Tag Archives: surveillance

Appeals Court Strikes Down Bulk NSA Phone Spying

nsa

On June 11, 2013, the ACLU challenged “the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records (ACLU v. Clapper).”

It argued that doing so violates Fourth and First Amendment rights, saying:

“Because the NSA’s aggregation of metadata constitutes an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search, it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.”

“The call-tracking program also violates the First Amendment, because it vacuums up sensitive information about associational and expressive activity.”

NSA claims authorization under the Patriot Act’s Section 215 – the so-called “business records” provision.

It permits warrantless searches without probable cause. It violates fundamental First Amendment rights. It does so by mandating secrecy.

It prohibits targeted subjects from telling others what’s happening to them. It compromises free expression, assembly and association.

It authorizes the FBI to investigate anyone based on what they say, write, or do with regard to groups they belong to or associate with.

It violates Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections by not telling targeted subjects their privacy was compromised.

It subverts fundamental freedoms for contrived, exaggerated, or nonexistent security reasons.

At the time of its suit, the ACLU said “(w)hatever Section 215’s ‘relevance’ requirement might allow, it does not permit the government to cast a seven-year dragnet sweeping up every phone call made or received by Americans.”

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorized surveillance relating to “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers.”

It restricts spying on US citizens and residents to those engaged in espionage in America and territory under US control.

No longer. Today anything goes. America is a total surveillance society. Obama officials claim no authority can challenge them. Governing this way is called tyranny.

The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. It held Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act doesn’t permit bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously – overturning a lower court decision.

The Obama administration argued that the ACLU lacked “standing” to challenge NSA surveillance practices, and Congress “precluded” judicial review except by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court most often only hearing government arguments.

The appeals court rejected this reasoning, saying:

“If the government is correct, it could use Section 215 to collect and store in bulk any other existing metadata available anywhere in the private sector, including metadata associated with financial records, medical records, and electronic communications (including e‐mail and social media information) relating to all Americans.”

“Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans.”

ACLU staff attorney Alex Abdo called the ruling “a resounding victory for the rule of law.”

“For years, the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority.”

“The court rightly rejected the government’s theory that it may stockpile information on all of us in case that information proves useful in the future.”

“Mass surveillance does not make us any safer, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society.”

ACLU deputy legal director/lead counsel in the case Jameel Jaffer explained:

“This ruling focuses on the phone-records program, but it has far broader significance, because the same defective legal theory that underlies this program underlies many of the government’s other mass-surveillance programs.”

“The ruling warrants a reconsideration of all of those programs, and it underscores once again the need for truly systemic reform.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) executive director Cindy Cohn called the ruling “a great and welcome decision and ought to make Congress pause to consider whether the small changes contained in the USA Freedom Act are enough.”

”The 2nd Circuit rejected on multiple grounds the government’s radical reinterpretation of Section 215 that underpinned its secret shift to mass seizure and search of Americans’ telephone records.”

“While the court did not reach the constitutional issues, it certainly noted the serious problems with blindly embracing the third-party doctrine – the claim that you lose all constitutional privacy protections whenever a third-party, like your phone company, has sensitive information about your actions.”

EFF’s legislative analyst Mark Jaycox added:

“Now that a court of appeal has rejected the government’s arguments supporting its secret shift to mass surveillance, we look forward to other courts – including the Ninth Circuit in EFF’s Smith v. Obama case – rejecting mass surveillance as well.”

“With the deadline to reauthorize section 215 looming, we also call on Congress to both expressly adopt the interpretation of the law given by the court and to take further steps to rein in the NSA and reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

One court victory doesn’t mean overall triumph. The right-wing Supreme Court may have final say – or Congress able to legislatively circumvent High Court or other judicial rulings with no administration opposition by either party.

US governance serves powerful entrenched interests at the expense of popular ones. It’s fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-freedom.

Odds strongly favor no change in business as usual. Sacrificing precious liberties for greater security assures losing both.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.

France Nears Approval Of Surveillance State Measures

france-surveillance
By: The Real Agenda –

Installing tracking devices in cars, bugging of private places or, if deemed necessary, the entry into homes, will also be allowed with an administrative authorization, without intervention of judges.

The French National Assembly will vote on Tuesday on the controversial law that would allow wiretapping and cyber spying on any ‘suspicious citizen’ without judicial control.

The law, whose justification was “fears of new attacks in France”, would legalize the access to private data by the secret services without the need to show proof of any person’s relation to a crime or even the intent to commit a crime.

For the government, it is a “necessary” law that protects individual rights. For specialists and citizens’ associations, it is a “liberticidal” law, that is supported by all main political forces.

If apporved, the new law will allow the French secret services to intercept communications, access networks and databases and to compel operators to provide the metadata of people in real time. Additionally, secret services may also access the contents of conversations or messages.

To do this, the law provides that spies can be alerted automatically of suspicious activity by communications companies, search engines or black box networks to warn of behaviors that should be monitored. Also, law enforcement will have access to the algorithms in such practices. In sum, the technology and communication companies have merged with the French government into a massive and powerful Surveillance State.

The new law would also allow the secret services to use systems called IMSI Catcher, by which spyware can capture and record all data from phones or computers of alleged suspects, but that indiscriminately also sweeps everyone else’s communications, no matter how disconnected they are from the alleged suspect.

Installing tracking devices in cars, bugging of private places or, if deemed necessary, the entry into homes, will also be allowed with an administrative authorization, without intervention of judges.

Among the reasons provided by the French government to allow for the commission of such a wide array of spying practices is the supposed usefulness of a massive surveillance state in the prevention of terrorism, organized crime or “collective violence”, the dangers for “national independence, national defense or territorial integrity” through the potential interference of foreigners in the economic, industrial or scientific interests” of France.

Requests for the use of the spying practices cited above may be ordered by the ministries of Defense, Interior, Economy and Justice, which are members of a so-called National Commission for Control of Information Techniques composed by two deputies, two senators, two members of the State Council, two judges and a computer expert. These people will forward all requests to the French Prime Minister who will have the power to authorize the execution of the spying.

In case of emergency, spies can act immediately and report after action. The premise that law enforcement may act first and ask questions later is common to most pieces of legislation approved by Western governments in the name of keeping their citizens safe.

The project, approved by the Cabinet in March, has been defended in the Assembly by the head of the government, Manuel Valls, who pointed at all times to the jihadist attacks in January as an excuse to give himself unlimited spying power. Valls has said that the police have avoided another half dozen attacks, although he has shown no proof to validate such statement.

For Valls, “in special situations, special laws are needed.” According to him, the new law that enables government agencies to violate all existing privacy laws still maintains respect for individual rights and freedoms.

But not everyone is as sure as Valls about the consequences of the unlimited surveillance power of the French government. For example, the Ombudsman for the Rights of France, Jacques Toubon, has issued a statement expressing his “reserves” about giving the secret services the powers that the new law now provides.

The same feeling has come from dozens of associations of citizens, the union of the judiciary and a few deputies who have announced their vote against or who have abstained from voting.

According to the president of the National Consultative Committee on the Rights of Man, Christine Lazerges, the law runs the risk of falling into “a generalized, undifferentiated surveillance.” There is a risk, she says, of “endangering the rule of law by draconian drift”.

Associations such as the Red Square, 24 hours to 1984, Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have launched several initiatives to protest and warn the public.

But the negative reactions to the approval of the law has not stopped there. Dozens of MPs received calls from citizens who wanted to express their disapproval and even Valls received a document with 119,000 signatures opposing the law. Furthermore, a company dedicated to computer data storage has threatened to leave France.

In reaction to massive popular opposition and while facing a lot of criticism and doubts, President Francois Hollande, in an unprecedented move, has said he will send the law to the Constitutional Court for consideration.


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Snowden Documents Reveal How NSA Converts Conversations Into Searchable Text

nsa conversation intercept

Most people realize that emails and other digital communications they once considered private can now become part of their permanent record.

But even as they increasingly use apps that understand what they say, most people don’t realize that the words they speak are not so private anymore, either.

Top-secret documents from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show the National Security Agency can now automatically recognize the content within phone calls by creating rough transcripts and phonetic representations that can be easily searched and stored.

The documents show NSA analysts celebrating the development of what they called “Google for Voice” nearly a decade ago.

Though perfect transcription of natural conversation apparently remains the Intelligence Community’s “holy grail,” the Snowden documents describe extensive use of keyword searching as well as computer programs designed to analyze and “extract” the content of voice conversations, and even use sophisticated algorithms to flag conversations of interest.

 

Continue reading at The Intercept.

April EBOM: RATS!

rats-cover-Keith Perkins

MHB has admittedly not had an “EBOM” in several months. The April 2015 Electronic Book of the Month is RATS! Your Guide to Protecting Yourself Against Snitches, Informers, Informants, Agents Provocateurs, Narcs, Finks, and Similar Vermin by Claire Wolfe. (H/t to Professor Darrell Hamamoto for bringing the document to our attention.)

This short, valuable guide is something that every citizen will probably need at some point in their lives. The volume may be downloaded by right-cliking here.

From the first pages of RATS!

This book is for you if …

You are a non-violent person engaged in any activity that may be controversial, illegal, or merely “sensitive” or unconventional. These days, anything out of the ordinary can make you a target.

Some people who could use this book:

Anti-war or environmental activists
Recreational drug users
Participants in the underground economy or anybody who
does business in cash
Critics of local or national powers-that-be
Anyone whose profession involves “sensitive” information or
activities
Gun owners or dealers
Third-party or “fringe” political activists
Hobbyists who work with dangerous materials
Photographers/videographers
Religious dissidents
People with offshore or unconventional investments
(including perfectly legitimate ones)

It doesn’t matter where you fall in the political spectrum or even if you’re apolitical. If police might target you or your activities, you need to understand how snitches could mess up your life.

This book is NOT for you if …

You aim to commit violence against innocent people. In that case, reporting on you isn’t snitching, it’s self defense.

What exactly is a snitch?

There are a lot of different types of snitches. We could write an encyclopedia defining them. But we’re going to keep this simple.

For purposes of the book, a snitch is anybody who inserts him-or herself into your non-violent activities on behalf of government. “Government” may mean local cops. It could also mean the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, or a host of other state or federal agencies. It’s absolutely mind-boggling how many seemingly innocuous agencies these days have arrest powers, armed enforcers — and snitches employed in sneaky sting operations. And thousands of them use snitches.

There are two common categories of snitch you need to lookout for:

The infiltrator/agent provocateur. This is someone (often a professional) who is inserted into a group for an active purpose, such as disrupting the group, or worst, talking formerly innocent (or at least formerly non-violent) people into committing crimes in order to bust them. Agents provocateurs may, among other things, try to turn nonviolent protest into violent action, thus discrediting movements, giving excuses for crackdowns, and giving more publicity and power to government agencies.

The informer/informant. This snitch is often a legitimate member of a group or social circle who continues to be active while giving information to the police. This person may be acting under duress (to save his own skin after being arrested, for instance). This person may be hoping the cops will pay with money, drugs, or ongoing criminal immunity for her dubious “services.” While this person isn’t necessarily a professional agent provocateur, he may nevertheless try to talk friends into committing crimes so he can get more credibility or rewards from his police handlers.

These aren’t the only types of snitches. For example, there’s also what we’ll call the “accidental snitch” — though idiot snitch might be more appropriate. This is the person who simply can’t keep her mouth shut about illegal or controversial activities. Cops love these guys! They don’t even have to threaten them, pay them, hire them, train them, or gain any leverage over them. They just sit back and listen to them reveal secrets.

Then there’s the type of snitch the British call a grass and old American gangsters might have called a stool pigeon. This is a person who blabs to cops or other government agents after you (and probably he) have already been arrested. This person isn’t going to interfere with your activities; that’s already been done. He’s “only” going to give sworn affidavits and courtroom testimony against you, justifying it as a means of saving his own skin. There’s not much you can do about this person. By the time you learn one of your former friends is a “stoolie,” it’s too late.

There are vengeance snitches — people who turn on friends and associates after having a falling out or not getting their way. There are jailhouse snitches — either deliberately planted in your cell after you’ve been arrested or just opportunists who happen to be there and are willing to share whatever you say (or make up lies about things you said).

Each and every one of these people is a betrayer of friendship and trust. All of them are just plain rats — and they’re as welcome in the company of good people as rats are in a pantry.

To keep things simple we’re going to call them all snitches — though we’ll differentiate when we need to help you look out for specific problems.


Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.

McConnell Introduces Bill To Reauthorize Patriot Act Until 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

By: Dustin Volz | National Journal

The move may thwart any attempt to reform the NSA’s mass-surveillance authorities.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill Tuesday night that would reauthorize a controversial surveillance authority of the Patriot Act until 2020, a push that comes just as a group of bipartisan lawmakers is preparing a last-minute push to rein in the government’s mass-spying powers.

A McConnell aide said the majority leader is beginning a process to put the bill on the Senate calendar but said that the chamber will not take the measure up this week. That process, known as Rule 14, would bypass the traditional committee process. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr is a cosponsor.

Under the bill, Section 215 of the post-9/11 Patriot Act would be extended until December 31, 2020. The core provision, which the National Security Agency uses to justify its bulk collection of U.S. phone records, is currently due to expire on June 1.

The bill appears to be an attempt to thwart efforts to rein in the National Security Agency’s expansive surveillance powers, which came under intense scrutiny nearly two years ago after the disclosures spurred by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. A bipartisan group of lawmakers were expected to reintroduce on Wednesday a comprehensive surveillance-reform bill that would have effectively ended the NSA’s dragnet of Americans’ call data.

It is possible the bill is being introduced as a backup in case the Senate is unable to agree on a reform bill prior to June 1. But given McConnell’s defense of the intelligence community, that option may be unlikely. The Kentucky Republican led an effort to vote down an NSA-reform package during the lame-duck Senate last year, whipping most of his caucus against the Democratic-backed measure on grounds it could help terrorists kill Americans.

Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a chief backer of surveillance reform, quickly blasted McConnell’s maneuver and vowed to oppose any bill that reauthorized Section 215 without “meaningful reforms.”

“Republican leaders should be working across the aisle on legislation that protects both our national security and Americans’ privacy rights, but instead they are trying to quietly pass a straight reauthorization of the bulk-collection program that has been proven ineffective and unnecessary,” Leahy said in a statement. “And more, they are attempting to do so without the committee process that the majority leader has promised for important legislation. Thistone-deaf attempt to pave the way for five and a half more years of unchecked surveillance will not succeed.”

Privacy advocates also immediately assailed McConnell’s bill.

“The Senate majority leader’s bill makes no attempt to protect Americans’ privacy or reform ongoing NSA surveillance programs that do not provide any tangible benefit to national security,” said Harley Geiger, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology. “For Americans concerned about government intrusion in their lives, the bill is a kick in the stomach.”

Original article: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/mcconnell-introduces-bill-to-reauthorize-patriot-act-until-2020-20150421

 

 

Stingray Technology: Why You Should Know About This Secret Case (VIDEO)

surveillance

What is Stingray technology – how is it used – and why is everyone trying to keep it a secret? Shahid Buttar, Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) joins Thom Hartman. All across America – law enforcement agencies are using a special technology to collect information from your cell phones.


The Big Picture

St. Louis Prosecutors Drop Charges Before Spy Tool Used In Arrests Is Revealed In Court

Reuters/Christian Hartmann

Reuters/Christian Hartmann

Prosecutors in St. Louis, Missouri have dropped more than a dozen charges against three defendants accused of participating in a string of robberies in late 2013 on the eve of a court hearing on the police department’s use of a controversial spy tool.

The “Stingray” spy tool used by police departments across the United States has sparked criticism by privacy advocates, and the sudden dismissal of charges this month in St. Louis is now further causing concern among critics.

An officer with the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Unit had been scheduled to deliver a deposition under oath on April 9 concerning tactics that authorities relied on to identify and ultimately charge four suspects with 14 counts of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action regarding a 2013 crime spree. The city’s Post-Dispatch newspaper reported over the weekend that investigators had traced a cell phone stolen during the wave to a hotel room only one day after it was reported stolen. Soon after, law enforcement charged the four individuals.

Yet charges against the three men were all dropped on April 8, the Post-Dispatch reported, presumably in lieu of having the cop be asked about Stingray on the stand.

“Prosecutors insist the charges’ dismissal was unrelated to the impending inquiry,” journalist Robert Patrick wrote for the newspaper. On the other hand, however, admissions from a public defender and recent disclosures about the use of cellsite simulators by law enforcement suggests otherwise.

RT has reported extensively in recent weeks about the increasingly prevalent use of the StingRay and others so-called IMSI-catcher devices among law enforcement agencies. The tools can hone in on cell phone signals and allow authorities to physically locate mobile devices of interest. “Cell site simulators,” as they are also known, can in some instances allow authorities to track down a targeted device—and the person who possess it—to within a few feet. Because the spy tools also capture details about other devices, however, use of the top-selling StingRay and similar products has become an increasing issue of debate.

According to Patrick, documents filed this month that dismissed three of the robbery cases said simply that “continuing investigation has disclosed evidence which diminishes the prosecutive merits of this case.”

But other documents, including non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and official contracts between Harris Corp. and various law enforcement agencies across the US, have revealed in recent months that authorities are forbidden from discussing StingRay use, be it in court or elsewhere.

In March, documents obtained by the New York Civil Liberties Union showed that the FBI told officials in Erie County, NY that they should seek the dismissal of a criminal prosecution “in lieu of making any possibly compromising public or even case-related revelations of any information concerning the cell site simulator or its use.”

Then earlier this month, The Baltimore Sun obtained documents confirming that the city’s police department had been ordered not to “distribute, disseminate or otherwise disclose any information” about the spy tools without the expressed written approval of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which said “disclosure of this information could result in the FBI’s inability to protect the public from terrorism and other criminal activity.” The document, a Baltimore Police Department detective testified, instructed officials to “withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce.”

Megan Beesley, a public defender in the St. Louis case, told the Post-Dispatch that she raised concerns about the surveillance tool after reading in a report that a “proven law enforcement technique” had located the phone and ultimately allowed prosecutors to file charges. Beesley asked for specifics during a hearing in Nov. 2014 and in March 2015, the paper reported, but Det. John Anderson said a NDA prevented him from answering.

The woman charged with the three men in relation to the 2013 crime spree had previously pleaded guilty, the Post-Dispatch reported, but does not wants to rescind her plea. Brandon Pavelich, who was beat with a pistol during the crime spree, told the Post-Dispatch that prosecutors told him only that “legal issues” had sidelined the case.

Source: RT

 

I Spy From Inside

Nanobots

By: Katherine Carroll, NTP, Associate Editor –

Science is a double-edged sword; it creates as many problems as it solves, but always on a higher level.”

Nano-robots in your bloodstream.

In November of 2012, the National Health Federation published a book review on the “Physics of the Future” by Machio Kaku. NHF was the first to alert the public and the health-freedom community in particular about “the need for a Constitution for the Race of Mankind” as we understood we were about to be violated. The excellent, albeit lengthy, book’s major flaw was not carrying the technological innovations in regards to nano-robots through to the ultimate conclusion and NHF noted it: the invasion of privacy and increased vulnerability to outside control of internal bodily processes via monitoring by healthcare professionals. Quoting from that book review:

“There are so many issues to decide, many which invade privacy while delivering greater information and scope of services…We have some major decisions to make as a race in the present- the future is now. Taking a proactive approach to sensitive considerations will ensure the preservation of all you hold dear now.”

Science is a double-edged sword; it creates as many problems as it solves, but always on a higher level.” How can we shape our minds to embrace the constant of change and have the discernment ready to sort the profitable and helpful from the controlling, damaging, and destructive? What will health freedom look like in the future? How much transparency is too much? Where do we let God be God/Nature determine, etc. and where do we intervene? If ever there was a need for a Constitution for the Race of Mankind, it is now.”

So, now with the development of the Internet of Things and Big Data, “we have already traversed the brink of privacy invasion in the implementation of systems like the Epic Medical Record keeping and Smart Meter installations. How far are we willing to go to have knowledge of our body’s inner workings? How much internal invasion will we tolerate in order to gain bio-data, perform surgeries, or deliver medications without using the skin as a portal of entry? Will it be worth the scientific advances to have all this data instantly uploaded – even our clothing uploading all our statistics as we dress in the morning? Suddenly, although clothed, we are naked and there is nothing except our thoughts that remain hidden- so far anyway.”

The Cambridge Dictionary has entered a new word that is going to change your life: Nanorobotics[1] – the use of extremely tiny components (measuring a nanometer or less) to make robots.

Nano-robotics is gaining importance in the field of industrial robotics. It is gaining momentum in health care and other niche markets.

Nano-robotics promise to usher in a new era of human development. They work on an atomic level. They can be remotely controlled or pre-programmed for a certain procedure. While this sounds advanced, it comes at a steep price most will agree may be unreasonable. And this is where you need to be concerned. Personally, most of us would take parasites and bacteria over having nanorobots swimming in our bloodstream monitoring every nuance, delivering drugs to the site, and reporting back to Big Data and the Medical Mafia. Do you realize how much power is lost when we trust these nanobots to act in our favor apart from the potential of the human controlling them on the other end?

The health-freedom community has some major privacy issues to debate NOW.

Will you agree to loss of privacy and control over your own body to simply “make a market” for the industry that created this new technology? NHF sees this at Codex continually; market-making off the backs of people like you and me. Health care? Safety? Not even in the equation oftentimes. Like the law of unintended consequences, this potentially revolutionary technology can imprison you, endanger you, and even kill you. With the use of nano-robotics you place control of your body outside of yourself. You are no longer sovereign. You have relinquished control. Since NHF believes in every man’s right to decide for themselves, this is most assuredly your choice. But please know the risks going in.

Nano-robots are controlled by an outside force.

Information feeds back through the computer system.

You lose control.

You lose privacy.

You subject yourself to a potential pirating of your sovereignty in the form of hacking.

We all know by now that the cameras installed that are monitored by your iPhone are also monitored. And not by you. Did you not think that others could and would be watching what you are watching as you absent yourself from your home?[2]

There is no question that the IOT is a security risk and highly hackable. “According to the FTC, 25 billion objects are already online worldwide, gathering information using sensors and communicating with each other over the internet, and this number is growing, with consumer goods companies, auto manufacturers, healthcare providers, and so many other businesses investing in the new breed of connected devices.

Such devices can help monitor your health, improve safety on highways, and make your home more efficient. But the FTC says that as manufacturers work to reduce the friction involved in using these smart things—to let people more easily gather data and send it to and fro—privacy and security is becoming a serious consumer concern.”[3]

The National Health Federation warned of this years ago and here it is from the FTC, “According to a study from HP Security Research, 70 percent of the most commonly used Internet of Things devices had serious security vulnerabilities.”[4] So we are supposed to trust the source (i.e. health care practitioner’s office, hospital, etc.) and trust staff not to use this information in an unauthorized fashion? The health-freedom community is far too savvy to submit to this invasion potential.

The first step in solving problems is alerting and NHF did in 2012. Now we are to the stage of decision-making. Be forewarned of the issues going into advanced technology medical procedures involving nanorobots that will monitor, deliver drugs, and more. In this extended quote you understand that “These robots are fully self-supporting and are capable of affecting things at a microscopic level.  These robots are so small, in fact that they can build things with molecules and even change the molecular structure of existing material.  They can, for example, break down materials they find, extract the necessary parts, and then build something entirely new.  The usefulness of this technology is clear when we consider the fact there is almost nothing which nanobots cannot, theoretically, change or create.  While this technology may still be quite new, there are already a number of proposed uses for these microscopic little robots.

One area of science which is eagerly developing new uses for these machines is that of medicine.  There are a number of medical problems which represent significant challenges for doctors.  While modern medical and surgical techniques have come a long way, there are still many things which doctors are powerless to change.  Surgery itself is still extremely complicated and success is not always guaranteed.  Part of the reason for this is that it is still incredibly invasive and can often cause much more damage than it had tried to fix.

Medical uses for nanotechnology are numerous.  Since these robots are so small, they can be inserted into a person’s biological system without any noticeable effects.  They are so small, in fact, that they may be the same size as blood cells.  They can either be remotely controlled or pre-programmed for a certain procedure.  They could, theoretically, be programmed to seek out and deconstruct cancer cells and completely eliminate them without the need for lengthy treatments.  They could also be employed to repair and reconstruct damaged tissue on the cellular level.  This would have the effect of drastically increasing a person’s own natural ability to heal themselves.  No matter how damaged a portion of a person’s body may be, these nanobots might be able to repair them.”[5]

Dramatic. As revolutionary as the printing press to the development of mankind, but in the wrong hands or with the wrong programming—deadly. And at minimum, you are an open book from the “book of life” outward, profilable, programmable, etc.

Due to Japan’s discrepancy in children available to care for elderly parents, they have resorted to using robots.[6] It is time for the health-freedom community to face the facts and draw the line in the sand. Will it be a Maginot Line that is easily breached or will it be firm? It is up to us to decide.

 ————– 

[1] http://dictionaryblog.cambridge.org/2015/04/06/new-words-6-april-2015/[www.mmtonline.in 03 July 2014]

[2] http://www.sileo.com/baby-cam-hacked-what-you-can-do-to-protect-yourself-and-your-children/

[3] http://www.wired.com/2015/01/ftc-warns-huge-security-risks-internet-things/

[4] ibid

[5] http://dbdresearchinstitute.com/the-many-uses-of-nanobots/

[6] http://www.slashgear.com/robear-robot-to-take-care-of-japans-elderly-population-27370782/


Kat Carroll is Associate Editor of the National Health Federation’s magazine, Health Freedom News, and is on the Board of Directors of the National Health Federation Canada. She also writes for several blogs, magazines, and is currently compiling a book on Codex Alimentarius based on first-hand experience attending International Codex meetings. Kat is a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner and Clinic Administrator at her and her husband’s Optometry clinics. Additionally, Kat enjoys hosting guests at Adytum Sanctuary, their Pacific Northwest retreat. [email protected]. www.adytumsanctuary.com. www.thenhf.com

 

France Prepares For Widespread, Unlimited Spying Practices

spying
By: The Real Agenda

False-flag events such as the Charlie Hebdo attack serve just fine for governments to justify outrageous policies and procedures which would otherwise be even more unjustifiable and unacceptable.

The supposed threat that terrorism presents to western nations serves many purposes. After 9/11 it was used to justify government powergrabs on many areas, and in the last few years is the cornerstone of increasing cyberspying practices by countries like the United States, England and now France.

If plans in France work out as planned, its secret services may be able to ‘legally’ infiltrate and monitor ‘potential terrorists’ using various techniques of espionage with a simple administrative authorization or without it in case of emergency or imminent risk, according to a bill unveiled by French newspaper “Le Figaro”. This bill sounds and smells a lot like American versions of spying proposals that are already in effect.

The project of the French Socialist government, which will be adopted on Thursday by the Council of Ministers, supposedly aims to provide “a comprehensive legal framework” to secret agents in their intrusive activities into the private life of average citizens with a clear focus on “the principles and purposes”, says the bill.

The drafters set a “limiting” list of reasons justifying the use of “special techniques”. Among them are the national defense, foreign interests, economic or scientific policy, prevention of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as violence that disrupts the public peace.

As it happens with legislation adopted in other European nations and in the United States, the problem with this type of proposals is that, due to its broad terms, it gives the government the ability to interpret its text in multiple ways to accomodate whatever it wants to frame within the limits of the law.

Specifically, spies can access data connections or intercept communications such as phone calls and emails with a simple administrative approval, without obtaining court approval.

That includes listening through IMSI receptors such as computers or mobile devices; the installation of GPS in vehicles to track their movement; interception of all types of communications even encrypted ones and the placement of microphones and cameras.

The authorization to adopt these procedures may be requested by the Ministers of Defense, Interior and Finance and are subject to the direction and approval of the Prime Minister. Again, as in the case of the Americans, the French Parliament is concentrating more and more power on one political figure and less on the legislative body itself.

According to the bill, the head of government and other authorities should also be informed without delay where the secret services have launched an operation for reasons of urgency with “an imminent threat or a very high risk which renders them unable to perform the operation later.”

The bill provides for the establishment of a National Commission for the Control of Information Techniques (CNCTI) in front of which will be judges of the State Council and the Supreme Court and parliamentarians advised by engineers, lawyers, computer and encoding specialists.

The CNCTI, which replaces another body established in 1991, will “recommend” the interruption of any technique they are using for spying if it is deemed irregular, and may refer to the Council of State, which ultimately could order the destruction of the elements obtained.

Beyond this adversary proceeding, the secret services must destroy the information collected within twelve months and after five years when they are data connections.

One of the peculiarities of the bill is that it requires that telecommunications operators and Internet providers are obligated to extend the period of retention of data connections from one to five years, and transmit it to the secret services at their request.

As decribed above, the new French bill is a direct copy of the policies used by the American National Security Agency which are now being codified as ‘legal’ in France.

The bill also allows for the “immediate collection” of the data of suspects, and anything else that offers clues to the spies such as decrypted and encrypted conversations or information.

The proposal to have this particular practice responds in part to a series of needs identified after the wave of alleged jihadist attacks that took place in France in early January.

As it happened in the UK and in the United States, false flag events such as the Charlie Hebdo attack serve just fine for governments to justify outrageous policies and procedures which would otherwise be even more unjustifiable and unacceptable.


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Spy Master A Lethal Melanoma

chart_intelligence

Nam si vos omnibus imperitare vultis, sequitur ut omnes servitutem accipiant?

If you want to rule the whole world, does it then follow that everyone else welcomes enslavement? – Caratacus (Tacitus, Annales XII, xxxvii)

The formation of a bureaucratic superstructure for national intelligence will put in motion a perverse organism. The significance lies not in the figurehead or even the process for the selection, but rests in the birthing of a Medusa. Little wisdom comes out of this modern daughter of Phorkys and Keto, the children of Gaia (Earth) and Okeanos (Ocean).  This ugly creature will use the charms of seduction – national security – but will end up spreading a den of snakes. The globe will be her playpen and the seas will be her lake. No one or no place will fall outside her watch. She will run her hydra network through all those underling heads, but in the end her advice will revival that of Eve.  The mother of all evil won’t be a gender bias for any director will impose paternity over the stream of information. The children of this fraudulent union will bear the price from her wrath. Overseas enemies will feel the force of her boot. And the only creature to resist her might may well be those who run under the radar screen.   

Quite a departure from all those spies that came in from the cold.  Can you envision James Jesus Angleton following orders? Remember his direction to CIA Director McCone and FBI Director  Hoover during the Warren Commission: 

“One question will be “Was Lee Harvey Oswald ever an agent of CIA?” The answer will be no. A second question will be “Does CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate President Kennedy?” The answer to this question will also be no. The third question will be “What suggestions does CIA have to offer for safe-guarding the life of the President of the United States?” Angleton didn’t have the complete answer to this worked out but because of the nature of the question, it wouldn’t conflict with what the Bureau has already suggested. A fourth question will be “Does CIA believe the Soviet documents on Oswald submitted to the Warren Commission accurately reflect the Soviet relations with Oswald?” Angleton said their answer cannot be either a flat yes or no because they do not have the knowledge to so state. He said he believes McCone’s answer will be to the effect that CIA is aware that Soviet Russia does have a directorate charged with the responsibility for carrying out assassinations and, therefore, these documents in question would not normally reflect accurately relations with such a person as Oswald. However, on the other hand, CIA has no evidence that Oswald was under the instructions of this directorate charged with assassinations. “ 

How about the Dulles brothers? John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles would turn over in their graves before allowing a consolidation of a top down national intelligence director, unless of course, one of them got the position. Richard Helms might be LBJ’s man and Nixon’s accomplice, but would he adhere to a rogue elephant herd running the intelligence community? If you still have doubts, ask William Colby how safe it is to canoe the waters of Maryland’s Wicomico River – loose lips sink ships. What all these infamous Beltway spooks have in common is a dedication to a stalwart state of elitist control for world affairs. 

National security, for this company, and all power demons is always the same – cover your own ass. So when George Tenet states: “I don’t believe that you should separate the leader of American intelligence from a line agency”, you get the real low down. A fiefdom for any ‘Intelligence Community” agency head is sacred ground and must be defended with all their resources, covert and clandestine, if considered necessary. When a Sub Rosa bureau or a  faction element within an agency, venture into executing their own policy, the players at the top are undermined. That’s not necessarily bad, depending upon your loyalty. Surely your own interests are seldom protected or advanced by official doctrine.  However, when the entire apparatus of intelligence gathering is directed towards the eradication of true national self-interest and the implementation of a total compliant society, one needs to re-examine if trusting in claims of national security, really safeguards our country. 

The riddle within an enigma that is presented as too complex for ordinary people to understand is not a mystery. It is a designed plan meant to cover the real goal. An oversized and reinvented supra-bureaucracy won’t curb the internal conflict among contradictory viewpoints. Case in point, since the NeoCons are in charge, any movement to purge their extensive inter connection of disloyal treachery, will be put down with official blessings.  When a dedicated Likudnik is placed as head master at the intelligence institution, you can be assured that the only curriculum accepted for public indoctrination will reflect an Israel First benefit. With the appointment of a “super spook” will the prospects of national independence become a reality? Based upon current events, further integration with hostile intelligence services will intensify. 

Ironically, this prospect flies in the face of Efraim Halevy, head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, from 1998 to 2002 warning:  

“Now there is a recommendation to appoint an intelligence “tsar” in the United States. In my humble opinion no greater mistake could be made so far as the intelligence community is concerned. If the new tsar is to assume command responsibility for the intelligence community, then he will be de facto director of the CIA and the other intelligence agencies in the country. He, and he alone, will be responsible for the content and standard of the evaluation. The professional director of the CIA will be responsible to the tsar, and the president of the United States will be functioning through a “proxy” on matters of war and peace. In intelligence, there can be no sharing in responsibility; it is, and will always remain, indivisible.” 

Just maybe the NeoCons in this administration are more kosher than the Israeli ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’. Halevy has his own nasty record, and certainly shares the same regional goals as the likes of Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz, but his perceptive analysis has already been rejected with the decision for reorganization. Homeland Defense move over, the new gorilla on the block, will make MI 6 shutter and James Bond defect. 

Such delusions only go to reduce our real national interest. The first task for any intelligence service is to know who is your real enemy. Spying on Americans while sharing information with Tel Aviv is pure madness. Yet, what should be expected out of a culture that doesn’t trust anyone, but obeys orders from those who can advance their personal circumstance. The terminal cancer that spreads within the “Intelligence Community” has only one cure – loyalty to the legitimate America.  The operatives that run their cells and control their moles need to disrupt the move towards a national sellout. The beast they work for and serve is a mortal threat to the last remains of a republic. Their Medusa myths are a Greek tragedy that has grave real world consequences.  The overhaul needed is not one of organization, but one of exclusion. That’s the only intelligent approach.


SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.

 

 

Brazil Hosts American Spy Base

five_eyes_bases

By: The Real Agenda News

The location in Brasilia is part of the NSA’s Computer Network Exploitation operations.

Sometimes it is necessary to ask whether surprising facts are so surprising. Brazil has been subjected to American spying to the point that current Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff’s phone was allegedly tapped into by the National Security Agency (NSA). Brazil’s dissatisfaction with such a practice did not take long to be made public.

However, it will be as surprising as the spying itself to learn that the Brazilian government actually hosts an American Spy Base right in the heart of the country in its capital city Brasilia.

According to a recent report published by RT.com, whose main focus is the refusal to allow Germany to join the Five Eyes (the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand), a group of five nations that actively spy on behalf of the US government, Brazil is part of a network of countries that allows the presence of a US base whose purpose is to expand the spying apparatus of the American government.

The NSA network of Spy Bases is spread all over the globe. The US government and more specifically, the NSA, negotiates different agreements with different countries and separates groups of countries into three tiers.

The first tier is composed by the Five Eyes, which provide ‘Complete Cooperation’ with the NSA.

The second tier is said to be on ‘Focused Cooperation’ and includes a total of 20 nations.

“The third tier group of ‘Limited cooperation’ consists of countries such as France, Israel, India and Pakistan. Finally, the fourth group is about ‘Exceptional Cooperation’ with countries that the US considers to be hostile to its interests,” reports Electrospaces.net.

Many of the sites where NSA Bases are located also have second and third purposes. For example, they serve as bases of operations for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Cable Access locations, Third Party Liaisons and Regional Centers, among others. The CSC Spy Base that operates in Brasilia, is what it’s called a Computer Network Exploitation or CNE.

NSA global interception network map. (Image: Electrospaces.net)

NSA global interception network map. Click image to enlarge. (Image: Electrospaces.net)

Locations such as the one in Brasilia is the type where the NSA set up about 50,000 implants in computer networks as part of its Computer Network Exploitation operations.

“These operations are conducted by NSA’s highly specialized and secretive Tailored Access Operations (TAO) division,” reports Electrospaces.net.

“From the Snowden-leaks we know that Tailored Access Operations uses a wide variety of sophisticated hacking tools to gain access to foreign computer networks.

For example, they operate a network of secret internet servers, codenamed FOXACID, which is used to attract the traffic of targets, in order to install spying software on their computers”.

Second Party Sites include places the like CARBOY, Bude (Great Britain), SOUNDER, Ayios Nikolaos (Cyprus), – SNICK, near Seeb (Oman), SCAPEL, Nairobi (Kenya), STELLAR, Geraldton (Australia), SHOAL BAY, Darwin (Australia), IRONSAND, New Zealand. Less known sites include CORALINE – Sabena Seca (Puerto Rico), GARLICK Bad Aibling (Germany), SCAPEL – Nairobi (Kenya), and SHOAL BAY – Darwin (Australia).


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Face Recognition, License Plate Tracking Camera Disappears After Journalists Ask US Postal Service About It

mailCovers

By: PrivacySOS.org

Apparently the Post Office police maintain their own secret spy budget. Fox News’ Denver affiliate reports on what happened after a customer at a Denver post office noticed a strange looking utility box, and the journalists looked into it:

Within an hour of FOX31 Denver discovering a hidden camera, which was positioned to capture and record the license plates and facial features of customers leaving a Golden Post Office, the device was ripped from the ground and disappeared.

FOX31 Denver investigative reporter Chris Halsne confirmed the hidden camera and recorder is owned and operated by the United State Postal Inspection Service, the law enforcement branch of the U.S. Postal Service.

The recording device appeared to be tripped by any vehicle leaving the property on Johnson Road, but the lens was not positioned to capture images of the front door, employee entrance, or loading dock areas of the post office.

According to Fox Denver, the managers of the post office in question denied knowledge of the device. While a federal postal police employee told the reporters that its officials “do not engage in routine or random surveillance,” and only use deploy cameras for “law enforcement or security purposes” or criminal investigations, the journalists were unable to find any criminal warrant applications describing the placement of a face recognition and license plate tracking camera in Denver.

After filing “multiple Freedom of Information Act requests with the Postal Service, Postal Inspection Service, and Office of the Inspector General,” reporters found that these agencies apparently maintain no written policies to govern how and why cameras like this one might be deployed, or the data from them used.

In July 2013, the New York Times revealed the existence of a possibly unconstitutional ‘mail covers’ program at the Postal Service. A 2014 Inspector General report showed that the US Postal Service received nearly 50,000 law enforcement requests to monitor mail in 2013. The ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer told Newshour that this warrantless surveillance was “yet another reminder” that there aren’t enough rules limiting snooping powers, and that those that exist are insufficiently enforced. “When a targeted surveillance tool is used on this scale, the distinction between targeted and dragnet surveillance begins to seem academic,” he said.

 

7 Creepy Robots Used By The Police State (VIDEO)

robots for cops

Cops use robots to defuse bombs, confront barricaded suspects and rescue victims during disasters. But they also use robots that can see, record and track what you are doing all day long. If you aren’t paranoid by the thought of cops knowing your business, watch as Reason TV counts down 7 Creepy Robots for Cops.


ReasonTV

Drones Now Collecting Your Mobile Data To Create Targeted Ads: “With Drones, It Becomes So Much Easier”

drone mobile device tracking for ads

By: Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com –

It seems that the NSA, the feds and law enforcement aren’t the only ones monitoring cell phone data and mobile devices.

The Ad companies are in on it, too – and are now using drones to spy, err.. track, err… keep pace with consumers.

Here’s what Venture Beat is reporting about the new drone fleet operating in the L.A. area:

It was only a matter of time before drones started monitoring signals from mobile devices.

Since early February, several small drones flying around the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles have been determining mobile devices’ locations from Wi-Fi and cellular transmission signals.

They are part of an experiment by Singapore-based location marketing firm Adnear, which has offices around the world.

For now, this company (and likely other competitors) are “testing location mapping” to quantify which areas are most heavily trafficked, and thus hold the best potential for profit.

In the long term, the intent is to use this data to deliver real-time targeted ads at consumers to draw them into nearby business – perhaps ones they walk past but never shop in – or to special products and sales. It might go something like this:

“Let’s say someone is walking near a coffee shop,” Kataria said by way of example.

The coffee shop may want to offer in-app ads or discount coupons to people who often walk by but don’t enter, as well as to frequent patrons when they are elsewhere. Adnear’s client would be the coffee shop or other retailers who want to entice passersby.

The entire affair is very much like Minority Report, where personalized ads are delivered straight to the consumer with the help of all your personal data, demographic profile and shopping habits. The result is customized pitches based on your location and interests.

For some, that is progress. For most others, it’s an invasion of privacy on nightmarish levels.

Click to report a drone sighting.

drone patrol the sleuth journal

 

Media Blackout On US ‘Smart Grid Deployment’

Smart-Meters

Over the past several years a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the implementation of the Smart Grid across the United States, perhaps with good reason. If the public was aware of what lay behind this agenda there would likely be considerable outcry and resistance.

“Smart meters”–the principal nodes of the Smart Grid network–are being installed on homes and businesses by power utilities across the United States under the legal and fiscal direction of the United States government. In December 2007 both houses of the US Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

This 310-page piece of legislation employs the dubious science of anthropogenic CO2-based climate change science to mandate an array of policies, such as fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and “green” energy initiatives. Tucked away in the final pages of this law is the description and de facto mandate for national implementation of the Smart Grid that the Bush administration promised would result in “some of the largest CO2 emission cuts in our nation’s history.”[1]

The bill unambiguously lays out the design and intent behind the Smart Grid, including surveillance, tiered energy pricing, and energy rationing for all US households and businesses through round-the-clock monitoring of RFID-chipped “Energy Star” appliances.[2] Congress and “other stakeholders” (presumably for-profit utilities and an array of Smart Grid technology patent holders[3] whose lobbyists co-wrote the legislation) describe the Smart Grid’s characteristics and goals via ten provisions.

(1) Increased use of digital information and controls technology to improve reliability, security, and efficiency of the electric grid.
(2) Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources with full cyber-security.
(3) Deployment[4] and integration of distributed resources and generation, including renewable resources.
(4) Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and energy efficiency resources.
(5) Deployment of “smart” technologies (real-time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer devices) for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.
(6) Integration of “smart” appliances and consumer devices.
(7) Deployment and integration of advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving technologies, including plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and thermal-storage air conditioning.
(8) Provision to consumers of timely information and control operations.
(9) Development of standards for communication and interoperability of appliances and equipment connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid.
(10) Identification and lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart grid technologies, practices, and services [emphases added].[5]

Less than two years after EISA’s enactment President Barack Obama directed $3.4 billion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to Smart Grid development. Matching funds from the energy industry brought the total initial Smart Grid investment to $8 billion.[6] The overall completion of the Smart Grid will cost another $330 billion.[7] Today a majority of energy delivery throughout the US is routed to homes equipped with smart meters that monitor power consumption on a minute-to-minute basis.

As noted, the American public remains largely unaware of the numerous designs and monied interests behind the Smart Grid–not to mention how smart meters themselves pose substantial dangers to human health and privacy. This is because the plan for tiered energy pricing via wireless monitoring of household appliances has been almost entirely excluded from news media coverage since the EISA became law on December 19, 2007.

A LexisNexis search of US print news outlets for “Energy Independence and Security Act” and “Smart Grid” between the dates December 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 yields virtually no results.

An identical LexisNexis search of such media for the dates December 1, 2007 to February 18, 2015 retrieves a total 11 print news items appearing in US dailies (seven in McClatchey Tribune papers; one article appearing in each of the following: New York Times 8/14/08, Santa Fe New Mexican, 5/12/09, Providence Journal, 2/24/11, Tampa Bay Times, 12/13/12).[8]

Even this scant reportage scarcely begins to examine the implications of the EISA’s Smart Grid plan. The New York Times chose to confine its coverage to a 364-word article, “The 8th Annual Year in Ideas; Smart Grids.” “It’s a response to what economists would call a tragedy of the commons,” the Times explains.

[P]eople use as much energy as they are willing to pay for, without giving any thought to how their use affects the overall amount of energy available … Enter Xcel’s $100 million initiative, called SmartGridCity, a set of technologies that give both energy providers and their customers more control over power consumption … Consumers, through a Web-enabled control panel in their homes, are able to regulate their energy consumption more closely — for example, setting their A.C. system to automatically reduce power use during peak hours.[9]

News in far more modest papers likewise resembles the promotional materials distributed by the utilities themselves. “There will soon be a time when homeowners can save electricity by having appliances automatically adjust power for peak-demand times and other periods of inactivity by a signal sent through the electrical outlet,” an article in Sunbury Pennsylvania’s Daily Item reads. “‘Right now, it’s at the infant stage,’” a power company executive observes. “‘We didn’t worry about this until two years ago. Nobody cared when electricity was five cents per kilowatt hour. People just bit the bullet and paid the bill.’”[10]

Smart Grid Czar Patricia Hoffman

Smart Grid Czar Patricia Hoffman

Along these lines, the Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Patricia Hoffman, is charged under the EISA with federal oversight of nationwide Smart Grid implementation. In other words, Hoffman is America’s “Smart Grid Czar.” Yet despite heading up such a dubious program since 2010, she has almost entirely escaped journalistic scrutiny, having been referenced or quoted in only four US daily papers (Washington Post, 2/8/12, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 4/26/12, Palm Beach Post, 5/12/13, Pittsburgh Tribune Review 11/13/13) since her tenure began.

In an era where news media wax rhapsodic over new technologies and fall over each other to report consumer-oriented “news you can use,” the Smart Grid’s pending debut should be a major story. It’s not. Indeed, almost the entire US population remains in the dark about this major technological development that will profoundly impact their lives.

When one more closely examines the implications and realities of the federally-approved Smart Grid scheme—from the adverse health effects of electromagnetic radiation to surveillance and energy rationing—there should be little wonder why this degree of silence surrounds its implementation. Such a technocratic system would never be freely accepted if subject to an open exchange and referendum.

Notes

[1] “Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” whitehouse.gov, December 19, 2007.

[2] “ENERGY STAR is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voluntary program that helps businesses and individuals save money and protect our climate through superior energy efficiency. The ENERGY STAR program was established by EPA in 1992, under the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 103(g).” http://www.energystar.gov/about

[3] Jeff St. John, “Who’s Got the Most Smart Grid Patents?greentechmedia.com, August 5, 2014.

[4] The word “deployment,” commonly used in government and technical plans for the Smart Grid’s launch, is a military term. From the Latin displicāre, “to scatter,” the modern definition is “[t]o distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically.”

[5] Public Law 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title XIII, Section 1301, Washington DC: United States Congress, December 19,2007.

[6] “President Obama Announces $3.4 Billion Investment to Spur Transition to Smart Energy Grid,” energy.gov, October 27, 2009.

[7] Jon Chavez, “Expert Sees $2 Trillion Benefit For Country in Smart Grid,” Toledo Blade, January 16 2013.

[8] In contrast, seven times as many articles (78) appeared in law journals over the same seven year period.

[9] Clay Risen, “”The 8th Annual Year in Ideas; Smart Grids,” New York Times, December 14, 2008.

[10] Jaime North, “Devices Will Soon Monitor Themselves,” Daily Item, October 4, 2008.


Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.

Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO)

surveillance

“If You Have Nothing To Hide You Have Nothing to Fear”, said once Joseph Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. We all know what happened while the Nazis and their American collaborators were in power. Yet, the quote cited above is exactly what the handlers of the U.S.S.A. use to justify its existence.

The same quote was used by William Hague and pretty much every other law enforcement official who believes in the need to have a worldwide Surveillance State. Even lay people who are interviewed on the streets of America and Europe often repeat the words of the former Nazi Propaganda Minister.

However, since not everyone agrees with Goebbels, many politicians and bureaucrats need to create reason for them to believe. The best reasons to make people believe what would be otherwise un-believable, is the typical ‘little known outside threat’ and the premise is always the same: we all need to surrender something we hold dear in order to do away with the threat.

For instance, in spite of what many western politicians say about Russia and how its actions supposedly resemble the U.S.S.R., the fact is that Russia is not the USSR. It is not even close to it being the U.S.S.R..

Ad-hominem attacks on Russia and its leaders, of whom I am not a fan of, are attempts to distract people from a greater global threat: the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. has been in the works for decades and its power has been expanded based on false premises, such as the Russian menace, the ISIS threat or the Al-Qaeda rising tide of global terrorism.

The United Surveillance States of America (U.S.S.A.) and its branches in Europe, Asia and Oceania are the threat we have all been distracted from by way of unfounded fear, misinformation, propaganda and outright ignorance.

This entity is not only charged with spying on billions of people worldwide, but also with carrying out offensive cyber attacks on infrastructure at home and abroad.

It collects billions of bytes of metadata whose associated content is later used, when possible, as a tool to blackmail anyone who may become an obstacle to the advancement of the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. is not only composed by American and allied monitoring agencies, but also by global communication networks and media conglomerates that, either voluntarily or by way of force (inter-connectedness, built-in back doors, direct and indirect threats, etc) serve as bridges to the larger U.S.S.A. infrastructure to capture, filter and direct information on everything and everyone that is somehow making use of digital resources almost anywhere on the planet.

Although much of the blame on the existence and operation of the United Surveillance States of America has been rightfully placed on the United States National Security Agency (NSA), as its name describes it, the existence of such a massive surveillance infrastructure would not be possible without the collaboration of similar entities in Europe, Asia and Oceania, to cite a few.

It is true, America is the central command of the U.S.S.A., but this globally operating multi-headed cyber beast could not do the work it does without the collaboration of partner organizations in other parts of the world.

Recently, a documentary titled “America’s Surveillance State”, whose content is based on declassified and leaked documents as well as testimony from former ‘intelligence gatherers’ such as Thomas Drake, Russ Tice and Edward Snowden, unveiled details about the strength and reach of the U.S.S.A. and how, despite political rhetoric from seating presidents and congressmen about its despotic existence, it continues to grow out of control.

The following is the six part documentary which shows how the U.S.S.A and not the U.S.S.R. is the most significant threat to all of us. This is so not only because it is out there sniffing it all, but also because people have become accustomed to it. It is part of their lives and most of them do not even see it as an inconvenience, much less as a threat.


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.