Edward Snowden – News, Articles, Biography, Photos – WSJ.com

Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor charged by U.S. authorities for leaking classified documents to the media, is seeking assurance that Norway wont extradite him if he accepts a free-speech prize in person.

Nearly three years after his historic disclosure of classified government documents, Edward Snowden maintains that the worst fears associated with his actions have yet to be realized, and that he senses public opinion is shifting in his direction.

Suitable Technologies Inc. found a good way to get people to appear at its Consumer Electronics Show booth: The company helped Edward Snowden to appear live at the show, thanks to its robot-like Beam telepresence device.

Nearly three years after his historic disclosure to journalists of classified documents, Edward Snowden says time and experience are vindicating his actions.

U.S. presidential contender Donald Trump and Edward Snowden, who leaked classified information on U.S. surveillance, are among the record 376 nominees for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

Reader Dale Henn of St. Louis says that he believes the FBI is doing all it can to protect U.S. citizens, as it should. Claiming the FBI effort is about power denigrates the difficult job the FBI has to keep us safe in a world with terrorists. How do you view the epic battle between Apple and the FBI?...

"If other places in the world dont understand how the U.S. government works and thinks that its OK for the U.S. government to put backdoors in American information technology products then you dont have a business model that survives in a global economy where most of your revenue comes from overseas, said Scott Charney, corporate vice president for Microsofts...

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden joined Twitter, and quickly earned a big following. Can you hear me now? he tweeted.

An extended episode of "Last Week Tonight" featured John Oliver flying to Russia for an exclusive sit-down with Edward Snowden to discuss government surveillance.

The actor shared a first-look of the upcoming film about Edward Snowden's life.

Edward Snowden and top Obama administration officials continued lobbing intercontinental taunts at one another, showing little sign of an end to their hostilities.

The hottest political story of the last few years is coming to the big screen, as Sony Pictures has optioned journalist's Glenn Greenwald's book "No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the U.S. Surveillance State."

Edward Snowdens bean-spilling has taught some of the nastiest people on the planet how to avoid being caught.

The former National Security contractor knows a thing or two about how people can maximize their privacy in the digital world.

How extensive will the fallout be from the release of the so-called "Panama papers" data leak that revealed where some of the world's richest and most powerful people hide their money?

An unauthorized bust of the controversial figure was on display for several hours Monday at a Brooklyn monument to Revolutionary War prisoners.

A day after the documentary "Citizen Four" about his leaking of government documents won the Academy Award in the documentary feature category, Edward Snowden andwered questions in an "ask me anything" session on Reddit.

A documentary offers a glowing portrait of Edward Snowden, who leaked huge numbers of classified documents.

An attempt by Germanys opposition to force the government to let former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden travel to Berlin to testify on the agencys activities was thrown out by the countrys constitutional court.

In the year since goateed ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden catapulted to fame, he has been portrayed in street art, installations, songs and advertisements.

Read more here:
Edward Snowden - News, Articles, Biography, Photos - WSJ.com

Edward Snowden releases techno song with Jean-Michel Jarre

Jean-Michel Jarre and Edward Snowden: together in electric dreams. Photograph: EDDA/Aero Productions/EPA

In 2013 Edward Snowden rocked the world of government surveillance when he dropped bombshell revelations about the National Surveillance Agency.

On Thursday it was the music world Snowden rocked, when he dropped a red-hot techno track co-recorded with French music icon Jean-Michel Jarre.

The song, called Exit, mixes clips of Snowden warning of the dangers of privacy interference with what a colleague here at the Guardian described as haunting, discordant synths.

Exit was posted to Jarres YouTube channel on Thursday afternoon. The collaboration came about after Jarre gave an interview to the Guardian last year, and asked our music critic Alexis Petridis to put him in touch with Snowden. Jarre described his music, over which Snowden performs, as a hectic, obsessive techno track, trying to illustrate the idea of this crazy quest for big data on one side and the manhunt for this one young guy by the CIA, NSA and FBI on the other.

Related: Jean-Michel Jarre records with Edward Snowden after the Guardian brings them together

Continuing this theme, the music video has been contrived as a Matrix/Bourne Identity/Wikileaks drone footage mash-up. Theres video of green numbers scrolling down a black screen, interspersed with quick-zoom aerial reconnaissance images. Theres a disorientating car chase, cutting to a fairly shoddy special effect of a satellite circling the Earth. This is a interspersed with shots of Jarre hopping around a studio playing the keyboard.

The rave-style track represents a different type of whistleblowing for Snowden, who appears in the middle of the video, discussing privacy in front of a grey curtain. His contribution sits firmly in the spoken-word category, having been taken from an old interview about the dangers of a government spying on its citizens.

Technology can actually increase privacy, Snowden says. The question is: Why are our private details that are transmitted online... why are private details that are stored on our personal devices, any different than the details and private records of our lives that are stored in our private journals?

And now its an inquiry you can dance to.

Continued here:
Edward Snowden releases techno song with Jean-Michel Jarre

Wikileaks Actu Francophone

Interview publie le 15 mars 2016 dans Pravda Report

Lavocat norvgien, le Professeur Mads Andens, est un juriste chercheur et Rapporteur Spcial de lONU sur la dtention arbitraire; il sigeait depuis 2009 au Groupe de Travail des Nations Unies sur la Dtention Arbitraire (GTDA), un panel dexperts qui a appel les autorits sudoises et britanniques mettre un terme la privation de libert de Julian Assange, respecter son intgrit physique et sa libert de mouvement, ainsi qu lui laisser la possibilit de rclamer des compensations.

M. Assange, tout dabord dtenu en prison puis assign rsidence, sest rfugi lintrieur de lAmbassade dquateur Londres en 2012 aprs avoir perdu son appel devant la Cour Suprme du Royaume-Uni contre son extradition vers la Sude, o une enqute judiciaire a t initie contre lui en rapport avec des allgations de comportement sexuel illgal. Toutefois, il na pas t formellement mis en accusation.

Dans le rendu de son opinion officielle, le Groupe de Travail a considr que M. Assange avait t soumis diverses formes de privation de libert: la dtention initiale la prison de Wandsworth Londres, suivie dune assignation rsidence puis ensuite la rclusion dans lambassade quatorienne.

Selon un communiqu de presse mis par le Bureau de lONU du Haut Commissaire aux Droits de lHomme (OHCHR), les experts ont galement conclu que la dtention tait arbitraire parce que M. Assange avait t dtenu en isolement la prison de Wandsworth, et cause de la ngligence du Bureau du Procureur sudois dans ses investigations, qui ont abouti sa longue privation de libert.

Le Groupe de Travail a, en outre, tabli que cette dtention viole deux articles de la dclaration Universelle des Droits de lHomme, et six articles de la Convention Internationale sur les Droits Civiques et Politiques.

M. Assange, fondateur et rdacteur de WikiLeaks, a par ailleurs dvoil plus de 250 000 cbles diplomatiques secrets et confidentiels, mis par des ambassades US tout autour du monde.

Dans cette interview exclusive, le Professeur Andens commente sa participation au Groupe de Travail de lONU, expliquant pourquoi le panel dfend la libert pour M. Assange, et en prsentant les considrations juridiques entourant laffaire.

Il y a de nombreuses fautes de procdure qui ont t commises par les autorits , affirme le Professeur, qui commente galement son point de vue sur le rle que joue le fondateur de WikiLeaks dans la politique internationale, sur limportance de la solidarit mondiale envers lui, et comment il considre les rcentes rvlations de WikiLeaks: lespionnage US du Secrtaire-Gnral de lONU Ban Ki-Moon et de la Chancelire allemande Angela Merkel.

Le Professeur Andens, qui prsente galement dans cette interview sa perception de la couverture mdiatique mainstream concernant laffaire Assange, est professeur la Facult de Droit de lUniversit dOslo, lancien directeur de lInstitut Britannique de Droit International et Comparatif Londres et lancien directeur du Centre de Droit Europen de Kings College, lUniversit de Londres. Il est aussi Charg de Recherche lInstitut de Droit Europen et Comparatif de lUniversit dOxford, et Charg de Recherche Principal lInstitut dtudes de Droit Avanc de lUniversit de Londres.

Il a t le Rdacteur-en-Chef du Trimestriel de Droit International et Comparatif (Cambridge University Press), Rdacteur-en-Chef de la Revue de Droit des Affaires Europen (Kluwer Law International) et prsent dans les conseils de rdaction de dix autres journaux et sries de livres, dont la Srie Nijhoff sur le Droit Commercial International.

Il est Membre Honoraire de la Socit dtudes de Droit (Royaume-Uni), Membre de lAcadmie Internationale de Droit Commercial et du Consommateur (o il est membre du conseil), Membre Honoraire de lInstitut Britannique de Droit International et Comparatif, et Membre de lAcadmie Royale des Arts.

Il a t Secrtaire Gnral de la Fdration Internationale de Droit Europen de 2000 2002, Secrtaire de lAssociation Britannique de Droit Europen de 1997 2008 et Secrtaire du Comit Britannique de Droit Comparatif de 1999 2005. Il a t le Prsident de lAssociation des Instituts de Dfense des Droits de lHomme en 2008.

Edu Montesanti (EM): Cher Professeur Mads Andens, merci daccorder cette interview. Pouvez-vous sil vous plat nous parler de vos travaux au sein du Groupe de Travail sur la Dtention Arbitraire (GTDA), pendant la phase initiale de laffaire Assange devant les Nations Unies (ONU)?

Prof. Mads Andens (MA): Je sigeais au Groupe de Travail de lONU quand la plainte a t reue, et que les changes entre lONU et les parties se sont drouls. Je nai pas pris part aux discussions du Groupe de Travail qui ont abouti lopinion sur laffaire Assange. Mon mandat sest termin en aot 2015, et la dcision a t rendue en fvrier 2016.

EM: Pourquoi vous positionnez-vous en dfense de M. Assange?

MA: Je me suis exprim en soutien lopinion rendue par le Groupe de Travail de lONU. M. Assange est en tat de dtention arbitraire, le Royaume-Uni et la Sude devraient se plier la dcision de lONU leur encontre et prendre les mesures ncessaires pour mettre un terme cette dtention.

EM: Sil vous plat, Professeur, veuillez spcifier les accusations contre Julian Assange, et qui sont ceux qui les portent contre lui.

MA: Laffaire actuelle o il est question dextradition concerne des allgations de comportement sexuel illgal. videmment, les allgations relatives WikiLeaks comprennent un puissant intrt pour lappareil scuritaire de nombreux pays.

La crainte est quil ait t permis que celui-ci influence le processus et lissue de la premire affaire.

EM: Comment percevez-vous les allgations de Washington selon lesquelles Assange a mis en pril la scurit des USA?

MA: Ce sont des allgations qui sont habituellement prsentes face lexercice du droit prsenter des informations et du droit la libert dexpression. Il y a toutes les raisons dtre sceptique de ces prsomptions.

EM: Comment percevez-vous la dcision de lONU en faveur de la libration de M. Assange?

MA: Cest trs clair. Le GTDA de lONU avait trancher sur deux questions. La premire, dcider sil y avait eu une privation de libert plutt quune restriction de libert. La deuxime, dcider si cette privation de libert tait arbitraire.

Le GTDA de lONU a clairement accept largument que les conditions dans lesquelles vit Assange nont pas t imposes par lui-mme, cest--dire que sil faisait un pas dans la rue, il se ferait arrter. Il y a aussi eu un chec substantiel de la part des autorits pour exercer une diligence raisonnable dans lexercice de ladministration judiciaire (par. 98).

La frontire entre une restriction de libert et une privation de libert est finement dfinie dans la jurisprudence europenne des droits de lhomme. La privation de libert ne consiste pas seulement en des conditions aisment reconnaissables dincarcration par lEtat. Il faut prendre en compte le laps de temps quAssange est rest lintrieur de lambassade quatorienne, et ses circonstances prsentes.

La libert doit pouvoir tre exerce dans limmdiatet. Quand lexercice dune telle libert aurait des rsultats particulirement coercitifs, tels que davantage de privations de libert ou la mise en pril dautres droits, cela ne peut tre dcrit comme la pratique de la libert. Le fait quAssange rsiste une arrestation ne rsout pas le problme, puisque cela entendrait que la libert est un droit conditionn par sa coopration.

Assange nest pas libre de quitter lambassade quatorienne de son propre gr. Il craint lextradition vers les USA et un procs pour son implication avec WikiLeaks. Les autorits sudoises ont refus de fournir des garanties de non-refoulement qui rpondent cette crainte. La dtention dAssange est arbitraire. Une raison en est quelle est disproportionne.

Il existe dautres moyens de procdure moins restrictifs. Avant dmettre un Mandat dArrt Europen, les autorits sudoises auraient pu suivre la pratique courante dinterviewer Assange dans une salle dentretien de la police britannique.

Aprs quAssange eut tabli rsidence dans lambassade quatorienne ils auraient pu compter sur des protocoles dassistance mutuelle, interroger Assange par liaison vido, et lui offrir une chance de rpondre aux allgations portes contre lui.

EM: Sil vous plat, Professeur Andens, clarifiez le terme de privation de libert.

MA: La Convention Internationale de lONU sur les Droits Civiques et Politiques et la Dclaration Universelle des Droits de lHomme interdisent les privations arbitraires de libert dans leur Article 9. Cest plus quune simple restriction de libert. Cela inclut lassignation rsidence.

EM: Quelle est votre opinion sur le choix du Royaume-Uni et de la Sude de ne pas respecter la dcision de lONU?

MA: Les dcisions rendues par le GTDA de lONU ne sont pas toujours suivies par les Etats, mais elles aboutissent rarement en des attaques aussi personnelles, telles que celles faites par des politiciens britanniques aprs la dlivrance de lopinion sur Assange.

Je sais que les mots employs par le Ministre des Affaires trangres et par le Premier Ministre ntaient pas ceux qui ont t fournis par les fonctionnaires qui sont conseillers sur les droits de lhomme et sur le droit international. Les politiciens britanniques ont vis affaiblir lautorit de cet organe de lONU pour un bnfice opportuniste court terme.

Je crains que ces politiciens naient affaibli la possibilit, pour la communaut internationale, de protger certaines des victimes les plus vulnrables aux violations des droits de lhomme.

Leurs paroles ont circul au sein des Etats responsables des pires violations des droits de lhomme. Les paroles de ces politiciens britanniques coteront des vies et de la souffrance humaine.

Le Royaume-Uni peut exercer des pressions pour glaner quelque soutien quand laffaire est apporte devant le Conseil des Droits de lHomme des Nations Unies, mais le Royaume-Uni sera assurment critiqu par dautres Etats pour sa raction, et le mritera clairement.

Les dommages causs au Royaume-Uni lONU et son autorit morale en matire des droits de lhomme sont un autre sujet, mais il ne fait pas de doute sur les dommages faits lautorit du Royaume-Uni.

EM: Sil vous plat, Professeur, pouvez-vous commenter le statut actuel de lenqute prliminaire en Sude, ainsi que la mise en accusation en attente US contre WikiLeaks.

MA: Pour ceux qui sont convaincus quAssange est coupable de viol, que vous pensiez ou non quil fait son intressant en rsistant dlibrment son arrestation (ce qui nest pas mon cas), le fait demeure que les autorits pourraient employer des moyens moins restrictifs sans compromettre lenqute initiale sur les allgations portant sur son comportement sexuel en Sude.

Cest le moment de nous rappeler quAssange na pas t dclar coupable de viol: ce stade, le procureur et les tribunaux en Sude ont tabli que ces charges taient peut-tre fondes. Le Professeur Andrew Asquith, dOxford, a dclar dans une Opinion dExpert en 2011 laquelle lquipe dAssange a fait rfrence, que Je ne considre pas que le moindre des incidents allgus dans le contenu du Mandat dArrt Europen (cest dire les allgations cites dans le mandat darrt) suffise en lui-mme constituer un quelconque dlit selon la loi britannique.

Le Vice-Prsident de la Cour Suprme de Sude nous a rappel que laccus est prsum innocent jusqu ce que sa culpabilit soit dmontre, et que lorsquil y a des dclarations contradictoires, il revient aux tribunaux de dcider si les lments requis pour une mise en accusation sont satisfaisants.

Les tribunaux sudois, ainsi que la majorit de la Cour Suprme sudoise, le Vice-Prsident ntait pas sur ce panel, ont fait savoir que le mandat darrt, mme sil ne pouvait pas tre excut contre Assange, limitait sa libert dune manire ouvrant la question de sa proportionnalit. La majorit a not avec approbation que des mesures taient dsormais prises pour interroger Assange Londres.

Avec le temps, la Cour Suprme sudoise pourrait bien voir crotre sa sympathie pour le jugement dissident du Juge Svante Johansson, pour qui les conditions de lenqute sont dsormais disproportionnes (une opinion prsente par Anne Ramberg, directrice de lAssociation du Barreau sudois et par le Juge Charlotte Edvardsson, Juge rapporteuse de la Cour Suprme, dans sa proposition (publique) au tribunal dans cette affaire).

Assurment, lancien Conseiller Juridique aux Nations Unies et Conseiller Juridique du Ministre des Affaires trangres de Sude, Hans Corell, a dclar quil ne comprend pas pourquoi le procureur na pas interrog Julian Assange pendant toutes les annes o il a t lAmbassade dquateur.

Des esprits raisonnables et judiciaires ont diverg sur beaucoup de ces questions. Sans doute ont-ils t influencs par des opinions sur lintgrit dAssange lui-mme. Mais les droits de lhomme ne sont pas conus pour favoriser les plus populaires dentre nous; ils sont conus pour nous favoriser tous.

EM: Pourquoi pensez-vous que le gouvernement britannique agisse tellement en faveur des intrts US dans cette affaire?

MA: WikiLeaks a fait des contributions trs importantes notre connaissance du processus diplomatique et politique. Elles ont chang ma perception dvnements majeurs et dinstitutions. WikiLeaks fait quil est beaucoup plus difficile de nous manipuler.

La communaut du renseignement repose sur des mthodes de travail qui sont secrtement caches. Il y a de puissantes forces institutionnelles qui veulent mettre un terme aux activits de M. Assange. Ceci est vrai pour de nombreux pays.

EM: Que pensez-vous de lquateur en ce qui concerne M. Assange, et de limportance de la solidarit mondiale envers lui non seulement de la part dautres gouvernements, mais aussi de la part dactivistes et des citoyens en gnral, Professeur Andens?

MA: Le gouvernement de lquateur a fait une contribution trs importante la protection dune sphre publique internationale, ainsi qu la protection de la libert de linformation, de la libert dexpression et de la responsabilit face aux violations des droits de lhomme. Les expressions de solidarit en sa faveur, non seulement de la part dautres gouvernements, mais galement dactivistes et dautres autour du monde sont trs importantes.

EM: Comment valuez-vous lapproche des mdias grand public concernant les rvlations de WikiLeaks, particulirement en ce qui concerne la dcision Assange?

MA: Je mtais attendu une dfense plus muscle du droit fournir des informations et la libert dexpression. Mais les mdias dans tous les pays oprent en interaction complexe avec les gouvernements, pour prendre en compte les intrts de lEtat de faons diffrentes. Selon moi, dans cette affaire, avec trop dgards pour lintrt prsum de ltat.

EM: Quel est votre avis sur les rcentes rvlations de WikiLeaks despionnage US du Secrtaire Gnral de lONU Ban Ki-Moon et de la Chancelire allemande Angela Merkel, pendant une runion prive sur la stratgie face au changement climatique Berlin, ainsi que du Haut Commissaire des Nations Unies pour les Rfugis?

MA: Elles rvlent des pratiques totalement inacceptables. Elles justifient galement le travail de WikiLeaks.

Source: http://www.cercledesvolontaires.fr/2016/03/17/mads-andenaes-du-groupe-de-travail-de-lonu-sur-la-detention-arbitraire-explique-le-cas-assange/ et http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/15-03-2016/133811-assange_lawyer-0/

Traduit par Lawrence Desforges

More here:
Wikileaks Actu Francophone

Edward Snowden Responds to ‘Snowden’ Movie Trailer Video …

Transcript for Edward Snowden Responds to 'Snowden' Movie Trailer

We'll do some "Pop news" and begin with your first look at Joseph gordon-levitt as Edward Snowden and no one is more excited than Snowden himself about this movie. The whistle-blower tweeted a link to the new movie's trailer saying two two minutes and 39 seconds everyone at the NSA just stopped working. Edward, really do you think they did? He's confident, that young man. As for oliver stone, he's set to tell his personal story, Snowden is due to come out in theaters on September 16th. Apparently he sounds exactly like him. Exactly. It's like verbatim. Yes. He's got the voice named apparently. The film, I mean, it's classic oliver stone. Yes. So good subject. Come on in, Ging. They usually make me wait. Never. I would never make you wait, my friend. Meanwhile, also in "Pop news" this morning, a 23-year-old new Yorker is discovering that he is practically the star of Adam Sandler's film "The do over" alongside the arc. Not only is the physical resemblance uncanny, his name is max Kessler, the name of his character in the movie. The real-life kegs ler tells us he first found out about this coincidence when this buddies showed him the film's trailer and called a bunch of friends to find out if he was being punk'd. No, just a coincidence, one that Sandler got a kick out of and invited him to the premiere. Isn't that funny? Finally in "Pop news," it is thirsty Thursday, America. Is that a thing. Of course it's a thing. I just made it up so now it's a thing. Isn't that every day. I'm sure we could do -- Alliteration. We'll think about it. Today, though, is thirsty Thursday. I'm sure you've heard the expression drunk as a skunk. Well that's what this guy was. When workers found him, look very closely, he was drunk as a raccoon. The little fellow was stumbling around a beer warehouse. Oh, no. Listen to the workers who found him. Oh, this raccoon is drunk. So today we coined a new

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

See the original post:
Edward Snowden Responds to 'Snowden' Movie Trailer Video ...

Chelsea Manning – Page – Interview Magazine

In late 2009 and early 2010, a 22-year-old Private First Class and Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning downloaded a mass of classified and confidential files, some to a CD marked "Lady Gaga," and passed them to the online media outlet WikiLeaks. For many, the digital dump of this material, much of which came to be known as the Afghan and Iraq "War Logs"and which included video of an American helicopter attack on a group unarmed civilianswas the righteous act of a whistle-blower seeking greater transparency of our military's conduct. Some have even credited Manning's leak of diplomatic cables with inspiring the progressive uprisings of the Arab Spring, which began shortly thereafter. In 2011, however, the Army charged Manning with, among other things, "aiding the enemy," a crime akin to treason and potentially punishable by death(and for which she was ultimately found not guilty).For much of that year, Manning had been held in what amounted to solitary confinementso as to prevent self-harm, it was claimedin a military brig in Quantico, Virginia. And, on August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison and sent to the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

In an announcement made the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, declaring her intent to begin living openly as a woman. The next year, she successfully petitioned to have her name legally changed to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning and, in February 2015, was allowed to begin hormone therapy. Since that time, Manning has written a column for The Guardian's U.S. website, recounting the many threats made against her during her more than five years in prison (that she would be sent away to be tortured at a black site or disappeared in Guantanamo, for starters), reflecting on her most dire moments, contemplating castration and suicide, and her hope for a sisterhood beyond bars with which she can claim communion, and to which she can give strength.

Growing up, Manning was bounced around, from Oklahoma to Wales and back, cared for as often by her sister, Casey, 11 years her senior, as by her parentsboth of whom Casey has characterized as alcoholics. In Leavenworth, Manning, now 28, has access to psychotherapy sessions, radio, and cosmetics, but is strictly limited in access to visitors and cannot go on the internet. She cannot be photographed, interviewed on camera, or speak with journalists in person or on the phone, but can communicate by post. So, in January, I wrote her to tell her about our special April issue celebrating the pathfinders and conscientious among us who are creating new spaces for themselves and for others, and asked her to be a part of it. She very kindly accepted. Here is our correspondence.

CHRIS WALLACE: First of all, how are you? Is there anything that Ior anyonecan or ought to be doing for you?

CHELSEA MANNING: Thank you. I am pushing myself through at the moment. I have a lot on my plate currently: I'm waiting for the judge's ruling in my lawsuit challenging the military prison's hair-length restrictions; I'm still in the process of challenging what I believe to be an unlawful and discriminatory disciplinary board from last year; I've challenged the Department of Justice and FBI to release the investigative records related to my case; and, most importantly, I'm only weeks away from filing the brief in my court-martial appeal. It's an exhausting schedule. As for you and anyone else, I can only ask of those who care about me and the issues in my case to support me and spread the word about what is going on. Donations to my legal defense fund really help, and I think keeping me motivated and spreading the message are also very important.

WALLACE: You wrote recently about how tough the holidays were. How is your day-to-day life? Are there things you particularly look forward to, dread, or are surprised by?

MANNING: Day-to-day life is as simple as it is routinethough my days are often long and very busy. On weekdays, I wake up at about 4:30 each morning. I get dressed, have a cup of coffee, and go to the prison cafeteria for breakfast. Not long after dawn, we show up for work at our day jobs. I work at the prison wood shop. Any legal or medical appointments are scheduled during the workday, too. We have about an hour and a half break for lunch, which is when I make a lot of my phone calls. The workday ends around 4 p.m. When I get back to my cell, I usually have a stack of mail and laundry at the front of the cell. For about an hour, I sort and neatly fold my laundry and read my mail. On a normal day, this includes dozens of cards and letters from supporters, a newspaper, and a handful of magazine subscriptions. Before the evening starts, I eat dinner. The rest of the day is filled with recreation. This includes the library, where I type up legal papers, letters, and assignments for college correspondence courses. I also like to run and do HIIT-style exercises during gym and outside recreation hoursbut I recently took a break for a few months because of the hormone treatments. I have only just started doing these routines again in the past couple weeks. There are very few distinctions between el bueno and el malo en la prisin militar. Instead of the good and the bad, there is the boring and la repeticinthe repetitive. The routine is as endless as it is numbing. It's like Groundhog Day [1993], except that I am getting older.

WALLACE: What is your rapport like with other inmates and officers or wardens? Has it changed in the time since you've been there? Have provisions and accommodations changed to better suit you since you began transitioning?

MANNING: I don't have any issues with the inmates or the guard force here at the prison. Initially, I didn't have any problems with the senior staff, but that started to change last summer. Lately, I'm under a lot of scrutiny every day by those here that run the prison but don't actually walk inside except on rare occasions. It seems as though they press the junior staff to focus their attention on me-and not in good ways. It is very exhausting. For the transition, I am being provided cosmetics, female undergarments, and a stable hormone treatment. I am still cutting my hair to a two-inch male restriction imposed by the prison, which I am fighting. I only want to have carefully groomed shoulder length hair meeting the standard of other female military prisoners. Yet, even the accommodations I have now were only provided after a year and a half of fighting. So I remain hopeful.

WALLACE: Are you able to sense how things on the outside have changed for the trans community in, say, the past five years? Are you hearing enough from people on the outside to be able to gauge that?

MANNING: Unfortunately, I don't sense that things have really changed for the trans community in the last five years. Sure, we are certainly much more visible than we were only a few years ago. Media outlets are more frequently using the correct names, titles, and pronouns for trans folks as well. Yet visibility is not equality. We are still in very, very bad shape. There are still many homeless trans folk wandering the streets. They are still harassed on the street by bystanders and police officers. We still face many administrative hurdles in every aspect of our lives. If anything, things are actually getting harder for us, because now there are people who are using our visibility as an excuse to say that we are already receiving fair and honest treatment, when the reality is that we are still in bad shape as a community.

WALLACE: How much do you think about perceptions of you personally? How would you like to be thought of, understood, perceived?

MANNING: You know, I really don't care how I am perceived by people on the outside. I am aware ofand endlessly grateful forthe support that I get through all of their letters, cards, statements of support, and petitions. Yet, none of this means that I want to be perceived in any particular way. Even if I didn't have the support that I have, I would still be fighting the same fights, and I would still be the same person that I am today.

WALLACE: What changes do you most notice about the world, about reporting, warfare, and intelligence in the time since your trial?

MANNING: The press and free speech landscape has totally changed. There is far less news reporting today. Instead, we have this endless stream oflargely meaningless and speculativeanalysis by sideline commentators and self-proclaimed "experts." This is because investigative journalism and reporting has become much more dangerous. This is especially true for journalists and sources in National Securitybut it has been getting pretty bad for beat reporters and small outlets doing local reporting, too. Beyond the obvious crackdown on leaks under the current U.S. Administration, there has also been the passing of so-called "Ag-gag" laws in states, and the increasingly looming threat of civil litigation by large corporations following the lawsuit over ABC's 1992 report on Food Lion that have also made it harder for reporters to do their jobs. Disturbingly, the First Amendment, along with the Fourth Amendmentprotecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requiring warrantshave been the major casualties of the shift in government policy in the last two decades. Unfortunately, I think that the biggest consequences of this tragedy won't be clear until it is far, far too late. I think that the next two generations of Americans will be grappling with the very real specter of finding themselves living in a new and bizarre kind of digital totalitarian stateone that looks and feels democratic on the surface, but has a fierce undercurrent of fear and technologically enforced fascism any time you step out of line. I really hope this isn't the case, but it looks really bad right now, doesn't it?

WALLACE: What are your greatest comforts? Are there any particular books, letters, etcetera, that have been great buoys for you recently?

MANNING: Absolutely! On my birthday, there was a campaign online to send me thousands of postcards. This really gave me a boost during the toughest time of the yearthe holidays. Among these, I received about a hundred or so cards and letters from my trans siblings out there, including trans kids. I was moved when I read their amazing words. It is amazing to feel such a powerful and tangible connection with other trans folks out therethey're just so gentle and genuine.

WALLACE: Are you still a fan of Lady Gaga? Are you able to listen to music, hers or otherwise? Or to watch movies or TV?

MANNING: I am. I have a very small plastic radio that only plays whatever's on the radio in Kansas City and in Lawrence, Kansas. So, I can listen to pop music. I also watch TV on occasionbut nowhere near as frequently as I listen to the radio. I'm also a huge fan of other pop icons today, not just Lady Gaga. I've been a fan of Taylor Swift for yearsever since I heard her song "Love Story." I'm also a really big fan of Selena GomezI really started listening to her a lot in the months before and during my court martial in 2013. It might sound absolutely insane to folks out there, but I can safely say that Selena kept me motivated through the toughest portions of the trial. Most of all, I absolutely love Adele! Her music is so overwhelming and relatable. I was so excited to hear "Hello" on the radio that I stopped what I was doing and sat down to listen. It made me very emotional. I really enjoyed the Saturday Night Live spoof of the video, too. I'm also still a huge fan of EDM. I listen to a lot of the popular stuffCalvin Harris, the Chainsmokers, et ceterafor hours on Saturday nights.

WALLACE: You have criticized Caitlyn Jenner as "the grinch who stole (& sold out) the trans movement." How do you think she is misrepresenting trans people?

MANNING: Well, first I would like to point out that Caitlyn Jenner is not just a personshe is an institution. She has been surrounded by public relations experts who are carefully crafting and controlling the aspects of her public transition. When shesort of, since she really danced around the subjectcame out as trans in her interview with Diane Sawyer, I wanted to give her a chance. Unfortunately, as it became clear through the last year, it hasn't been natural for her. She just isn't up to the task of speaking on these issues. She does not understand, or even try to understand, the trans community as a whole. This is the most disturbing and, frankly, sad aspect of the entire affair. The PR folks are trying to rein in her messaging, but she, as a person, just isn't up to the task. She can't even fake it. I have heardboth directly and indirectlyfrom other trans women, just how tone deaf and distant Ms. Jenner has been with them in their interactions with her last year. But her major public blundersnot quote "getting" marriage equality and worrying about trans women not looking like a "man in a dress"should make it clear to those who didn't interact with her personally that she simply has the wrong mindset to be a spokesperson.

WALLACE: I have heard it said that her transition was "easy." I cannot imagine a single thing about your transitionat any stagethat could be called easy.

MANNING: I do not think that Caitlyn Jenner's transition was easy. Coming out and transitioning as a public figureeven for someone like heris an extraordinarily difficult task to undertake. I might not agree with her on a couple of points, but I will refuse to say that her transition was easy. There is far more to transitioning in the public eye than money, public relations, and logistics. Fundamentally, it is a very real, very difficult emotional roller-coaster. I do not care whether or not you would be considered a hardened celebrity or public personalityyou will have sleepless nights, you will have doubts, your mind will go to dark places. Anxiety, depression, and suicide don't discriminate based on how much money you havethough it might make it easier for you to get help. I think that it will be much easier for the next famous trans person to come out. I predict that such a person is very likely in the process of preparing to come out in transition publicly right now. I think this person is likely a famous actor who will come out as a trans woman in the next year or two. By that time, it will absolutely be a lot easier to transition than it was in 2013 or 2015. I guess we will see how it plays out when it happens. I support the next person fully, and I wish them nothing but the best of luck in their endeavors.

WALLACE: Do you find that you are able to comfort and give strength to others with your story? What, in turn, brings you solace and strength? Were there people who were particularly helpful to you along the way?

MANNING: The most important people for me, at least in the last couple of years since I came out, are my supersecret trans friends and confidantes. I think I need to come up with a code name for this circle. One of them in particular has been my lifeline during really tough momentslike during a rough period of anxiety and depression in May and June of 2015, about three to four months into my hormone treatment. I cried and cried over the phone, and yet these people were there for me when I was at my most vulnerable. It certainly made my struggle a lot easier. I have found hundreds, if not thousands of people who have written to me, or have spoken through people that I know, about the comfort and strength that they have gotten from my story. I must admit: It's a little overwhelming! I immediately relate to all of them, thoughwhich gives me a lot of strength and energy. I think it's actually kind of sweet how there is a reciprocal effect that our stories can have on each other. They inspire me far more than they realize.

WALLACE: Can you tell me a little bit about your life before the Army? What were you into as a kid? In moving from one place to another, to Wales, back to Oklahoma, et cetera, did you have things that kept you tethered, inspired you?

MANNING: As a young kid, I spent a lot of time exploring the world around me. I lived a few miles outside of a tiny town in central Oklahoma. I would often run amok though the fields of wheat, the patches of trees, along the railroad tracks, and on red dirt roads. This had a profound effect on my view of the worldvast, open-ended, full of opportunity, and ready for exploration. I also had regular access to a computer, which was rare for kids in the early and mid-1990s. I think the embryonic digital world had the same affect on me as the openness of the old American frontier. While being tossed around the world from place to place as a teenager, I wasn't really tethered to any place or anyone. I think the increased ubiquity of the internet and networked computing in general allowed me to have some tether no matter where I was geographically. I could log in to a computer from anywhere in the world and access the same information and the same people. It allowed me to transcend the physical differences. I didn't really have anyone in particular who inspired me or that I found fascinating as a kid. It wasn't until I was in my early twenties that I began to find peopleand they were all historic figuresthat I began to relate to and find some inspiration in. Today, there are a lot of pioneers in science and civil rights that I admirepeople like Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Malcolm X, and Harvey Milk. This might strike some people as odd, but I feel a connection to them nonetheless.

WALLACE: From your Guardian columns, it seems to me that you have really embraced your position as a leader in advocacy for transparency as well as for inclusiveness and rights for trans people. Are you able to communicate with peers in other movements? Do you feel as though you are a leader, a touchstone, a pioneer to any causes? Do you have any specific ambitions or goalslevels of awareness or concrete legislationthat you'd like to see us achieve in the next five years?

MANNING: You know, I don't think that I'm embracing any kind of leadership for transparency or trans advocacy. It's not my goal to be a leader or spokesperson, or anything like that. I've certainly been given the opportunity to speak out on these issues and a few others. I am really passionate about transparency and trans rights issues, so I embrace these opportunities to speak. I try to stay in touch with those who are prominent in both the trans and transparency movements, but more often than not, I am speaking out on a particular issue on my own. I certainly hope that people listen to me and think about these issues. But regardless of whether I had a public venue to speak in, I would still be passionate about them. On a transparency front, I would say that I certainly dream of a world in which our local, state, and national and international governments and other organizations have a 21st century, digital-era transparency built into them by default. If an organization produces a document, it should be made public as soon as possible. I don't believe that Freedom of Information laws, which have arbitrary time periods or broad blanket exemptions, meet the level of transparency that society needs today. There are just too many opportunitiesand an increasing number of themto hide systemic, institutional wrongdoing behind legal veils, legal theories, and arbitrary exemptions. I hope that we can start to chip away at this, but it sure looks like society is still sliding in the opposite direction. As for trans issues, I believe that the trans movement is at a crossroads. We have achieved an unprecedented level of visibility in the last couple of years. However, as I said, that's not the same thing as equality. There is an awful lot of work to do to protect trans folks. We are still disproportionally poor and administratively and institutionally discriminated against at all levels of society. I think we can achieve meaningful change, but only if we demand that the institutions themselves change their behavior. I think that some of today's focus on freedom of information and trans rights have a tendency to focus on the actions of individuals and how they should be regulated by governments. However, I think it's important to remember that it is the institutions themselvesschools, tax collection services, banks, human resources decisions, health departments, police departments, prosecutors, courts, and prisonswhere the most devastating and systemic problems occur today. The scale of these problems is simply unimaginable. That is why it can be so difficult to get people to think about systemic institutional problems. It is easier just to see the actions of one or two people and say, "That's wrong!"

CHRIS WALLACE IS INTERVIEW'S SENIOR EDITOR.

Read this article:
Chelsea Manning - Page - Interview Magazine

Cryptocurrency CredaCash

How often should a cryptocurrency network create a new block? Every minute? Every 10 minutes?

We believe the blockchain should work like a stock ticker, with new blocks coming as fast as possible. The CredaCash network currently creates a block every 2 seconds, and in the future, even faster.

How long should you have to wait for important payments to clear? An hour? A day?

With CredaCash, transactions become permanent in about 30 seconds. You no longer have to wait hours to ensure important payments cant be reversed.

How much information should be shared with the world? The amount of every payment? The links between payments sent and received?

CredaCash uses zero knowledge proofs to keep all transaction information private, including payment amounts and links between transactions.

CredaCash has reinvented the blockchain for fast, reliable, private transactions.

Read our whitepaper to learn more:

CredaCash Whitepaper

Then check out our technical documentation:

CredaCash Transaction Protocol

CredaCash Blockchain Assembly

CredaCash Wallet Developers Guide

CredaCash Transaction API Reference Manual

View post:
Cryptocurrency CredaCash

Cryptocurrency Trading | CoinStaker | Cloud Mining Services …

This is an old saying in the stock-trading scene, which also should be followed in the cryptocurrency-trading-world! We are going to post our latest trades, suggestions and technical analysis on our blog, but you should not limit yourself only to us. Other sources are twitter hashtags for the crypto-coin and crypto-forums like reddit for example.

There is lots of value created by pump- & dumpers so watch out! Always set a goal, which you want to achieve, for example 25%. If you dont check you exchanges daily, then the best thing you could probably do is add a limit order. A limit order is executed, when a limit price is reached. For example, if you buy a dogecoin for 0.05 BTC. You can make a limit order for 0.075 BTC. This means, when the dogecoin gets a value higher than 0.075 BTC, your order will instantly be executed. This makes sure, that you dont pass out on the moment it can always fall back to 0.05 before you can see the trade opportunity.

Here is the original post:
Cryptocurrency Trading | CoinStaker | Cloud Mining Services ...

Edward Snowden: ‘Governments can reduce our dignity to that …

A US drone used to launch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

Ive been waiting 40 years for someone like you. Those were the first words Daniel Ellsberg spoke to me when we met last year. Dan and I felt an immediate kinship; we both knew what it meant to risk so much and to be irrevocably changed by revealing secret truths.

One of the challenges of being a whistleblower is living with the knowledge that people continue to sit, just as you did, at those desks, in that unit, throughout the agency; who see what you saw and comply in silence, without resistance or complaint. They learn to live not just with untruths but with unnecessary untruths, dangerous untruths, corrosive untruths. It is a double tragedy: what begins as a survival strategy ends with the compromise of the human being it sought to preserve and the diminishing of the democracy meant to justify the sacrifice.

But unlike Dan Ellsberg, I didnt have to wait 40 years to witness other citizens breaking that silence with documents. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other newspapers in 1971; Chelsea Manning provided the Iraq and Afghan war logs and the Cablegate materials to WikiLeaks in 2010. I came forward in 2013. Now another person of courage and conscience has made available the extraordinary set of documents published in The Assassination Complex, the new book by Jeremy Scahill and the staff of the Intercept.

We are witnessing a compression of the timeframe in which unconstitutional activities can continue before they are exposed by acts of conscience. And this permits the American people to learn about critical government actions, not as part of the historical record but in a way that allows direct action through voting in other words, in a way that empowers an informed citizenry to defend the democracy that state secrets are nominally intended to support.

When I see individuals who are able to bring information forward, it gives me hope that we wont always be required to curtail the illegal activities of our government as if it were a constant task, to uproot official lawbreaking as routinely as we mow the grass. (Interestingly enough, that is how some have begun to describe remote killing operations, as cutting the grass.)

A single act of whistleblowing doesnt change the reality that there are significant portions of the government that operate below the waterline, beneath the visibility of the public. Those secret activities will continue, despite reforms. But those who perform these actions now have to live with the fear that if they engage in activities contrary to the spirit of society if even a single citizen is catalysed to halt the machinery of that injustice they might still be held to account. The thread by which good governance hangs is this equality before the law, for the only fear of the man who turns the gears is that he may find himself upon them.

Hope lies beyond, when we move from extraordinary acts of revelation to a collective culture of accountability within the intelligence community. Here we will have taken a meaningful step towards solving a problem that has existed for as long as our government.

Not all leaks are alike, nor are their makers. David Petraeus, for instance, provided his illicit lover and favourable biographer information so secret it defied classification, including the names of covert operatives and the presidents private thoughts on matters of strategic concern. Petraeus was not charged with a felony, as the Justice Department had initially recommended, but was instead permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanour. Had an enlisted soldier of modest rank pulled out a stack of highly classified notebooks and handed them to his girlfriend to secure so much as a smile, he would be looking at many decades in prison, not a pile of character references from a Whos Who of the Deep State.

There are authorised leaks and also permitted disclosures. It is rare for senior administration officials to explicitly ask a subordinate to leak a CIA officers name to retaliate against her husband, as appears to have been the case with Valerie Plame. It is equally rare for a month to go by in which some senior official does not disclose some protected information that is beneficial to the political efforts of the parties but clearly damaging to national security under the definitions of our law.

This dynamic can be seen quite clearly in the al-Qaida conference call of doom story, in which intelligence officials, likely seeking to inflate the threat of terrorism and deflect criticism of mass surveillance, revealed to a neoconservative website extraordinarily detailed accounts of specific communications they had intercepted, including locations of the participating parties and the precise contents of the discussions. If the officials claims were to be believed, they irrevocably burned an extraordinary means of learning the precise plans and intentions of terrorist leadership for the sake of a short-lived political advantage in a news cycle. Not a single person seems to have been so much as disciplined as a result of the story that cost us the ability to listen to the alleged al-Qaida hotline.

If harmfulness and authorisation make no difference, what explains the distinction between the permissible and the impermissible disclosure?

The answer is control. A leak is acceptable if it is not seen as a threat, as a challenge to the prerogatives of the institution. But if all the disparate components of the institution not just its head but its hands and feet, every part of its body must be assumed to have the same power to discuss matters of concern, that is an existential threat to the modern political monopoly of information control, particularly if were talking about disclosures of serious wrongdoing, fraudulent activity, unlawful activities. If you cant guarantee that you alone can exploit the flow of controlled information, then the aggregation of all the worlds unmentionables including your own begins to look more like a liability than an asset.

Truly unauthorised disclosures are necessarily an act of resistance that is, if theyre not done simply for press consumption, to fluff up the public appearance or reputation of an institution. However, that doesnt mean they all come from the lowest working level. Sometimes the individuals who step forward happen to be near the pinnacle of power. Ellsberg was in the top tier; he was briefing the secretary of defense. You cant get much higher, unless you are the secretary of defense, and the incentives simply arent there for such a high-ranking official to be involved in public interest disclosures because that person already wields the influence to change the policy directly.

At the other end of the spectrum is Chelsea Manning, a junior enlisted soldier, who was much nearer to the bottom of the hierarchy. I was midway in the professional career path. I sat down at the table with the chief information officer of the CIA, and I was briefing him and his chief technology officer when they were publicly making statements such as: We try to collect everything and hang on to it for ever, and everybody still thought that was a cute business slogan. Meanwhile, I was designing the systems they would use to do precisely that. I wasnt briefing the policy side, the secretary of defense, but I was briefing the operations side, the National Security Agencys director of technology. Official wrongdoing can catalyse all levels of insiders to reveal information, even at great risk to themselves, so long as they can be convinced that it is necessary to do so.

Reaching those individuals, helping them realise that their first allegiance as a public servant is to the public rather than to the government, is the challenge. That is a significant shift in cultural thinking for a government worker today.

Ive argued that whistleblowers are elected by circumstance. Its not a virtue of who you are or your background. Its a question of what you are exposed to, what you witness. At that point, the question becomes: Do you honestly believe that you have the capability to remediate the problem, to influence policy? I would not encourage individuals to reveal information, even about wrongdoing, if they do not believe they can be effective in doing so, because the right moment can be as rare as the will to act.

This is simply a pragmatic, strategic consideration. Whistleblowers are outliers of probability, and if they are to be effective as a political force, it is critical that they maximise the amount of public good produced from scarce seed. When I was making my decision, I came to understand how one strategic consideration, such as waiting until the month before a domestic election, could become overwhelmed by another, such as the moral imperative to provide an opportunity to arrest a global trend that had already gone too far. I was focused on what I saw and on my sense of overwhelming disenfranchisement that the government, in which I had believed for my entire life, was engaged in such an extraordinary act of deception.

At the heart of this evolution is that whistleblowing is a radicalising event and by radical I dont mean extreme; I mean it in the traditional sense of radix, the root of the issue. At some point, you recognise that you cant just move a few letters around on a page and hope for the best. You cant simply report this problem to your supervisor, as I tried to do, because inevitably supervisors get nervous. They think about the structural risk to their career. They are concerned about rocking the boat and getting a reputation. The incentives arent there to produce meaningful reform. Fundamentally, in an open society, change has to flow from the bottom to the top.

As someone who works in the intelligence community, youve given up a lot to do this work. Youve happily committed yourself to tyrannical restrictions. You voluntarily undergo polygraphs; you tell the government everything about your life. You waive a lot of rights because you believe the fundamental goodness of your mission justifies the sacrifice of even the sacred. Its a just cause.

And when youre confronted with evidence not in an edge case, not in a peculiarity, but as a core consequence of the programme that the government is subverting the constitution and violating the ideals you so fervently believe in, you have to make a decision. When you see that the programme or policy is inconsistent with the oaths and obligations that youve sworn to your society and yourself, then that oath and that obligation cannot be reconciled with the programme. To which do you owe a greater loyalty?

One of the extraordinary things about the revelations of the past several years, and their accelerating pace, is that they have occurred in the context of the United States as the uncontested hyperpower.

We now have the largest unchallenged military machine in the history of the world, and it is backed by a political system that is increasingly willing to authorise any use of force in response to practically any justification. In todays context that justification is terrorism, but not necessarily because our leaders are particularly concerned about terrorism in itself or because they think it is an existential threat to society. They recognise that even if we had a 9/11 attack every year, we would still be losing more people to car accidents and heart disease, and we dont see the same expenditure of resources to respond to those more significant threats.

What it really comes down to is the reality that we have a political class that feels it must inoculate itself against allegations of weakness. Our politicians are more fearful of the politics of terrorism of the charge that they do not take terrorism seriously than they are of the crime itself.

As a result, we have arrived at this unmatched capability, unrestrained by policy. We have become reliant upon what was intended to be the limitation of last resort: the courts. Judges, realising that their decisions are suddenly charged with much greater political importance and impact than was originally intended, have gone to great lengths in the post-9/11 period to avoid reviewing the laws or the operations of the executive in the national security context and setting restrictive precedents that, even if entirely proper, would impose limits on government for decades or more. That means the most powerful institution that humanity has ever witnessed has also become the least restrained. Yet that same institution was never designed to operate in such a manner, having instead been explicitly founded on the principle of checks and balances. Our founding impulse was to say: Though we are mighty, we are voluntarily restrained.

When you first go on duty at CIA headquarters, you raise your hand and swear an oath not to government, not to the agency, not to secrecy. You swear an oath to the constitution. So there is this friction, this emerging contest between the obligations and values that the government asks you to uphold, and the actual activities that you are asked to participate in.

These disclosures about the Obama administrations killing programme reveal that there is a part of the American character that is deeply concerned with the unrestrained, unchecked exercise of power. And there is no greater or clearer manifestation of unchecked power than assuming for yourself the authority to execute an individual outside a battlefield context and without the involvement of any sort of judicial process.

Traditionally, in the context of military affairs, we have always understood that lethal force in battle could not be subjected to ex ante judicial constraints. When armies are shooting at each other, there is no room for a judge on that battlefield. But now the government has decided without the publics participation, without our knowledge and consent that the battlefield is everywhere. Individuals who dont represent an imminent threat in any meaningful sense of those words are redefined, through the subversion of language, to meet that definition.

Inevitably, that conceptual subversion finds its way home, along with the technology that enables officials to promote comfortable illusions about surgical killing and nonintrusive surveillance. Take, for instance, the holy grail of drone persistence, a capability that the US has been pursuing forever. The goal is to deploy solar-powered drones that can loiter in the air for weeks without coming down. Once you can do that, and you put any typical signals-collection device on the bottom of it to monitor, unblinkingly, the emanations of, for example, the different network addresses of every laptop, phone and iPod, you know not just where a particular device is in what city, but you know what apartment each device lives in, where it goes at any particular time, and by what route.

Once you know the devices, you know their owners. When you start doing this over several cities, you are tracking the movements not just of individuals but of whole populations.

By preying on the modern necessity to stay connected, governments can reduce our dignity to something like that of tagged animals, the primary difference being that we paid for the tags and they are in our pockets. It sounds like fantasist paranoia, but on the technical level it is so trivial to implement that I cannot imagine a future in which it wont be attempted. It will be limited to the war zones at first, in accordance with our customs, but surveillance technology has a tendency to follow us home.

Here we see the double edge of our uniquely American brand of nationalism. We are raised to be exceptionalists, to think we are the better nation with the manifest destiny to rule. The danger is that some people will actually believe this claim, and some of those will expect the manifestation of our national identity, that is, our government, to comport itself accordingly.

Unrestrained power may be many things, but it is not American.

It is in this sense that the act of whistleblowing increasingly has become an act of political resistance. The whistleblower raises the alarm and lifts the lamp, inheriting the legacy of a line of Americans that begins with Paul Revere.

The individuals who make these disclosures feel so strongly about what they have seen that they are willing to risk their lives and their freedom. They know that we, the people, are ultimately the strongest and most reliable check on the power of government.

The insiders at the highest levels of government have extraordinary capability, extraordinary resources, tremendous access to influence and a monopoly on violence, but in the final calculus there is but one figure that matters: the individual citizen.

And there are more of us than there are of them.

The Assassination Complex: Inside the Governments Secret Drone Warfare Programme by Jeremy Scahill and the staff of the Intercept, with a foreword by Edward Snowden and afterword by Glenn Greenwald, is published by Serpents Tail (8.99) and Simon & Schuster ($30).

See the original post:
Edward Snowden: 'Governments can reduce our dignity to that ...

Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin, Litecoin,

subscribeunsubscribe20,324 readers

~9 users here now

Welcome to r/CryptoCurrency. This subreddit is intended for open discussions of all subjects related to emerging cryptocurrencies or crypto-assets including (but not limited to): Bitcoin, Litecoin, Namecoin, Peercoin, BitShares, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Ripple, Open-Transactions, etc.

General Discussions Focused Discussions Warnings Scams Security Legacy Announcements Mining-Minting Trading Finance Adoption Videos Podcasts Support Exchanges Technical Wallets Innovations Politics General News Development Release Abstract Anonymity-Privacy Fun 2.0 Tools New Coins Scalability META Offer flair or subreddit suggestions

/r/Aeon /r/Anoncoin /r/BTC /r/Bitcoin /r/BitcoinXT /r/Burstcoin /r/Blackcoin /r/CryptogenicBullion /r/Devcoin /r/DigiByte /r/Digitalcoin /r/Dogecoin /r/Dashpay /r/Ethereum /r/Ethtrader /r/Feathercoin /r/Flappycoin /r/Gridcoin /r/Litecoin /r/Maidsafe /r/Mazacoin /r/Maxcoin /r/Megacoin /r/Mintcoin /r/Monero /r/Mooncoin /r/Myriadcoin /r/Namecoin /r/NobleCoin /r/NuBits /r/NXT /r/Nyancoins /r/Lisk /r/Peercoin /r/Primecoin /r/Quarkcoin /r/ReddCoin /r/Ripplers /r/Stealthcoin /r/Tacocoin /r/Terracoin /r/TheRealPandacoin /r/TopCoin /r/Vertcoin

/r/Best_of_Crypto /r/BitcoinMining /r/BitShares /r/Crypto /r/CryptoMarkets /r/Jobs4Crypto /r/LitecoinMining /r/Mastercoin /r/DoItForTheCoin /r/Ethtrader

/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/directory

This is a new ad format that we are currently testing. We often try new types of ads in a limited capacity. If you have feedback, please let us know in the ads subreddit.

This area shows new and upcoming links. Vote on links here to help them become popular, and click the forwards and backwards buttons to view more.

Enter a keyword or topic to discover new subreddits around your interests. Be specific!

You can access this tool at any time on the /subreddits/ page.

Rendered by PID 1498 on app-08 at 2016-05-06 10:41:13.969609+00:00 running 29dfcc8 country code: US.

See more here:
Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin, Litecoin,

Forget Apple vs. the FBI: WhatsApp Just Switched on …

Slide: 1 / of 7 .

Caption: WhatsApp founders Jan Koum (L) and Brian Acton (R).Michael Friberg for WIRED

Slide: 2 / of 7 .

Caption: Moxie Marlinspike. Michael Friberg for WIRED

Slide: 3 / of 7 .

Caption: Brian Acton. Michael Friberg for WIRED

Slide: 4 / of 7 .

Caption: WIRED

Slide: 5 / of 7 .

Caption: Jan Koum. Michael Friberg for WIRED

Slide: 6 / of 7 .

Caption: Moxie Marlinspike. Michael Friberg for WIRED

Slide: 7 / of 7 .

Caption: WIRED

For most of the past six weeks, the biggest story out of Silicon Valley was Apples battle with the FBI over a federal order to unlock the iPhone of a mass shooter. The companys refusal touched off a searing debate over privacy and security in the digital age. But this morning, at a small office in Mountain View, California, three guys made the scope of that enormous debate look kinda small.

Mountain View is home to WhatsApp, an online messaging service now owned by tech giant Facebook, that has grown into one of the worlds most important applications. More than a billion people trade messages, make phone calls, send photos, and swap videos using the service. This means that only Facebook itself runs a larger self-contained communications network. And today, the enigmatic founders of WhatsApp, Brian Acton and Jan Koum, together with a high-minded coder and cryptographer who goes by the pseudonym Moxie Marlinspike, revealed that the company has added end-to-end encryption to every form of communication on its service.

This means that if any group of people uses the latest version of WhatsAppwhether that group spans two people or tenthe service will encrypt all messages, phone calls, photos, and videos moving among them. And thats true on any phone that runs the app, from iPhones to Android phones to Windows phones to old school Nokia flip phones. With end-to-end encryption in place, not even WhatsApps employees can read the data thats sent across its network. In other words, WhatsApp has no way of complying with a court order demanding access to the content of any message, phone call, photo, or video traveling through its service. Like Apple, WhatsApp is, in practice, stonewalling the federal government, but its doing so on a larger frontone that spans roughly a billion devices.

Building secure products actually makes for a safer world, (though) many people in law enforcement may not agree with that, says Acton, who was employee number forty-four at Internet giant Yahoo before co-founding WhatsApp in 2009 alongside Koum, one of his old Yahoo colleagues. With encryption, Acton explains, anyone can conduct business or talk to a doctor without worrying about eavesdroppers. With encryption, he says, you can even be a whistleblowerand not worry.

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment for this story. But many inside the government and out are sure to take issue with the companys move. In late 2014, WhatsApp encrypted a portion of its network. In the months since, its service has apparently been used to facilitate criminal acts, including the terrorist attacks on Paris last year. According to The New York Times, as recently as this month, the Justice Department was considering a court case against the company after a wiretap order (still under seal) ran into WhatsApps end-to-end encryption.

The government doesnt want to stop encryption, says Joseph DeMarco, a former federal prosecutor who specializes in cybercrime and has represented various law enforcement agencies backing the Justice Department and the FBI in their battle with Apple. But the question is: what do you do when a company creates an encryption system that makes it impossible for court-authorized search warrants to be executed? What is the reasonable level of assistance you should ask from that company?

WhatsApp declined to discuss any particular wiretap orders. But the prospect of a court case doesnt move Acton and Koum. Espousing an article of faith thats commonly held among Silicon Valley engineerssometimes devoutly, sometimes casuallythey believe that online privacy must be protected against surveillance of all kinds. Were somewhat lucky here in the United States, where we hope that the checks and balances hold out for many years to come and decades to come. But in a lot of countries you dont have these checks and balances, says Koum, dressed in his usual T-shirt and hoodie. Coming from Koum, this is not an academic point, as most of WhatsApps users are outside the US. The argument can be made: Maybe you want to trust the government, but you shouldnt because you dont know where things are going to go in the future.

Acton and Koum started adding encryption to WhatsApp back in 2013 and then redoubled their efforts in 2014 after they were contacted by Marlinspike. The dreadlocked coder runs an open source software project, Open Whisper Systems, that provides encryption for messaging services. In tech security and privacy circles, Marlinspike is a well-known idealist. But the stance he has taken alongside Acton and Koumnot to mention the other WhatsApp engineers who worked on the project and the braintrust at Facebook thats backing the effortis hardly extreme in the context of Silicon Valleys wider clash with governments and law enforcement over privacy. In Silicon Valley, strong encryption isnt really up for debate. Among techs most powerful leaders, its orthodoxy. And WhatsApp is encryptions latest champion. It sees itself as fighting the same fight as Apple and so many others.

WhatsApp, more than any company before it, has taken encryption to the masses. What makes this move even more striking is that the company did this with such a tiny group of people. The company employs only about 50 engineers. And it took a team of only 15 of them to bring encryption to the companys one billion usersa tiny, technologically empowered group of individuals engaging in a new form of asymmetrical resistance to authority, standing up not only to the US government, but all governments. Technology is an amplifier, Acton says. With the right stewards in place, with the right guidance, we can really effect positive change.

But of course, positive change is in the eye of the beholder. And these are technological stewards in the style of Silicon Valley: billionaires in cargo shorts and T-shirts who did something massive because they wanted to. And because they could.

Like so many tech startups, WhatsApps success seems a bit accidental. Acton and Koum originally conceived of their app as a way for people to broadcast their availability to friends, family, and colleagues: Could they talk or text at that very moment or not? But it soon morphed into a more general messaging app, a way to trade text messages via the Internet without using the SMS networks operated by cellular phone carriers like Verizon and AT&T. But the real genius of the app is that very early on, Acton and Koum targeted the international market.

In the startups first year, they offered the service in German, Spanish, French, and Italian, among other languages, and it rapidly took off overseas, where SMS text fees are much higher in than US. Today, the company offers the app in more than 50 languages, and it has grown into the primary social network in so many of the worlds countries, including Brazil, India, and large parts of Europe. In many places, local wireless carriers have signed deals with WhatsApp to offer the service directly to their customers, undermining their own texting services but driving more people to use the wider Internet through their wireless networksand thus driving more revenue.

By February of 2014, WhatsApp had reached about 450 million users, and Facebook shelled out $19 billion to acquire the startup, with its staff of only 50 people. Since then, with only a slight expansion of staff, WhatsApp has come to serve more than a billion people across the globe.

But the apps two founders, for all their success, have remained in the shadows. They almost never speak with the media. Koum, in particular, is largely uninterested in press or publicity or, for that matter, any human interaction he deems extraneous. Clearly, you cant believe everything you read in the press, he tells me, a reporter. Although the company runs one of the worlds largest online servicesand is owned by the worlds biggest social networkit continues to operate almost entirely on its own in an unmarked building in Mountain View thats fronted by unusually diligent security. And because the app is far more popular overseas than in the US, the typically fervent Silicon Valley tech press has largely left them alone. As a result, the American public hasnt quite grasped the enormous scope of the companys encryption project or the motivations behind it.

Koum and Acton share a long history in computer security. They first met at Yahoo while doing a security audit for the company. During this time, Koum was also part of a seminal security collective and think tank called w00w00 (pronounced whoo whoo), a tight online community that used the old IRC chat service to trade ideas related to virtually any aspect of the field. Koum grew up in the Ukraine under Soviet rule before immigrating to the US as a teenager, so he has some intimate familiarity with the challenges of maintaining privacy in the face of an intrusive government. But Koum says that the bigger force behind encrypting WhatsApp was Acton, a comparatively outgoing individual who grew up in Florida. Brian gets a lot of credit for wanting to do it earlier, Koum says of WhatsApp encryption.

Indeed, it was Acton who first launched an effort to add encryption to WhatsApp back in 2013. I dont really want to be in the business of observing conversations, he says, adding that people were constantly asking the company for full encryption. This is something our users wanted. Maybe not your average mom in middle America, but people on a worldwide basis. At the start, however, the effort was little more than a prototype driven by a single WhatsApp intern. The project didnt really take off until Moxie Marlinspike remembered a WhatsApp guyan engineer who worked on the version of WhatsApp for Windows phoneshe had met at his girlfriends family reunion.

Moxie Marlinspikes girlfriend comes from a family of Russian physicists, and in 2013, she held a family reunion at the apartment she shared with Marlinspike. The guest list included about 23 Russian physicists and one American guy who worked as an engineer at WhatsApp. (He had married into the family.) Marlinspike chatted briefly with the engineer at the reunion. Then, about a year later, Marlinspike decided it was time to add encryption to WhatsApp, one of the worlds largest messaging services. He sent the guy an email, asking for an introduction to the companys founders.

The debate over encryption has only grown more intense.

When I meet Marlinspike at WhatsApp headquarters, he is somewhat reticent to explain his motivations, which seems typical of the manat least in interviews with the press. Online, however, hes not shy about his views. In the past, he has written that encryption is important because it gives anyone the ability to break the law. But in Mountain View, he is more laconic. WhatsApp is the most popular messaging app in the world, says Marlinspike, who is not just a coder and cryptographer but a sailor and a shipwright. I wanted to get in touch.

Given the reclusive proclivities of WhatsApp, knowing someone who knows someone is particularly important when it comes to making connections there. After the engineer helped make an introduction, Acton met Marlinspike at the Dana Street Roasting Companya popular meeting place for Silicon Valley types. Then, a few weeks later, Marlinspike met with Koum. The two men, it turned out, had plenty in common. Marlinspike had come up in the same world of underground security gurus before joining Twitter in 2011and promptly leaving the company to form Open Whisper Systems. We talked about the IRC days, Koum says of their meeting. How things used to be.

The bond seemed to stick. Soon, Marlinspike was helping to build end-to-end encryption across all of WhatsApp, alongside Acton and Koum and a small team of WhatsApp engineers. Acton says that they got lucky in meeting Marlinspike and that they probably wouldnt have rolled out full encryption if they hadnt. Its part of an intriguing casualness to the way Acton and Koum discuss their seemingly earthshaking undertakingnot to mention the way Marlinspike stays largely silent. They met. They had the means. And they built it. It would take about two years.

The encrypting of WhatsApp was supposed to be finished by the middle of January 2016. Koum and company wanted to unveil a completely encrypted service at the DLD tech media conference in Munich, where he was set to give a proverbial fireside chat. Germany is a country that puts an unusually high value on privacy, both digital and otherwise, and Koum felt the time was ripe to make WhatsApps plans known to the world. Just recently, a Brazilian court had ordered a temporary shutdown of WhatsApp in the country after the company failed to turn over messages to the government that had been sent across a part of the service that was already encrypted. In Germany, Koum could make his counterpoint.

But by the middle of December, it was clear the project wouldnt be finished. The team was intent on encrypting everything on every kind of phone. The last piece was video, Koum says. You need to build for a situation where somebody on Android can send a video to an S40 user. Or somebody on a Blackberry can send to a Windows phone. So the company postponed the announcement. In Germany, Koum talked about WhatsApps new business model instead.

As Koum sees it, slipping a backdoor into an encrypted service would defeat the purpose.

In the meantime, the debate over encryption has only grown more intense. On February 16, Apple CEO Tim Cook released an open letter refusing the court order to unlock a phone that belonged to one of the two shooters who killed 14 people and seriously injured another 22 during a December attack in San Bernardino, California. That day, Acton turned to Koum and said: Tim Cook is my hero. About two weeks later in Brazil, authorities arrested a Facebook vice president because WhatsApp wouldnt turn over messages after a court order. Apparently, the authorities didnt realize that the Facebook employee had nothing to do with WhatsAppor that WhatsApp, thanks to end-to-end encryption, had no way of reading the messages. Two days later, WhatsApp joined Facebook and several other companies in filing an amicus brief in support of Apple in its fight against the FBI.

Clearly, WhatsApp has the support of its much larger parent company. Facebook declined to speak specifically for this story. But Koum, after the WhatsApp acquisition, became a member of the Facebook board. If they were not supportive of us, we wouldnt be here today, he says. But this also wasnt something Facebook imposed on WhatsApp. This is a decision WhatsApp made on its own, before it was acquired. By the time Facebook paid billions of dollars for the company, the transformation was already under way.

Many lawmakers have called for companies like WhatsApp to equip their encryption schemes with a backdoor available only to law enforcement. Theres even been talk of a law that requires these backdoors. But as Koum sees it, slipping a backdoor into an encrypted service would defeat the purpose: you might as well not encrypt it at all. A backdoor would just open the service to abuse by both government and hackers. Besides, if you did add a backdoor, or remove encryption from WhatsApp entirely, that wouldnt stop bad actors. Theyd just go elsewhere. In the age of open source software, encryption tools are freely available to everyone. The encryption genie is out of the bottle, Koum says.

Indeed, even some of those exploring legislation to require backdoors to encrypted digital services acknowledge that the issues in play arent that simple. If we require our companies to build in a door, do we need to let China through the door? Or do we have to build doors for them when these services are used in their countries? asks Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. And what does that mean in terms of stifling dissent in authoritarian countries that may use it for non-law enforcement purposes?

When asked about reports that terrorists used WhatsApp to plan the attacks on Parisreports that politicians have used to back calls for a backdoorKoum doesnt budge. I think this is politicians, in some ways, using these terrible acts to advance their agendas, he says. If the White House thinks that Twitter can solve their ISIS problem, theyve got (a lot of problems).

Koum is right that encryption is widely available to anyone motivated to use it, but WhatsApp is pushing it much farther into the mainstream than anyone else. Apple, for instance, encrypts the data sitting on an iPhone, and it uses end-to-end encryption to hide the messages that travel over its own iMessage texting service. But iMessage is only available on iPhones. Over the years, Apple has sold about 800 million iPhones. But its hard to know how many are still in use, or how many people who have them are communicating via iMessage anyway. WhatsApp runs on just about every kind of phone. Plus, Apples techniques have some gaping holes. Most notably, many users back up their iMessages to Apples iCloud service, which negates the end-to-end encryption. WhatsApp, meanwhile, has a billion users on its service right now.

Pundits have also made much of the encryption offered by Telegram, a messaging service built by a Russian entrepreneur who travels the world in self-imposed exile. But Telegram doesnt turn on end-to-end encryption by default. And it doesnt do end-to-end encryption for group messaging. And it has only a fraction of the audience of WhatsApp.

In pushing back against end-to-end encryption, the US government argues that its merely trying to maintain the status quothat it has long had the power to issue a warrant for communications data. This is the same principle applied to a different set of facts, says DeMarco, the former federal prospector that has helped law enforcement agencies back the Justice Department against Apple. This is about what companies should do when the government had gone to court and gotten a court order, either a search warrant or a wiretap or a data tap.

When I float this argument to Koum and Acton, they defer to Marlinspikeat first. Though the cryptographer is somewhat reticent to speak, when he does, he speaks with an idealists conviction. In some ways, you can think of end-to-end encryption as honoring what the past looked like, he says. Now, more and more of our communication is done over communication networks rather than face-to-face or other traditionally private means of communicating. Even written correspondence wasnt subject to mass surveillance the way that electronic communication is today.

Dressed in his standard uniform of T-shirt and cargo shorts, Acton agrees. The phone is one hundred, one hundred and ten years old, he says. There was a middle period where the government had a broad ability to surveil, but if you look at human history in total, people evolved and civilizations evolved with private conversations and private speech. If anything, were bringing that back to individuals.

Acton and Koum and Marlinspike believe all this no matter what the government might do or say. Theyre just doing what they want to do, and theyre doing it because they can. Though The New York Times indicates that WhatsApp has received a wiretap order over encrypted data, Acton and Koum say they have had no real interaction with the government. But they probably will soon enough. Acton and Koum have almost complete control of one of the largest communication networks on Earth. Theyve met Moxie Marlinspike. The three of them share Silicon Valleys standard belief in online privacy. And now the government has to contend with something much bigger than a locked iPhone: secrecy for a billion people.

Update: This story has been updated to clarify that Telegram does not do end-to-end encryption by default. It does use other encryption by default, but this does not provide the same level of security as end-to-end.

See original here:
Forget Apple vs. the FBI: WhatsApp Just Switched on ...