the report of the national commission on 9/11 and even the 2007 memoir of George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director.”

Department of Homeland Security has become so bloated with secrecy that even the “office's budget, including how many employees and contractors it has, is classified,” according to the Center for Investigative reporting. Yet their intelligence reports “produce almost nothing you can’t find on Google,” said a former undersecretary.

Headline from the Wall Street Journal in September: “Anonymous US officials push open government.”

NSA declassified a 200 year old report which they said demonstrated its “commitment to meeting the requirements” of President Obama’s transparency agenda. Unfortunately, the document “had not met the government's own standards for classification in the first place,” according to J. William Leonard, former classification czar.

Government finally declassifies the Pentagon Papers 40 years after they appeared on the front page of the New York Times and were published by the House’s Armed Services Committee.

Secrecy expert Steve Aftergood concludes after two years “An Obama Administration initiative to curb overclassification of national security information… has produced no known results to date.”

President Obama accepts a transparency award…behind closed doors.

Government attorneys insist in court they can censor a book which was already published and freely available online. [Referring to Anthony Schaeffer's Operation Dark Heart, not Ali Soufan's book, see https://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/0 ... ensor.html for a comparison of the unredacted and redacted versions.]

Department of Justice refuses to release its interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act, a public law.
U.S. refuses to release its legal justification for killing an American citizen abroad without a trial, despite announcing the killing in a press conference.

U.S. won’t declassify legal opinion on 2001’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
National Archive announced it was working on declassifying “a backlog of nearly 400 million pages of material that should have been declassified a long time ago.”

The CIA refused to declassify Open Source Works, “which is the CIA’s in-house open source analysis component, is devoted to intelligence analysis of unclassified, open source information” according to Steve Aftergood.

Twenty-three year State Department veteran gets his security clearance revoked for linking to a WikiLeaks document on his blog.

The ACLU sued asking the State Department to declassify 23 cables out of the more than 250,000 released by WikiLeaks. After more than a year, the government withheld 12 in their entirety. You can see the other 11, heavily redacted, next to the unredacted copies on the ACLU website.

The ACLU said it sued the State Department in part to show the "absurdity of the US secrecy regime." Mission accomplished.






https://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/0 ... years.html

NSA Declassifies 200 Year Old Report
June 9th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood

The National Security Agency announced yesterday that it has declassified a report that is over two hundred years old.

The newly declassified report, entitled “Cryptology: Instruction Book on the Art of Secret Writing,” dates from 1809. It is part of a collection of 50,000 pages of historic records that have just been declassified by NSA and transferred to the National Archives.

The NSA said the new release demonstrated its “commitment to meeting the requirements” of President Obama’s January 2009 Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government.

The bulk of the newly released documents are from World War II and the early post-War era. (NSA itself was established in 1952.) A list of titles released to the National Archives is here (pdf).

Last April, the Central Intelligence Agency declassified several documents on the use of “invisible ink” that dated from the World War I era. But those were not even a century old.

Meanwhile, in more recent developments, the case of former NSA official Thomas A. Drake, who is charged with unlawful retention of classified information, is said to be “changing hour by hour.”

On Sunday, the government told the court (pdf) it had decided to withdraw several of its proposed exhibits rather than declassify them for trial, Politico reported (“Feds pare back NSA leak case to shield technology” by Josh Gerstein, June 6).

As a consequence, prosecutors are now seeking a plea bargain, the Washington Post reported, but Drake has twice refused to accept their offer (“Ex-NSA manager has reportedly twice rejected plea bargains in Espionage Act case” by Ellen Nakashima, June 9).

The trial of Thomas Drake is currently still scheduled to begin in Baltimore on Monday, June 13.



Thomas Drake case files.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/drake/index.html

New Yorker story on Drake case.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... fact_mayer

But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”

...

One afternoon in January, Drake met with me, giving his first public interview about this case. He is tall, with thinning sandy hair framing a domed forehead, and he has the erect bearing of a member of the Air Force, where he served before joining the N.S.A., in 2001. Obsessive, dramatic, and emotional, he has an unwavering belief in his own rectitude. Sitting at a Formica table at the Tastee Diner, in Bethesda, Drake—who is a registered Republican—groaned and thrust his head into his hands. “I actually had hopes for Obama,” he said. He had not only expected the President to roll back the prosecutions launched by the Bush Administration; he had thought that Bush Administration officials would be investigated for overstepping the law in the “war on terror.”

“But power is incredibly destructive,” Drake said. “It’s a weird, pathological thing. I also think the intelligence community coöpted Obama, because he’s rather naïve about national security. He’s accepted the fear and secrecy. We’re in a scary space in this country.”

The Justice Department’s indictment narrows the frame around Drake’s actions, focussing almost exclusively on his handling of what it claims are five classified documents. But Drake sees his story as a larger tale of political reprisal, one that he fears the government will never allow him to air fully in court. “I’m a target,” he said. “I’ve got a bull’s-eye on my back.” He continued, “I did not tell secrets. I am facing prison for having raised an alarm, period. I went to a reporter with a few key things: fraud, waste, and abuse, and the fact that there were legal alternatives to the Bush Administration’s ‘dark side’ ”—in particular, warrantless domestic spying by the N.S.A.

The indictment portrays him not as a hero but as a treacherous man who violated “the government trust.” Drake said of the prosecutors, “They can say what they want. But the F.B.I. can find something on anyone.”

Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, says of the Drake case, “The government wants this to be about unlawfully retained information. The defense, meanwhile, is painting a picture of a public-interested whistle-blower who struggled to bring attention to what he saw as multibillion-dollar mismanagement.” Because Drake is not a spy, Aftergood says, the case will “test whether intelligence officers can be convicted of violating the Espionage Act even if their intent is pure.” He believes that the trial may also test whether the nation’s expanding secret intelligence bureaucracy is beyond meaningful accountability. “It’s a much larger debate than whether a piece of paper was at a certain place at a certain time,” he says.

SNIP

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:52 pm



http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/26/ ... ency/print

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

October 26, 2011

"One Hell of a Killing Machine"
Is the CIA Still an Intelligence Agency?


by SHAUKAT QADIR


Early September 2011, a former intelligence official commented to the Washington Post that, “The CIA has become one hell of a killing machine”. He then attempted to retract, but his words were on record. But is that really what it should be: a hell of a killing machine?

When it took birth in 1947, under the National Security Act, it was restricted to espionage and was specifically told that it had, “no police or law enforcement functions at home or abroad”. Reportedly, a year later, its mandate was extended to include, “sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures…subversion [and] assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation movements, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world”. But its primary function was that of an intelligence agency.

How successfully has the CIA, in recent times, been performing its primary function? Judging by the litany of complaints from ISAF Staff Officers; the CIA has not been very successful. “We are acting blind”; “I wish our intelligence was accurate at least one occasion out of ten”; “How can we possibly perform blinded” are frequent accusations by ISAF/NATO staff.

As a student of the “Higher Direction of War” at the National Defense University, where I taught for three years, while continuing to remain a student of the subject, the first thing that we realized was the necessity of a lucidly stated ‘political aim for the war’. Let us assume here that the political aim for the US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan was not motivated by the tempting resources of Central Asia and were, as stated, “the destruction, dismantling, and disabling of the organization called Al-Quaeda and the despotic Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which has provided sanctuary and support to Al-Quaida”.

Assuming that to be the political aim, the next requirement; before translating the political aim into a tangible ‘Military Aim’; for which, the planning process can only start with a realistic assessment of the “Prevailing Environment”. The prevailing environment is all-pervasive; it includes the domestic environment, the environment of the enemy country(s), neighboring countries, the international community; in short, every conceivable aspect. This is where intelligence input begins to become invaluable for the military planners.

So, let’s just go back in time and try to list the intelligence input that could have been provided to the US military for a realistic assessment of the prevalent environment:
Within the US there is support for this war.
The UN has sanctioned the invasion.
Despite some reservations, NATO has agreed to invoke Article 5 declaring the 9/11 attacks “an act of war by a foreign state against a NATO member state”. NATO allies will contribute forces for this operation and, while the bulk of invading troops will be American, they will be operating under the NATO umbrella.
Among neighboring countries: China will remain a ‘silent observer’; India will support the war effort; Iran opposes the invasion by US but is so strongly opposed to Taliban that it will accept it, what is more, it is in no position to pose any problems to us. Neighboring Central Asian countries are of no significance and, will probably agree to base US troops on their soil.
Pakistan: this country is of critical importance for the successful conduct of war in Afghanistan. Not only does it provide the shortest logistic route for provisions to be transported to Afghanistan, it was the one neighbor that has very close ties with Taliban. The Pakistan government has agreed to provide us all possible assistance; however, since this decision has, in all likelihood been made under duress, it must be viewed cautiously. Consequently, it is more than likely that there will be elements in the Pakistan military and the ISI who are opposed to this decision and might covertly suborn the government’s overt support for our operations. However, the Pakistani Pashtun tribes bordering Afghanistan are strongly opposed to the Taliban and, if contacted, could be of invaluable assistance.
Afghanistan: Afghans, across the ethnic divide, including and especially the Afghan Pashtun are fed up with the despotic Taliban and they await American invading forces with hope and expectations of a better future. While we have allied ourselves with the Northern Alliance, it would be worth bearing in mind that this alliance consists predominantly of Afghans who are ethnically Tajik, Uzbek, and Turkmen. On the other hand, the Afghan population is predominantly Pashtun. Since there has been no census in Afghanistan for decades past, we have no figures to quote, however, estimates of the Afghan Pashtun population range from 48per cent to 60 per cent ; while the combined population of Tajik/Uzbek/ Turkmen is estimated in the range of 25 per cent . Undisputedly, Taliban are exclusively Pashtun; however, they constitute a very small portion of the Afghan Pashtun population, while the majority of the Pashtun is also alienated with the Taliban. Afghans, across the ethnic divide are proud of their origins and, even after the breakup of the erstwhile USSR, there has been no movement among the Tajik/Uzbek/Turkmen population to rejoin the newly created independent countries of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan, despite Soviet encouragement. However, internecine ethnic rivalry and enmity frequently asserts itself. It would be advisable, therefore, to employ the Northern Alliance with caution and keep them on a tight leash so as not to alienate the majority Pashtun population of Afghanistan. Finally, the end-game product should seek to establish an Afghan regime which is pro-US but is acceptable to the Afghan population. Any effort to emplace a “puppet” regime is likely to backfire against the fierce independent spirit of the Afghan.


Now put yourself in the place of the military commander planning the operation for invasion of Afghanistan with this wealth of information available to him. I have not referred to other intelligence information deliberately, like terrain, composition and capabilities of the Taliban, since most of these would be available to him as a matter of course.

But imagine how differently the military operation could have been planned, if this input was available. Had I been in command, my next step would have been to identify what is called in military parlance, the “Center of Gravity” of the enemy; and almost immediately, I would have identified this as the leadership—of both: Al-Quaida and Taliban.

Immediately I would have sought information of the entire Al-Quaida and Taliban hierarchy and their locations. I would also have tasked my military intelligence, MI, operatives to help identify Afghan Pashtun who could be allied with, including disillusioned Taliban (in all likelihood, the erstwhile “exclusive” CIA asset, Jalaluddin Haqqani would have been named as a possibility).

I would have further tasked US MI operatives to initiate contacts with these people with the help of Pakistani intelligence, and contacted Pakistan’s ruler and military chief for assisting my MI personnel, through Pakistan’s MI, not the ISI, which was more likely to still have pro-Taliban leanings.

I would have spoken with my Commander in Chief, C-in-C, President George W. Bush, requesting a brief delay in launching the operation so as to have all this information available so that the invasion commences with surgical strikes to eliminate the enemy’s Center of Gravity!

Not only would the war have been over almost before it began, there would have been no needless slaughter of Pashtuns by the Northern Alliance that began the alienation of Afghans. Instead of the mistrust of all Afghan Pashtun; with the help of Pashtun “assets” acquired before launching the operation, I would have known whom to trust!

Imagine the difference between what could have been and what is!

Even Aryn Baker, writing for The Times in ‘The unwinnable war’ notes that. The resulting lawlessness has Afghans across a broad spectrum of society waxing nostalgic for the era when a single Talib in the town square would dispense justice with a quote from the Koran and a flick of his lash. “Even as a liberal, I can say that the Taliban time was better,” says Gholam Sadiq Niazi, a Soviet-trained technocrat in Afghanistan’s oil-and-gas industry. “It doesn’t matter if I have to go to mosque five times a day or grow a beard, as long as we have rule of law.” Niazi is no radical. He speaks from a comfortable, middle-class apartment in central Kabul. Financially, he says, he is better off now than in 2001, but what’s the point, he asks, if someone could murder him tomorrow for his property and get out of jail with a bribe or political connections? The sister of an 11-year-old rape victim whose politically connected attacker was never prosecuted once shouted at me with rage and frustration, “If the Taliban were still here, that rapist would have already been executed by now.”

And she is married to an Afghan American who returned home in hope but they have decided to leave, in despair. She adds, “We don’t want the foreigners to leave,” says women’s-rights activist Shoukria Haider. “We know they are the only thing standing between us and a return to civil war. But the longer [they] stay, the more violence we see, so we are caught. We want the violence to end too.”

And these are middle class citizens of Kabul; a city that was, at the best of times a little European island, in the real Afghanistan!

Just imagine that! Instead of the mutual hate that exists today: Americans hating and despising the Pashtun Afghan and they reciprocating with greater intensity; there would have been peace and the American forces would have been considered as respected allies and guests. Instead of which, in 2002, there began, what should more accurately have been referred to as another “Afghan Resistance Movement”, which it was against the Soviet invasion.

But that term was unacceptable to American forces of invasion, which referred to it as a “resurgence of Al-Quaida and Taliban”. It is ironic that those Afghan, including Pashtun, who hated the Taliban, should, with the passage of time, accept that title with pride; merely because the hate for Americans became so strong that, symbolically, Taliban are again viewed as the Muslim David(s) who challenged the might of the US Goliath!

While the US military grossly erred to create the current quagmire where it has landed itself in a no-win situation, should it be held solely responsible? Needless to say, if the Prevalent Environment had not been made available to him, the military commander should have insisted that it should be, but it should also have been a matter of routine for any worthwhile “Intelligence” Agency!

I am in no position to say what the US military commander would have done if he had this information available to him; I can only say with certainty that I would have refused to even plan, let alone launch, such a massive invasion, without this input. Military logic dictates that the US military could (and should) have planned it differently, but who can say? Perhaps he would have succumbed to “political compulsions” of his C-in-C to go in and be seen to be teaching everybody the lesson that, “You don’t mess with the US”. Perhaps the US military is too arrogant to plan operations that avoid loss of life of non-Americans? Who can say?

But even a novice would conclude, as do I, in the capacity of a consumer of intelligence, that the CIA failed to do its job as an intelligence agency. It might be “one hell of a killing machine” but it isn’t much of an intelligence agency!

One other factor needs to be vectored in; with the passage of time, CIA began outsourcing its operations by hiring private intelligence organizations like Xe (Blackwater) to do their dirty work. This was basically to retain “deniability” for the responsibility of operatives not on the CIA’s payroll. According to the American constitution, all CIA operations have to be sanctioned by the President and the CIA is answerable to Congressional/Senate Committees on intelligence.



Personally, I am convinced that, for some time past, the CIA has been the only real “rogue” intelligence agency in the world and does pretty much as it pleases, perhaps I am in error. However, outsourcing assignments to keep ex intelligence operatives well employed has the additional advantage of being able to deny responsibility when faced with awkward questions.

In concluding this analysis, it needs also to be borne in mind that US operations involving, what is now referred to as, “Fourth Generation Warfare”, or 4GW, has been in countries other than its own. To kill indiscriminately, therefore, is a natural and easy way out. We have seen this being demonstrated in each instance; from Vietnam to Iraq/Afghanistan; even though it might be self-defeating. In the case of the CIA, I see it as a natural outcome of the genetic error in their creation, which I referred to earlier.

Indeed, it is “one hell of a killing machine”, but the CIA has a lot to answer for its failure to deliver on, what should have remained its primary role: intelligence!


SHAUKAT QADIR is a retired brigadier and a former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. He can be reached at shaukatq@gmail.com
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:34 am


http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... he-public/

CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would “Confuse the Public.”

February 3, 2012

by Nate Jones

Image
Confused anti-Castro forces captured during the Bay of Pigs invasion. History is being held captive, as well.

Late last year, the Central Intelligence Agency explained to Judge Kessler of the US District Court in Washington DC that releasing the final volume of its three-decade-old history of the 1961 Bay of Pigs debacle would “confuse the public,” and should be withheld because it is a “predecisional” document. Wow. And I thought that I had heard them all.

On the 50th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the National Security Archive filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the release of a five-volume CIA history of the Bay of Pigs affair. In response to the lawsuit, the CIA negotiated to release three volumes of the history — the JFK Assassination Records Review Board had already released Volume III– with limited redaction, currently available on the National Security Archive’s website. At the time, the Director of the National Security Archive’s Cuba Documentation project, Peter Kornbluh, quipped that getting historic documents released from the CIA was “the bureaucratic equivalent of passing a kidney stone.” He was right. The Agency refused to release the final volume of this history, and the National Security Archive is not giving up on the fight.

Image
Keep it secret!

Volume five of the history, written by CIA historian Jack Pfeiffer –who sued the CIA himself to release the history in 1987, and lost– is described by the CIA as an “Internal Investigation document” that “is an uncritical defense of the CIA officers who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs operation… It offers a polemic of recriminations against CIA officers who later criticized the operation and against those U.S. officials who its author, Dr. Pfeiffer, contends were responsible for the failure of that operation.”

Image
David S. Robarge from roadrunnersinternationale.com

While Dr. Pfeiffer’s conclusions may or may not be true, FOIA case law appears to be pretty clear that Americans –who funded the operation and Dr. Pfeiffer’s histories– have the right to read this document and decide for themselves its merits. Despite the claims of the CIA’s chief historian David Robarge, the document should not remain in the CIA vaults because its conclusions “could cause scholars, journalists, and others interested in the subject at hand to reach an erroneous or distorted view of the Agency’s role.” Historians, after all, are well trained in treating documents –especially CIA hagiographies sources– skeptically.

To prevent the public from reading this volume, the CIA has argued that because it is a draft, it is a predecisional document and can be denied under exemption b(5) of the FOIA. Except –as Davis Sobel, counsel to the National Security Archive points out in our motions– the case law states otherwise.

President Obama instructed every agency (yes, even the CIA) to “usher in a new era of open government” and apply a “presumption of disclosure… to all decisions involving FOIA.” In response to this instruction, the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy –responsible for enforcing FOIA throughout the government– issued its own guidance to agencies (yes, even the CIA), explaining:

“A requested record might be a draft, or a memorandum containing a recommendation. Such records might be properly withheld under Exemption 5, but that should not be the end of the review. Rather, the content of that particular draft and that particular memorandum should be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the agency reasonably foresees that disclosing that particular document, given its age, content, and character, would harm an interest protected by Exemption 5. In making these determinations, agencies should keep in mind that mere “speculative or abstract fears” are not a sufficient basis for withholding. Instead, the agency must reasonably foresee that disclosure would cause harm…


For all records, the age of the document and the sensitivity of its content are universal factors that need to be evaluated in making a decision whether to make a discretionary release.” *

As the D.C. circuit recognized, “the Supreme Court has pointed out that the ‘expectation of the confidentiality of executive communications [] has always been limited and subject to erosion over time…”" (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (D.C. Cir. 2004.)

Even presidential records are barred from being withheld under “predecisional pretenses” after a period of time. The Presidential Records Act expressly states that exemption b(5) cannot be invoked to withhold records once the president has been out of office twelve years. If the presidential communication and work process is not threatened by this provision, there is no reason that the CIA’s history staff should be.

And there is a good chance that the history is not even a predecisonal document. The burden rests on the CIA to point to the specific decision that the history is “decides” to make it a predecisional document. And so far they have not. Their case rests on the speculative and abstract fear of “discrediting[ing] the work of the CIA History Staff in the eyes of the public or, worse, in the eyes of the Agency officers who rely upon CIA histories.”

Even if parts of the document truly are predecisional, only they can be withheld, the facts leading up to that decision –and histories are (hopefully) based primarily on facts– must be released.

To wit, draft histories have frequently been released under FOIA. In 2010, the Department of Justice released portions of pages of a candid history of Nazi-hunting (and Nazi-protecting) clearly marked DRAFT. (The unredacted version of the report was subsequently leaked– no prosecution by the Obama administration for that one… yet.) Moreover, the CIA previously disclosed Volume IV of this history in draft form (with a disclaimer)! This final volume to the CIA’s history remains one of the few –perhaps the only– government produced product chronicling the doomed invasion which remains classified; the public should be allowed to see its contents.

Image
"Trust us. You don't need to read it for yourselves."

The National Security Archive’s case is a strong one. I’m confident that Judge Kessler will require a de novo review of the document leading to its eventual release.

On the other hand, the CIA’s “confuse the public” defense appears is as weak as it is insulting.

—————————

*It’s certainly not clear why DOJ attorneys would agree to argue this case for the CIA, especially after Eric Holder sent a government-wide memo which promised to defend denials of FOIA requests only when disclosures would truly harm agency interests. What is more clear is the reason why many agencies have failed to implement the Obama FOIA reforms –the Department of Justice has done a poor job implementing them within its own divisions, and the DOJ Office of Information Policy has done a poorer job forcing other agencies to comply with the law.

As the Archive’s counsel David Sobel put it, “This case is yet the latest example of the Obama administration failing to deliver on its promise of ‘unprecedented’ transparency. It’s hard to understand how the release of this document, after all these years, could in any way harm legitimate government interests.”"

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby compared2what? » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:07 am

Byrne wrote:
LilyPatToo wrote:I think I recall threads here in the past that mentioned Prouty, but can't remember whether he ended up outed as a disinfo guy or not and today I have no time to search for 'em. But I do know he's been associated with The Church of Scient0l0gy, which is interesting given his retired military brass status and connection to conspiracy subjects. Is he considered a reliable source?

LilyPat


Lilypat,
Anyone who has dished the dirt on such CIA activities would be subject to smears of sorts....

I did do a RI search & found this thread & Hugh's worthy post here useful.


Prouty is condemned by his own words, not by smears.

Image

PDF of full-size version here.

Gerry Armstrong (aka "Scientology's Salman Rushdie") wasn't then and never has been a government informant.

That was just something the Co$, -- for which Prouty was working when he wrote those words for their little in-house paper -- sometimes alleged in print about him, when not suing him, running him off the road, surveilling him, videotaping him, trying to entrap him, or striking him with motor vehicles and what-have-you.

He was then and is now an anti-Co$ activist and ex-member, thanks to whom a lot of stuff was exposed about Hubbard and his org that otherwise might never have seen the light of day.

His website is here. And his wiki entry is here.

In the event that anyone feels it would be premature to judge Prouty harshly just for having participated in a Co$ black-op against an innocent man (who was then in fear for his life on a daily basis) one measly time:

Try going to Armstrong's site and searching for his name. He turns up several times in Armstrong's legal filings in connection with, for example, signing false affidavits about the covert video surveillance.

_____________________

^^A guy who's capable of doing that is pretty much capable of doing anything dishonorable for money, afaic. And you just can't afford to take the word of a man like that on pure blind faith. Obviously. So to me, at least, it's conclusive. But maybe it wouldn't be to everybody. So y'all should make the call according to your own lights.

I just happened to see Byrne's post and wanted to take a shot at doing a better job presenting the above material than I had in the post on the above-linked thread in which it was sitting, being buried and nearly invisible.

Carry on.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:41 pm

Elvis posted another Wheeler article, which I now steal for this thread (heh).

Elvis wrote:


The US "military budget" is so intertwined and interlocked with the rest of of the federal budget & bureaucracy it's difficult to know what it really is.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/09/an-in ... d%3D134442
An Insider's Guide To Decoding the Pentagon Budget

By Winslow Wheeler

Published: February 9, 2012

The Pentagon will release the details of its fiscal year 2013 budget on Monday.

If this year is like most in the past, some of the numbers, specifically those in the Pentagon's press release, will be the wrong ones, and many of the important and fundamental issues will be distorted or ignored.

What follows is an effort to help people through the budget maze.

This year, the Defense Department has already released the top line numbers for 2013 and the next four years. But, as usual, they are very incomplete -- even for just the top line. They are discretionary spending (annual appropriations) and do not include mandatory spending (entitlement programs) in the DoD budget. The latter amount is only a few billion dollars (peanuts in DoD budget terms), but that only starts the list of missing numbers.

To identify defense spending not in the Pentagon budget you need to know what the Department of Energy is spending for nuclear weapons, and what other agencies are spending for the National Defense Stockpile, the Selective Service and other activities that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls "Defense-related activities" in the "National Defense" budget function.

You probably will not find these in the Pentagon's press materials because they frequently aren't there. [Eds. note: Nuclear weapons funding is usually contained in the energy appropriations and Energy Department budget because the Energy Department oversees most of that spending.] You can always find them at the OMB website, but you'll need to know where, lest you get lost in the blizzard of tables and tomes that OMB releases on budget day.

At the OMB website, hunt down a document in the 2013 budget materials called "Analytical Perspectives;" then go to the "Supplemental Materials" and find a table titled "Policy Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program." For the past two years, it's been numbered Table 32-1. All the National Defense spending categories are there: DOD, DOE/Nuclear, the other cats and dogs, and both discretionary and mandatory spending are listed. They are right at the top of this long table; "National Defense," or budget function 050, is the first one. Get those numbers straight, and for completeness and accuracy you will be heads and shoulders above the herd relying on just the Pentagon press release. There you can also find what the actual numbers were for 2011 and 2012, which, given the chaos in Congress, has not been easy to sort out recently.

Sometimes getting to table 32-1 in Analytical Perspectives can be tricky. For example for 2012, it is not listed in the Table of Contents to "Analytical Perspectives," and the "Supplemental Materials" for the entire budget did not show it; you want the "Supplemental Materials" for "Analytical Perspectives." Also, in the past, there have been other tables labeled 32-2 and other numbers. You don't want them; you want "Policy Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program," and it should, repeat should, be numbered 32-1. All this navigation advice should help, unless OMB has messed around with its formatting for 2013. Perplexing just to get an accurate set of numbers? Yup.

Next, you might want to assess national security spending not in the Pentagon or even the "National Defense" budget. In the same Table 32-1 you can find the budgets for Veterans Affairs (function 700) for some additional costs of past and current wars, and International Affairs (150) for military and economic aid and other State Department programs integral to the overall national security budget.

You can also find some spending for military retirement and DoD health care that is not in the National Defense budget function. They, however, are hard to tease out. You can find them if you word search in the .pdf version of Table 32-1 for "military retirement" and "DoD Retiree Health Care." But they are a thicket of positive and negative numbers and tricky to net out to an accurate number. Perhaps it is best to simply be aware that they are there and that they can amount to low double digits of billions of dollars. Ask your favorite budget geek what they net out to. If he or she can sort it out in a day or two, get a new budget geek.

You still do not have all the defense-related numbers. You don't have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Go back to the "Supplemental Materials" for "Analytical Perspectives." There find "Appendix -- Homeland Security Mission Funding by Agency and Budget Account" or Table 33-1. (At least that's what they were labeled for 2012.) They should list the budget for DHS which is embedded in the various budget functions in Table 32-1. But be careful again; make sure you are not double counting any homeland security funding that shows up in both the National Defense budget function or 150 or 700 and the DHS budget. There should be tables that help you avoid the double counting.

Don't look for any intelligence community spending; it's a few score billions, but it's not there; it's embedded inside the 050 numbers. Don't try to add anything for intel; if you do you will be double counting about $80 billion.

Perhaps you will decide to include the defense share of the national debt, specifically the share of interest of the debt that can be attributed to DOD, or National Defense, or all of the above for 2013. Find the total interest payment in function 900 and make your calculation.
Add it all up and you will get about $1 trillion, probably more; if you don't get that high, you are missing something-something big.

Next you may want to make comparisons to show what direction defense spending is headed. Some will compare this defense budget to previous plans, showing a gigantic reduction. Some will compare it to last year's spending, showing a tiny reduction-basically a flat budget. One comparison is mostly phony; one is not. (Hint: Last year I planned to win the lottery. I didn't; ergo, my flat salary this year means a gigantic pay cut.)

If you want to go viral on phoniness, compare contemporary spending to historic defense spending using percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the measure. That way you can pretend the big recent increases are big decreases, and more huge increases should be oh-so affordable. Avoid this gimmick, especially those who use it. Apply that thought also to people who use the same-and other-gimmicks for non-defense spending.

Finished with the numbers? Why not address some of the long term, fundamentally important (and disturbing) trends in US defense spending for the last few decades. Two chapters in the anthology "The Pentagon Labyrinth: 10 Short Essays to Help You Through It" address such things. One is by Chuck Spinney, and I think it's an important exposition. The other expands on the Pentagon's habitual misdirection on numbers and briefly addresses the shrinking and aging that is continuing in our combat forces and their equipment. I wrote that one. I am sending you this piece with enough time before budget day on Monday to read those short essays and to conjure up your own take on what they mean for questions you should be asking Monday.

I hope this helps. Have fun on budget day.

Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information. A member of the AOL BOard of Contributors, he is also editor of the recently published "The Pentagon Labyrinth: 10 Short Essays to Help You Through It."
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:56 am

Meet the western technology companies who sell network snooping technology to torturing dictators
By Cory Doctorow at 7:00 am Thursday, Feb 16

Image

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has begun to publish a series of informative corporate biographies of technology companies that make network spying equipment and sell it to torturing dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Qaddafi. These companies' publish sales material advertising their use of tools created for the express purpose of breaking domestic and international law, and operate from countries like the UK (FinFisher) and France (Amesys). EFF urges prosecutors in these countries to investigate the spyware companies for complicity in human rights abuses.

The Wall Street Journal has since reported about FinFisher’s techniques and its technology’s dangerous capabilities. It works much the same way online criminals steal banking and credit card information. Authorities can covertly install malicious malware on a user’s computer without their knowledge by tricking the user into downloading fake updates to programs like iTunes and Adobe Flash. Once installed, they can see everything the user can. The FinFisher products can even remotely turn on the user’s webcam or microphone in a cell phone without the user’s knowledge.

FinFisher doesn’t pretend to market their products for solely lawful use. In 2007, they bragged that they use and incorporate “black hat (illegal and malicious) hacking techniques to allow intelligence services to acquire information that would be very difficult to obtain legally,” according to a report by OWNI.


Spy Tech Companies & Their Authoritarian Customers, Part I: FinFisher And Amesys
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Top Secret America

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:39 pm

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/post ... 8&p=452622

Thanks brainpanhandler!


http://www.truth-out.org/fracking-and-p ... 1331220971

Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied

Published: Tuesday, 8 Nov 2011
By: Eamon Javers


Last week’s oil industry conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Houston was supposed to be an industry confab just like any other — a series of panel discussions, light refreshments and an exchange of ideas.

It was a gathering of professionals to discuss “media and stakeholder relations” in the hydraulic fracturing industry — companies using the often-controversial oil and gas extraction technique known as “fracking.”

But things took an unexpected twist.

CNBC has obtained audiotapes of the event, on which one presenter can be heard recommending that his colleagues download a copy of the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual. (Click below to hear the audio.) That’s because, he said, the opposition facing the industry is an “insurgency.”

Another told attendees that his company has several former military psychological operations, or “psy ops” specialists on staff, applying their skills in Pennsylvania. (Click below to hear the audio.)

snip

audio clips at link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45208498/Oil_Exe ... ce_Applied


Lots of embedded links in the following at truthout:



Fracking and Psychological Operations: Empire Comes Home

Thursday 8 March 2012
by: Steve Horn, Truthout | News Analysis

Published on Truthout (http://www.truth-out.org)


When among friends, you're far more likely to air your dirty secrets.

A corporate conference [3]held in Houston, Texas, on October 31 to November 1, 2011, titled "Giving Communications Professionals At Unconventional Oil & Gas Companies The Tools To Design A Comprehensive Media & Stakeholder Relations Strategy For Engaging The Public On A Positive Image For The Industry" provides perfect evidence of this.

The goal at the conference was a simple one: communications professionals in the natural gas industry sharing with one another the optimal communications strategies and tools to fight back [3] against media and community opposition to what is inherently a toxic product, natural gas.

Natural gas, obtained through the hydraulic fracturing [4], or "fracking" process, was brought into the limelight by the Academy Award-nominated documentary film "Gasland [5]," directed by Josh Fox.

On November 8, 2011, thanks to a smoking gun tip from Sharon Wilson, renowned anti-fracking activist and author [6]of TexasSharon.com, CNBC investigative journalist Eamon Javers broke a story with huge implications. Wilson paid to attend the conference and recorded all sessions on an audio recorder and then handed them off to Javers, who broke the story live on national cable television.

Javers revealed that Matt Pitzarella, head of the public relations team at the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based natural gas corporation, Range Resources, openly admitted that his corporation utilizes psychological warfare [7](psyops) military veterans as community relations professionals, hired to apply the skills gained on the periphery for work to be done here at home.

"We have several former PSYOPs folks that work for us at Range [8] because they're very comfortable dealing with localized issues and local governments," said Pitzarella at the conference.

He continued, "Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of PSYOPs in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania."

Expanding on the comments made by Pitzarella, DeSmogBlog Executive Director Brendan DeMelle [8] explained further, "Range Resources' Local Government Relations Manager in Pennsylvania is James Cannon, a former Marine and Army Reservist whose unit conducted PSYOPs during Operation Iraqi Freedom ... Range has sent threatening letters to residents of Mount Pleasant, PA, where citizens were concerned about the impacts of natural gas drilling on their community."

At the same conference, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's Public Relations Chief Matthew Carmichael, [9] a military veteran himself, recommended that all natural gas industry PR professionals read the "Counterinsurgency Field Manual [10]," formerly the official doctrine of the US military.

"Download the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual because we are dealing with an insurgency. There's a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background [8], I found the insight in that extremely remarkable," remarked Carmichael.

Another presenter at the Houston conference was Aaron Goldwater [11], CEO of Jurat Software [12], which describes itself as a company that "ensures effective stakeholder engagement through a comprehensive single source and intuitive software solution. More than just managing data, Jurat facilitates strong relationship building with internal and external stakeholders that results in achieving business objectives."

Goldwater spoke of the importance of data mining and intelligence collection [13] on natural gas company stakeholders, or on those citizens living in communities in which resource extraction will take place.

Goldwater said, "A number of people today have, in my words, have talked about having a battle with stakeholders, a bit of a war with stakeholders [14]. So, if you look at the people who are experts at it, which is the military, the one thing they do is gather intelligence ... The important thing is to get high-quality data because data rules. The military doesn't spend billions of dollars on data-mining for the fun of it. They want to know who knows who."

In many ways, Jurat's corporate model [15] resembles that of the Human Terrain System (HTS) developed by the US Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). HTS consists of highly trained Human Terrain Teams (HTTs), five-person units that enter communities in Iraq and Afghanistan and collect massive amounts of data that they hand to the CIA with the goal of "mapping the human terrain." HTTs utilize the skills of anthropologists, accompanied by four armed agents while they collect data in the field, data that will eventually be used to pacify, or kill dissidents and "insurgents."

Jacob Kipp, historian at the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, described HTS, according to anthropologist Roberto Gonzalez [15], as "'A CORDS for the 21st Century'" - a reference to Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support, a Vietnam War-era counterguerrilla initiative. CORDS gave birth to the infamous Phoenix Program, in which South Vietnamese and US agents used intelligence data to help target some 26,000 suspected communists for assassination, including many civilians."

Data collection to equip well-connected corporations in their "war with stakeholders" is without a doubt troubling, but history demonstrates it is rather unsurprising.

The militarization of public and community relations efforts by the natural gas industry can be seen quite clearly through these alarming excerpts from these three presentations. The reason for militarization is quite clear, though uncomfortable to confront.

By its very nature, the gas industry is in the midst of what can most accurately be described as systematic and well-planned "resource colonialism," invading communities and extracting their resources, often even displacing citizens from their homes and taking over their property. Militarization is but a logical progression in a scheme of this sort.

The common denominator are the tools of "empire coming home," and the true nature of both imperial counterinsurgency warfare and the dark underbelly of the history and original purpose of the public relations industry finally coming to light, thanks to these frank comments thought to have been made solely among friends in Houston.

The origins of the proliferation of the public relations industry and mass propaganda is deeply interconnected with the development of psyops tactics. In fact, in many ways, the two are one in the same.

A brief history lesson is in order to put this all into proper and sobering context.

PR, Propaganda and Psyops in the US: A Dark and Intertwined History

The public relations industry has always existed as a means of coercion and, to use the words of scholar Noam Chomsky, to "manufacture consent." [16] Furthermore, the development public relations tactics and psyops tactics share the same origin - World War I.

As the father of modern public relations industry, Edward Bernays [17], wrote in his seminal book "Propaganda," [18] "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country ... It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."

Bernays, the nephew of psychologist Sigmund Freud, is perhaps most famous for his public relations work surrounding selling lethal cigarettes to women as "freedom torches" [19] during the era of the flappers [20], during the "Roaring Twenties." [21]

Among other things, Bernays also served as a major influence on Walter Lippman, author of the 1922 book "Public Opinion" [22] and member [23] of the infamous Committee on Public Information, or Creel Commission [24], created as a message-force-multiplier to sell American entrance into World War I to the masses, many of whom were not originally sympathetic to the cause.

The Creel Commission is also the progenitor to the modern use of psyops tactics on a mass scale, both at home and abroad.

Writing on the Creel Commission in his book "Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960," historian Christopher Simpson, explained, "Psychological warfare is not new, of course ... But it was not until World War I that the US government institutionalized and employed psychological warfare in the modern sense ... Persuasive communication ... became central to Lippman's strategy for domestic government and international relations. He saw mass communication ... as a necessary instrument for any managing elite."

Disturbingly, the term "psychological warfare" was first utilized by the Nazis during World War II, wrote Simpson in "Science of Coercion." "The phrase 'psychological warfare' is reported to have first entered English in 1941 as a translated mutation of the Nazi term Weltanschauungskrieg, (literally, worldview warfare), meaning the purportedly scientific application of propaganda, terror and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one's enemies ... Use of the term quickly became widespread throughout the US intelligence community."

Most importantly, Simpson explained that psyops and by extension, public relations and propaganda campaigns, have always existed on a continuum, with the use of violence always on the table. He wrote that strategic planners saw "[P]eaceful engineering of consent for US aims as desirable when it worked, but the option of using violence to achieve national goals remained essential."

Put another way, psychological warfare campaigns have, since their inception, utilized communication as a form of domination, hence titling his book the "Science of Coercion." When one does not acquiesce to this covert coercion, overt violence is always on the table.

Blowback: Psyops and the Tools of Empire Come Home

Recent examples abound of the tools utilized on the periphery of the American Empire eventually making their way home to its core, above and beyond the gas industry's use of psyops tactics on US citizens.

Historian Alfred McCoy of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for example, has devoted two entire books to the topic. In his book titled "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines and the Rise of the Surveillance State [25]," he writes about how the counterinsurgency surveillance techniques developed during the occupation of the Philippines from 1898 to 1913 eventually came home during World War I, including things like the mass collection of biometric data [26], a program recently expanded by the FBI.

Other recent examples of the tools of surveillance and coercion coming home include the following:
The expansion of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, known as robotic killing machines in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, right here on the home front on the US-Mexico border [27], in the state of New York [28] and in North Dakota [29].

Scholars at the Naval Postgraduate School have been training the Salinas, California, police force in use of counterinsurgency tactics to halt gang violence [30] in the area.

Rolling Stone investigative journalist Michael Hastings' revelation that the US military employed psyops tactics [31] to convince a group of senators to provide more troops and war funding.

The 2010 scandal that took place in Pennsylvania, in which its state-level Department of Homeland Security was caught placing anti-fracking activists on terrorist watch lists [32] and outsourcing the spying efforts to an Israel-based private security firm.

The tools of the HTS have also found their way home, as well. Given that the term "human terrain [15]" was first utilized in a report by the House Un-American Activities Committee [33] to explain the "grave threat" the Black Panthers provided for domestic stability, it is not surprising that the HTT has also made its way back home to the core of empire.

In his book "American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain," which analyzes the HTS, Gonzalez writes, "Imagine a computer program that tells its users which neighborhoods in a distant city - Baghdad, Kabul, or Islamabad - are dangerous ... the program also identifies the names of people who are likely participants in the violence, as well as their addresses, fingerprints, ID photos, relatives, friends and associates. Such a program might appear beyond the realm of possibility, but the Pentagon is spending tens of millions of dollars in [this] quest."

HTS teams collect data on the "human terrain" of the environments in which they are working and feed them to computer databases that can be accessed by all the bureaucracies of the national security state, including the CIA.

The gas industry is also building up similar databases, as has been seen through the Pennsylvania terrorist watch list incident [32] and as was revealed at the conference in Houston by Jurat's Aaron Goldwater. It was Goldwater, after all, who made the case at the conference that the gas industry should emulate the information gather processes of intelligence agencies and the Pentagon.

The CIA, an intricate part of the functionality of HTS, was revealed in August 2011 to be "mapping the human terrain" of New York City, according to The Associated Press (AP):

"The department has dispatched undercover officers, known as 'rakers,' into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They've monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs ... The program was modeled in part on how Israeli authorities operate in the West Bank, a former police official said."

The Israeli program the AP is referring to is the Basel Program, which, in a nutshell, serves as a tool of colonization for Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, ruled over by Israel through a massive system of checkpoints, separation walls and roadblocks and, specific to Gaza, a military blockade by land, air and sea.

The program calls for "facial dimensions and hand geometry. Palestinians who are permitted to enter Israel are enrolled into the system and issued a magnetic biometric card. The card holds elaborate information [34]including biometric templates and personal and security data," according to a recent report written by the Coalition of Women for Peace [35], a leading Israeli feminist peace organization, dedicated to ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, and reaching a just peace in Israel/ Palestine.

It is no exaggeration to say that the tools of empire have made their way back home. To argue otherwise is a delusion.

Implications for the Future

It takes only a bit of imagination to connect the dots among all of these developments and the frightening threat they have on an ever-disappearing American democracy. This is particularly relevant given the National Defense Authorization Act [36] (NDAA) of 2012, signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve 2011, while the majority of US citizens were out partying.

The American Civil Liberties Union said of the NDAA, "The statute is particularly dangerous [37] because it has no temporal or geographic limitations and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield."

That bill allows the president to use the military on the domestic front to detain any person [38] "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," explained former CIA analyst turned antiwar activist Ray McGovern.

Who gets to determine "substantial support", who are the "associated forces" and what exactly is "engaging in hostilities"? George Washington University Professor of Law, Jonathan Turley, was right when he called the bill "authoritarian," as President Obama and future presidents, under the NDAA, now have sole authority to determine the answers to these questions.

Say goodbye to democracy in the United States?

Time will tell, but one thing is for certain: it is exceedingly important to put the dirty secret thought only to be shared among friends into this broader, sober context.

This article is not covered by Creative Commons policy and may not be republished without permission.

[2]
Steve Horn [40]
News
Source URL: http://www.truth-out.org/fracking-and-p ... 1331220971

Links:
[1] http://www.truth-out.org/print/13359
[2] http://www.truth-out.org/printmail/13359
[3] http://www.media-stakeholder-relations- ... uring.com/
[4] http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking
[5] http://gaslandthemovie.com/
[6] http://www.texassharon.com/
[7] http://www.media-stakeholder-relations- ... itzarella/
[8] http://www.desmogblog.com/gas-fracking- ... ommunities
[9] http://www.media-stakeholder-relations- ... armichael/
[10] http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
[11] http://www.media-stakeholder-relations- ... goldwater/
[12] http://www.juratsoftware.com/
[13] http://www.media-stakeholder-relations- ... dwater.pdf
[14] http://www.media-stakeholder-relations- ... dwater.mp3
[15] http://www.zcommunications.org/a-phoeni ... j-gonz-lez
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactur ... Mass_Media
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_%28book%29
[23] http://www.lewrockwell.com/bender/bender15.html
[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_ ... nformation
[25] http://www.amazon.com/Policing-Americas ... 0299234142
[26] http://www.alternet.org/story/153664/5_ ... =1&t=2
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 86559.html
[28] http://www.nyrp-uc.org/?p=300
[29] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10 ... t-20111211
[30] http://kalwnews.org/audio/2011/02/28/co ... 66439.html
[31] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... print=true
[32] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2010/09/947 ... llus-shale
[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-A ... _Committee
[34] http://www.globalexchange.org/sites/def ... report.pdf
[35] http://www.coalitionofwomen.org/?lang=en
[36] http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... ention-law
[37] http://www.aclu.org/blog/content/presid ... ention-law
[38] http://warisacrime.org/content/defiling ... ted-states
[39] http://www.truth-out.org/printmail
[40] http://www.truth-out.org/steve-horn/%5B ... mestamp%5D
[41] http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/669 ... e_KEY=2160
[42] https://members.truth-out.org/donate

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 189 guests