The Reichstag Warning – The New York Review of Books

European/FPG/Getty Images The shell of the Reichstag after the fire, Berlin, Germany, 1933

On February 27, 1933 the German Parliament building burned, Adolf Hitler rejoiced, and the Nazi era began. Hitler, who had just been named head of a government that was legally formed after the democratic elections of the previous November, seized the opportunity to change the system. There will be no mercy now, he exulted. Anyone standing in our way will be cut down.

The next day, at Hitlers advice and urging, the German president issued a decree for the protection of the people and the state. It deprived all German citizens of basic rights such as freedom of expression and assembly and made them subject to preventative detention by the police. A week later, the Nazi party, having claimed that the fire was the beginning of a major terror campaign by the Left, won a decisive victory in parliamentary elections. Nazi paramilitaries and the police then began to arrest political enemies and place them in concentration camps. Shortly thereafter, the new parliament passed an enabling act that allowed Hitler to rule by decree.

After 1933, the Nazi regime madeuse of a supposed threat of terrorism against Germans from an imaginary international Jewish conspiracy. After five years of repressing Jews, in 1938 the German state began to deport them. On October 27 of that year, the German police arrested about 17,000 Jews from Poland and deported them across the Polish border. A young man named Herschel Grynszpan, sent to Paris by his parents, received a desperate postcard from his sister after his family was forced across the Polish border. He bought a gun, went to the German embassy, and shot a German diplomat. He called thisan act of revenge for the suffering of his family and his people. Nazi propagandists presentedit as evidence of an international Jewish conspiracy preparing a terror campaign against the entire German people. Josef Goebbels used it as the pretext to organize the events we remember as Kristallnacht, a massive national pogrom of Jews that left hundreds dead.

The Reichstag fire shows how quickly a modern republic can be transformed into an authoritarian regime. There is nothing new, to be sure, in the politics of exception. The American Founding Fathers knew that the democracy they were creating was vulnerable to an aspiring tyrant who might seize uponsome dramatic event as grounds for the suspension of our rights. As James Madison nicely put it, tyranny arises on some favorable emergency. What changed with the Reichstag fire was the use of terrorism as a catalyst for regime change. To this day, we do not know who set the Reichstag fire: the lone anarchist executed by the Nazis or, as new scholarship by Benjamin Hett suggests, the Nazis themselves. What we do know is that it created the occasion for a leader to eliminate all opposition.

In 1989, two centuries after our Constitution was promulgated, the man who is now our president wrote that civil liberties end when an attack on our safety begins. For much of the Western world, that was a momentwhen both security and liberty seemed to be expanding. 1989 was a year of liberation, as communist regimes came to an end in eastern Europe and new democracies were established. Yet that wave of democratization has since fallen under the glimmering shadow of the burning Reichstag. The aspiring tyrants of today havenot forgotten the lesson of 1933: that acts of terrorreal or fake, provoked or accidentalcan provide the occasion to deal a death blow to democracy.

The most consequential example is Russia, so admired by Donald Trump. When Vlaimir V. Putin was appointed prime minister in August 1999, the former KGB officer had an approval rating of 2 percent. Then, a month later, the bombs began to explode in apartment buildings in Moscow and several other Russian cities, killing hundreds of citizens and causing widespread fear. There were numerous indications that this was a campaign organized by the KGBs heir, now known as the FSB. Some of its officers were caught red-handed (and then released) by their peers. A Russian parliamentarian announced one of the terror attacks several days before the bomb actually exploded.

Putin blamed Muslim terrorists and began the war in Chechnya that made him popular. He thereafterexploited more terrorist attacks to consolidate his rule: three years later, Russian security forces ended up gassing to death Russian civilians in a botched response to an attack at a Moscow theater. Putin used the negative press coverage as a justification for seizing control of television. In 2004, after the Beslan massacre, in which terrorists occupied a school and killed a large number of parents and children during a violent confrontation with Russian forces, Putin abolished the position of elected regional governors. And so the current Russian regime was built.

Once an authoritarian regime is established, the threat of terrorism can be used to deepen repression, or indeed to promote it abroad. In 2013 and 2014 the Russian media spread hysterical reports about a non-existent Ukrainian terrorist threat as the Russian army prepared and then fought a war in Ukraine. In 2015, Russia hacked into a French television channel, pretended to be ISIS, and broadcast messages apparently intended to frighten the French population into voting for the National Front, the far-right party financially supported by Russia (and whose leader, Marine Le Pen, is expected to reach the second round of the French presidential elections to be held this April and May). In 2016, the Russian media and Russian diplomats engaged in a large-scale disinformation campaign in Germany, spreading a false tale about refugees raping a girl of Russian originagain with the likely aim of helping the German far right.

The use of real or imagined terrorist threats to create or consolidate authoritarian regimes has become increasingly frequent worldwide. In Syria, Russias client Bashar al-Assad used the presence of ISIS to portray any opposition to his regime as terrorists. Our president has admired the methods of rule of both Assad and Putin. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoan has used the July 2016coup attemptwhich he has called terrorism supported by the Westto justify the arrest of tens of thousands of judges, teachers, university professors, and to call for a referendum this spring that could give him sweeping new powers over the parliament and the judiciary.

Itis aspiring tyrants who say thatcivil liberties end when an attack on our safety begins. Conversely, leaders who wish to preserve the rule of law find other ways to speak about real terrorist threats, and certainly do not invent them or deliberately make them worse.

In this respect, the Bush administrations reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks was not as awful as it might have been. To be sure, 9/11was used to justify the vast expansion of NSA spying and the torture of foreign detainees. It also became the speciouspretext for an ill-considered invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people, spread terrorism throughout the Middle East, and ended the American century. But at least the Bush administration did not claim that Muslims as a whole were responsible, nor try to change the basic rules of the political game in the United States. Had it done so, and succeeded, we might already today be living in a post-democratic country.

If we know the history of terror manipulation, we can recognize the dangersigns, and be prepared to react. It is already worrying that the president speaks unfavorably of democracy, while admiring foreign manipulators of terror. It is also of concern that the administration speaks of terrorist attacks that never took place, whether in Bowling Green or Sweden, while banning citizens from seven countries that have never been tied to any attack in the United States.

It is alarming that in a series of catastrophic executive policy decisionsthe presidents Muslim travel ban, his selection of Steve Bannon as his main political adviser, his short-lived appointment of Michael Flynn as national security adviser, his proposal to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalemthere seems to be a single common element: the stigmatization and provocation of Muslims. In rhetoric and action, the Trump administration has aggrandized radical Islamic terror thus making what Madison called a favorable emergency more likely.

It is the governments job to promote both freedom and safety. If we face again a terrorist attackor what seems to be a terrorist attack, or what the government calls a terrorist attackwe must hold the Trump administration responsible for our security. In that moment of fear and grief, when the pulse of politics might suddenlychange, we must also be ready to mobilize for our constitutional rights. The Reichstag fire has long been an example for tyrants; it should today be a warning for citizens.It was the burning of the Reichstag that disabused Hannah Arendt of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander. Best to learn that now, rather than waiting for the flames.

Continued here:
The Reichstag Warning - The New York Review of Books

NSA denies ‘blanket’ spying on spectators and athletes at the 2002 … – Washington Post

The National Security Agency has denied it indiscriminately spied on spectators, athletes and others who attended the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002.

The denial came in a document filed last week in a U.S. District Court in Utah, where a group of Salt Lake City residents filed a complaint in 2015 alleging the U.S. government engaged in widespread, indiscriminate communications surveillance, interception, and analysis, without warrants and without probable cause during the Games that took place just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

At issue, specifically, is how the Presidents Surveillance Program, or PSP, was implemented during the Games. PSP made headlines after 2013 when the government admitted to collecting a type of information known as metadata in bulk following the publication of classified materials leaked by Edward Snowden.

[New study: Snowdens disclosures about NSA spying had a scary effect on free speech]

In the court document, the NSA and other intelligence authorities admit that the activities actually carried out under the PSP were conducted without warrant or court order or judicial findings of probablecause, but rather, under Presidential and statutory authority, NSA attorney James Gilligan wrote in the filing on Friday.

He added, however, To the extent the allegations of this paragraph exceed the scope of or are inconsistent with the foregoing admissions, they are denied, including, specifically, the allegation that the PSP involved indiscriminate surveillance, interception, or analysis of communications.

Gilligan wrote neither the PSP nor any other NSA intelligence activity involved or evolved into blanket, indiscriminate surveillance of the contents of every email and text message and the metadata of every telephone call sent or received in Salt Lake City, or the vicinity of Olympic venues, during the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games.

Gilligan concluded the filing by asking the court to dismiss the complaint.

The NSAs latest request for dismissal comes just a month after U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby refused to dismiss the complaint that was filed by former Salt Lake City Mayor Ross Rocky Anderson on behalf a bipartisan group of individuals. The individuals are not seeking monetary damages.

Because the allegations in the [complaint] are not legal conclusions, bare assertions of the elements of standing, or sufficiently fantastic on their face as to defy reality, the law requires the court to accept them as true when evaluating the NSAs Motion to Dismiss, Shelby wrote in a court filing last month. Though these allegations will undoubtedly be tested as this case proceeds, the court concludes at this early stage that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged injury and redressability as required (H/t: Fox 13)

More here:
NSA denies 'blanket' spying on spectators and athletes at the 2002 ... - Washington Post

NSA Contractors Join Privacy Shield – Pirate Times

Did you really think that the European Union would protect your privacy? Dont be so naive.

The US-EU Privacy Shield program is supposed to give EU citizens greater data protections. As I wrote previously, the Privacy Shield program has several legal loopholes, which makes it looka bit like a block of Swiss cheese.

To add insult to injury, not only does the Privacy Shield fail to protect peoples private data, even NSA contractors are invited to join the party! The Privacy Shield program gives these NSA contractors the ability to transfer personal data stored in the EU to the US. From watching international news over the past few years, you may remember how Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSAs mass surveillance programs. Snowden exposed how the US government had access to read your emails and to listen in on your phone calls.

Including NSA contractors on the list of Privacy Shield is a bit like letting the fox guard your henhouse. While some of the NSA contractors are signed up only to share human resources data, their inclusion in the program does nothing to improve Privacy Shields already dismal public image. The companies on the list are allowed to submit a self-assessment to ensure their compliance with Privacy Shield. In practice, this means that these companies have little or no independent oversight.

The followingNSA contractors have joined the Privacy Shield program: BAE Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

With the inclusion of NSA contractors in the Privacy Shield program, it is rather obvious that the US government cares nothing for data protection. While Europeans are lulled into a false sense of security with Privacy Shield, the US continues to build its surveillance state.

BAE Systems

In 2013, BAE Systems won a multi-year contract with the NSA for high performance computing. The contract is valued at $127 million. A leaked top-secret document outlines the NSAs surveillance priorities for 2012-2016. One of the NSAs stated goals is to use high performance computing to crack encryption. As a goal, the document states that the NSA plans to Dynamically integrate endpoint, midpoint, industrial-enabled, and cryptanalytic capabilities to reach previously inaccessible targets in support of exploitation, cyber defense, and cyber operations. In other words, the NSA plans to use its high performance computing program to broaden its surveillance capabilities, and BAE Systems is helping.

Boeing

The American telecom, AT&T, built a secret room in one of its centers to facilitate NSA spying. In 2006, an AT&T technician blew the whistle and revealed the NSAs massive spying operations. The NSA used a device to sift through massive amounts of data from the internets backbone. The device was made by a company called Narus. In 2010, Boeing acquired Narus.

In 2008, Boeing acquired Digital Receiver Technology (DRT). The NSA used DRT equipment to track peoples locations by their cellphone signals. Some DRT devices also have the ability to listen in on cellphone conversations and jam cellphone signals. Several DRT devices appear in the NSAs surveillance catalog.

General Dynamics

In 2014, the Intercept revealed that the NSA was recording virtually every phone call in the Bahamas. The program is called SOMALGET, which is part of a broader surveillance program called MYSTIC. The broader surveillance program, MYSTIC, collects phone call metadata from several countries including Mexico, Kenya, and the Phillipines. General Dynamics had an 8 year contract valued at $51 million to process data for the MYSTIC program.

Lockheed Martin

In 1988, Margaret Newsham, a software engineer for Lockheed Martin, blew the whistle on a massive NSA spying program. The NSA was intercepting phone calls and electronic data in a surveillance program called ECHELON. While working for Lockheed Martin, Newsham was helping to create software that ran the ECHELON program. Newsham also revealed that the NSA was listening to phone calls of a US Congressman.

The US militarys research arm, DARPA, awarded contracts for the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program. The TIA program would collect massive amounts of data and use a predictive policing model. In other words, TIA used automated analysis to identify people as potential terrorists. In a very eery sense, it was the film Minority Report becomingreality. DARPA gave Lockheed Martin 23 contracts valued at $27 million for the TIA program. Several branches of the US government were involved in the TIA program, including the NSA. In 2012, the New York Times revealed that the NSA was running a program very similar to the TIA. The full extent of the TIAs legacy would not be revealed until the Snowden leaks in 2013.

Northrop Grumman

In 2000, the NSA launched the Trailblazer project. The aim of Trailblazer was to update the old Cold War era interception technology employed by the NSA. The Trailblazer project was mired in scandal. The NSA had wasted over a billion dollars for a program that did not work. Northrop Grumman was one of the contractors working on the failed Trailblazer project.

The Trailblazer project was terminated in 2006. The next year, the NSA awarded Northrop Grumman a $220 million contract. The contract was to help the NSA manage the vast amounts of data it collected from its surveillance programs.

Raytheon

In 2009, the NSA founded the US Cyber Command. The new command center would focus on defensive as well as offensive cyber warfare. Raytheon posted job advertisements for cyber warriors to work at locations near known NSA sites.

In 2010, the NSA awarded Raytheon a classified $100 million contract for the Perfect Citizen program. The program would place sensors, to detect cyber attacks, in the backbone infrastructure of public utilities. A Raytheon employee criticized the program with the following words in an email: Perfect Citizen is Big Brother. The NSA rather comically claimed that Perfect Citizen would not be used for spying; however, privacy advocates were worried that the program would be used for domestic surveillance.

The text of this article is released into the public domain. You are free to translate and republishthe text of this article. Featured pictureis CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Flicker user jrothphotos. Secondary picture CC by EFF.

Printouts from PrivacyShield.gov website, link.

Originally part of the Occupy protests, Rachael is an advocate for transparency in government and digital civil liberties.

Did you really think that the European Union would protect your privacy? Dont be so naive. The US-EU Privacy Shield program is supposed to give EU citizens greater data protections....

All content is CC-BY if not mentioned otherwise. Please link back to us if using content.

Go here to see the original:
NSA Contractors Join Privacy Shield - Pirate Times

Merkel testifies on NSA spying affair – Deutsche Welle

German Chancellor Angela Merkel appeared as a witness at the final hearing in the three-year existence of the parliamentary committee charged with investigating the 2013 NSA scandal. Although she admitted to technical and organizational mistakes, she parried suggestions that she knew or should have known about widespread American and German spying on allies at an early stage of the affair.

Merkels testimony was particularly anticipated not just because of her position as chancellor, but because of her high-profile statement in 2013: "Spying among friends - that simply isnt done."

The chancellor, appearing relaxed, began with a 25-minute statement full of self-quotations from 2013-15. In it she tried to prove that she had consistently come out against intelligence surveillance of allies in the wake of the Snowden leaks in 2013. She also sought to show that she had only gradually learned about the extent of the NSAs spying on Germans and the German foreign intelligence service BNDs monitoring of German allies, which emerged after journalistic inquiries in 2015.

She said that she had complained to then US President Barack Obama about the US spying in 2013 and insisted that US intelligence services operating on German soil follow German law.

"Were not in the Cold War any more," Merkel quoted herself as telling Obama.

Merkel said that the situation had been made more complicated by the complex and constantly evolving nature of surveillance technology.

"There are always some contradictions between freedom and security, and a balance must be maintained," Merkel said.

Merkel downplayed the importance of so-called "handygate"

The cell phone affair

The conservative chairman of the committee Patrick Sensburg was far less aggressive in his questioning of Merkel than he had been grilling high-ranking chancellors office leaders on Monday. One main thread of his queries had to do with alleged NSA eavesdropping on Merkel's cell phone.

Speaking without notes other than her opening remarks, Merkel said that it was never proven that the American intelligence service had listened in on her conversations. She added that she had received assurances from Obama that her phone was not tapped and wouldnt be in the future.

When asked why she didn't have her cell phone forensically examined, she said that she didnt want to give additional insights into her communication habits. She said it was easier for her just to procure a new device.

Deficits or something more?

The Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens sought to suggest that Merkel had violated her own principle that allies shouldnt spy on one another by failing to pursue the matter vigorously enough with Washington and to ensure that similar practices by BND were discontinued.

Merkel says she didn't know until 2015 that the BND spied on allies

In response to Merkel's insistence that she only gradually learned about the BND's use of so-called selectors, computer search terms, aimed at European political leaders and businesses, Christian Plisek of the SPD asked: "Is it responsible to demand things of intelligence services abroad, when youre not sure what our own ones are doing?"

When Plisek asked if she had inquired about where the BND got information it passed along to her, Merkel replied tersely: "I dont need information about sources of information."

Merkel said that her assertion that "friends" should spy on one another was a statement of political belief and not an assertion that Germany didnt run surveillance on allies. When pressed why it took until March 2015 for the BND to discontinue using certain controversial selectors, the chancellor blamed "technical and organizational deficits."

"You say that it cant be that friends spy on one another and yet the BND did precisely that over years," objected Andr Hahn of the Left Party. "And that was just down to 'technical and organizational deficits?'"

Merkel denied any deeper knowledge of German surveillance practices before 2015 and any responsibility for mistakes made by her subordinates. She said that she as chancellor set policy targets and trusted others to see that they were met.

Few tense moments

The mood at the hearing was fairly congenial

Konstantin von Notz of the Greens suggested that talk of a no-spy agreement between Germany and the US in 2013, which ultimately yielded no results, was a strategy to blunt the political damage of the NSA affair. Merkel denied that thiswas the case.

Notz also asked Merkel to name the reason why the former president of the BND Gerhard Schindler went into early retirement in 2015. The chancellor refused to do so, but said that she was happy thatGermanys foreign intelligence service was able to make a "new start."

The committee succeeded in highlighting mistakes madein the BND and to a lesser extent in the chancellors office. But it didnt uncover evidence of any massive misdeeds by Merkel or her associates.

In a break in the testimony, Plisek told reporters that he believed that chancellor didn't know about the practices within the BND when she made her "friends don't spy on friends" remark, although he did add that she seemed to have erected a "protective wall" around herself to keep from knowing more than she absolutely had to.

Although Merkel appeared to grow slightly more irritable as the hearing wore on, none the questioners managed to provoke her into an unmeasured response. Indeed, during the break she joked with reporters as though at a social event rather than a parliamentary investigative hearing.

Merkel's testimony ends the main investigative work of the committee, which was formed in March 2014. It now has until the second half of June to file its final report on the NSA-BND spying affair.

Continue reading here:
Merkel testifies on NSA spying affair - Deutsche Welle

Montana House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Collection of Electronic Data – Tenth Amendment Center (blog)

HELENA, Mont. (Feb. 17, 2017) A Montana bill that would ban warrantless collection of data from an electronic device in most situations unanimously passed the House on Wednesday. Final passage of the legislation would not only increase privacy protections in the state, it would also hinder one practical aspect of federal surveillance programs.

Rep. Daniel Zolnikov sponsors Bill 147 (HB147). The legislation would require a government agency to get a warrant before accessing the data in any electronic device unless it has informed, affirmative consent of the owner. It would also allow warrantless access to an electronic device in accordance with judicially recognized exceptions to warrant requirements, if the owner has already made the stored data public, or if there exists a possible life-threatening situation.

Evidence obtained in violation of the law would be inadmissible in court, and it could not be used as the basis for obtaining an affidavit, court order, nor a warrant.

The House passed HB147 by a 94-4 vote.

This legislation would work with a second bill that passe by the House last week to ban warrantless collection of all cell phone data in most situations. HB148 would prohibit warrantless collection of information from service providers.

PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION

By making information obtained in violation of the law inadmissible in court, passage of HB147 and HB148 would effectively stop one practical effect of NSA spying in Montana.

Reuters revealed the extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases rarely involve national security issues. Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.

After the SOD passes along this information, it then works with state and local law enforcement to create an investigation, working backward to obscure the origin of the evidence. For instance, the SOD might instruct local police to obtain a warrant to collect information they already have via information sharing. It creates the illusion that the investigation and prosecution proceeded in a constitutionally permissible way

In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data, using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.

This is the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War, Binney said.

UP NEXT

HB147 now move to the Senate for further consideration. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Read more from the original source:
Montana House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Collection of Electronic Data - Tenth Amendment Center (blog)

Edward Jay Epstein’s Alternative Facts – The Nation.

Edward Snowden. Photo illustration by Michael Xiao.

Its been three and a half years since the pervasive covert surveillance of millions of Americans by the National Security Agency was exposed by Edward Snowden. In that time, public opinion has split into two camps: one that hails Snowden as a patriot for revealing countless classified NSA spying programs, and one that considers him a traitor. In How America Lost Its Secrets, Edward Jay Epstein, a partisan of the second camp, digs in even deeper. Snowden, he believes, is not just a traitor; he is also a spy. But for whom? Epstein argues that it could be China. Or possibly Russia. Or China and Russia take your pick. This is a book long on conjecture, innuendo, and unsubstantiated claims; it reads like an adrenalized addendum to the discredited House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report on Snowden, which, when it came out last fall, was dismissed by former Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman as aggressively dishonest.

Edward Snowden was 29 years old when he reached out to journalist Glenn Greenwald and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras (who in turn reached out to Gellman), offering them a trove of top-secret NSA documents that, he said, would lay bare the agencys massive domestic (and global) digital data-mining apparatus. At the time, Snowden, whose computer skills were largely self-taught, was working under contract with Dell as a systems administrator at the NSAs regional cryptographic facility in Hawaii. He took that job after stints with the CIA in Switzerland safeguarding diplomats computers and with the NSA in Japan, where he was also a Dell contractor, teaching US military personnel how to shield their computers from hackers.

It was in Japan that Snowden became a China specialist with an expertise in Chinese cyber-counterintelligence, according to Luke Harding, author of The Snowden Files (2014), one of the first books published about him. Among other things, Snowden taught senior Defense Department personnel how to shield their data from the growing legion of Chinese hackers, the most notorious of which is Unit 61398, the elite cyber-combat arm of the Peoples Liberation Army.

A professed Ron Paulsupporting libertarian who had grown increasingly disturbed by what he saw in his work as unconstitutional government overreach through sweeping, warrantless phone and data capture, Snowden signed on for the Dell job in Hawaii specifically to remove documents that revealed how the US government was spying on innocent Americans, often with the collusion of Internet service providers and tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple. He hoped to pass on this information to journalists who would then push it out into the world.

As a systems administrator with a high security clearance, Snowden was able to move around NSA computers without leaving a trace or arousing suspicion. (He also moved around his workplace wearing a hoodie from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that sported a caricature of the NSA logo: an eagle with headphones over its ears.) Once hed downloaded the files he was after, Snowden took another NSA contracting job, this one with Booz Allen, also in Hawaii. If he could crack the system there, he would have access to a different cache of documents, many of which detailed the American surveillance states global reach.

Over a period of about six weeks, Snowden was able to pull the documents he was after, ferrying them out of the building on thumb drives. Having succeeded in that task, he quietly left Hawaii and decamped to Hong Kong, carrying four computers loaded with incriminating material. Once there, he worked on executing the next part of his plan: passing the purloined files along to well-known journalists who could alert the world to what the NSA was doing. He checked into the upscale Mira Hotel on May 20, 2013, under his own name and using his own credit card. Greenwald and Poitras met him there on June 3. Two days later, Greenwalds first story, about a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over the phone data of millions of Americans to the NSA, ran in The Guardian. It threw the intelligence community, the Obama White House, the US government, and the world at large into a maelstrom that continues to this day.

The Edward Snowden in How America Lost Its Secrets is a very different person from the one chronicled by Greenwald and Harding. Epstein expends thousands of words painting a portrait of the young whistle-blower as a disaffected (based on his pseudonymous posts on tech blogs, many made when Snowden was in his late teens and early 20s), shallow (his girlfriend is a sometime pole dancer), conniving (he took a hacking course in India), cheating (Epstein claims, with absolutely no evidence, that Snowden stole the answers to an NSA employment test), self-promoting (why else would he reveal himself as the source for Greenwalds and Poitrass revelations?), self-aggrandizing (no, he wasnt a senior NSA employee who made $200,000 a year, as he told the two journalists, but rather an NSA contractor who made $133,000 in a position that didnt give him the kind of access he needed to steal the documents he took), undereducated (he dropped out of high school) nothingburger. Such a fellow, Epstein suggests, would have been punching well above his weight to pull off such a remarkable heist by himself. And so, Epstein decides, he most likely didnt.

Epstein offers numerous theories about who might have helped him. First, he posits that Snowden could have been assisted by someone at his workplacea witting accomplice, in Epsteins parlance, a fellow traveler who shared the same ideals and concerns as the callow, angry IT clerk. It would be relatively easy to gain access to passwords, Epstein writes, if Snowden had the cooperation of an insider. Such an accomplice could also help explain how Snowden was able to get the job at the [NSA data] center in the first place, how he knew in advance that he could find there the lists of the NSA sources in foreign countries, and how he knew that there were security traps at the center.

Theres only one problem with this explanation: As Epstein himself points out, no witting accomplice was ever identified by the FBI, which is a cagey way of saying that the witting accomplice theory is specious. Rather than putting it completely to rest, however, Epstein burrows in further: This raises the more sinister possibility that the accomplice was not an amateur co-worker but a spy who was already in place when Snowden arrived.

Theres only one problem with this narrative, however, and its the same one as before: No such foreign agent was ever found by the CIA, the NSA, or the FBI. After extensive investigations, the worlds best investigators came up empty-handed. But this doesnt deter Epstein. Using a backhoe rather than a shovel, he points out that while no hidden collaborator at the NSA was ever found, this does not necessarily mean such a mole does not exist. True enough. And the same could be said of ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, and my doppelgnger in an undiscovered solar system. This is not investigative reporting. Its not even reporting. Its fantasy.

Its also frustrating. One could go through Epsteins book counting the number of times he uses might have and could have and would have and must havephrases that denote speculation, not confirmation. For example: Snowden might have had another motive prior to contacting journalists. And: Poitras must have found it flattering that a total stranger was willing to disclose to her in e-mails what he would not tell even his most trusted confidante.

Similarly, one could point out all the assertions that have no basis in fact, that ignore known evidence, stretch the truth, or quote people who are making stuff up. But this would require quoting much of the book. So, in the interest of concision, here are three of the more egregious examples. First, Epstein says that Snowden sought contract work from Booz Allen because it would give him access to super-secret Level 3 sensitive compartmented information, documents described by NSA executives as the Keys to the Kingdom. The problem? Theres no such thing as Level 3 sensitive compartmented information. As Gellman, who helped do much of the original reporting on Snowden, pointed out in a Twitter storm, theres no such category at the NSA.

Second, Epstein asserts that while Snowden arrived in Hong Kong on May 20, he didnt check into the Mira until June 1, shortly before meeting with Greenwald and Poitras. In Epsteins telling: As I learned from the hotel staff, Snowden had registered there under his real name and used his own passport and credit card to secure the room, an odd choice if he was hiding out. He had checked in to the hotel not on May 20, as he had told the reporters, but on June 1, 2013. Wherever Snowden stayed from May 20 to June 1, he apparently considered it a safe enough place from which to send Greenwald a welcome package, as he called it, of twenty top secret NSA documents on May 25. Later, Epstein suggests that Snowden was probably hanging out with his Chinese handlers during this period.

So lets parse this, just for fun. Epstein learns that Snowden didnt check into the hotel on May 20. Whats the proof? He offers none. What he actually says he learned from hotel staff is that Snowden checked in using his real name and credit card. Hardings and Greenwalds books, both of them published years ago, already report this. But by invoking hotel insiders, Epstein is conflating two separate things: his assertion that Snowden didnt check into the hotel on May 20, and the fact that he used his real name and credit card when he did. In doing so, Epstein makes it seem that his assertion is based on statements from the hotel staff, even though what he says they told him was something else. Its a cheap trick, but easy to miss. And it does that thing weve all become aware of in this age of fake news: It lets loose the worm of doubt. Aha, you might think, where was Snowden? Maybe he was working with the Chinese after all

Finally, theres the matter of exactly how many documents were stolen. We know that Snowden gave the reporters somewhere around 58,000 files. But how many files did he actually take? That precise number has never been established; even the NSA doesnt know. Heres Epstein again: The NSA could say that 1.7 million documents had been selected in two dozen NSA computers during Snowdens brief tenure at Booz Allen. Of these touched documents, some 1.3 million had been copied and moved to another computer. While Epstein concedes that a certain number of these were duplicates, he suggests nonetheless that these missing files were Snowdens real target; what he gave Greenwald and Poitras was perhaps a red herring, a diversion that let him hand off the rest to the bad guys.

The use of touched here is part of the problem. Its a vague term thats largely meaningless, especially in the context of Snowdens theft, since he used a so-called spider program to crawl through the masses of documents in search of specific ones. That program was likely to touch many more files than it actually downloaded. By inflating the number and then wonderingwink, winkwhat happened to the files that Snowden didnt give to journalists, Epstein continues to imply that he was working against American interests at the behest of one or more of our adversaries, using the stolen files as collateral in his escape from American justice.

One fact in the Snowden saga that Epstein gets absolutely right because its indisputableis that on June 23, two weeks after revealing that he was the person behind the NSA leaks, Edward Snowden landed in Russia. Along the way, he was helped by Julian Assange and Assanges WikiLeaks associate Sarah Harrison. After the United States revoked Snowdens passport, Assange arranged for travel documents from his hosts at the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Assange was self-exiled to avoid being extradited to Sweden on sexual-assault charges. The idea was to get Snowden from Hong Kong to a South American country that would be disposed to grant him asylum. To get there, hed have to hopscotch across the world, avoiding countries and airspace where he could be intercepted by the US government, which had issued a warrant for his arrest. Again with Assanges assistance and counsel, that meant traveling through Russia, where he ultimately landed.

Snowden ping-ponging from one US foe (China) to another (Russia) is a conspiracy theorists dream. No matter that by the time he arrived in Russia, his travel papers had been revoked by Ecuador. Or that Snowden appealed to 20 countries for asylum and was rejected by all of them. Or that he spent 39 days in a Russian airports transit hotel waiting as these appeals were summarily rejected, until he had little choice but to accept Russias offer of temporary asylum if he didnt want to go back to the United States, where some lawmakersincluding Congressman Mike Pompeo, now head of Trumps CIAcalled for his execution. As Harding pointed out in his book: Snowdens prolonged stay in Russia was involuntary. He got stuck. But it made his own storyhis narrative of principled exile and flighta lot more complicated. It was now easier for critics to paint him not as a political refugee but as a 21st century Kim Philby, the British defector who sold his country and its secrets to the Soviets. That Snowdens Russian lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, had direct ties to the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency, and to Vladimir Putin himself also didnt help things.

Not surprisingly, Epstein makes much of Snowdens connection, through Kucherena, to the FSB: If Snowden wasnt working for the Chinese, Epstein suggests, then he must be working with the Russians, who likely got to him when he was in Hong Kong. Or maybe the Russians recruited him well before that. Or maybe they made contact after hed gone public via Greenwald, Gellman, and Poitras. Or, at the very least, maybe the Russians turned Snowden after he arrived in Moscow.

Its like a choose-your-own-adventure story; all these plotlines are up for grabs. In the Moscow scenario, Epstein writesmeaning any of the possible ways he imagines Snowden came to be working for Putin and companythe Russians acted to advance their interests. They gave Snowden sanctuary, support, perks, and high-level treatment because he agreed to cooperate with them. If Snowden had not paid this basic price of admission, either in Russia or before his arrival, he would not have been accorded this privileged status.

There is only one word in the foregoing that is demonstrably true, and that word is scenario. Epstein is spinning a story here.

Edward Snowden has consistently said that he never handed over any NSA documents to the Chinese or Russians, and that his expert knowledge of cyber-defense ensured that no one would be able to gain access to them. In his letter to Gordon Humphrey, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire who had written to Snowden praising his actions, provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, Snowden asserted that no intelligence servicenot even our ownhas the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. [O]ne of my specializations was to teach our people at DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest-threat counter-intelligence environments (i.e. China). Interviewed by National Public Radio, Barton Gellman put it this way: I believe that he has rendered himself incapable of opening the archive while he is in Russia. That is to say, its not only that he doesnt have the key anymore, its that theres nothing to open anymore. And while we may never know if the Russians or Chinese obtained Snowdens purloined files, one cant help but wonder whether sophisticated spy agencies like the FSB and the Chinese MSS already had access to the material Snowden downloaded, given that the security was so lax at the facilities where he worked.

About one thing, however, there is no doubt: It was a coup for Putin to welcome the most wanted man in America to Russia. As the security blogger John Robb wrote recently, in addition to oil, Russias other main export is kompromat, the kind of information that can be used for blackmail (as in the alleged Trump golden showers video), as well as anything else that can be used to discredit or confuse an adversary. For a couple of years before the Russians began to seriously mess with the American electoral process, Snowdens residence in Moscowwhere he was allowed to move around freely, give talks via Skype, sit on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and criticize both WikiLeaks and the Russian governmenthad to be an embarrassment for Barack Obama. Inadvertently, Snowden became the embodiment of kompromat. Even without handing over files, he was valuable to the regime.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

This fact was on display five months after Snowden took up residence in Moscow, when President Obama was asked at a press conference in Washington if Snowden should be granted amnesty. Rather than answering directly, Obama said this: The fact of the matter is that the United States, for all our warts, is a country that abides by rule of law; that cares deeply about privacy; that cares about civil liberties; that cares about our Constitution. And as a consequence of these disclosures, weve got countries that do the things Mr. Snowden says hes worried about, very explicitly engaging in surveillance of their own citizens; targeting political dissidents; targeting and suppressing the press; who somehow are able to sit on the sidelines and act as if its the United States that has problems when it comes to surveillance and intelligence operations. And thats a pretty distorted view of whats going on out there.

It should be remembered that Obama, who insisted even in his final week in office that Snowden should be put on trial, was no friend to government whistle-blowers. In his eight years as president, he used the Espionage Act to prosecute government employees who leaked information to the press more than all other presidents combined. Snowden, it should also be remembered, wasnt covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act because, as an NSA contractor, he didnt technically work for the government. And though former attorney general Eric Holder conceded, in retrospect, that Snowden performed a public service by forcing a public debate about government surveillance, it was a conversation that appears to have been lost on Obama. Rather than attempting to rein in the intelligence agencies, especially in light of Donald Trumps election and all it portended, Obama expanded their reach days before he left office. His Executive Order 12333 enables the NSA to share raw-data intercepts with the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, and a dozen other government agencies. According to Charlie Savage, writing in The New York Times, with this new policy the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

In the end, and quite ironically, there is something retrograde about a book claiming that Edward Snowden is essentially a tool of the Russians, when theres no question that the same could be said of the current American president and a number of his cabinet members and advisers. With Putins pals Donald Trump, Stephen Bannon, Rex Tillerson, and Michael Flynn in power, it remains to be seen what use the Russian president will have for Edward Snowden. In the meantime, Edward Jay Epstein might consider investigating a real spy story: the arrest this January of four high-ranking Russian intelligence officers, all charged with treason for being American operatives, and the rumor that they were exposed as moles by someone in the Trump administration. If that turns out to be true, the question will not be how America lost its secrets, but why were giving them away.

Visit link:
Edward Jay Epstein's Alternative Facts - The Nation.

The ACLU Is in Dublin, Ireland, Today Defending the Right to Privacy for Europeans and Americans Alike – ACLU (blog)

Today, lawyers for Facebook will cross-examine ACLU Staff Attorney Ashley Gorski at a court hearing in Dublin, Ireland, about U.S. surveillance policies and privacy protections. The hearing is part of litigation in European courts over whether users private data is adequately safeguarded when companies like Facebook move that information from Europe to the United States.

Facebook says that its users data is adequately protected, even in the face of sweeping U.S. surveillance programs, like the PRISM program revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It also says that European citizens can readily obtain remedies for illegal surveillance in U.S. courts. But those claims are hard to square with reality. As our ACLU colleague has explained in her expert report, this data is incredibly vulnerable to spying programs operated by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. Moreover, in practice, the millions of people affected by this spying have few (if any) effective remedies.

Given all weve learned in the past three years and given the dangerous spying powers wielded by our new president U.S. tech companies must continue their efforts to promote strong surveillance reforms.

Fridays hearing is part of what is known as the Schrems litigation a pair of cases brought in European courts following the revelations of NSA spying that began in June 2013. Those disclosures revealed a vast machinery of surveillance, such as the PRISM program operated under Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the government uses to target tens of thousands of non-U.S. citizens for surveillance with few restrictions. According to NSA documents, Facebook was one of the major internet companies compelled to turn over its users stored and real-time communications under PRISM.

The breadth of U.S. government spying is a problem for companies that want to move their users data from the European Union to the United States. The E.U. generally prohibits companies from transferring private data out of the E.U. unless that data will receive essentially equivalent protection at its destination. The Schrems cases have challenged various protocols that companies like Facebook have relied on to satisfy these legal obligations. The initial challenge concerned the so-called Safe Harbour arrangement, which was invalidated by the Court of Justice for the European Union on privacy grounds in 2015. The present case challenges a new set of protocols that some companies invoked in an attempt to meet E.U. privacy rules after that groundbreaking decision.

The legal issues before the Irish High Court are complex, but whats at stake is not. The case highlights just how easy it is for U.S. intelligence agencies to access Europeans data once it is transferred to the United States. And it highlights also just how few meaningful remedies are available in the United States to those who want to challenge NSA surveillance, whether they are Europeans or Americans. The fact that few individuals receive notice of surveillance, combined with the U.S. governments repeated use of standing doctrine and the state secrets privilege to block court review, has put redress almost entirely out of reach.

If the European courts ultimately conclude that the U.S. surveillance regime lacks essential protections for E.U. citizens, companies like Facebook may have more difficulty transferring their users private data to the United States at least until the U.S. adopts badly needed reforms to its surveillance laws.

There are several ways that tech companies could push for stronger protections for their users data in the face of U.S. government spying.

First and foremost, tech companies must actively lobby members of Congress to reform our surveillance laws especially Section 702, which is set to expire this year. Tech companies, including Facebook, make contributions to dozens of candidates for the House of Representatives and Senate, including politicians who haveintroduced anti-privacy measuresin the past orhave advocated for the resurrection of mass surveillance programs.The message to lawmakers should be clear: If they do not support pro-privacy policies, they should no longer expect to receive Facebook support. Surveillance reform must remain a high priority for tech companies.

Second, tech companies should continue to oppose efforts to expand U.S. surveillance powers or to weaken encryption. In the past, Facebook to its credit has challenged efforts to allow the FBI to collect sensitive information, like browsing history, without appropriate court process. In addition, Facebook has stated its opposition to backdoors in encrypted products.Tech companies should continue to resist, both publicly and in the face of any private pressure they receive from the Trump administration.

Third, tech companies should push back against unilateral efforts by the Trump administration to strip away privacy protections for immigrants and foreigners.For example, the Trump immigration executive order contained a provisionstripping anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or green card holder of certain protections under the Privacy Act.As a result, individuals around the world and many immigrants in the United States may now have their private information disseminated without appropriate safeguards.

Now that President Trump has the keys to the US surveillance state, its more important than ever that tech companies work with us in the fight for surveillance reform.

Continued here:
The ACLU Is in Dublin, Ireland, Today Defending the Right to Privacy for Europeans and Americans Alike - ACLU (blog)

Another season of John Oliver, shameless pro-establishment shill – RT

This Sunday, season four of John Olivers Last Week Tonight premieres. If the last three seasons were any indication, viewers can expect no deviation from the official party line by the establishments favorite comedy accomplice.

Lets just cut right to the chase. John Oliver is a charlatan who appears to be a rebellious liberal comedian speaking truth to power. In reality, he is a shameless shill for the ruling class in the United States.

Oliver, who hails from West Midlands, England, specializes in telling his liberal audience and those in the establishment exactly what they want to hear. He never genuinely challenges or questions the American power structure, thereby making him an agent of the status quo, which is why the media adores him.

In order to maintain most favored status among liberals, Oliver assails universally loathed entities, like FIFA, the NCAA, big tobacco or televangelists. Or hell investigate a wonky subject, like crumbling infrastructure, voter ID laws or reforming the bail system. While Oliver gets quite a lot of attention for these stories, they only generate heat, not light. Nothing changes as a result, not even popular opinion since Oliver is only preaching to the converted in the liberal echo chamber.

When it comes to potentially controversial topics, like the rare moments when he looks at the US political, military and media establishment, Oliver can be relied upon to give his sycophant fans the soft sell.

To date, there have been 250 segments among the 89 episodes of Last Week Tonight. In those segments, Oliver has scrutinized issues pertaining to the US military and foreign policy just 11 times, thats 4.4 percent. In contrast, the show has dedicated 14 or 5.6 percent of their segments to Russia, Putin and Russias foreign policy. And those numbers do not include the innumerable one-liners at Russias expense that Oliver scatters throughout various other segments. Putin is Olivers favorite comedy whipping boy.

Even when Oliver looks into issues like drones, torture, Guantanamo Bay or NSA spying, he does so with the gentlest of tones and the kindest of language. For example, in regards to drones he called U.S. strikes, which killed civilians, a little disturbing. At end of the segment he concluded that now might be the time to think about drones. So his scathing assessment of the drone program was that it might now rise to the level of thinking about? And I guess might was the operative word in his statement since Oliver has never returned to the topic.

Contrast this delicate approach to the U.S. with his scorched earth campaign against Putin, where Oliver leads a cacophony of establishment media voices preaching a Russian hysteria. Oliver has assured his audience, without any shred of proof, that the brutal Russian dictator shot down MH17, invaded Ukraine, committed war crimes in Syria, among a number of other totally wrong-headed accusations. Olivers stance on Russia is just as vacuous, assumption-filled and fact-free as the rest of the mainstream media. A braver comedian would challenge the current prevailing presumptions, but courage is obviously not John Olivers strong suit.

Even when Oliver is mildly critical of the U.S., like he was in his torture and Gitmo pieces, he deflects those American failures by pointing to other nations that he feels are much, much worse, like Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. He also avoids using moral and ethical frameworks to argue against alleged US failings, instead favoring arguments about image.

Olivers main thrust on torture was that it causes serious harm to Americas image. He had an entire segment titled The CIAs Public Image which dealt with how the CIA handles its social media. Of all the things to talk about regarding the CIA, their social media prowess seems to be the most frivolous, which is probably why Oliver chose it.

In Olivers interview with NSA chief Keith Alexander, an important part of the conversation was on the NSAs image and how to change it for the better, not on its Orwellian surveillance programs. When it comes to questioning the U.S. establishment, Oliver never dares to wander into the heart of the matter; he stays on the surface and stick to appearances.

Read more

So the discussion with Keith Alexander was very enlightening when contrasted with Olivers interview with Edward Snowden. Watching the Alexander and Snowden interviews side by side, it is easy to see where Olivers loyalties lie. He uses the softest and most playful tone with Alexander, whereas he is extremely aggressive and nasty with Snowden.

The Snowden interview also reveals Olivers tactic of obfuscating uncomfortable issues. Oliver spends the first half of his Snowden segment making the story about how frightened he is to be in Russia. He is fearful because Snowden is late, the old KGB building is up the street and Russians are no doubt listening to his every word. You could come away from these bits thinking it is Russia thats been eavesdropping on the world and not the US. And that that seemed to be Olivers agenda with the Snowden interview, and many other segments: distract from US crimes by imagining foreign ones.

The cherry on top of the Snowden episode was when John Oliver actually blamed Edward Snowden for the major f*ck-up of the New York Times publishing information that allegedly named a secret agent and a target. In John Olivers world, the New York Times is sacrosanct and above blame, but that scoundrel Snowden makes for a convenient scapegoat.

Lies of omission are littered throughout Last Week Tonight episodes as well. When Oliver did a segment on Obamas visit to Saudi Arabia, he made the story about how rude the Saudis were to the president but gave no context at all. According to Oliver, the Saudis just randomly decided to hate Obama. Of course, the actual context is pretty important, since Obama went to Saudi Arabia to calm the royal family over the 9-11 lawsuits and the congressional bills opening up the Saudis to liabilities for the attacks. Why Oliver would ignore this is beyond me.

When Oliver doesnt ignore context is also revealing. In two segments on Ramzan Kadyrov, the Sunni strongman in Chechnya who had lost his cat, Oliver went to great lengths to emphasize Kadyrovs ties to Putin. He also spoke of Kadyrovs Wikipedia page, which has a section about his human rights abuses, and spoke of it as if it were some sort of smoking gun. This is curious, as there was no mention of human rights abuses when another group of despotic Sunni Muslims, the Saudis, were the topic. And the Saudis dont just have a section on their Wikipedia page about human rights abuses, they have a whole page dedicated to their human rights abuses! But Kadyrov is an enemy of the U.S. establishment and the Saudis are protected by it, so Oliver acted accordingly.

Read more

Oliver only uses context when it supports the official narrative, not when it undermines it. A case in point was his coverage of the protests in Brazil against the left-wing Workers Party government. Oliver made that story about left wing corruption in Brazil, and nothing more. A closer examination of those protests reveals that a major factor was class and race, with wealthy Whites protesting against the government and poor Black/Brown people protesting for it. Race and class would normally be things that someone like John Oliver, and his liberal audience, would focus on, he certainly would in relation to the Tea Party or Trump supporters here in the U.S. But in South America, the official U.S. narrative is left-wing, populist governments are no bueno, and so Oliver, whether it be in regards to Dilma Rousseff in Brazil or Rafael Correa in Ecuador, propagates that position.

In contrast to his coverage of Brazil, watch this segment on turmoil in another left-wing South American country, Venezuela. In it, Oliver opens with a news story that clearly defines the context of the protests, with the poor and working class on one side, and the military and police on the government side. Why clarify the struggle in Venezuela so distinctly but keep the Brazil situation murky at best? Because context in the Venezuela story supports the establishment media narrative that Oliver wants to sell, while undermining it in the Brazil story.

And finally, the most remarkable proof of Oliver being an establishment shill occurred on the season three finale. Oliver actually pleaded with his audience to subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post in order to counter Trump and 'fake news'. This was the first time John Oliver ever made me laugh out loud, as buying the Times and Post as an antidote to fake news is like treating obesity with a diet of pizza and ice cream.

It is too bad that Olivers insipidly predictable comedy and insidious support for all things establishment are so beloved by his minions. They obviously dont know it yet, but John Oliver isnt laughing with them, hes laughing at them, all the way to the bank.

Michael McCaffrey, for RT

Michael McCaffrey is a freelance writer, film critic and cultural commentator. He currently resides in Los Angeles where he runs his acting coaching and media consulting business.mpmacting.com/blog/

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Original post:
Another season of John Oliver, shameless pro-establishment shill - RT

Make Liberty Win in 2017 – The Libertarian Republic

By Amber Loveshe

In December of 2016, I was given the honor of becoming the first female Illinois State Chair with Young Americans for Liberty. Little did I know at the time that it would become the best decision of my life. Having previously worked on two political campaigns, I had curiously admired the fact that YAL advocates for policy, not party. As Young Americans for Liberty president Cliff Maloney once phrased it, Politicians come and go,. By focusing on educating young voters on policy issues and mobilizing them to challenge current legislation, Young Americans for Liberty is prepping the future generations to change history, and words cannot express how thankful I am to be involved with their organization.

If youre not involved with Young Americans for Liberty, but are passionate about the liberty movement, youre doing something wrong. When YAL says their goal is to, identify, educate, train, and mobilize youth activists, they mean business. Since joining this team I have met students from across the nation who have rallied on their campuses against free speech codes violating their rights who have successfully changed policy. But its not just free speech activism, Young Americans for Liberty also advocates for criminal justice reform, a cause near to my heart as I pursue my degree in Criminal Justice. With their activism project, Incarceration Nation, YAL gives college chapters the resources to bring awareness on campus of the rising incarceration rates in the United States. Still other prominent issues YAL advocates for include reducing the federal deficit, ending NSA spying, and advocating for less war.

But perhaps my favorite part about Young Americans for Liberty is the amount of beneficial events they host for the students within the liberty network. Beginning Saturday, February 11th, 2017, Young Americans for Liberty will kick off their Spring Summit series in Chicago, IL. For one day, young activists from across the Midwestern region will gather at Loyola University Chicago to experience all that YAL has to offer. Congressman Thomas Massie, who made headlines this week for his motion to eliminate the Department of Education after DeVos nomination approval, will serve as the keynote speaker for the event. Cato Institute scholars will also be in attendance, debating the topic, Should You Be Able to Sell It. In addition to hearing from top names in the liberty movement, students will also have the opportunity to network with various organizations for jobs and internships in the future. With so many young leaders involved in YALs network, these organizations recognize that these students may be the next Ron Paul. These summits will also serve as an amazing opportunity to receive valuable training on how to engage in activism both on and off campus. This is a perfect opportunity for the millennial generation to gear up for the future of politics as we become the leaders of tomorrow.

While Im extremely grateful that this years first summit is happening in my backyard of Loyola University Chicago, have no fear if youre not as lucky. Upcoming summit dates include Los Angeles on March 4th, Boston on March 25th, Pittsburgh on April 1st, Denver on April 8th, and Atlanta on April 22nd. I highly recommend locking in your spot before its too late!

2017LibertyThomas MassieYALyoung americans for liberty

See original here:
Make Liberty Win in 2017 - The Libertarian Republic

NSA spying – The Huffington Post

People think telephone surveillance is a new thing but then, they're not old enough to have grown up with a party line. Eat your heart out, NSA. Sixty years ago, the entire country was listening in on each other's phone conversations.

Inga

Newspaper columnist and freelancer, author of book Inga Tells All. Lives in San Diego, CA with husband Olof and granddog Winston

In a stunning announcement, Eric Schmidt, head of Alphabet, Inc., the holding company that owns Google, said today in a press conference at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California, that at midnight on New Year's Eve of this year, the iconic Google search engine will become property of a new nonprofit organization called Unlimited Years of Search, or UYS.

This week is #BannedBooksWeek and if you're wondering why we need an entire week to celebrate banned books you're probably one of those millennials who doesn't read anything longer than 140 characters.

Zac Thompson

Outspeak Editor - in partnership with The Huffington Post

Sanjay Goel, University at Albany, State University of New York With the release of a new film about Edward Snowden, the man who revealed secret doc...

The Conversation US

Independent source of news and analysis, from experts in the academic community.

Snowden is a helluva movie, kicking an audience's ass on a number of levels. I had a chance to see the film at a preview event; it opens everywhere on September 16. Go see it.

Peter Van Buren

Author of the forthcoming "Hooper's War," "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent" and "We Meant Well"

Oliver Stone has never met an American fiasco he didn't like, lament, and, with any luck, lambaste in one of his films.

We need Snowden in America - for many good reasons. For those who see him as an enemy, we have always been taught to keep our enemies close to us and there is no logic to be found in forcing him into unsavory hands far from home.

Mark Weinstein

Leading privacy advocate, visionary social media pioneer, and founder of MeWe.

Co-authored by Pedram Gholipour Since Direct Recording Electronic voting machines first came into vogue in the U.S. in 2002, a team of cyber-academic...

Daniel Wagner

Managing Director of Risk Cooperative / Co-author of "Global Risk Agility and Decision Making".

In the ninety odd days before the election, a huge data dump of American secrets would strongly and negatively influence the election.

Admiral Michael Rogers has quite a task afoot, as Director of the National Security Agency and the military's Cyber Command Mission Force. Speaking at a luncheon organised by retired Captain Kevin Wensing, Admiral Rogers said that the agency will eventually contain 6200 dedicated computer personnel split into 133 teams.

Anna Wilding

White House Correspondent, Director, Film Executive, Producer, Actress,

If you were Vladimir Putin, or President Xi of China, what would you do if you had the entire archive of Hillary Clinton's emails, classified and unclassified, "deleted" and not, in your hands? What value to you would that be in your next round of negotiations with the president of the United States?

Peter Van Buren

Author of the forthcoming "Hooper's War," "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent" and "We Meant Well"

The right to privacy is a constitutional gem. In the recent past its been assaulted and fraught with all manner of conspiracy theory. We are s...

Anurag Harsh

SVP & Founding Exec of Ziff Davis the world's largest tech, gaming and men's lifestyle digital publisher. Musician & Author. @anuragharsh

Even in the era of widening partisan gaps, it would be ill-advised to throw around indictments willy-nilly. Voters use James Comey's statements for the insights on Clinton's fitness for the presidency, not prison.

Anhvinh Doanvo

Writer @ The Hill. Former counterterrorism researcher at the Global Initiative. Graduate Thomas R. Pickering Fellowship finalist. @anhvinhdoanvo

In addition to its discussion of Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy, there is also an FBI and CIA report that indicates that Khallad bin Attash was in Los Angeles in June 2000 -- compliments of "diplomatic arrangements" provided by Fahad Thumairy. To understand the relevance of this key piece of information, it is necessary to have some context.

If I had to choose one phrase to sum up America's efforts against terrorism since 9/11, it would be that lay definition of mental illness, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Peter Van Buren

Author of the forthcoming "Hooper's War," "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent" and "We Meant Well"

In the wake of yet another bizarre and uniquely American mass shooting, we once again we find ourselves bombarded by copypasta Facebook rants and half-literate pleas by experts on television.

Read the original:
NSA spying - The Huffington Post