Following an extradition order issued yesterday by a British court, Julian Assangefounder of WikiLeaks and willing agent of Russian active measuresis one step closer to facing American justice.

Assange is just the latest Donald Trump satellite to face criminal charges, after Michael Cohen, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and others. The question cannot be avoided: What about the ringleader himself? It must be counted an irony of history that a sizable fraction of dyed-in-the-wool leftists, assisted by a few preposterous libertarians, who labored to turn Assangeand later Edward Snowdeninto folk heroes during the Obama administration found themselves cheering Trump and lauding his socialist principles. It is fitting and proper that Assange answer for his crimes, but Trump presents a larger political problem that mere criminal justice cannot solve.

The Trump-Assange fringe has found its primary cause in the rejection of American empire and has been sympathetic to Americas enemies around the world. Bizarrely for a movement proclaiming fidelity to transparent government, it has greeted with enthusiasm and even active support Vladimir Putins hostility to free government, sabotage of democracy in the West, subversion of democracy in (and war on) Ukraine, and extinguishing of democracy in Russia. (Little wonder that ever since Snowden quit his country with his ill-gotten goods, he has enjoyed a welcome refuge in Putins Russia.)

Anti-communist crusaders like Richard Nixon used to accuse their political opponents of being pinki.e., half red, or sympathetic to communism. It is remarkable that one of the most consequential allies of the anti-American reactionary left leads the American right. Before Trumps ascendancy, the Republican party championed American global leadership. Now its an illiberal cult espousing the narrow nationalist themes of America First. Trumps political movement remains committed to the ruination of Americas institutions and the retreat of its global influence. Under his sway, the Republican party views Joe Biden as a greater threat to the country than Putins Russia. Far from believing, as Republican presidents used to believe, that America was and ought to be a beacon of democracy in the world, Trumps Republicans are intent on destroying democracy at home while admiring foreign scourges like Viktor Orbn.

The alliance between the reactionary left and the unhinged right has sought to corrupt the American republic and inhibit its power in the world. It should come as no surprise that the greatest opponents of American activism on the world stage are also the most corrosive to its internal politics: At its noblest, Americas foreign policy is based, however imperfectly, on the principles of freedom and democracy. Although not guided entirely by altruistic considerations, U.S. foreign policy is beyond comparison with the paranoid, vicious realpolitik that characterizes Russian or Chinese behavior in the world. It is the distinctly American internationalism, blending realism with idealismcoercion against despots and a basic concern for human rightsthat leaves the new left and the old right out of sorts.

Both Assange and Trumpthe two were practically teammates in 2016are unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest and lack any moral constraints in the pursuit of their overriding objectivesthe end of American hegemony and personal enrichment at the expense of the country, respectively. Assange faces charges as a dangerous foreign agent for attacking the republic from without as Trump subverted it from within.

Assange evidently aspires to live in a world without authority and in which no country (save, one imagines, his Russian benefactors) can act to protect its interests. The proper response to foreign agents who filch official secrets and interfere with elections is to arraign them for judgment before a court of law.

Trump, too, evidently aspires to live in a world without any authority but his own, or those of his role models: Putin, Xi, Kim, and his favorite dictator, Sisi. In this sense, Trumps first impeachmentover withholding foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for personal political favorsrevealed the same deep-seated contempt for democracy that was on display in his second impeachment. The proper response to such anti-democratic politicians is for responsible parties and citizens to pass them over.

The cause of democracy and the rule of law will soon be offered two opportunities, one legal and the other political. In short order, Assange will find himself in an American courtroom, answering for his outrages. And voters will have another opportunity to reject Trumpor whoever is elevated by the anti-democratic faction ascendant on the rightat the voting booth.

In the realm of law and of politics, legitimate power finds itself under several forms of overt and covert attack. Its partisans dare not squander the opportunity to offer it a vigorous defense.

Visit link:
Assange and Trump, Partners - The Bulwark

Check out what's clicking on Foxbusiness.com.

MIAMI Journalist Glenn Greenwald said Thursday that Edward Snowden is the "happiest person" he's "ever met" at the Bitcoin 2022 conference during a panel that linked the cryptocurrency to libertarian and third-party ideals.

"When people ask me who's the happiest person I know, I always say it's Edward Snowden even though he's an exile in a country he never chose to be in for eight years, and probably the rest of his life," Greenwald said to applause from the audience. "Because every day that he puts his head on the pillow to sleep, he knows that when faced with the choice of what he was going to be and what he was going to do, he made the right choice, and there's just no substitute for that in terms of happiness."

Greenwald, who notably broke the Snowden-NSA civilian surveillance story for The Guardian in 2013, recalled that when he first met the former NSA agent in Hong Kong, he expected an "old, ragged, national security guy in his 60s" who had already fulfilled his life goals. In reality, Snowden was very different from what Greenwald had envisioned during their online correspondence.

Glenn Greenwald speaks during the Bitcoin 2022 conference (Audrey Conklin / Fox News)

"When he walked up to me and my colleague he looked like a kid out of a video store and I was shocked," Greenwald said while answering a question. "And I spent that whole first day trying to figure out why somebody like this, who has his whole life ahead of him who had a very good job for Booz Allen making a lot of money, had a girlfriend who loved him, a family that was supportive why would somebody like that be willing to risk their entire life?

BITCOIN TRADES AROUND $43,000 AS MIAMI CONFERENCE GETS UNDERWAY

"He ultimately said to me, You know were all going to die, and the only question really is, how are we going to live?'"

Bitcoin 2022 conference entrance (Audrey Conklin / Fox News)

The journalist recalled the meeting as "a really profound experience."

Greenwald's reporting won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2014. A film based on his reporting, "Citizenfour" by Laura Poitras, won an Oscar.

AARON RODGERS, SERENA WILLIAMS, ODELL BECKHAM JR. TALK BITCOIN AT CONFERENCE: IM BETTING ON BITCOIN'

"My life changed in a lot of ways that I had never expected," Greenwald said. "Doors flew open. There's a huge kind of incentive system that's designed to kind of co-opt you. They offer you a lot of money to go to these events. You sit at cocktail parties with people you've accused of being war criminals, who you believe are war criminals, and suddenly, all of these incentives are supposed to lure you out of this dissident space."

Bitcoin bull at Bitcoin 2022 conference entryway (Audrey Conklin / Fox News)

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

That experience, he said, made him unafraid to dissent from the norm and voice support for ideas like bitcoin that are often criticized by high-profile figures.

An estimated 25,000 people attended the Bitcoin 2022 conference in South Beach, Miami, to learn more about cryptocurrency and fintech companies, network with like-minded individuals and discuss the future of bitcoin as a more mainstream form of currency.

Read the original:
Glenn Greenwald says Edward Snowden is the 'happiest person' he's 'ever met' at bitcoin conference - Fox Business

The reality that Joe Rogans morning routine is so busy is probably not a surprise to anybody who is familiar with him from his UFC commentary work, his renowned podcast, his acting work, or his overall internet presence

Im sitting here trying to write an introduction to who Joe Rogan is, and it might be one of the most difficult writing tasks Ive faced to date. Usually, the problem is finding the information I need, but with Joe, its knowing where to begin.

Joe Rogan was born in Newark, New Jersey, in 1967. Since then, hes done a bit of everything within the entertainment industry. Acting, comedy, sports commentary, TV entertainment, radio, and, well, contemporary radio in the form of a very successful podcast. Its arguably the latter career choice that provides the most memorable moments of his career.

Hes shared a joint with Elon Musk, chatted about Big Data with fugitive whistle-blower Edward Snowden, and discussed politics with Senator Bernie Sanders, among other things. Guests with celebrity status like these have contributed to Joe Rogans podcast being one of the most popular podcast programmes on the airwaves today.

Hes been a busy bloke, so as you can imagine, many aspects of his personal lifestyle are pretty busy, too, including his morning routine.

Before we get to the morning part, its important to note that, due to the nature of the work he does, theres no strict sleep schedule. He has, however, mentioned that he does aim to get 8 hours of sleep from whenever he manages to finally get to bed.

As a result, he wakes up anywhere between 10 a.m. and noon, depending on the previous nights activities. Hell hydrate and prepare for the rigorous exercise ahead with alkaline water and a pinch of pink Himalayan salt, followed by a cup of coffee to fight off any hunger that may try to slow him down.

Joe Rogan likes to work out before breaking his night fast, so theres no need for a quick, one-eye-still-closed breakfast like the rest of us. Anyone who has listened to his podcast knows how much he enjoys lifting weights and how often he talks about the physical and emotional advantages of doing so. He describes himself as an exercise addict who uses it to cope with stress. He becomes agitated and unhappy if he does not exercise.

When it comes to home gyms, he has everything you need. He works out for up to three hours every day, using everything from free weights to kettlebells and aerobics.

Joe breaks his fast after his exercise with a smoothie or a steak with eggs on the side, depending on how he feels that day. He only eats wild wildlife that he has hunted and killed personally. His Instagram account is full of photos of deer and elk dinners.

Joe prefers to podcast in the afternoon, although he will start earlier if he has numerous guests or other activities planned for later that day.

He returns home after completing his podcast duties for supper, which generally consists of elk meat and veggies or Kimchi. He isnt frightened of the odd trip to McDonalds, however.

Evenings are expended at home with his girls and wife, watching movies more often than not. Hell start writing when everyone else has gone to bed. He feels that the time he spends writing is what has made him successful, therefore he takes this seriously and writes till the wee hours of the morning.

Every gym routine Joe Rogan does during the week is pre-planned on the previous Sunday. This saves time and mental energy when it comes to actually getting around to doing them. Each Sunday, hell decide how many times hes going to lift weights, do yoga, or crack out the cardio.

As a renowned martial arts enthusiast, he tries to work in some Jiu-Jitsu or some Kung Fu at some point throughout the week as well.

Rogan, a lifetime athlete, has bulked up owing to a rigorous weightlifting routine centred on kettlebells, and he recently spoke about how he handles lifting.

He follows the Pavel Tsatsouline protocol, which means that if he can do ten repetitions of anything, he will only do five. Even if he could definitely perform ten clean press squats while carrying 90 pounds over his head, hell probably just do four or five.

As of writing this article, there are just over 1,800 episodes in the collection of the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.

Not many people would argue with me if I said the most memorable moment from all of these was during episode 1,169, back in 2018, when Elon Musk took a toke from a joint.

Joe subsequently said that he spent the first half of the podcast just attempting to calm Elon so they could have a constructive chat. However, after the two had calmed down, the talk really got going, leading to an episode that lived up to the lofty expectations that had been put on it due to the guests prominence.

Rogan then presents what has since become one of the most memorable moments in the history of the podcast by lighting up a joint in front of Tesla CEO Elon Musk at roughly two hours and ten minutes into the programme. Musk enquires about the legality of smoking cannabis and then takes a puff on the joint, much to the amazement of watchers at the moment.

Despite consuming booze throughout the podcast, the outspoken billionaires one toke on a joint sparked widespread outrage in the mainstream media, causing Tesla stock to plummet 10%. Regardless of the long-term consequences, the picture of Musk clutching the blunt will go down in podcast history.

Jake McEvoyJake is a professional copywriter, journalist, and life-long fan of technology. He covers news and user guides for KnowYourMobile.

Read this article:
Joe Rogan's Morning Routine Is As Active As You'd Imagine - KnowYourMobile

Nicolas Cage reacted with "absolute horror" to the first pitch for 'The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent'.

The 58-year-old actor plays a fictionalised version of himself in the new meta-action comedy blockbuster which sees big screen star Nick Cage close to retirement when he accepts a birthday party invitation from a billionaire fan (Pedro Pascal), who is actually a crime boss.

Cage told Variety: "There was no muscle in my body that told me I should play a character named Nick Cage, it was absolute horror.

However, the director wrote me a very intelligent, sensitive letter, and in that letter I knew he was a true film enthusiast that likes some of the earlier work.

"He wanted to make a movie that was about people, not about caricatures or cartoons.

The actor was won over by filmmaker Tom Gormican, who was keen to show Cage how "seriously" he and co-writer Kevin Etten were taking the project.

Gormican added: "[Cage] just wanted to make sure we werent out to make fun of him or make fun of the things hes done.

"We took it seriously, and once he understood that, he became more and more comfortable with [co-writer Kevin Etten] and I as filmmakers. I think he was a little put off until he understood.

"We said to him, There are ideas people have of who you are and theres actually who you are, and somewhere in the middle were gonna find the movie. "

The director noted how he painted the movie as an opportunity for the actor to take control of his own "narrative".

He said: "We said this entire thing is the chance to take the reins of that narrative and become a big piece of performance art. Once he looked at it that way, he started to come around.

Read more from the original source:
'Absolute horror': Nicolas Cage's initial reaction to The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent - Contactmusic.com

A new data transfer agreement to facilitate companies safely and legally moving data across the Atlantic has been in the works for nearly two years.

During a week of NATO, G7, and European Council summits in Brussels last month, where Ukraine dominated the agenda, the U.S. and the E.U. revealed a new deal for underpinning digital trade between the two economies. Activists and privacy experts still have major concerns about how vigorous the agreement will be in guarding Europeans from U.S. mass surveillance.

The fact that President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made the announcement in a joint press conference alluded to the significance of the deal, even though, for now, it is only an agreement in principle.

The legal status of data transfers across the Atlantic has been tumultuous.

Safe Harbor, a framework first instituted in 2000, was struck down by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2015 over its lack of protection for European data from mass surveillance by U.S. authorities. Its attempted successor Privacy Shield met the same fate in July 2020.

Since then, data transfers, which Facebook, Microsoft, and many tech giants rely on, existed in legal limbo as officials in the EU and U.S. scrambled to negotiate yet another agreement.

In the interim, companies rely on a series of alternative but complex mechanisms, called standard contractual clauses (SCCs), to keep data flowing. Agreements like this new one are pivotal as the EU only permits data to flow to countries and jurisdictions that have an equivalent level of data protection to Europe.

While it seems the discussions are beginning to bear fruit, for industry and privacy activists alike, the concern is still palpable about whether Europeans data will be free from U.S. scrutiny.

The tech industry was quick to welcome the latest agreement in principle. DigitalEurope, a lobby group for Meta, Amazon, Google, and more, said the agreement is necessary for preserving almost 1 trillion worth of EU-U.S. commerce every year.

Director general of DigitalEurope Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl said in a statement that the details will need to deliver an agreement that stands the test of time.

With its predecessors collapsing after legal challenges, building a framework for the long haul will be the ultimate test for this agreement to avoid EU-U.S. data flow falling into disarray again.

At the core of these challenges is surveillance and privacy, going back to the disclosures of Edward Snowden and the revelations of U.S. mass surveillance across the globe.

The European Court of Justice found that both Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield lacked robust mechanisms for ensuring that a Europeans data transferred to a server in the U.S. would not be unlawfully caught up in a dragnet.

The courts findings shined a light on the discrepancies between EU and U.S. privacy rights. Since then, the EU has only strengthened data protection, most notably with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which provide sweeping rules for safeguarding peoples data. The U.S. has no such law on a federal level.

Privacy activist Max Schrems led the legal challenge against both agreements.

After the Snowden revelations, Schrems first challenged Meta in the European courts over the legality of transferring data to the U.S. The case sought to uncover how a persons data is treated when it leaves Europe and enters the U.S. The court found that Safe Harbor, the framework Meta was using, wasnt up to snuff in protecting this data from unlawful surveillance. This ultimately led to the downfall of Safe Harbor and kickstarted this long-running saga.

The Austrian, who has dubbed the new deal lipstick on a pig, told the Daily Dot in an email that there remains a fundamental clash between the EU and U.S. when it comes to the surveillance question.

He said he expects that it too will collapse under the scrutiny of activists, lawyers, and ultimately the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Either we (if it is really bad) or someone else will probably bring it back to the CJEU again. This time just much faster than before, he said.

Schrems is not alone in his assessment.

Estelle Masse, Europe legislative manager at Access Now, said the announcement by Biden and von der Leyen was a disappointment as there is still a lack of detail on the meat of the agreement that will ensure that it is a durable deal and one that would resist a challenge in front of the court.

Once again, surveillance is the problem.

Both the EU and the U.S. stated that there would be safeguards to ensure only necessary and proportionate access to data by U.S. intelligence authorities along with the establishment of a Data Protection Review Court for Europeans to take cases against the U.S. if they believe they have been subjected to unlawful surveillance.

Previous attempts to assuage European concerns included establishing an ombudsperson to field complaints, but the Trump administration took years to nominate a permanent official for this role.

This new court is a fresh attempt to provide Europeans with means for redress, but Masse raised concerns about how independent this court will be given that it will be established via executive order.

Its not actually a right to remedy, so it doesnt satisfy the criteria that the [European] court has set, so a right to remedy in practice still does not exist, Masse said. There is no indication in none of the announcements that the U.S. would actually commit to stop bulk surveillance.

The scope of U.S. surveillance that is still happening today remains a controversial issue.

The sentiments raised in Europe are echoed by Ashley Gorski, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Weve maintained that U.S. legislative reforms are essential to ensure an agreement that will survive judicial scrutiny by the [European] Court of Justice. The announcement was made even though there has not been any legislative reform, Gorski told the Daily Dot.

The Data Protection Review Court will likely face a great deal of examination amid concerns about satisfying EU legal requirements for independence.

The ACLU has proposed that the most straightforward way to deal with this disconnect that exists between EU and U.S. law is to have Congress make a couple of changes that would make it easier for individuals to bring surveillance challenges in Article III federal courts because those courts are already equipped to review these kinds of claims, she added.

As all of these questions swirl, Masse said that it is most likely the agreement will be sent in front of the court much like its predecessors. If a remedy doesnt meet the standards set by the EU, the framework could collapse a third time.

Article 19, another digital rights organization, told the Daily Dot that more needs to change on the U.S. side of things to truly make the agreement worknamely a federal data protection law akin to the EUs GDPR.

The lack of a U.S, data protection law is the real problem, and the collection of half-baked agreements, two of which have already been rejected by the [courts], that fail to provide any concrete rights or guarantee anything, doesnt solve anything with regard to this matter, a spokesperson said.

In reality, unless the U.S. passes legislation curbing their intelligence gathering, it will be as flawed as the previous Privacy Shield.

Despite these concerns flagged by activists, industries will be pushing hard to get this new data transfer deal over the line to end the legal questions that have hung over transatlantic data transfers for nearly two years.

Lisa Sotto, a cybersecurity and privacy lawyer, said that companies have struggled to navigate the legality of their data transfers since Privacy Shield was struck down. The alternative data transfer mechanism has been a headache to implement.

She said the agreement needs to be passed and implemented swiftly but conceded that legal challenges are inevitable.

I expect Max Schrems to bring an action against whatever agreement is reached. I hope we will ultimately reach a sensible place. Not having this sort of mechanism in place for data transfers has been crippling to businesses.

The ACLUs Gorski added that the objectives are clear but the routes to get there are still muddled.

This is really just about ensuring that people have the opportunity to seek meaningful redress when theyve been subject to unlawful surveillance, she said.

Right now folks are eager to see what the actual text looks like. We have an agreement in principle, we have factsheets, but the text itself will matter. However, it is difficult to see how this agreement will survive judicial scrutiny in the EU in the absence of U.S. legislative reform.

Go here to read the rest:
Why the third time wont be the charm for a new U.S.-EU data-sharing agreement - The Daily Dot

As if the NSA, the FBI and the DHS spying on American citizens were not sufficiently outrageous, the CIA, which is supposed to operate outside of the country, has now joined the pack and is spying on US citizens as well.

Mass surveillance of US citizens is being conducted by the CIA. The National Security Agency was known to be collecting bulk data with the cooperation of big tech firms.

So does privacy really exist in the country? Do Americans even know who is watching them? Are they aware their privacy is being compromised and in what areas of their lives are they being spied upon?

Big Brother is everywhere

A number of different US intelligence agencies are spying on Americans, including the CIA, which is proscribed from operating on American soil.

How much do Americans know about the type of data being collected from them, and how can they protect their privacy, and how does Washington get away with spying on American citizens?

It has been revealed that the CIA has been conducting mass surveillance on US soil and has been spying on American citizens for years.

A newly declassified letter by two Democratic senators shows that the United States Central Intelligence Agency has been collecting bulk data for years; they say that the data can affect American citizens and their privacy and that the CIA has been collecting these compromising data without a warrant.

There's a secret CIA surveillance programme, and it's allegedly been collecting data in bulk, including information about lots of Americans.

That's the accusation from two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich say the programme has been operating without any oversight, and they're now accusing the CIA of hiding the details about it from the public and from the Congress.

The senators are calling on the agency to declassify the information about the programme.

CNBC Host

Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico were the senators who revealed this information in a letter which has not yet been completely declassified.

In the letter they asked Admiral De Haynes, Director of National Intelligence, and William J. Burns, the director of the CIA, to declassify these activities and explain the rules and regulations governing the collection of data and information about US citizens.

Why is the CIA collecting data from US citizens in the first place?

That sounds like an easy question, but it's actually a difficult one. First of all, the CIA legally is not allowed to collect information on US citizens or anyone called a US person, which is anybody in the country legally on a green card or on an immigrant visa.

But since 911, it is as though, it's as though the rules, the laws, have just gone out the window. And so all the CIA has to do, whether it's in the courts or before the oversight committees on Capitol Hill, is to say the words national security, and then they're essentially allowed to do anything they want.

In this case, what they're doing is vacuuming up as much bulk data as they possibly can, whether it's data from an American or US person or a foreign national, they're storing it in huge Cray computers in the desert in Utah, and they just will deal with the legality of it later [sic].

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

After the letter by the two senators exposed that the CIA programme was completely outside any kind of statutory framework, or without any form of oversight from the judicial, congressional or executive branch, the American Civil Liberties Union set out in a statement that these reports raise serious questions about what information of ours the CIA is mining, indiscriminately, and how the agency exploits that information to spy on Americans. This invasion of our privacy must stop.

How can Americans protect themselves from this systemic invasion of privacy?

The only protection we do have is the fact that they collect so much, massive amounts of information, that they're constantly looking for needles in a haystack. You know, no, American should assume that he or she has a bit of privacy in anything we do.

It is a kind of surveillance state that we live under that under. For example, the Stasi (notorious East German Security force), or the Soviet Union; they couldn't even imagine having this kind of surveillance that we have in the United States, because the technology wasn't there.

We have the technology. And we know now from Snowden, we know from this recent letter that was sent by two senators, talking about this secret bulk collection of the CIA of Americans [sic.], we know from all of these sources, going back to the church commission back in the 70s in the United States, the extent to which we are all under surveillance, by our own government, the government that is supposed to be working for us, is actually spying on us.

Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Edward Snowden famously leaked highly classified information from the US National Security Agency in 2013, uncovering massive surveillance by the NSA and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance with the cooperation of tech companies.

We are about to witness an enormous political debate in which the spy agencies and their apologists on TV tell us that there is nothing wrong with this and that the CIA doesn't know how many Americans are in the database or even how they got there in the first place, but this is neither normal nor acceptable.

Do Americans have any privacy?

The Americans have no privacy, none. None whatsoever, whether it's on your phone, in your emails, in your text messages, on social media or anytime you're in public, there is no expectation of privacy. You know, there's a court case right now saying that the law about privacy and communications was written before the internet was created.

And the law says that the government cannot open your mail. Well, it doesn't say anything about email because email hadn't been invented.

Well, the government is arguing that when you write an email and you send it to someone, the company that runs the email or that owns the email, Google, Microsoft, Apple, whatever, they have access to the email to the contents of it, and so if they have access, the government should have access as well, and so as a result, there is no such thing as privacy in communications.

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

Glenn Greenwald the American journalist who first received information from Snowden and then exposed it in The Guardian also wrote on Twitter that the CIA is a criminal organization. Their interference in US politics is particularly pernicious.

Maybe news outlets should stop hiring all of the people who run this agency to help "analyze and report the news".

Maybe journalists should be skeptical of their planted stories.

Well, it's a good question the CIA was set up in 1947 under the National Security Act of 1947. The purpose of setting up the CIA was to create an organization that could in one stop, inform the President about things that were happening overseas. It was in response to the end of World War Two and the beginning of the Cold War, and after World War Two, there were scattered intelligence agencies through the military and elsewhere. The OSS, of course, during World War Two.

So the idea of this was to consolidate the intelligence collection and analysis capabilities of the US government in one area, and this was signed by President Truman. President Truman did say in his memoirs, if he had known what would have happened to the CIA what it would have become, particularly in terms of its covert action, he never would have approved it, never would have signed it, never would have brought it into being.

Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

It is nothing new that intelligence agencies in the US spy and gather all the information they can from their citizens.

Snowden revealed in 2013 that the NSA was spying on Americans, and later he was forced to seek refuge in Russia for fear of persecution and imprisonment.

At the time, the NSA had gained direct access to the systems of US Internet giants like Facebook, Google and Apple, as well as other companies.

This access was part of the PRISM programme that the NSA used to collect internet communications from various US internet companies.

Has anything changed since then?

Well, very little has changed because members of Congress and Senators, very, very few of them have shown any stomach whatsoever to challenge what we call the national security state in the United States. And that includes the CIA, parts of the FBI and others. You know, when the Snowden revelations came out there was an uproar, there was a lot of loud noise and there was some calls for reform. [sic.]

But you know reform in Washington always means that you get to keep doing the stuff you were doing, you just call it something else. And so they renamed the Patriot Act, but they kept all of the worst aspects of the Patriot Act, and called it the Freedom Act. There's just an example of what they did. So short answer to your question is very little changed at all after the revelations because Congress had no stomach for it and the American people are very, very easily distracted by other things.

Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Under the PRISM programme, officials were collecting material which included, but was not limited to, search history, content of emails, file transfers, and live chats.

These collections were made directly from the servers of major service providers. The actions were made possible by changes to US surveillance laws, which were introduced by former President George W. Bush, and later renewed by former US President Barack Obama in December 2012.

Are Americans aware what type of data is being collected from them?

I think most Americans realize what the government is doing the problem is, I think, most Americans don't care what the government is doing. You know, Joseph Goebbels said something in the 1930s why are you worried about it if you haven't done anything wrong? Well, that's exactly the opposite of what our position should be.

Our position should be that the government has no business in our communications. It has no business collecting our data, unless it has evidence that a crime has been committed, and it goes through the proper channels to acquire that data. But in the meantime, it shouldn't be gathering any information on Americans who have not been accused of a crime in a court of law.

You know, we can we can extend that we can we can say that. It's not just our communications but in virtually every aspect of our lives. The government is involved now, you know, it's not just the the intelligence agencies, either it's, it's every aspect of government, whether it is DARPA or the FBI or the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or the border agencies. We have no privacy.

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

The programme was not only for Americans living in the US, but also targeted any customer that participated with these tech firms, whether living in or outside the United States. This spying doesn't stop there, either.

Because the United States is also a party in a multilateral agreement, which is an intelligence Alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the US. This alliance is called the Five Eyes also known as FVEY.

This is a special kind of alliance, a special kind of relationship. And when I say special, what I mean is that these five countries share with each other literally everything. It's not unusual, for example, to have representatives of the Five Eyes intelligence services, working in each other's buildings, in each other's headquarters.

They give each other complete access to files and to data and technology. They don't spy on one another. It's it's a relationship of open sharing.

Now, that's very dangerous if you ask me because not only do I have to worry about my government, intercepting my phone calls, my emails, my text messages, but I have to worry about them sending all of my personal data to the Five Eyes countries, which have even less of a right to my information than my own government does.

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

The Five Eyes alliance goes back to World War Two, some of the activities of this alliance was revealed by Snowden, indicating that the intelligence agencies within the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and then sharing the information they have collected with the other members in order to thwart preventive and restraining regulations on surveillance of citizens and essentially leaving the spying to the intelligence organizations of their allies.

The CIA is forbidden by law from spying on American citizens. But one way they get around this is by leaking some of the information to, for example, the Australian intelligence services, and then that is picked up as foreign surveillance.

So the Five Eyes are very useful for when the CIA wants to spy on Americans, but technically is not allowed to do that. They go around; they go around the other side. So I think Americans should assume that literally everything they do is being watched and listened to and recorded; for potential future use. It's kind of a pre crime.

Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Some politicians have spoken up against these invasions of privacy. Utah, Republican Representative, Chris Stewart, recently said that Congress needs to reassert control over the intelligence community's activities inside America. Stewart added "if you want to build an American KGB, if you think that's a good idea then keep going down this road".

Stewart's worry is mostly because he believes US intelligence agencies are going after white supremacists who are, by and large, in favour of the Republican Party.

The CIA is not allowed under law to spy on Americans directly as such. However, for example, our conversation right now because you're not in America, that's fair game for them to listen in on. And we must assume that they are listening in on this call, and any other overseas call. And even if it's not something they're actively looking [sic.], they'll just simply sift it up.

And they have massive, massive storage facilities. They'll just store for a future date. They want to build a case on someone down the road 10 years, well, they can always look back and see what they were doing 10 years previous.

So Americans should assume that they have zero privacy until they wake up and demand that their members of Congress do something to restore it.

I mean, it's very ironic that America goes around the world, blowing things up and lecturing people on how they need to have a democratic government and privacy and civil liberties. When in fact, at home, we have a scarcity of all of these things, and no one seems to give a darn about it. And that's the sick part.

Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Consequently, many feel that the US is essentially a police state. In the courts, Prosecutors claim to have information and evidence against a defendant that is classified and that defendant is not allowed to view said evidence.

They collect evidence and information by whatever means they please and as they know the courts may reject the case due to legal technicalities, such as lack of evidence, they conduct reverse engineering and collect information they already have through other means and use the alleged data source to prosecute and charge defendants with evidence that they cannot defend themselves against.

Original post:
Big Brother is watching your every move - Press TV

Hunter Biden reportedly paid over $1 million in back taxes for income he never claimed, but which was found in his emails the ones from his laptop that had been dismissed by the mainstream media as Russian disinformation.

The FBI is conducting an ongoing investigation into Hunters business activities based on the contents of the laptop. It was only the Bureau's use of the laptop as evidence that finally forced the New York Times this month to admit that what it said last year was false.

See, as the New York Post broke the story that a laptop full of Hunter Biden's files indicated a potential pay-for-play scenario involving then-candidate Joe Biden just ahead of the 2020 presidential election, almost in real time more than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed a letterclaiming the emails have all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. The signers said their national security experience made them deeply suspicious the Russian government played a significant role in this case. If we are right this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.

The letter played off prejudices from 2016 that the Russians manipulated an American election. In fact, most of the letter's signatories James Clapper and John Brennan among them had played key roles in misdirecting public opinion around the DNC server hack and later the whole of Russiagate. In the hands of the mainstream media, the meme quickly morphed into the laptop is fake, ignore it. Twitter and Facebook quickly banned all mentions of the laptop, and the story disappeared in the mainstream media. Until now.

During my 24-year State Department career, I was exposed to foreign disinformation, and as a journalist today, I read the Hunter Biden emails. There is no way experienced intelligence officers could have mistaken the contents of the Biden laptop for fake, produced material.

The most glaring reason is that most of the important emails could be verified by simply contacting the recipient and asking him if the message was real. Disinfo at this level of sophistication would never be so simple to disprove.

In addition, the laptop contents were about 80 per cent garbage and maybe 20 per cent useful (dirty) information, a huge waste of time if you are trying to move your adversary to act in a certain way. Such an overbearing amount of non-actionable material also risks burying the good stuff, and if this is disinfo you want your adversary to find the good stuff. It is also expensive to produce information that has no take attached to it, and fake info of any kind is at risk of discovery, blowing the whole operation. Lastly, nothing on the laptop was a smoking gun. You need the disinfo to lead fairly directly to some sort of actionable conclusion, a smoking gun, or your cleverness will be wasted.

Compare the alleged Russian disinfo of the Biden laptop to the Christopher Steele Russiagate dossier. To begin, Steele put classified markings on his document. That signals amateur work to the pros but causes the media to salivate.

Steele never names his sources, to prevent verification by the media (a major tell). Steele also finds a way to push the important info up front, in his case a summary. If Biden's laptop was disinfo, the makers could have included an Index, or Note to Self where Hunter called out the good stuff. Or maybe even a fake email doing the same. Steeles dossier is also concise, at 35 typed pages. Hunters laptop is a pack rats nightmare of jumbled stuff: thousands of pages, receipts, info on cam girls and the like.

But the real giveaway is who was out there peddling the information. Ideally you want the stuff to come from the most reliable source you can find to give it credibility. Steele, as a professional intelligence officer, used multiple, overlapping sources. Those pushing the dossier eventually includedselected patsy journalists, the State Department, John McCain and even the Department of Justice (FBI and DOJ officials).

For the Biden laptop, it is understood the whole messy thing was shopped all across the mainstream media by Rudy Giuliani, about the most mistrusted man available for the purpose. The source must be reputable for the gag to work, and there is no way a full-spectrum Russian disinformation operation would use Rudy. That alone should have ended the discussion among those 50 letter-signing intelligence officials.

Lastly, everything on the laptop was verifiable in an hour or two by an organisation like the NSA. They could have had an intern verify the emails, bank statements, wire transfers, etc. using about half the capabilities Edward Snowden revealed they have. James Clapper and John Brennan knew this, and knew equally well that the media, if they picked up the story at all, would not ask any such questions, and the NSA, et al, would never weigh in. It would be our little secret.

So we'll call that letter claiming the Biden emails were potential Russian disinfo a lie, a fabrication, made-up, fake stuff designed to influence an election. That's disinformation by any definition, and evidence the only disinformation op in 2020 was run against the American voters by their own intelligence community working with the media and on behalf of the Democrats.

Almost halfof Americans now believe Trump would have won a second term if the media had fully reported on the laptops revelations. The scam worked. You know some of its hallmarks now, so keep a sharp eye out in 2024.

Continued here:
Stopping the next Hunter Biden laptop cover-up - The Spectator

Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Claims Fourth And you may 6th Amendment Legal rights Are Meaningless When Federal Security Is found on The newest Range

A case within very first violent believe as notified by the the fresh DOJ one research up against him was produced by Section 702 security has just achieved an end. The 10th Circuit Is attractive Court has actually decided theres nothing wrong with the new governments FISA-allowed warrantless security applications.

Brand new ACLU, and that aided portray the us citizen whoever interaction was basically collected and you will intercepted with FISA courtroom instructions, summarizes the outcomes for the decision:

Into the a sharply separated ruling, brand new 10th Routine Judge out-of Appeals now incorrectly stored that warrantless security away from Jamshid Muhtorov an appropriate long lasting resident whose email communications were seemed because of the U.S. government below Area 702 of the Overseas Cleverness Security Work (FISA) is actually legal. The courtroom also influenced the egregious 7-12 months impede prior to Mr. Muhtorovs demonstration didnt break new Quick Demonstration Operate.

Muhtorov, whoever path to stop inside surveillance software established from the Edward Snowden and you can a keen FBI informant pretending getting a violent sympathizer, try arrested . He spent men and women six decades from inside the jail due to the fact a great pre-trial detainee.

The fresh new Is attractive Legal doesnt have an issue with any kind of that it. They says brand new security one directed new foreign organizations Muhtorov communicated with try constitutional since these men and women legal rights are not applied to overseas monitoring needs. Muhtorov, an appropriate Us citizen, are focused just after their correspondence had been by-the-way collected, causing the government intercepting a keen untold number of characters and you will 39,100 circumstances from audio files.

Brand new incidental line of a good All of us man or womans correspondence is also legal, says the Is attractive Courtroom. It states those individuals had been when you look at the basic take a look at, one other stop away from targeted overseas correspondence your authorities requires zero warrant to track down. In the event the 1st step try courtroom, precisely what flowed of it is in addition constitutional.

Are you aware that really a lot of time impede between Muhtorovs arrest so youre able to his trial, the new judge states, in effect, this particular all the could have gone a lot easier in the event that Muhtorov had not engaged in his right to examine the data government entities wished to have fun with against your. One to federal safety precautions required the guy was not in a position to indeed pick most of the data being used is actually for some reason next to the part. The point that government entities had to collect they and you will work with it past the area court courtroom must not be kept against the regulators, the newest legal declares.

The new a lot of time dissent [PDF], written by Court Carlos Lucero, excoriates the majority for almost all the achievement it reached, however, uses a lot of time using the judge to help you activity to have deciding it actually was the defendants blame the us government took way too long to make expected proof.

I focus on just as much as a couple of years off reduce which might be uncontestably owing to the federal government. For just more than 21 months, the us government did not alert Muhtorov of ones engagement regarding 702 research in the event facing your. My personal acquaintances vie this slow down failed to expand the new pretrial several months, because this nearly one or two-12 months decrease is actually encompassed in the half dozen-and-one-half-season impede as a result of breakthrough development. That it ways twice-speak: exactly what the bulk is saying would be the fact all authorities decrease was excusable for the individual impede in the finding production. Whenever i note less than, the governments decrease in the breakthrough development is swept away by the my colleagues within the conclusory words for the prevent you to definitely almost half dozen-and-a-half of many years inside the providing such defendants in order to trial try excused, and so means another type of 6th Amendment level of price.

Continue reading here:
Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Claims Fourth And you may 6th Amendment Legal rights Are Meaningless When Federal Security Is found on The newest Range -...

So far, Mark Zuckerberg's "metaverse" is fairly unimpressive, a digital realm where people don't have legs and the future looks a lot like grocery shopping. It's easy to treat the whole thing as a joke, even while the tech industry grinds out new products to turn a half-baked idea into our near-future reality.

But what if it ends up a breeding ground for terrorist activity?

A trio of terrorism researchers at the University of Nebraska Omaha is warning about that possibility, conjuring up the specter of a zombifieddigital "Osama bin Laden" who radicalizes recruits while extremists plot and use their metaverse avatars to train together but in separate actual locations to carry out real-life attacks.

"A resurrected bin Laden could meet with would-be followers in a virtual rose garden or lecture hall," the trio writes at The Conversation. They added: "Violent extremists can plot from their living rooms, basements, or backyards all while building social connections and trust in their peers. When extremist leaders give orders for action in the physical world, these groups are likely to be more prepared than today's extremist groups because of their time in the metaverse."

That's serious stuff. It's a bit more difficult to worry about other scenarios, which by comparison amount to digital graffiti: "A metaverse wedding could be disrupted by attackers who disapprove of the religious or gendered pairing of the couple," the researchers write. "These acts would take a psychological toll and result in real-world harm." Maybe, but it sounds an awful lot like the "Zoombombing" phenomenon that emerged during the early months of the pandemic a problem, to be sure, but worthy of being lumped in with terrorist attacks?

In any case, the metaverse seems to be a new wineskin being filled with old fears. Back in 2013, documents revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that U.S. and British spies had infiltrated World of Warcraft and Second Life online fantasy worlds with metaverse-style elements to root out Islamic extremists. They reportedly didn't find much. "For terror groups looking to keep their communications secret, there are far more effective and easier ways to do so than putting on a troll avatar," one observer noted. The increasingly regimented nature of the major online platforms means it's more likely that violent radicals will flee to the "decentralized web," and away from Zuckerberg's sandbox, to do their plotting.

The Omaha researchers don't offer solutions to problems posed by potential metaverse extremists, saying only that the challenge requires creative thinking. They do make one good point, however: Wherever human activity extends, humanity's occasional propensity to do evil will follow. Even when that place isn't real.

See more here:
Terrorists in the metaverse? - The Week Magazine

Law & Order: Organized Crime brought another villain to the table in the first episode of 2022 in the guise of Robin Lord Taylor. The actor, who scored his breakout role as the Penguin on Gotham, stars as hacker Sebastian "Constantine" McClane, who becomes another tool for Dylan McDermott's Richard Wheatley to use against Christopher Meloni's Elliot Stabler. Although Sebastian does his best work behind a computer, Taylor told PopCulture.com in an exclusive interview that his Edward Snowden-inspired character helps expand the Law & Order franchise in new ways.

When producers told Taylor they saw Sebastian as a character similar to Snowden, he was immediately impressed. "That's huge. Everyone knows who that is. He's notorious. He's everywhere and nowhere at once," Taylor said of Snowden. Sebastian is similar, and that helps distinguish him from other hacker characters on television, including the one Taylor recently played on You.

"That's really the distinguishing thing about this character... The scale of what he's doing is massive, like everyone who is in that world knows his name and has some kind of respect for him," Taylor said of Sebastian. Taylor agreed that it was "really great" that Sebastian helps expand the score of Law & Order with crimes that happen far beyond New York City.

Sebastian is also a very different character than Taylor's version of the Penguin on Gotham. If his Penguin met Richard, there would probably be fireworks on the set. Instead, his Sebastian is a restrained character who is really an "anti-hero," as Taylor pointed out. "He really is a good person. He really wants to help people and he wants to do the right thing," Taylor said. "And because of tragic experiences in his past with his family, he ends up like going down road that there's no turning back from that once you go down that road. And so it's great because there's a gentle kindness there with him and again, that's for that oppositeness from Richard Wheatley that's so fun to play."

Sebastian is also a new rival for the Organized Crime Control Bureau's own tech expert, Jet (Ainsley Seiger). While Taylor wouldn't spoil how close the two characters come to directly meeting in the future, Taylor noted how much Jet respects Sebastian. "The code that he writes is something that she looks up to. So I think it's safe to say that it would be a real waste of an opportunity for these characters not to interact at least in some way," he said. "So yeah, things to look forward to."

Taylor also had plenty of kind words to say about Meloni and the rest of the Organized Crime cast. "I have worked with [Meloni] and he's so kind, and he's also just like super focused and keeping the energy up, keeping the momentum going throughout the day," he told PopCulture.com. "And at the same time he's got a twinkle in his eye. It's really inspiring to watch and he's just, yeah, he's awesome. He's amazing. I have no words. And also, everyone else, Dylan, Danielle [Monae-Truitt], Fabulous."

Coincidentally, the same night Taylor's first Organized Crime episode aired, the preceding Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode featured his old Gotham co-star Donal Logue. Taylor joked that his career always seems to have connections to Logue, calling him "one of my favorite people in the world." He even joked about "absolutely" lobbying the Law & Order team to reunite the two actors. "If I could do every job with Donal Logue, I would do it in a heartbeat," he said.

Taylor will next be seen in Law & Order: Organized Crime in the Jan. 13 episode "As Nottingham Was to Robin Hood." The show airs on Thursdays at 10 p.m. ET on NBC.

See the original post here:
Robin Lord Taylor Shares How His Edward Snowden-Like Character Expands the Scope of 'Law & Order: Organized Crime' (Exclusive) - PopCulture.com