Showing posts with label Edward Snowden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward Snowden. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Suzie Dawson: Announcement: "Being Julian Assange" Incoming




My epic new 25,000 word article, "Being Julian Assange" is about to be released. Here is what you need to know!
image.jpg




Hi everyone!


It feels like a lifetime since I wrote to explain why I had gone silent on Steemit but it was only 17 days ago. Nearly 11,000 people read that post and it caused quite a stir, with multiple You Tubers making videos about it (including this HA Goodman video and The Outer Light) and TraceyBeanz tweeting about it.


Some people interpreted my post to mean that I'd gone silent completely, but in fact I was simply trying to explain why I had gone from posting on Steemit near-daily, to not posting at all, and to let you all know that I was OK, and what I was up to.


At various times in my journalism when I've been working on something with massive topical implications, I've felt the heat so to speak for doing so. That was one of them. I've learned that sometimes it's better for people to know what I'm up to, than to keep it secret.


Since writing that post, I've continued working full time to complete my epic new article, "Being Julian Assange" and it is nearly ready for release.


Here are the key details.


What:

My epic new 25,000 word article, "Being Julian Assange" will be published imminently. The article examines issues relating to the following figures, and many more:


Screen_Shot_2018-03-07_at_4.11.01_PM.png


There are a number of new findings and unique conclusions in the article. Because it is so lengthy, I am preparing some release materials to help my readers to digest and reference it. This includes a full chapter list with breakdowns of topics, people and organisations discussed in each.


Who:

I wrote the article myself and it reflects four months of my own research. My wonderful friend @elizbethleavos, Editor in Chief of Disobedient Media (also my co-host from Decipher You) spent dozens of hours editing and proofing the copy with me. I owe her a massive thank you for her tireless work. You can thank her too by going to her Steemit blog and upvoting and resteeming her work!
I also owe a big thank you to @SomersetBean for the incredible custom graphic header image for "Being Julian Assange", pictured above. You can learn a little bit more about the image and article here.


When:

The release will occur within 24-48 hours of this writing.


From that point, I have decided to give everyone a week to absorb the article, then Elizabeth and I will appear in a live video event to review my core findings and answer questions from readers. The live event will happen at the following dates/times:


Screen_Shot_2018-03-07_at_4.04.44_PM.png


Due to the intensity of the hours I was spending writing "Being Julian Assange", Elizabeth and I temporarily suspended Decipher You. After the above event, Decipher You will resume as before, analysing Snowden documents live online, twice a week.


Where:

My preference was to release the article on Steemit but the character limit on posts has prevented me from doing so.


It is important to me to make the full text of the article available in one go. Many people suggested to me that I serialise it, but it wasn't written that way and the findings in the article have a linear cumulative effect. I also prefer that there is a single link of the full text in circulation (and an archive.org link as backup).


However it is also important to me that the text be preserved on the blockchain and I want to support Steemit. So to accomodate everyone, the full article will be posted on my blog Contraspin and then I will shortly thereafter begin copying it to Steemit in posts of 5k-word chunks.


Why:

Those who follow me know that I write really infrequently, and that when I do, it is exhaustively researched. In the last nine months I have published only two pieces, both made major waves. My last article was in February and went viral in Europe: 10 Reasons The Dutch-Russia Hacking Story Is Fake News. Prior to that was last May's Someone Is Lying To Seth Rich's Family About Kim Dotcom.


"Being Julian Assange" directly tackles and dismantles the narratives of some of the biggest names in activism and journalism. It exposes lie after lie after lie about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in a way that has not been done before. It examines the ties between major organisations and intelligence agencies. It delves into details about Julian Assange's situation that are seldom given much thought. It theorises revolutionary new fixes for this broken system; ways we can make things better in the short term. And it asks you, the reader, to step up and act to make them happen.


I can't wait for you all to see it, and to hear what you think.


Thank you to everyone who has supported me through this time.


Love,
Suzie
By Suzie Dawson


Twitter: @Suzi3D
Official Website: Suzi3d.com


Screen_Shot_2018-03-07_at_6.39.10_PM.png


Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!


Who is Suzie?

Read Suzie's Introduction On Steemit

Monday, December 12, 2016

Exclusive: Face-to-face with Edward Snowden in Moscow on Trump, Putin and dwindling hopes of a presidential pardon

"We should always make a distinction, that right and wrong is a very different standard than legal and illegal. The law is no substitute for morality." ~Edward Snowden


The Katie Couric Interview

Exclusive: Face-to-face with Edward Snowden in Moscow on Trump, Putin and dwindling hopes of a presidential pardon

Michael Isikoff
Chief Investigative Correspondent

In an exclusive interview in Russia with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric, Edward Snowden, the fugitive whistleblower who leaked information about U.S. surveillance activities, says he is “kind of encouraged” by the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin might return him to the U.S. to stand trial because that would show the world he’s not a spy and Russia “doesn’t own me.”

But he also acknowledged he isn’t eager to return home to face U.S. justice, saying such a prospect “would be a threat to my liberty and to my life.”

Speaking for 90 minutes in a Moscow hotel room, Snowden — calm and completely unrepentant — also took new swipes at top U.S. intelligence officials, claiming they have accused him of damaging national security only because they were “embarrassed” by his disclosures of classified National Security Agency documents and worried about their “reputations.”

Those comments drew an angry rebuke Sunday from the Obama administration’s former top counterterrorism official. “Snowden is delusional,” said Matt Olsen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, when read excerpts of the interview.

“It wasn’t so many years ago that people were saying, ‘This guy’s a Russian spy,’” said Snowden when asked by Couric how “nervous” he was about the possibility of losing his Russian sanctuary and being sent home to face criminal charges of theft of government property and violations of the Espionage Act.

“But countries don’t give up their spies. And if my recent criticism of the Russian government’s Internet policies, criticisms of their human rights record, have been so severe that even my greatest critics in the intelligence community are now saying, ‘Oh, yeah, he’s a liability, they wanna get him out of there,’ that’s a vindication.”
“Vindication of what?” Couric asked him.

“The fact that I’m independent, the fact that I have always worked on behalf of the United States, and the fact that Russia doesn’t own me,” Snowden replied. “In fact, the Russian government may see me as sort of a liability.”



“So you wouldn’t mind if Putin extradited you and said, ‘Here you go, President Trump’?” asked Couric.

“Well, who wouldn’t?” Snowden answered. “I mean, that would obviously be something that would bother me.

That would obviously be something that would be a threat to my liberty and to my life. … What I’m proud of is the fact that every decision that I made I can defend.”

There is no evidence that Putin is considering such a move. But Snowden’s fate is very much uncertain: His comments come at a crucial moment for him, three and a half years after he deserted his job as an NSA contractor in Hawaii and fled, initially to Hong Kong, with a thumb drive of highly classified documents that he began disclosing to journalists.

Facing what is expected to be an unyielding hard line from the new Trump administration — Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo, who is designated to be Trump’s CIA director, has called him a “traitor” who should be subject to the death sentence — Snowden and his allies in the United States are mounting an aggressive public campaign for a pardon by President Obama. “Time is running out,” reads one of the headlines on the campaign’s website, which also cites sympathetic comments by former Attorney General Eric Holder that Snowden “performed a public service” by triggering a debate about U.S. surveillance programs that led to reforms, including the end of the bulk collection of U.S. phone records by the NSA.

But Obama has made clear, as recently as last month, that he won’t consider a pardon until after Snowden returns and his case is adjudicated. And even Snowden acknowledged he’s not expecting one. “Well, I’m not counting on it,” he told Couric when asked about a pardon.

In the meantime, Snowden’s lawyers and defenders are privately seeking to open discussion of a possible plea bargain that would allow him to return home without facing a trial that could result in a long prison sentence. A letter to Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch from the Pardon Snowden campaign, signed by 15 former staff members of the Church Committee — which exposed abuses by the FBI and CIA in the 1970s — urged “leniency” for Snowden, while avoiding any mention of a pardon.

In the interview, Snowden seemed to draw a parallel between the information he leaked to journalists in 2013 and the findings of the committee (headed by the late Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho), including how U.S. intelligence agencies “were secretly administering psychedelic drugs to college students to see the impacts they would have.”


Snowden went on: “They [the CIA] were engaging in assassination operations that were contrary to both American and international law, all kinds of crazy things. And these individuals who [signed the letter] are experts in what’s going on in intelligence at the classified level, who worked for the government, right? These aren’t sort of hippie reformers or anything like that. They argued that President Obama should seriously consider leniency in this case. He said that — or they said — that this case has caused far more benefits to American society, which I think is uncontroversial at this point, than any claimed harms for which we’ve never seen evidence.”

“If you had one minute to make your case face-to-face to President Obama, what would you say to convince him to pardon you?” Couric asked.

“I wouldn’t,” Snowden replied. “I would respectfully say to the president, ‘I understand you have an incredibly difficult job.’ No one wants to be a whistleblower. This is something that’s hard to do. It’s hard enough to stand up to a bully in your life, to your boss in the office, much less the combined might of the National Security Agency, the FBI and, you know, the apparatus of government.”

But any consideration of leniency for Snowden will run into fierce resistance from the U.S. intelligence community, which continues to view the former NSA contractor as an untrustworthy renegade who deceived his colleagues and endangered national security. This week, U.S. intelligence officials told Yahoo News, the office of the director of national intelligence is planning to declassify new portions of a highly critical 36-page report by the House Intelligence Committee that concluded Snowden was a “serial fabricator” who stole more than 1.5 million documents — 90 percent of which were military and defense secrets unrelated to the surveillance programs involving the privacy of U.S. citizens.

Snowden, for his part, casually dismissed claims that his disclosures to journalists did any damage to U.S. national security at all.

“Do you really think if the government can show somebody was hurt, a program was damaged, we’ve gone dark and can’t track dangerous people, they wouldn’t leak that criticism?” Snowden replied to Couric when asked about claims that the information he disclosed made it harder for U.S. agencies to monitor terrorists. “That wouldn’t be on the front page of the New York Times by the end of the day? I don’t think so. And I hope, maybe in time, you’ll think the same.”

Couric noted that even former Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on NSA documents he received from Snowden, recently wrote: “I do not share the view of some of his fans that he did no damage at all.”

“Can you at least acknowledge that damage might have been done as a result of your disclosures?” Couric asked Snowden.

“I don’t agree with him in that regard,” he replied about Gellman’s comment. “What I will say is this. Whenever we’re talking about damage without evidence — this is an intentional effort to change the conversation from the concrete harms of these programs that violated the rights of every man, woman and child in the United States and people around the world… What Barton Gellman was acknowledging there was that, yes, it’s possible that officials could have been embarrassed by this. Reputations could have been damaged by this. And the intelligence community considers this to be a matter of national security. But I would argue there’s more to national security than reputations.”

Couric pressed: “But aren’t we talking, in fairness, more than simply reputations or being embarrassed? Virtually every U.S. security official, current and former, agrees that these disclosures made it more difficult to track the movements of organizations like ISIS and other terrorist groups.”

“I don’t agree with that,” Snowden responded. “Terrorists read the newspaper too. But I’ll tell you, terrorists already knew the NSA was coming after them. And what we saw in the newspaper wasn’t anything that they didn’t already understand. What was revealed in the newspaper was only a surprise to Americans and ordinary citizens.”

It was these comments that drew a sharp response from Olsen, the former Obama administration counterterrorism director, who has said he watched in 2013 as terrorist operatives grew “dark” and changed their communication methods after the Snowden disclosures.

“Regardless of his motivation, the fact is that his theft and release of an unprecedented amount of classified information have directly aided terrorists, Russian intelligence services, and other US adversaries,” Olsen wrote Sunday in an email to Yahoo News. “His actions have resulted in the loss of intelligence sources that have saved American lives around the world.”

Olsen added: “Snowden disclosed specific information about how the US collects intelligence, who we work with, and where we have operations. These are activities that are entirely lawful and most have nothing to do with the privacy of Americans. These facts are not disputed, except by Snowden himself and perhaps his Russian hosts, with whom he has shared intelligence.”

Snowden, for his part, denied sharing any information with the Russian intelligence services. He also denied the assertion by U.S. intelligence officials that he visited the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong before flying to Moscow — en route, he claims, to Ecuador, only to be “trapped” in Russia because the U.S. had revoked his passport.

Snowden’s comments about U.S. intelligence officials being “embarrassed” by his disclosures weren’t his only remarks in the interview that have triggered sharp responses. Former U.S. intelligence officials and national security experts sought to debunk his assertion, published by Yahoo News on Sunday, that former CIA Director David Petraeus had disclosed “far more highly classified information than I ever did.” Petraeus, who is said to be under consideration for secretary of state in the Trump administration, shared top-secret information with his lover and biographer. He was forced to resign and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.

“I am not in any way defending Petraeus, but I don’t think many intelligence experts would agree with this,” tweeted Tommy Vietor, a former national security spokesman for the Obama White House.

“Snowden is apparently taking a play from Trump’s book on how to reinvent facts,” Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer, wrote in a Facebook posting. “It is absurd to claim Petraeus’ actions were worse or more damaging than his. Other than giving classified information to his mistress, which is totally unacceptable (even though she had a security clearance), the information was neither stolen nor compromised. Moreover, it was never published. To the contrary, Snowden stole highly classified information and DELIBERATELY compromised it by allowing the world, which includes our enemies, to see it.”

While insisting on his independence from Putin, Snowden seemed to echo the Russian government’s line regarding charges that its intelligence services hacked into Democratic Party campaign committees to influence the 2016 election. Moscow says the Obama administration has failed to give evidence for these allegations.

While conceding it was “possible” that the Russians had hacked the Democrats, Snowden added: “What bothers me about this kind of conversation is that the last time there was a significant hack that affected the United States that we believed had an association to a nation-state, it was the Sony hack, which we said North Korea was behind. The FBI immediately released evidence that they believed proved that they were behind that attack. We haven’t seen that here. And I think if we’re gonna have this conversation, it should be evidence-based.”

Snowden deflected most questions about his activities that led up to his flight to Moscow. He refused, for example, to identify any of the 10 NSA colleagues and superiors to whom he has said he raised concerns about U.S. surveillance before he began disclosing classified documents. Asked why he has been unable to produce a single email in which he raised such concerns, Snowden replied: “I’m not an email administrator” and “These aren’t things you put in writing at NSA. Saying, ‘I think the NSA is breaking the law. I think maybe this program is violating the Constitution’ is a career-ending move. And the people that I talked to first, my supervisor, said, ‘You know, hey, we can talk about this, but you shouldn’t rock the boat, and don’t write this down.’” (The only email that has surfaced that touches on surveillance practices, released by the NSA, shows that Snowden asked one of the agency’s lawyers in April 2013 to “clarify” an issue about legal authorities in an agency training manual, but expresses no concern about the NSA’s programs or potential infringements on privacy.)

“Why hasn’t anyone come forward, though?” Couric retorted. “Why haven’t you given any names to corroborate the fact that you did, in fact, try to go through the so-called proper channels?”

“Because if I did that, they would end the careers of these individuals, right? If these individuals spoke on their own without waiting for me, they would go to jail.”

Snowden — who has consistently asserted he shared documents only with “responsible” journalists who worked for publications he knew would carefully vet them — was also challenged on why he revealed highly classified information about NSA hacking in China to a journalist for the South China Morning Post while he was in Hong Kong. He defended the disclosure, saying the institutions being hacked by the NSA were not “valid intelligence targets” but civilian ones, such as hospitals and universities. He said for the first time that he didn’t know that the reporter to whom he gave this information, Lana Lam, worked for the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (although she was identified as one of the paper’s correspondents on its website); he says he understood she was a “freelancer” from Australia.

“So you didn’t even know that it was going to be in a newspaper in China?” Couric asked him.

“I knew it would be in a newspaper,” he said. “I didn’t know what newspaper. This was not my concern.”

Brian Rhoads, managing editor of the South China Morning Post, said in an email to Yahoo News Monday that the paper’s reporter, Lam, “made clear her status and who she was working for” when she interviewed Snowden in Hong Kong. “She was a full-time staff member of the South China Morning Post at the time, and represented herself as full-time staff throughout the interview process. We asked Snowden and the lawyers follow up questions and communicated with them about dates we were planning publication of the material.” Rhoads also emphasized that the South China Morning Post is an independent publication that “is not controlled by China” and does not share information with the country’s government.

Snowden, who lives with his longtime girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, in a Moscow apartment, and says he walks freely throughout the city unmolested and for the most part unrecognized, was asked by Couric at one point what he misses most about the United States.

“Family, of course,” he replied. “That’s always the thing. You know, they can come and see me, but you’ve got all these travel arrangements and logistics, you’ve got to go on an airplane ride. Who doesn’t miss that?”

“When you look back at the last three years, was it worth it?” Couric asked. “Absolutely. I would do it again.”


“No regrets?”


“No regrets at all.”

Monday, February 8, 2016

Stop the persecution of Julian Assange!UN panel condemns detention of WikiLeaks founder



Stop the persecution of Julian Assange! UN panel condemns detention of WikiLeaks founder

5 February 2016
http://kielarowski.net/2016/02/05/stop-the-persecution-of-julian-assange/

More than five years after first being detained under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden in relation to fabricated allegations of sexual misconduct, and after more than three and a half years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been vindicated by a United Nations human right panel. This body has ruled that his persecution by the Swedish and British governments amounts to “arbitrary detention” and constitutes a violation of international law.

Assange’s sole “crime” is making public secret documents detailing the real and murderous war crimes carried out by the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the conspiracies hatched by the US State Department and the CIA in countries around the world.

For exposing its criminal operations, Washington is determined to silence and punish Assange, using the lies concocted by Swedish prosecutors and the complicity of the British government to achieve its aims.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry Thursday acknowledged that the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) will today issue its findings that Assange has been “deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner for an unacceptable length of time.”

The UN panel could only have reached such a decision based on overwhelming evidence that the charges against Assange constitute a legal frame-up mounted for political purposes.

Even before the findings of the UN working group were made known, Assange issued a statement from the Ecuadorian embassy accepting the decision as the culmination of his final legal appeal. He declared that, were the panel to rule against him, he would leave the embassy on Friday “to accept arrest by British police.” He went on to insist that if it found that the Swedish and British governments were acting in violation of international law, “I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me.”

Neither London nor Stockholm, however, have shown any similar inclination to allow international law and the human rights treaties to which both are signatories to guide their actions.

A spokesman for the government of Prime Minister David Cameron issued a cynical statement insisting that Julian Assange “has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy.” Only last October did British police end a round-the-clock siege of the embassy, announcing that they were pursuing “covert” methods in seeking Assange’s capture. At one point, the British government indicated that it would ignore international law protecting embassies and send security forces to storm the building.

As for the Swedish government, the foreign ministry in Stockholm issued a brief note asserting that the UN’s ruling “differs from that of the Swedish authorities” and would not alter its legal vendetta against the WikiLeaks founder.

The British and the US governments have regularly invoked the findings of the UN panel on arbitrary detentions when they could be used to lend a “human rights” pretext to imperialist operations against countries like China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba. That the actions taken by London and Washington themselves should be subject to international law, however, is rejected out of hand.

What they find impermissible is the exposure of their crimes, which have killed and wounded millions, while turning many millions more into homeless refugees. This is why they have not only hounded Assange, but placed Private Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning in prison for 35 years.

Manning was convicted by a drumhead military tribunal in 2013 on charges of “aiding the enemy” for providing WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of classified documents, including the “collateral murder” video showing an Apache helicopter’s gun sight view of the 2007 massacre of 12 Iraqi civilians. Also leaked were the “Afghan war diary” and the “Iraq war logs,” exposing multiple war crimes committed by the US military, and over 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables revealing Washington’s counterrevolutionary intrigues around the globe.

Meanwhile, Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who exposed the NSA’s wholesale collection of every form of data on the planet, from US and non-US citizens alike, in open violation of the US Bill of Rights and international law, has been turned into a man without a country, living in forced exile in Moscow.

There are a number of other such cases, including that of ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, the only person punished in connection with the CIA’s torture of detainees—sent to prison for publicly exposing it. The Obama administration has prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act for leaking secret information to the media than all other US presidents combined.

Assange can expect even worse if he falls into the clutches of the British police and the Swedish authorities, who are acting as the agents of the US military and intelligence apparatus. He has been the subject of a secret grand jury investigation for over five years and is undoubtedly charged in a sealed indictment with espionage and other crimes against the state that could bring him life in prison or even the death penalty. Meanwhile, leading political figures in the US have openly called for his assassination.

Assange, Manning, Snowden and others have faced relentless persecution for daring to lift the lid on the secret operations of the US government.

This witch hunt is driven by the deepest needs of the American state, which functions as the instrument of a financial oligarchy. It defends this ruling layer’s vast wealth and monopoly on political power against the masses of working people in the US and around the world, while seeking to offset the economic decline of American capitalism by waging ever-more dangerous wars of aggression. Given the criminal character of these operations, a regime of secrecy and increasingly dictatorial methods is indispensable.

The only genuine constituency for the defense of democratic rights is the working class. Working people must come to the defense of Assange, Snowden, Manning and other victims of state conspiracies and repression.

Any attempt to arrest or extradite Assange must be answered with mass demonstrations and work actions in the UK, the US and all over the world.

This campaign in defense of Assange and the other victims of state repression can go forward only as part of the struggle of the international working class against the capitalist system, whose historic crisis threatens humanity with both world war and police state dictatorship.

Bill Van Auken



http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/05/pers-f05.html

Monday, March 16, 2015

Snowden Leaks Have Changed How Americans See Their Privacy

The revelations about National Security Agency surveillance programs by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have started to affect how Americans view their right to privacy and the actions they take to try to protect it, a new survey has found.


The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found that nearly one-third of American adults have taken steps to protect their information from government surveillance programs that monitor phone and digital communications.


More than one-fifth — 22 percent — say they have changed their use of various technology tools “a great deal” or “somewhat” since first learning about the Snowden leaks, which began in 2013.
The survey also found that most Americans — 87 percent — have heard about the surveillance programs. And a majority — 57 percent — say it’s unacceptable for the government to monitor the communications of U.S. citizens, while roughly the same percentage — 54 percent — say it’s acceptable to monitor the communications of people from other countries.


The Pew Center’s Internet, Science and Technology research unit surveyed 475 adults who are members of the GfK Knowledge Panel between late November and early January. (GfK is a big consumer research company.) It also conducted a series of six focus groups with 59 adults during December and January.


What’s interesting is how people said they had changed their behavior. For instance, 18 percent of those surveyed said they’ve changed how they use email “a great deal,” while another 17 percent said that since the Snowden disclosures, they’ve changed how they use search engines. Another 15 percent have changed both the way they use Twitter and Facebook and their mobile phones habits. Forty-one percent of those in the survey group said they had changed at least one activity since learning about the Snowden leaks. And even more interestingly, the reaction was consistent across political party lines.


The survey doesn’t get specific about what actions the respondents took to protect their privacy, but there’s some evidence about what they haven’t done: Taken steps to make it much more technically difficult for the government to read their email or watch which websites they visit. For instance, 46 percent had not adopted or had not even considered adopting email encryption technology like PGP or GPG. Another 40 percent haven’t bothered to try Tor, the anonymous browsing tool, and at least 39 percent didn’t even know what it is.


Snowden’s disclosures began in 2013 with the revelation of a program called PRISM, which, according to slides from once-classified presentations, focused on the collection of communications data from several Internet companies. The disclosures triggered a long and still unresolved debate in Washington and Silicon Valley about the nature of consumer data privacy and the role Internet companies play in protecting it.


Arik Hesseldahl

Friday, January 9, 2015

Veterans Today: NEO – CIA Torture Report Ties Cheney/Bout to 9/11 Nukes by Gordon Duff on January 8, 2015 (updated) | Veteran's Today

Friday, August 22, 2014

How Google and the Big Tech Companies Are Helping Maintain America’s Empire « WORDVIRUS

How Google and the Big Tech Companies Are Helping Maintain America’s Empire « WORDVIRUS
Bookmark the permalink


How Google and the Big Tech Companies Are Helping Maintain America’s Empire


Military, intelligence agencies and defense contractors are totally connected to Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley has been in the media spotlight for its role in
gentrifying and raising rents in San Francisco, helping the NSA spy on
American citizens, and lack of racial and gender diversity. Despite
that, Silicon Valley still has a reputation for benevolence, innocence
and progressivism. Hence Google’s phrase, “Don’t be evil.” A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that, even after the Snowden leaks, 53% of those surveyed had high confidence in the tech industry. The tech industry is not seen as evil as, say, Wall Street or Big Oil.


One aspect of Silicon Valley that would damage this reputation has
not been scrutinized enough—its involvement in American militarism.
Silicon Valley’s ties to the National Security State extend beyond the
NSA’s PRISM program. Through numerous partnerships and contracts with
the U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, Silicon
Valley is part of the American military-industrial complex. Google sells
its technologies to the U.S. military, FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, NGA, and
other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, has managers with
backgrounds in military and intelligence work, and partners with defense
contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Amazon designed a
cloud computing system that will be used by the CIA and every other
intelligence agency. The CIA-funded tech company Palantir sells its
data-mining and analysis software to the U.S. military, CIA, LAPD, NYPD,
and other security agencies. These technologies have several war-zone
and intelligence-gathering applications.


First, a little background to explain how the military has been
involved with Silicon Valley since its conception as a technology
center. Silicon Valley’s roots date back to World War II, according to a presentation
by researcher and entrepreneur Steve Blank. During the war, the U.S.
government funded a secret lab at Harvard University to research how to
disrupt Germany’s radar-guided electronic air defense system. The
solution — drop aluminum foil in front of German radars to jam them.
This birthed modern electronic warfare and signals intelligence. The
head of that lab was Stanford engineering professor Fred Terman who,
after World War II, took 11 staffers from that lab to create Stanford’s
Electronic Research Lab (ERL), which received funding from the military.
Stanford also had an Applied Electronics Lab(AEL) that did classified
research in jammers and electronic intelligence for the military.


In fact, much of AEL’s research aided the U.S. war in Vietnam. This
made the lab a target for student antiwar protesters who nonviolently
occupied the lab in April 1969 and demanded an end to classified
research at Stanford. After nearly a year of teach-ins, protests, and
violent clashes with the police, Stanford effectively eliminated war-related classified research at the university.


The ERL did research in and designed microwave tubes and electronic
receivers and jammers. This helped the U.S. military and intelligence
agencies spy on the Soviet Union and jam their air defense systems.
Local tube companies and contractors developed the technologies based on
that research. Some researchers from ERL also founded microwave
companies in the area. This created a boon of microwave and electronic
startups that ultimately formed the Silicon Valley known today.


Don’t be evil, Google


Last year, the first Snowden documents revealed that
Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, and other major tech companies provided the
NSA access to their users’ data through the PRISM program.
All the major tech companies denied knowledge of PRISM and put up an
adversarial public front to government surveillance. However, Al Jazeera
America’s Jason Leopold obtained, via FOIA request, two sets of email communications
between former NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander and Google executives
Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt. The communications, according to Leopold,
suggest “a far cozier working relationship between some tech firms and
the U.S. government than was implied by Silicon Valley brass” and that
“not all cooperation was under pressure.” In the emails, Alexander and
the Google executives discussed information sharing related to national
security purposes.
But PRISM is the tip of the iceberg. Several tech companies are
deeply in bed with the U.S. military, intelligence agencies, and defense
contractors. One very notable example is Google. Google markets and sells
its technology to the U.S. military and several intelligence and law
enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, and NGA.


Google has a contract with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) that allows the agency to use Google Earth Builder. The NGA provides
geospatial intelligence, such as satellite imagery and mapping, to the
military and other intelligence agencies like the NSA. In fact, NGA
geospatial intelligence helped the military and CIA locate and kill Osama bin Laden.
This contract allows the NGA to utilize Google’s mapping technology for
geospatial intelligence purposes. Google’s Official Enterprise Blog announced
that “Google’s work with NGA marks one of the first major government
geospatial cloud initiatives, which will enable NGA to use Google Earth
Builder to host its geospatial data and information. This allows NGA to
customize Google Earth & Maps to provide maps and globes to support
U.S. government activities, including: U.S. national security; homeland
security; environmental impact and monitoring; and humanitarian
assistance, disaster response and preparedness efforts.”


Google Earth’s technology “got its start in the intelligence
community, in a CIA-backed firm called Keyhole,” which Google purchased
in 2004, according to the Washington Post. PandoDaily reporter Yasha Levine, who has extensively reported on Google’s ties to the military and intelligence community, points out
that Keyhole’s “main product was an application called EarthViewer,
which allowed users to fly and move around a virtual globe as if they
were in a video game.”


In 2003, a year before Google bought Keyhole, the company was on the
verge of bankruptcy, until it was saved by In-Q-Tel, a CIA-funded
venture capital firm. The CIA worked with other intelligence agencies to
fit Keyhole’s systems to its needs. According to the CIA Museum page,
“The finished product transformed the way intelligence officers
interacted with geographic information and earth imagery. Users could
now easily combine complicated sets of data and imagery into clear,
realistic visual representations. Users could ‘fly’ from space to street
level seamlessly while interactively exploring layers of information
including roads, schools, businesses, and demographics.”


How much In-Q-Tel invested into Keyhole is classified. However,
Levine writes that “the bulk of the funds didn’t come from the CIA’s
intelligence budget — as they normally do with In-Q-Tel — but from the
NGA, which provided the money on behalf of the entire ‘Intelligence
Community.’ As a result, equity in Keyhole was held by two major
intelligence agencies.” Shortly after In-Q-Tel bought Keyhole, the NGA
(then known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency or NIMA) announced
it immediately used Keyhole’s technology to support U.S. troops in Iraq
at the 2003-2011 war. The next year, Google purchased Keyhole and used
its technology to develop Google Earth.


Four years after Google purchased Keyhole, in 2008, Google and the
NGA purchased GeoEye-1, the world’s highest-resolution satellite, from
the company GeoEye. The NGA paid
for half of the satellite’s $502 million development and committed to
purchasing its imagery. Because of a government restriction, Google gets
lower-resolution images but still retains exclusive access to the
satellite’s photos. GeoEye later merged into DigitalGlobe in 2013.


Google’s relationship to the National Security State extends beyond
contracts with the military and intelligence agencies. Many managers in
Google’s public sector division come from the U.S. military and
intelligence community, according to one of Levine’s reports.


Michele R. Weslander-Quaid is one example. She became Google’s
Innovation Evangelist and Chief Technology Officer of the company’s
public sector division in 2011. Before joining Google, since 9/11,
Weslander-Quaid worked
throughout the military and intelligence world in positions at the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, National Reconnaissance Office, and later, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Levine noted that Weslander-Quaid
also “toured combat zones in both Iraq and Afghanistan in order to see the tech needs of the military first-hand.”


Throughout her years working in the intelligence community,
Weslander-Quaid “shook things up by dropping archaic software and
hardware and convincing teams to collaborate via web tools” and “treated
each agency like a startup,” according to a 2014 Entrepreneur Magazine profile.
She was a major advocate for web tools and cloud-based software and was
responsible for implementing them at the agencies she worked at. At
Google, Weslander-Quaid’s job is to meet “with agency directors to map
technological paths they want to follow, and helps Google employees
understand what’s needed to work with public-sector clients.”
Weslander-Quaid told Entrepreneur, “A big part of my job is to translate
between Silicon Valley speak and government dialect” and “act as a
bridge between the two cultures.”


Another is Shannon Sullivan,
head of defense and intelligence at Google. Before working at Google,
Sullivan served in the U.S. Air Force working at various intelligence
positions. First as senior military advisor and then in the Air Force’s
C4ISR Acquisition and Test; Space Operations, Foreign Military Sales
unit. C4ISR stands for “Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.” Sullivan left his Air
Force positions to work as Defense Director for BAE Systems, a
British-based arms and defense company, and then Army and Air Force
COCOMs Director at Oracle. His last project at Google was “setting up a Google Apps ‘transformational’ test program to supply 50,000 soldiers in the US Army and DoD with a customized Google App Universe”, according to Levine.


Google not only has a revolving door with the Pentagon and
intelligence community, it also partners with defense and intelligence
contractors. Levine writes
that “in recent years, Google has increasingly taken the role of
subcontractor: selling its wares to military and intelligence agencies
by partnering with established military contractors.”


The company’s partners include two of the biggest American defense contractors — Lockheed Martin, an aerospace, defense, and information security company, and Northrop Grumman, an aerospace and defense technology company. Both Lockheed and Northrop produce
aircraft, missiles and defense systems, naval and radar systems,
unmanned systems, satellites, information technology, and other
defense-related technologies. In 2011, Lockheed Martin made
$36.3 billion in arms sales, while Northrop Grumman made $21.4 billion.
Lockheed has a major office in Sunnyvale, California, right in the
middle of Silicon Valley. Moreover, Lockheed was also involved in interrogating prisoners
in Iraq and Guantanamo, through its purchase of Sytex Corporation and
the information technology unit of Affiliated Computer Services (ACS),
both of whom directly interrogated detainees.


Google worked with Lockheed to design geospatial technologies. In
2007, describing the company as “Google’s partner,” the Washington Post reported
that Lockheed “demonstrated a Google Earth product that it helped
design for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s work in Iraq.
These included displays of key regions of the country and outlined Sunni
and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, as well as U.S. and Iraqi military
bases in the city. Neither Lockheed nor Google would say how the
geospatial agency uses the data.” Meanwhile, Google has a $1-million contract with Northrop to install a Google Earth plug-in.


Both Lockheed and Northrop manufacture and sell unmanned systems, also known as drones. Lockheed’s drones include the Stalker, which can stay airborne for 48 hours; Desert Hawk III, a small reconnaissance drone used by British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the RQ-170 Sentinel,
a high-altitude stealth reconnaissance drone used by the U.S. Air Force
and CIA. RQ-170s have been used in Afghanistan and for the raidthat killed Osama bin Laden. One American RQ-170 infamously crashed in Iran while on a surveillance mission over the country in late 2011.


Northrop Grumman built the RQ-4 Global Hawk, a high-altitude surveillance drone used by the Air Force and Navy. Northrop is also building a new stealth drone for the Air Force called the RQ-180, which may be operational by 2015. In 2012, Northrop sold $1.2 billion worth of drones to South Korea.


Google is also cashing in on the drone market. It recently purchased
drone manufacturer Titan Aerospace, which makes high-altitude,
solar-powered drones that can “stay in the air for years without needing
to land,” reported the Wire. Facebook entered into talks to buy the company a month before Google made the purchase.


Last December, Google purchased Boston Dynamics, a major engineering
and robotics company that receives funding from the military for its
projects. According to
the Guardian, “Funding for the majority of the most advanced Boston
Dynamics robots comes from military sources, including the US Defence
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the US army, navy and
marine corps.” Some of these DARPA-funded projects include BigDog, Legged Squad Support System (LS3), Cheetah, WildCat, and Atlas, all
of which are autonomous, walking robots. Altas is humanoid, while
BigDog, LS3, Cheetah, WildCat are animal-like quadrupeds. In addition to
Boston Dynamics, Google purchased
eight robotics companies in 2013—Industrial Perception, Redwood
Robotics, Meka, Schaft, Holomni, Bot & Dolly, and Autofuss. Google
has been tight-lipped about the specifics of its plans for the robotics
companies. But some sources told the
New York Times that Google’s robotics efforts are not aimed at
consumers but rather manufacturing, such as automating supply chains.


Google’s “Enterprise Government” page also lists military/intelligence contractors Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and Blackbird Technologies
among the companies it partners with. In particularly, Blackbird is a
military contractor that supplies locators for “the covert ‘tagging,
tracking and locating’ of suspected enemies,” according to
Wired. Its customers include the U.S. Navy and U.S. Special Operations
Command. SOCOM oversees the U.S. military’s special operations forces
units, such as the Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Army Rangers, and Green
Berets. Blackbird even sent some employees as armed operatives on secret
missions with special operations forces. The company’s vice president
is Cofer Black, a former CIA operative who ran the agency’s
Counterterrorist Center before 9/11.


Palantir and the military


Many others tech companies are working with military and intelligence agencies. Amazon recently developed
a $600 million cloud computing system for the CIA that will also
service all 17 intelligence agencies. Both Amazon and the CIA have said
little to nothing about the system’s capabilities.


Palantir, which is based in Palo Alto, California produces and sells data-mining and analysis software. Its customers include
the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Special Operations Command, CIA, NSA, FBI,
Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, National
Counterterrorism Center, LAPD, and NYPD. In California, the Northern
California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), one of 72 federally run
fusion centers built across the nation since 9/11, uses Palantir software to collect and analyze license plate photos.


While Google sells its wares to whomever in order to make a profit,
Palantir, as a company, isn’t solely dedicated to profit-maximizing.
Counterterrorism has been part of the company’s mission since it began.
The company
was founded in 2004 by investor Alex Karp, who is the company’s chief
executive, and billionaire PayPal founder Peter Thiel. In 2003, Thiel
came up with the idea to develop software to fight terrorism based on
PayPal’s fraud recognition software. The CIA’s In-Q-Tel helped jumpstart
the company by investing $2 million. The rest of the company’s $30
million start-up costs were funded by Thiel and his venture capital
fund.


Palantir’s software has “a user-friendly search tool that can scan
multiple data sources at once, something previous search tools couldn’t
do,” according to a 2009 Wall Street Journal profile.
The software fills gaps in intelligence “by using a ‘tagging’ technique
similar to that used by the search functions on most Web sites.
Palantir tags, or categorizes, every bit of data separately, whether it
be a first name, a last name or a phone number.” Analysts can quickly
categorize information as it comes in. The software’s ability to scan
and categorize multiple sources of incoming data helps analysts connect
the dots among large and different pools of information — signals
intelligence, human intelligence, geospatial intelligence, and much
more. All this data is collected and analyzed in Palantir’s system. This
makes it useful for war-related, intelligence, and law enforcement purposes. That is why so many military, police, and intelligence agencies want Palantir’s software.


U.S. troops in Afghanistan who used Palantir’s software, particularly
the Marines and SOCOM, found it very helpful for their missions.
Commanders liked Palantir’s ability to direct them at insurgents who
“build and bury homemade bombs, the biggest killer of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan,” the Washington Times reported. A Government Accountability Office report
said Palantir’s software “gained a reputation for being intuitive and
easy to use, while also providing effective tools to link and visualize
data.” Special operations forces found Palantir to be “a highly
effective system for conducting intelligence information analysis and
supporting operations” and “provided flexibility to support mobile,
disconnected users out on patrols or conducting missions.” Many within
the military establishment are pushing to have other branches, such as
the Army, adopt Palantir’s software in order to improve intelligence-sharing.


Palantir’s friends include people from the highest echelons of the
National Security State. Former CIA Director George Tenet and former
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are advisers to Palantir, while
former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus “considers himself a friend of
Palantir CEO Alex Karp”, according to
Forbes. Tenet told Forbes, “I wish I had Palantir when I was director. I
wish we had the tool of its power because it not only slice and dices
today, but it gives you an enormous knowledge management tool to make
connections for analysts that go back five, six, six, eight, 10 years.
It gives you a shot at your data that I don’t think any product that we
had at the time did.”


High-tech militarism


Silicon Valley’s technology has numerous battlefield applications,
which is something the U.S. military notices. Since the global war on
terror began, the military has had a growing need for high-tech
intelligence-gathering and other equipment. “A key challenge facing the
military services is providing users with the capabilities to analyze
the huge amount of intelligence data being collected,” the GAO report
said. The proliferation of drones, counter-insurgency operations,
sophisticated intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) systems,
and new technologies and sensors changed how intelligence is used in
counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and counterterrorism
operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other countries.


According to the report, “The need to integrate the large amount of
available intelligence data, including the ability to synthesize
information from different types of intelligence sources (e.g., HUMINT,
SIGINT, GEOINT, and open source), has become increasingly important in
addressing, for example, improvised explosive device threats and
tracking the activities of certain components of the local population.”
This is where Palantir’s software comes in handy. It does what the
military needs — data-mining and intelligence analysis. That is why it
is used by SOCOM and other arms of the National Security State.


Irregular wars against insurgents and terrorist groups present two
problems— finding the enemy and killing them. This is because such
groups know how to mix in with, and are usually part of, the local
population. Robotic weapons, such as drones, present “an asymmetric
solution to an asymmetric problem,” according to a Foster-Miller
executive quoted in P.W. Singer’s book Wired for War. Drones can hover
over a territory for long periods of time and launch a missile at a
target on command without putting American troops in harm’s way, making
them very attractive weapons.


Additionally, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies are increasingly relying on signals intelligence
to solve this problem. Signals intelligence monitors electronic
signals, such as phone calls and conversations, emails, radio or radar
signals, and electronic communications. Intelligence analysts or troops
on the ground will collect and analyze the electronic communications,
along with geospatial intelligence, of adversaries to track their
location, map human behavior, and carry out lethal operations.


Robert Steele, a former Marine, CIA case officer, and current open source intelligence advocate,
explained the utility of signals intelligence. “Signals intelligence
has always relied primarily on seeing the dots and connecting the dots,
not on knowing what the dots are saying. When combined with a history of
the dots, and particularly the dots coming together in meetings, or a
black (anonymous) cell phone residing next to a white (known) cellphone,
such that the black acquires the white identity by extension, it
becomes possible to ‘map’ human activity in relation to weapons caches,
mosques, meetings, etcetera,” he said
in an email interview. Steele added the “only advantage” to signals
intelligence “is that it is very very expensive and leaves a lot of
money on the table for pork and overhead.”


In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC) commandos combined images from surveillance drones with
the tracking of mobile phone numbers to analyze
insurgent networks. Commandos then used this analysis to locate and
capture or kill their intended targets during raids. Oftentimes,
however, this led to getting the wrong person. Steele added that human
and open source intelligence are “vastly superior to signals
intelligence 95% of the time” but “are underfunded precisely because
they are not expensive and require face to face contact with foreigners,
something the US Government is incompetent at, and Silicon Valley could
care less.”


Capt. Michael Kearns, a retired U.S. and Australian Air Force intelligence officer and former SERE instructor
with experience working in Silicon Valley, explained how digital
information makes it easier for intelligence agencies to collect data.
In an email, he told AlterNet, “Back in the day when the world was
analog, every signal was one signal. Some signals contained a broad band
of information contained within, however, there were no ‘data packets’
embedded within the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, collecting a
signal, or a phone conversation, was largely the task of capturing /
decoding / processing some specifically targeted, singular source.
Today, welcome to the digital era. Data ‘packets’ flow as if like water,
with pieces and parts of all things ‘upstream’ contained within.
Therefore, the task today for a digital society is largely one of
collecting everything, so as to fully unwrap and exploit the totality of
the captured data in an almost exploratory manner. And therein lies the
apparent inherently unconstitutional-ness of wholesale collection of
digital data…it’s almost like ‘pre-crime.'”


One modern use of signals intelligence is in the United States’ extrajudicial killing program,
a major component of the global war on terror. The extrajudicial
killing program began during the Bush administration as a means to kill
suspected terrorists around the world without any due process. However,
as Bush focused on the large-occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the
extrajudicial killing program was less emphasized.


The Obama administration continued the war on terror but largely
shifted away from large-scale occupations to emphasizing CIA/JSOC drone
strikes, airstrikes, cruise missile attacks,proxies, and raids by special operations forces
against suspected terrorists and other groups. Obama continued and
expanded Bush’s assassination program, relying on drones and special
operations forces to do the job. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,
U.S. drone strikes and other covert operations have killed nearly 3,000
to over 4,800 people, including 500 to over 1,000 civilians, in
Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. During Obama’s five years in office, over 2,400 people were killed by U.S. drone strikes. Most of those killed by drone strikes are civilians or low-level fighters and, in Pakistan, only 2 percent were high-level militants. Communities living under drone strikes are regularly terrorized and traumatized by them.


Targeting for drone strikes is based on metadata analysis and
geolocating the cell phone SIM card of a suspected terrorist, according
to a report
by the Intercept. This intelligence is provided by the NSA and given to
the CIA or JSOC which will then carry out the drone strike. However, it
is very common for people in countries like Yemen or Pakistan to hold
multiple SIM cards, hand their cell phones to family and friends, and
groups like the Taliban to randomly hand out SIM cards among their
fighters to confuse trackers.


Since this methodology targets a SIM card linked to a suspect rather
than an actual person, innocent civilians are regularly killed
unintentionally. To ensure the assassination program will continue, the
National Counterterrorism Center developed the “disposition matrix,” a database that continuously adds the names, locations, and associates of suspected terrorists to kill-or-capture lists.


The Defense Department’s 2015 budget proposal requests $495.6 billion, down $0.4 billion from last year, and decreases the Army to around 440,000 to 450,000 troops from the post-9/11 peak of 570,000. But it protects money — $5.1 billion — for cyberwarfare
and special operations forces, giving SOCOM $7.7 billion, a 10 percent
increase from last year, and 69,700 personnel. Thus, these sorts of
operations will likely continue.


As the United States emphasizes cyberwarfare, special operations,
drone strikes, electronic-based forms of intelligence, and other tactics
of irregular warfare to wage perpetual war, sophisticated technology
will be needed. Silicon Valley is the National Security State’s go-to
industry for this purpose.


Adam Hudson is a journalist, writer, and photographer.


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-google-and-big-tech-companies-are-helping-maintain-americas-empire?akid=12149.265072.iCZIs-&rd=1&src=newsletter1016284&t=6&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark