Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 12      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #51 

Analysts reveal second secret intel investigation on Trump servers

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Sara Carter, a national security correspondent told Sean Hannity on Wednesday evening that Circa News has revealed that there are two separate investigations of Trump’s servers. 

Sara Carter: “John and I spoke to some very senior U.S. officials, they clarified this. They said there was a FISA warrant in October that was looking at the overall Russian hacking investigation, but that the FBI, when they monitored the server at Trump Tower it was actually located away from Trump Tower. It wasn’t under the FISA. They did normal strategic type of FBI investigations that didn’t require the FISA. So they went into the server but they did not use the FISA to do that. They did have a FISA however in October at the exact same time as this investigation.

Sean Hannity: “So there’s two instances now of spying?!”

Sara Carter: “Two! Yes! Two instances so this is completely new evidence and remember we all thought and everybody had reported that the server was inside Trump Tower. The server was not located in Trump Tower according to our sources.

Sean Hannity: “With the second issue warrant whatever the FBI was doing…was that in Trump Tower?”

Sara Carter: “That’s what we don’t know now. Because now that opens up a whole new slew of questions…”

Sean Hannity: “So what you’re saying is they found no evidence at all whatsoever of any collusion between the campaign and the Russians. True?”

Sara Carter: “Absolutely true. They found no evidence of that. In fact when we spoke to our sources who had direct access to this investigation what was happening with the FBI, they didn’t even find evidence of collusion with uh Lt. General Mike Flynn which is interesting because even when those leaks came out and they were referring to the Logan Act and everybody saw this as… They thought this was a part of the original investigation into, uhh, Russian hacking and now President Trump.

It wasn’t. It was completely different. It was a completely separate incident and the leak came out anyways. It was monitoring of Russian assets.”

Sean Hannity: “And that would be a felony as defined by the Espionage Act as I understand it?”

Sara Carter: “That is absolutely correct…”

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #52 

Senator Tom Cotton points to partisan Obama officials in FBI as intel leakers

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) joined Bill O'Reilly last night on The O'Reilly Factor.

Senator Cotton pointed to partisan political appointees in the FBI as the intelligence leakers.

Senator Tom Cotton: our inquiry and review on the Intelligence Committee is moving forward at a good pace. We just got access to a lot of very important documents that otherwise would be very closely restricted. Let me point out that it was the Trump administration that gave us that access not the Obama administration. So, so far the level of cooperation we've received has been very thorough…

Bill O'Reilly: I want to know who ordered the wiretap on the Russian ambassador that picked up General Flynn at, we think the Trump Tower, we're not 100% sure. I want to know what agency authorized that. Do you know? Can you tell me tonight?

Senator Cotton: Bill I prefer not to speak about what surveillance orders may or may not have been in place because it is a classified matter.

Bill O'Reilly: Do you know who ordered it?

Senator Cotton: Bill as a member of the Intelligence Committee I am aware of and follow closely what the agencies do…

Bill O'Reilly: OK. You know who did it. OK. And I understand if it's classified and you know President Trump could make it unclassified like that. Boom.

Senator Cotton: So the president does have that kind of declassification authority. I have suggested that some leaders of the intelligence community might want to make some kind of public statement. But I understand the reluctance of them and potentially President Trump as well. Because those kind of methods…

Bill O'Reilly: Now let me take the next step. You know who did it. What agency did it. So you know who had the transcript made of it. Because the agency who tapped had to make the transcript. Then the transcript is leaked. So you know which agency has to be investigated to find the leaker. Correct?

Senator Cotton: Bill, I make two points about that. First I've seen media reports suggested Obama officials intentionally spread intelligence information widely to include just raising it in meetings when it was inappropriate to do so. They claim it was trying to preserve intelligence. I suspect it was more likely they were trying to get it to leak. Secondly the FBI is not just a law enforcement service, it's also our main counter-intelligence service. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. The FBI until January 20th was run by Obama political appointees. And the mains consumer of intelligence is the White House and National Security Council. So you have many partisan Democrats who are receiving this information. And I think it there might be a good chance you want to look at some of those partisan Democrats who left office on January 20th and now are being identified as former US

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #53 

WikiLeaks revelation that the CIA can mimic Russian hackers changes the narrative

Jack Davis (WesternJournalism) is reporting that packed away in the thousands of documents released by WikiLeaks Tuesday was one that fascinated talk show host Rush Limbaugh because it links to the narrative of alleged connections between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign.

"Folks, we are in the midst of dangerous times like you cannot believe, and Donald J. Trump is the target," he said.

Limbaugh noted that in the documents showing how the CIA hacks a vast array of electronic devices was evidence that the CIA often mimics Russian hackers.

"By the way, in the WikiLeaks dump today of thousands and thousands of documents from the CIA, do you know what is included? A little program called UMBRAGE. What this program is, apparently the CIA has the ability to mimic Russian hackers. In other words, the CIA has the ability to hack anybody they want and make it look like the Russians are doing it," he said.

"Isn't that interesting, given everything we've been told about the election? 'The Russians hacked the election, that the Russians did this, the Russians did that.' So far we don't have any evidence the Russians did anything! But we have all kinds of supposition that the American deep state is deeply involved in whatever sabotage is being conducted on the Trump administration," Limbaugh said.

"The evidence the Russians were involved? Nobody's got it. Everybody runs around and talks about it as though it's a fait accompli, but there isn't any evidence," Limbaugh noted.

Limbaugh said liberals and the media sought to manufacture a way to attack Trump.

" … (S)o I think because of everything that we're learning here, the danger that Donald Trump has faced ever since he won the election is greater than we've ever known," he said. "The establishment of this country -- whatever you want to call it, the ruling class -- is desperate. We're living in times they never thought possible or didn't consider likely, and that is somebody from outside their group being president, being vice president, being secretary of state, being secretary of commerce, being attorney general. This kind of thing, this is such an assault, and it's got them in a state of panic."

Limbaugh said that the claims of Russian connections to the Trump campaign were "a pretext to have a never-ending investigation of Trump."

Limbaugh suggested that a Trump supporter is behind the dump of CIA secrets.

"Now, it's gonna take weeks or longer to understand all the implications of the data in the WikiLeaks CIA dump. But one matter is abundantly clear to me. Someone who really supports Trump is trying to counter what's happening to him," he said, " … somebody who supports Trump somewhere in the deep state is trying to impede and impugn the integrity of all of these investigations."

Limbaugh noted that it is not just the CIA under attack from the leaks, but also the Obama administration.

" … (M)ost of what the WikiLeaks CIA release contains is what the CIA has been doing during the Obama years, specifically 2013 to 2016. And you throw Trump's weekend tweet into this that Obama was hacking him," Limbaugh said, "… you look at Trump's weekend tweets, this CIA leak to WikiLeaks or the dump to WikiLeaks about the CIA is even more and more curious. The timing is exquisite."

Limbaugh said that Trump's claims about Obama now play into a new narrative of CIA spying.

"This is absolutely beautiful the way this is playing out. It's a brilliant maneuver on Trump's part, whether he intended it to be or not," Limbaugh said.

"And the theory that I articulated … was, when everybody was saying, 'What the hell is Trump doing? Oh, my God, Obama tapped?' I said, 'Look, what I think Trump's actually doing is saying, "You guys want to lie about me in your Russia stuff, here's a taste of your own medicine. I'm just gonna fire something right back at you.'" So he fires back that Obama is bugging him, that Obama bugged Trump Tower, and look what that has wrought. It's fascinating," Limbaugh added.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #54 

Former U. S. Attorney confirms wiretapping in an "extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power"

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that there is no doubt that Donald Trump's campaign was spied on. There is no ambiguity about it, it simply wasn't reported by the Democrat Party media. Former U.S. prosecutor Andy McCarthy has been writing about it since last year and did so again Sunday.

What he found is that when the investigation uncovered nothing criminal, Obama's Justice Department converted it into a national security investigation and continued the wiretapping in what was Nixon-level abuse.

McCarthy wrote:

Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon's resignation in lieu of impeachment.

His article concludes and reminds us that at the same time the fake Russia story was being developed, the Justice Department minimized Clinton's egregious transgressions:

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.

Obviously all these private Trump phone calls leaked by the Deep State are the result of wiretapping.

It's not only a former U.S. attorney, saying this. Among those in agreement is former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Sunday said that President Trump is likely correct that there was surveillance on Trump Tower for intelligence purposes, but incorrect for saying former President Barack Obama ordered it.

"I think he's right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general -- at the Justice Department," Mukasey told ABC's "This Week."

What he left out is the fact that Barack Obama had to have known about it because it was not a criminal investigation.

Trump on Saturday accused Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower in New York City just before the November election.

Mukasey, who served as the attorney general under former President George W. Bush, said he believes there was surveillance on Trump Tower after reading certain news reports and based on the statements made by Democrat congressman Adam Schiff.

The fact is that the government can spy on anyone at any time without a FISA order. It is also important to note that the FISA court is a rubber stamp that acts as a rogue Supreme Court -- that's how it is viewed by those who are aware of how it functions.

Lt. Col. Schaeffer says there was clearly no probable cause and explains why in the next clip.

Barack Obama used highly technical and highly classified capabilities which has resulted in multiple violations of the US18 code.

Someone had to lie to get the warrant. Obama had to have knowledge of it and he is responsible.

The leaks to the media were likely by the very officials who were involved in the wiretapping.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #55 

Obama's wiretaps -- details of a Watergate-style conspiracy against Trump emerge


Matthew Vadum (FrontPage) says President Donald Trump caused a media firestorm by claiming over the weekend that then-President Obama wire-tapped telephones at Trump Tower in Manhattan during the final leg of last year's election campaign.

Seeing the writing on the wall, tainted FBI Director James Comey promptly and publicly urgedthe Department of Justice to reject Trump's claims. Although it is an attempt at a cover-up, it is an admirably transparent one.

Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn't get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded, or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing.

Throughout his agonizingly long presidency, Obama serially abused his powers as the nation's Chief Executive to undermine his political opponents. It might be said that every day of his presidency he committed at least one impeachable offense.

Obama used the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party nonprofits, along with Catholic, Jewish, and pro-Israel organizations. He brazenly lied about it, too. His Justice Department surreptitiously obtained telephone records for more than 100 reporters. He did nothing while Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius repeatedly violated the Hatch Act, an anti-corruption statute.

This is hardly an exhaustive list of Obama's misdeeds in office. Books have been written about his corruption and many more such volumes will follow.

First thing Saturday morning, Trump tweeted, "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

He followed that with "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

That was followed by, "I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" and "How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

A spokesman for Obama, who now lives in former Bill Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart's walled mansion with Valerie Jarrett on Washington's Embassy Row so he can pursue his unprecedented, taxpayer-subsidized post-presidential war against Trump, denied Obama ordered that Trump Tower be wiretapped.

"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," according to a carefully-worded statement. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."

Of course, as others quickly pointed out, the denial is misdirection.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote yesterday that the denial "seems disingenuous on several levels." When a warrant is obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), "it is technically the FISA court that 'orders' surveillance." Moreover, under the law, "it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court."

McCarthy wrote presciently on Jan. 11 that "[t]he idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."

Besides, Obama and his gang have generally been smart enough to hide their tracks when carrying out political dirty tricks. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, and NSA, aren't headquartered in the White House. Obama could wage war against Trump by creating multiple layers of plausible deniability. That's what a community organizer from Chicago does.

Predictably, former Obama speechwriter Rhodes went on Twitter to lie. Replying to a Trump tweet, the Iranian mullahs' best friend wrote, cheekily, that, "No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you."

In fact, as Zero Hedge notes, Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code, War and National Defense, Subchapter 1, Section 1802, states that under certain specific conditions:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year …

To no one's surprise, the mainstream media was quick to slap down the president's claim without even investigating, claiming Trump was recklessly microblogging without evidence. Perhaps the loudest media figure was the Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, who was effectively a Hillary Clinton surrogate during the campaign. He said he wanted Trump to be "so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape or form."

In response to Trump's claim, the increasingly wacky Stephens tweeted Saturday, "When will Republicans acknowledge that the President of the United States is mentally ill?"

Most mainstream journalists were loath over the past eight years to call the exhaustively documented and at times bald-faced lies and misdeeds of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, and HHS Secretary Sebelius. It would seem uncovering government corruption is only a journalist's duty when a Republican resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

While it may be true that Trump offered little supporting evidence on Twitter -- he provided some evidence by tweeting that an earlier request for surveillance was turned down by a court -- it does not follow, nor is it true, that there is no evidence of his claim.

In reality the evidence does exist that Obama spied on Trump and it is "overwhelming," according to talk show host and Landmark Legal Foundation president Mark Levin. He explained on "Fox and Friends" Sunday that evidence of secret court-approved eavesdropping of Trump Tower had already been reported months ago by the New York Times, McClatchy media outlets, Heat Street, and the U.K.-based Guardian newspaper.

Levin said:

Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim. These are police state tactics. I am telling you this as a former chief of staff to an attorney general. If this had been done to Barack Obama all hell would break loose, and it should.

Let's recount what former British Member of Parliament Louise Mensch reported at Heat Street on Nov. 7, the day before the U.S. election.

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of 'U.S. persons' in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia.

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump's Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI's counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia's Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

The FBI agents who talked to the New York Times, and rubbished the ground-breaking stories of Slate (Franklin Foer) and Mother Jones (David Corn) may not have known about the FISA warrant, sources say, because the counter-intelligence and criminal sides of the FBI often work independently of each other employing the principle of 'compartmentalization'.

Both of the FISA court applications should be made public and Congress should be given the daily intelligence briefings over the last year or so, Levin said.

We already knew that days before Trump's inauguration, it was reported that Obama green-lighted a disturbing relaxation of the rules regulating the National Security Agency's ability to circulate globally intercepted personal communications among the other 16 intelligence agencies, some of which are more politicized than the NSA, before applying important longstanding privacy-protection protocols. Before the policy was altered, the NSA screened out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information before passing intercepted communications along to other agencies like the CIA or the FBI's intelligence units.

Put another way, 17 days before President Trump was sworn in, NSA was unleashed against his embryonic administration, newly empowered to share raw intelligence gathered from telephone calls and emails that go through network switches outside the country, as well as messages between people outside the U.S. that go through domestic network switches.

WikiLeaks offered a refresher course in Obama's treachery on Twitter Sunday, noting that "Obama has a history of tapping & hacking his friends and rivals[,]" and providing plenty of examples.

The newly discovered Trump Tower scandal further undermines the Left's false narrative painting Trump as fascistic. After all, Obama, not Trump, was the great, power-mad centralizer using heavy-handed tactics and the vast resources of the federal Leviathan against his enemies, including Trump.

As hardcore Never Trumper David French has been forced to admit, Trump is "less authoritarian than Obama."

Trump's administration, "through policy or personnel, appears to be signaling that the executive branch intends to become less intrusive in American life and more accountable to internal and external critique."

And despite the growing mass media hysteria, there is still no publicly available evidence the Trump campaign somehow colluded with the Russian government last year. Sources in newspaper articles are never identified. There is not a scintilla of proof of improper conduct. All we have is the alleged say-so of faceless CIA spooks whose motives are questionable, to put it charitably.

As more evidence surfaces of Obama's under-handed surveillance of Trump, it should become crystal clear who the real authoritarian is.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #56 

Flashback -- Maxine Waters brags about Obama's database on everyone

If you weren't here yesterday, start at item #219 today . . .

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that California Congresswoman, Maxine Waters is known for her gaffes and ultra left wing ideological beliefs. In this video she brags about Barack Obama's extensive database that will have information about everything on every individual on ways that have never been done before.

Interviewer: "The inauguration represented the beginning of his second term. It also represented the countdown of his (Obama's) presidency and the reality is...uh like anything better get what you can while he's there because look, come 2016, that's it!"

Maxine Waters: "Well you know I don't know and I think some people are missing something here. The President has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very very powerful and whoever…and that database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it's never been done before and whoever runs for president on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They're going to have to go down with that database and the concerns of those people are because they can't get around it and he's been very smart and it's very powerful what he's leaving in place."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #57 

For the first Time in the modern era we have a president who is an adversary of the deep state

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #58 

CIA hacking tools revealed


Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force — its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.

By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.

In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.

Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.

Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.

Lots more here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #59 

Barack Obama is tied to a five nation spy ring


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that on February 16th, Wikileaks released the first in a series of documents that promise to show Barack Obama's CIA spied on the 2012 French elections, possibly to influence them.

One could speculate Obama planned to influence the elections in the direction of the Socialist Party.

Central Intelligence Agency documents released by WikiLeaks Thursday list Canada as one of several countries asked to assist the United States while they spied on the 2012 French presidential election

Canada is listed as one of five countries working on human intelligence parts of the operation however there are no specifics on which parts of the operation, if any, Canada was involved in.

In addition to Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Australia are all listed under a section indicating which countries are assisting with the "HUMINT" or human intelligence aspect of the operation. Those four countries, along with the United States, make up the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance.

Wikileaks has published three tasking orders as context for what they say is the forthcoming CIA Vaut 7 series along with a press release providing a brief summary. The documents appear to be 7 pages of classified orders to gather information about each of the candidates, including political strategies and internal communications.

All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA's human ("HUMINT") and electronic ("SIGINT") spies in the seven months leading up to France's 2012 presidential election.

One of the tasking orders paid particular attention to President Sarkozy's party. They were also very interested in economic intelligence.

Wikileaks pointed to an article by Bill Moyers in which he explains the 'Deep State' which you can read here.

One paragraph caught my attention:

As the indemnification vote showed, the Deep State does not consist only of government agencies. What is euphemistically called "private enterprise" is an integral part of its operations. In a special series in The Washington Post called "Top Secret America," Dana Priest and William K. Arkin described the scope of the privatized Deep State and the degree to which it has metastasized after the September 11 attacks.

There are now 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances -- a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government. While they work throughout the country and the world, their heavy concentration in and around the Washington suburbs is unmistakable: Since 9/11, 33 facilities for top-secret intelligence have been built or are under construction. Combined, they occupy the floor space of almost three Pentagons -- about 17 million square feet. Seventy percent of the intelligence community's budget goes to paying contracts.

And the membrane between government and industry is highly permeable: The Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, is a former executive of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the government's largest intelligence contractors. His predecessor as director, Admiral Mike McConnell, is the current vice chairman of the same company; Booz Allen is 99 percent dependent on government business.

These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register, and are rarely subject to congressional hearings.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #60 

Obama set up a system for the intelligence community to undermine President Trump


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that specifically through the use of a lame-duck executive order, Barack Obama authorized multiple intelligence agencies to have access to Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) including phone call intercepts.

(Via ACLJ) […]  First, as the New York Times reported earlier this week, in its final days, the Obama Administration expanded the power of the National Security Agency (NSA) to share globally intercepted personal communication with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying any privacy protections.

The new rules were issued under section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 after approval by two Obama Administration officials: Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Director of National Intelligence Director, James Clapper.

Second, the new rules, which were issued in an unclassified document, entitled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA), significantly relaxed longstanding limits on what the NSA may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.

These operations are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. Surveillances include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls, and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The changes initiated by the Obama Administration in its waning days empowered far more agents and officials to search through raw intelligence data. As a direct consequence of the change in policy, it appears that the prospect of intel leaks grew exponentially. Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed the new rules permitting the NSA to disseminate raw signals intelligence information on January 3, 2017 after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper signed them on December 15, 2016.  (read more)

The dates here are key, because it was after the 2016 election when DNI James Clapper was reported to be recommending the removal of NSA head, Admiral Michael Rogers:

[November 19th, 2016] (Reuters) The heads of the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have recommended to President Barack Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, be removed from his position, sources familiar with the matter said on Saturday.

The recommendation by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, first reported by The Washington Post, was delivered to the White House last month.  (read more)

  • The election was Tuesday, November 8th.
  • Admiral Michael Rogers had a visit with President Trump on Friday, November 11th.
  • According to the Executive Order rule changes DNI James Clapper signed off on December 15th.
  • General Michael Flynn spoke to the Russian Ambassador on December 29th
  • Dec 29th 2016 -- Obama announces sanctions on Russia
  • Jan 3rd 2017 -- Loretta Lynch signs off on rule changes for phone taps.
  • Jan 12th 2017 -- WaPo reports on phone calls anonymous intel sources
  • Jan 15th 2017 -- VP Pence appears on Face the nation.
  • Jan 20th 2017 -- Inauguration
  • Jan 23rd 2017 -- FBI reports nothing unlawful in content of Flynn call
  • Jan 26th 2017 -- Sally Yates (acting DOJ) informs President Trump there might be a conflict between VP Pence’s stated TV version (was told by Flynn), and what Intel community communicate to Yates that Flynn actually expressed to Russia.
  • Jan 27th 2017 -- White House counsel begins investigation to discrepancy.

"The real question about the recent intelligence leaks that led to Michael Flynn's departure is these calls were being recorded during the Obama administration. "

"Where did the orders come from to intercept these phone calls?

And, most importantly who knew about it?"

"It's not that simple to get authorization from the FISA court particularly when it comes to private citizens. The real scandal is about the police state tactics used by Barack Obama against Trump administration.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #61 

IG investigating Team Obama cyber attacks on Georgia election system


Richard Pollock (DailyCaller) is reporting that federal officials have launched an investigation into why the Department of Homeland Security hacked into the Georgia state governmental network, including its election system, The Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group has learned.

John Roth, inspector general for DHS, wants to know why the agency broke protocol on its way to 10 unprecedented attacks on the system overseen by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp -- who is also one of the most vocal critics about the Obama administration's attempt to designate local and state election machinery as part of federal "critical infrastructure."

A Jan. 17 letter from Roth notified Kemp his office was officially "investigating a series of ten alleged scanning events of the Georgia Secretary of State's network that may have originated from DHS-affiliated IP addresses." A firewall in Georgia's system thwarted each attempt.

Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and Kemp have clashed over a federal government designation of election systems as "critical infrastructure." Kemp called it "political power play to federalize elections."

Johnson sparked a firestorm among state-level secretaries of state -- Democrat and Republican alike -- when he announced Jan. 6, two weeks before leaving office, that he was unilaterally issuing the designation.

If Roth's investigation shows Johnson or his subordinates deliberately used federal cybersecurity resources to penetrate a state election system in order to pressure a state official over a policy dispute, it could represent a significant scandal for Johnson and for the outgoing Obama administration.

The "scans" are attacks to test security weaknesses in a network. It's called the electronic equivalent of "rattling doorknobs" to see if they're unlocked -- or on a darker side, to send a message to a recipient.

Georgian IT specialists traced 10 such scans back to a DHS IP address. DHS officials confirmed the attacks came from an unnamed contractor attached to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, a part of DHS.

FLETCO officials have refuse to identify the contractor and the agency did not respond to a DCNF inquiry about the intrusions.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, asked Roth to investigate the matter in a Jan. 11 letter.

Chaffetz, who also is the chairman of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform told Roth, "If these allegations are true, they implicate state sovereignty laws and various other constitutional issues, as well as federal and state criminal laws." Rep. Jody Hice, a Georgia Republican, co-signed the letter to Roth. Hice sits on the national security subcommittee.

Title 18 of the federal code makes it a federal crime to "having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization" and to damage or impair the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information. The penalty could be a fine and up to 20 years for each offense.

Georgia also has several computer fraud and abuse statutes that could apply to the DHS contract employee and to other officials in Georgia who are implicated in the effort. Four of the 10 attacks against the Georgia network occurred as Kemp was about to talk to DHS officials, or coincided with his public testimony about his opposition to the critical infrastructure designation.

"It's certainly concerning about the dates," Kemp told TheDCNF in an interview. Kemp said he hopes the Inspector General gets to the bottom of the attacks and determines if there is a possibility the hacks were timed to intimidate him.

"Well, that's a pretty easy dot to connect," he said about the timing of the attacks. "Certainly from a political perspective it makes a lot of sense to ask that question."

Kemp wrote President-elect Donald Trump Dec. 13, telling him "I respectfully write today to request that you task your new Secretary of Homeland Security with investigating the failed cyberattacks against the Georgia Secretary of State's network firewall."

"We're certainly excited and glad that we're just going to get our questions answered," Kemp told TheDCNF. "That's all we've been asking for and we think we deserve to know what was going on. The explanation they (DHS) have been giving us leaves a lot of holes unanswered."

Johnson has given several explanations for the attempted intrusion. One was that an unnamed contracted who hit the site "as part of his normal job duties" to confirm professional licenses.

The former secretary hedged his response in a Dec. 12 letter, telling Kemp, "This is an interim response to your inquiry, subject to change."

Kemp said the DHS answers have continued to change over time, and the department has been unwilling to identify the contractor.

"First they said it was an individual in Corpus Christi Texas who worked for border patrol that had a bug in his Microsoft software that was causing it. And then they moved off of that, and said that it was somebody in Georgia at FLETCO down in Gleynn County on the coast of Georgia."

Kemp said, "We've never been given the name of the employee. We haven't been able to talk to them. We expect OIG would want to talk to that employee."

DHS cannot launch scans without the permission of state officials.  Kemp, in a December 8 letter to Johnson noted, "At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network."

The attacks against Kemp's network -- which also contains corporate information of registered companies in the state as well as professional licenses -- began on Feb. 2.

The last effort to penetrate the Georgia system, which Kemp called a "large attack," occurred Nov. 15, a week after the election but before the state certified its results.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 101
Reply with quote  #62 
The only hacking of voting machines and the election happened on the Democratic side--note Michigan couldn't be recounted because the heavily Democratic cities like Detroit had more votes counted than ballots cast.  O these people are amazing.  Snowflake is an appropriate term for their mental prowess. I hope the new national security team can straighten this out.  Obama has given them a huge mess.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #63 

Intelligence testy


Stilton Jarlsberg (HopeChange) says there are two related stories to discuss today, both on the subject of Intelligence. A word which, needless to say when referring to Washington, refers to "spying" instead of anything remotely like "smartness" or "proper brain function."

Specifically, President-elect Donald Trump has made it clear that he doesn't consider US intelligence agencies to be 100% reliable, especially when it comes to their consensus accusation that Vladimir Putin interfered with our election by disguising himself with a pair of Groucho glasses, then driving a schoolbus filled with Cossacks to various polling places in key electoral states.

But before Hope n' Change dives into the details of the "Russian hacking" story, let's look at Barack Obama's recent claim of advising Trump -- strictly as a professional courtesy -- that he should always trust the US intelligence community.

"There are going to be times," the miserable stain on the Oval Office said, "where the only way you can make a good decision is if you have confidence that the process is working, and the people that you put in charge are giving you their very best assessments."

Really, Barry? Is that how you've conducted your presidency? Not according to the Hope n' Change vault...




Let's review a few fun facts. As president, B. Hussein skipped the majority of his intelligence briefings including the one immediately following the debacle in Benghazi. Barry also had nothing but foreign policy failures, and repeatedly placed the blame on his intelligence agencies.

So why should Trump - or the rest of us - invest our trust in the intelligence agencies who failed to see the rise of Isis? Who missed nuclear weapons development by Iran during our negotiations? Who were unable to connect the dots preceding Putin's many successful aggressions - as well as those of China and North Korea.

These are the intelligence agencies whose keen insights helped bring about nightmare scenarios in Syria, Libya, and pretty much every other country which has mosques. Intelligence agencies which failed to flag September 11th as a potentially meaningful day for terrorists to attack in Benghazi.

Intelligence agencies which, at least according to the administration, found it "no big deal" that Hillary (as freaking Secretary of State) put all of our national secrets on an unguarded personal server just so she could dodge future Freedom of Information Act demands to see documents rightfully belonging to the American people.

All of which brings us back to the "Election hacking" story. The intelligence agencies have now offered up their (ahem) official report on this alleged election-changing, super-sophisticated act of cyber terror, and have found that (cue the shower-stabbing music from "Psycho") Vladimir Putin personally ordered a monumental campaign to undermine our election and put his personal buddy, Donald Trump, into office!

But there's one little problem. While the declassified report is happy to draw this apocalyptic conclusion, it offers virtually no proof. We're asked to accept this poppycock on sheer trust, which would be a lot easier if the Obama administration and intelligence agencies had even an iota of credibility anymore.

But let's look at a couple of important things the report says that we can agree with: there was no hacking or interference with any voting or vote-tallying machines, and the intelligence agencies do not assert that the alleged Russian campaign had any influence on voters or the election. Wow.

It is also noteworthy that the intelligence agencies were able to draw such detailed conclusions considering the DNC failed to cooperate with the investigation, and wouldn't grant the FBI access to their computers. And interestingly, the report fails to note that the sensitive emails eventually released by Wikileaks (again, without direct evidence of Russian involvement) weren't even obtained by "hacking," but rather by a simple "phishing" email sent to John Podesta, in which he revealed that his password (and the key to all of the DNC's documents) was..."password."

The report also states that Putin's evil plan to overthrow our election involved schemes like Russian newscasts which criticized Hillary Clinton more than Donald Trump. Which apparently made a huge impact on the many voters whose primary source of information was Russian newscasts.

We could go on and on (and already have!) but our point is this: thanks to the Obama administration our intelligence agencies no longer have a whit of credibility, nor does their preposterously politicized "Russian hacking" report.

Considering 8 years of wall-to-wall failures, it's not surprising that Americans have decided to turn their backs on alleged "Intelligence" in favor of Donald Trump's promise of common sense.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #64 

Reforming intelligence


Steven Hayward (PowerLine) says it's worth looking back to another of Herbert Meyer's reflections on the problems of intelligence that he wrote ten years ago when controversy over a leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of the Bush Administration was much in the news. Here Herb reflects on the inherent problem of the institutional biases of intelligence agencies, which can't be fixed by re-organizations or "making a deal."

Key excerpt:

One problem inherent to NIEs is that they sometimes reflect nothing more than the institutional biases of each of the 16 participating agencies.  A second inherent problem is that sometimes these agencies are so determined to not be proven wrong about what the future holds that they try to have it both ways, for instance by obscuring their projections beneath an avalanche of "on the one hand, on the other hand" sentences.

The best and most concise description of NIEs that suffer from these problems comes from President Reagan's great Director of Central Intelligence, William J. Casey: "total crap".

That's why Casey's orders to me were to make certain that the NIE's we produced for President Reagan overcame these problems.

First, I was to sort though the differing judgments of the 16 agencies to understand if they were basing their conclusions on the facts contained in the text of the NIE itself – or merely on long-standing institutional biases.  If the latter, my job was to confront the agency representatives and then work with them to align their judgments with the facts.

Second, when an agency wanted to dissent from the consensus, it was my job to assure that this dissent was written as clearly as possible so the President could understand not only what this agency was saying, but why it had chosen to dissent from the majority view.

Finally, when all the bureaucratic fighting had ended and we had hosed the blood off my office walls, it was my job to run the crucial "Key Judgments" of the NIE through my word processor one last time, to assure that the finished product was intelligible to an intelligent but busy policymaker.  That meant knocking out all the "on the one hand, on the other hand" sentences and replacing them with sentences that made a point.  It meant eliminating the gobbledygook sentences that invariably had crept in, such as: "We judge that Soviet leaders will be neither too hasty nor too reluctant to either over-react or under-react to the developing circumstances flowing from the new initiative."  It meant weeding out Key Judgments that were accurate but worthless – such as the old standby: "We judge that the future of US-Soviet relations will be volatile and subject to change."

As usual, worth reading the whole thing.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #65 

This company has built a profile on every American adult


David Gauvey Herbert (Bloomberg) says you can forget about telephoto lenses and fake mustaches: The most important tools for America's 35,000 private investigators are database subscription services. For more than a decade, professional snoops have been able to search troves of public and nonpublic records -- known addresses, DMV records, photographs of a person's car -- and condense them into comprehensive reports costing as little as $10. Now they can combine that information with the kinds of things marketers know about you, such as which politicians you donate to, what you spend on groceries, and whether it's weird that you ate in last night, to create a portrait of your life and predict your behavior.

IDI, a year-old company in the so-called data-fusion business, is the first to centralize and weaponize all that information for its customers. The Boca Raton, Fla., company's database service, idiCORE, combines public records with purchasing, demographic, and behavioral data. Chief Executive Officer Derek Dubner says the system isn't waiting for requests from clients -- it's already built a profile on every American adult, including young people who wouldn't be swept up in conventional databases, which only index transactions. "We have data on that 21-year-old who's living at home with mom and dad," he says.

Dubner declined to provide a demo of idiCORE or furnish the company's report on me. But he says these personal profiles include all known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses; every piece of property ever bought or sold, plus related mortgages; past and present vehicles owned; criminal citations, from speeding tickets on up; voter registration; hunting permits; and names and phone numbers of neighbors. The reports also include photos of cars taken by private companies using automated license plate readers -- billions of snapshots tagged with GPS coordinates and time stamps to help PIs surveil people or bust alibis.

IDI also runs two coupon websites, and, that collect purchasing and behavioral data. When I signed up for the latter, I was asked for my e-mail address, birthday, and home address, information that could easily link me with my idiCORE profile. The site also asked if I suffered from arthritis, asthma, diabetes, or depression, ostensibly to help tailor its discounts.

Users and industry analysts say the addition of purchasing and behavioral data to conventional data fusion outmatches rival systems in terms of capabilities -- and creepiness. "The cloud never forgets, and imperfect pictures of you composed from your data profile are carefully filled in over time," says Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, a consulting firm. "We're like bugs in amber, completely trapped in the web of our own data."

When logging in to IDI and similar databases, a PI must select a permissible use for a search under U.S. privacy laws. The Federal Trade Commission oversees the industry, but PI companies are largely expected to police themselves, because a midsize outfit may run thousands of searches a month.

Dubner says most Americans have little to fear. As examples, he cites idiCORE uses such as locating a missing person and nabbing a fraud or terrorism suspect.

IDI, like much of the data-fusion industry, traces its lineage to Hank Asher, a former cocaine smuggler and self-taught programmer who began fusing sets of public data from state and federal governments in the early 1990s. After Sept. 11, law enforcement's interest in commercial databases grew, and more money and data began raining down, says Julia Angwin, a reporter who wrote about the industry in her 2014 book, Dragnet Nation.

Asher died suddenly in 2013, leaving behind his company, the Last One (TLO), which credit bureau TransUnion bought in bankruptcy for $154 million. Asher's disciples, including Dubner, left TLO and eventually teamed up with Michael Brauser, a former business partner of Asher's, and billionaire health-care investor Phillip Frost. In May 2015, after a flurry of purchases and mergers, the group rebranded its database venture as IDI.

Besides pitching its databases to big-name PIs (Kroll, Control Risks), law firms, debt collectors, and government agencies, IDI says it's also targeting consumer marketers. The 200-employee company had revenue of about $40 million in its most recent quarter and says 2,800 users signed up for idiCORE in the first month after its May release. It declined to provide more recent figures. The company's data sets are growing, too. In December, Frost helped underwrite IDI's $100 million acquisition of marketing profiler Fluent, which says it has 120 million profiles of U.S. consumers. In June, IDI bought ad platform Q Interactive for a reported $21 million in stock.

IDI may need Frost's deep pockets for a while. The PI industry's three favorite databases are owned by TransUnion and media giants Reed Elsevier and Thomson Reuters. "There's no shortage," says Chuck McLaughlin, chairman of the board of the World Association of Detectives, which has about 1,000 members. "The longer you're in business, the more data you have, the better results." He uses TLO and Tracers Information Specialists.

Steve Rambam, a PI who hosts Nowhere to Hide on the Investigation Discovery channel, says marketing data remains a niche monitoring tool compared with social media, but its power can be unparalleled. "You may not know what you do on a regular basis, but I know," Rambam says. "I know it's Thursday, you haven't eaten Chinese food in two weeks, and I know you're due."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #66 

Do you still believe in privacy?

What kind of government spies on its own people? Demanding your privacy doesn't mean you're hiding something, it means you believe in something. The right to a private life is one of freedom's greatest blessings. That's what the Good Guys believe.

Hey! This is 21st Century America. Privacy only applies to a woman and her body.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #67 

Judge Napolitano BEGS Americans to WAKE UP over new law Congress is considering

Scott Morefield (BizPacReview) says Americans have lost many of their liberties over the past several decades, particularly since 9/11, but it appears that lawmakers from both parties are indeed willing to cede what could very well be the most significant chunk of liberty in American history for a modicum of security.

This week, Congress is considering legislation that would allow the FBI uninhibited access to anyone's internet activity -- without a warrant.

Appearing on Fox News' "Shepard Smith Reporting" on Tuesday, Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano talked about this continuation of what he considers a "decades-old assault" on the Fourth Amendment.

"The whole purpose of the fourth amendment was to prevent this sort of fishing net operation where they just throw a net out there and see what comes in," said Napolitano. "It was to force the government to focus on bad people, on people as to whom there is a suspicion. That is why the fourth amendment requires probable cause."

If the bill is passed, internet service providers will be banned from telling their subscribers that the FBI has come calling. In fact, doing so will become a criminal felony. The Judge rightly considers this an extreme violation of both the Fourth and First Amendments, because it also prohibits speech.

Host Shepard Smith remarked that surely this bill won't pass since it is so obviously unconstitutional. To which Judge Napolitano responded, "This law will pass because Congress doesn't give a damn about what is Constitutional."

According to the Judge, "The American people should wake up. This is a major step toward a police state."

Speaking to the underlying reason FBI Director James Comey has given for supporting the legislation, that Constitutional requirements can encumber investigations and make the FBI's work difficult, Napolitano said, "Guess what. The Constitution is intentionally a pain in the neck so that law enforcement will not run roughshod over our civil liberties."

No matter which party controls Congress and the White House, our leaders always seem to be willing to trade a lot of liberty for a smattering of false security. At the end of the segment, the Judge asked the question all Americans should be asking if so many weren't asleep to the gradual decline of our freedoms, "This is a major step toward a police state -- who, or what, will keep our liberties safe?"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #68 

Obama says "dangers are real" in debate over encryption

Darlene Suprville (AP) is reporting that Barack Obama sided with law enforcement Friday in the debate pitting encryption and personal privacy against national security, arguing that authorities must be able to access data held on electronic devices because the "dangers are real."

Appearing at an annual tech festival in the Texas capital, Obama delivered his most extensive comments to date on an issue currently being played out in federal court. Apple, one of the world's largest technology companies, is challenging the government's request that it help the FBI access data on a cellphone that was used in the San Bernardino, California, attack that killed 14 people.

The issue has roiled the tech industry and divided Obama's advisers, but Obama appeared to side Friday with law enforcement despite also saying the matter would not be settled by adopting an "absolutist view."

Obama restated his commitment to strong encryption but also raised the question of how would authorities catch child pornographers or disrupt terrorist plots if smartphones and other electronic devices are designed in ways that keep the data on them locked away forever.

"My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this," Obama said. "So if your argument is strong encryption, no matter what, and we can and should, in fact, create black boxes, then that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years.

"And it's fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can't be the right answer," he said.

At the end of a nearly hourlong, question-and-answer session with Evan Smith, CEO and editor in chief of The Texas Tribune, Smith asked Obama "where do you come down" on the privacy versus security debate. He was not asked to comment on specifics of the dispute with Apple.

Obama said government shouldn't be able to "just willy nilly" access smartphones that are full of very personal data. But at the same time, while asserting that he's "way on the civil liberties side," Obama said "there has to be some concession" to be able to get the information in certain cases.

"I am not interested in overthrowing the values that have made us an exceptional and great nation simply for expediency," Obama added. "But the dangers are real. Maintaining law and order and a civilized society is important. Protecting our kids is important."

Apple and the federal government are embroiled in a legal fight over Apple's refusal to help the FBI access the iPhone used in San Bernardino. The FBI has been unable on its own to unlock the phone and wants Apple to create a program specifically for that phone to help the bureau get to the data on it. But Apple has refused, and says that to do what the government is asking would set a terrible precedent.

Continue reading here . . .

This, coming from the man that approved the eavesdropping of every American citizen -- every phone call -- every email.

Obama is all for and an all measures that furthers the control of the state. That's what Stalinists do.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #69 

Farook's iPhone is probably useless -- even the police say so


Jenna McLaughlin (TheIntercept) is reporting that a locked phone used by a dead terrorist initially may have seemed like the perfect test case for law enforcement to argue that it needs ways to get around advanced device security.

But authorities may have picked the wrong phone after all. It's becoming increasingly clear that law enforcement doesn't really think there's any important data on San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook's iPhone and that it has more precedent-setting value than investigative value.

"I'll be honest with you, I think that there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone," San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told NPR reporter Steve Inskeep on Friday.

Consider that it was Farook's work phone, actually belonging to San Bernardino County, his employer. Farook also had and used two personal phones and a laptop, which he demolished before he and his wife left their home to shoot 14 people dead at an office holiday party.

Between Apple, Verizon, and the National Security Agency, which turned over metadata, the authorities had plenty of phone data, none of which indicated any overseas terror connection.

They even had data from the iPhone in question up until six weeks before the shooting, because of its iCloud backups. And the FBI might have been able to back up the phone again if it hadn't told the county government to reset its iCloud password.

FBI Director James Comey has acknowledged the possibility that there's nothing useful on the phone. "Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn't," he wrote in a letter posted on the blog Lawfare on Sunday.

Apple lawyers don't believe the FBI really cares about this particular phone at all.

In a motion filed on Thursday, they wrote that the bureau's director would never talk at such length about an ongoing investigation if he had any suspicion that there might be a co-conspirator to convict.

"This is the only case in counsel's memory in which an FBI director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects," read the motion.

"If the government did have any leads on additional suspects, it is inconceivable that it would have filed pleadings on the public record, blogged, and issued press releases discussing the details of the situation, thereby thwarting its own efforts to apprehend the criminals."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #70 

Cromnibus includes potential for more government spying on Americans

Did you know that the spending bill includes the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)?

S. Noble is reporting that it might be worse than the original bill, having removed even more privacy protections.

Congress has gotten into the really terrible habit of lumping all these bad bills with good bills into the spending bill which rules out debate. That's what happened with CISA.

They always get what they want, no matter how much resistance there is.

"They took a bad bill, and they made it worse," says Robyn Greene, policy counsel for the Open Technology Institute, Wired reported.

CISA gives companies the right to share cybersecurity information with federal agencies including NSA. They can respond quickly to breaches but they can also overrule privacy laws and enable intelligence and law enforcement surveillance without a warrant.

The president can now set up "portals" for agencies like the FBI and others so companies hand information directly to law enforcement and intelligence agencies instead of to DHS.

The earlier bill had only allowed that backchannel use of the data for law enforcement in cases of "imminent threats," while the new bill requires just a "specific threat," potentially allowing the search of the data for any specific terms regardless of timeliness.

Tech companies, civil liberties groups and security experts have all come out strongly against this bill.

The idea isn't the problem but the execution is. The language is so broad that it could undermine privacy laws.DHS said it could undermine the Stored Communications Act. It is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers (ISPs).

The safeguards against companies sharing irrelevant personal information is vague and almost meaningless. They can't really be sued.

It isn't making people safer if it creates a centralized portal of information on millions of Americans that can be exploited by a hacker.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #71 

The fight against surveillance

Derrick Broze is reporting that earlier this month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a new project designed to help educate communities about the growing list of surveillance tools deployed against the unsuspecting public. The EFF calls the new project the Street-Level Surveillance Project (SLS), which it describes as "a Web portal loaded with comprehensive, easy-to-access information on police spying tools like license plate readers, biometric collection devices, and 'Stingrays.'"

The EFF has been involved in the fight against surveillance for 25 years, but with a massive influx of military equipment and surveillance tools to local police departments, it has never been more important to be aware of the growing Surveillance State. EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch says the project "provides a simple but in-depth look at how these surveillance technologies work, who makes and uses them, and what kind of data they are collecting. We hope that community groups, advocacy organizations, defense attorneys, and individuals all take advantage of the information we've gathered."

The SLS project hopes to educate users about the dangers of spying from law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local level. The privacy invasions include tracking cell phone calls, photographing our vehicles and following our driving patterns, taking our pictures in public places, and collecting our fingerprints and DNA.

"The public has heard or read so much about NSA spying, but there's a real need for information and resources about surveillance tools being used by local law enforcement on our home turf. These technologies are often adopted in a shroud of secrecy, but communities deserve to understand these technologies and how they may be violating our rights,'' said EFF activist Nadia Kayyali.


The Anti-Media works diligently to keep readers aware of the looming Surveillance State and any possible solutions. The Street Level Surveillance Project is one of those solutions. The website currently includes information on biometric technologies, which collect fingerprints, DNA, and face prints. It also details the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) -- cameras mounted on patrol cars and on city streets that scan and record the plates of millions of cars across the country. In the coming months, more information will be added regarding cell site simulators, also known as "Stingrays."

The website also includes explainers, FAQs, infographics, and links to EFF's legal work in courts and legislatures. Under the "Resources" tab, there is also information for defense attorneys fighting surveillance cases, information on how to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, and resources for community members fighting surveillance.

In the fight against oppression it is paramount that each individual find a method to contribute to the global awakening. Organizations like the EFF help fight the legal battles and provide resources such as the Street Level Surveillance project. At the same time, journalists at The Anti-Media and other organizations help spread the word. Now it is your turn, brothers and sisters. If you want to join the resistance to tyranny, the tools are available. The only thing left to do is to shake off the chains of bondage and take your first steps towards liberation.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #72 

Sensitive, top secret databases vulnerable to attacks are running on expired authorizations

Elizabeth Harrington is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security is running hundreds of sensitive and top secret databases without the proper authorization, leaving the agency unsure if it can "protect sensitive information" from cyber attacks.

An audit released publicly Thursday by the inspector general found multiple areas of weaknesses within the agency's information security programs.

Specifically, the department is operating 136 "sensitive but unclassified," "Secret," and "Top Secret" systems with "expired authorities to operate."

"As of June 2015, DHS had 17 systems classified as 'Secret' or 'Top Secret' operating without [authorities to operate] ATOs," the inspector general said. "Without ATOs, DHS cannot ensure that its systems are properly secured to protect sensitive information stored and processed in them."

Leading the agencies operating unsecured databases was the Coast Guard with 26, followed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with 25, and Customs and Border Protection with 14.

The Department of Homeland Security headquarters is operating 11, and the Transportation Security Administration is running 10 sensitive or secret systems with expired authorizations.

The audit also found that security patches were missing for computers, Internet browsers, and databases, and weak passwords left the agency's information security vulnerable.

"We found additional vulnerabilities regarding Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Reader, and Oracle Java software on the Windows 7 workstations," the inspector general said. "If exploited, these vulnerabilities could allow unauthorized access to DHS data."

The review, which was mandated by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, found that internal websites were also susceptible to "clickjacking" attacks and "cross-site and cross-frame vulnerabilities."

"Cross-site and cross-frame scripting vulnerabilities allow attackers to inject malicious code into otherwise benign websites," the inspector general said. "A clickjacking attack deceives a victim into interacting with specific elements of a target website without user knowledge, executing privileged functionality on the victim's behalf."

"Exploitation of these weaknesses could give unauthorized users access to sensitive government data," they said.

The report follows another review by the agency watchdog that found that the department is facing major management and performance challenges with border security, transportation security, and cybersecurity.

The inspector general said that the department has made some improvements to its information security but is not complying with all of its requirements.

"For example, DHS does not include its classified system information as part of its monthly information security scorecard or its [Federal Information Security Modernization Act] FISMA submission to [the Office of Management and Budget] OMB," the report said.

"Further, DHS Components are not maintaining their information security programs on a year-round, continuous basis," the inspector general said.

"Without addressing these deficiencies, the Department cannot ensure that its systems are properly secured to protect sensitive information stored and processed in them," they said.

Remember, this extensive system, put in place to audit government data sets, didn't even know about Hillary Clinton's personal email server's database.

There was no way that government agencies could determine if Hillary's email database was "properly secured to protect sensitive information stored and processed" in it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #73 

FBI combines civil and criminal fingerprints into one fully searchable database

In the last few years, FBI has been dramatically expanding its biometrics programs, whether by adding face recognition to its vast Next Generation Identification (NGI) database or pushing out mobile biometrics capabilities for "time-critical situations" through its Repository for Individuals of Special Concern (RISC). But two new developments -- both introduced with next to no media attention -- will impact far more every-day Americans than anything the FBI has done on biometrics in the past. Read about the first development below and the second here.


Jennifer Lynch is reporting that being a job seeker isn't a crime. But the FBI has made a big change in how it deals with fingerprints that might make it seem that way. For the first time, fingerprints and biographical information sent to the FBI for a background check will be stored and searched right along with fingerprints taken for criminal purposes.

The change, which the FBI revealed quietly in a February 2015 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), means that if you ever have your fingerprints taken for licensing or for a background check, they will most likely end up living indefinitely in the FBI's NGI database. They'll be searched thousands of times a day by law enforcement agencies across the country -- even if your prints didn't match any criminal records when they were first submitted to the system.

This is the first time the FBI has allowed routine criminal searches of its civil fingerprint data. Although employers and certifying agencies have submitted prints to the FBI for decades, the FBI says it rarely retained these non-criminal prints. And even when it did retain prints in the past, they "were not readily accessible or searchable." Now, not only will these prints -- and the biographical data included with them -- be available to any law enforcement agent who wants to look for them, they will be searched as a matter of course along with all prints collected for a clearly criminal purpose (like upon arrest or at time of booking).

This seems part of an ever-growing movement toward cataloguing information on everyone in America -- and a movement that won't end with fingerprints. With the launch of the face recognition component of NGI, employers and agencies will be able to submit a photograph along with prints as part of the standard background check. As we've noted before, one of FBI's stated goals for NGI is to be able to track people as they move from one location to another. Having a robust database of face photos, built out using non-criminal records, will only make that goal even easier to achieve.

This change will impact a broad swath of Americans. It's not just prospective police officers or childcare workers who have to submit to fingerprint background checks. In Texas, for example, you'll need to give the government your prints if you want to be an engineer, doctor, realtor, stockbroker, attorney, or even an architect. The California Department of Justice says it submits 1.2 million sets of civil prints to the FBI annually. And, since 1953, all jobs with the federal government have required a fingerprint check -- not just for jobs requiring a security clearance, but even for part-time food service workers, student interns, designers, customer service representatives, and maintenance workers.

The FBI seems to think we should all be OK with this because it has (ostensibly) given people notice and because the program is limited to only those people who are required by federal or state rules to provide prints. But in many parts of the country, this could amount to a very large percentage of workers (including each and every attorney at EFF) -- and for many people, especially the poor and underemployed, opting out of this program by choosing a different line of work is truly a not a choice at all.

This is not OK. The government should not collect information on Americans for a non-criminal purpose and then use that same information for criminal purposes -- in effect submitting the data of Americans with no ties to the criminal justice system to thousands of criminalsearches every day. This violates our democratic ideals and our societal belief that we should not treat people as criminals until they are proven guilty.

It also subjects innocent Americans to the very real risk that they will be falsely linked to a crime. In 2004, the FBI mistakenly linked American attorney Brandon Mayfield to a bombing in Madrid based solely on forensic fingerprint evidence. The FBI seized his property, and he was imprisoned for two weeks before agents finally recognized their error and apologized. Researchers have postulated large face recognition databases could also result in false matches. This means that many people will be presented as suspects for crimes they didn't commit.

Unfortunately, individuals don't have much recourse. The only way you can get your prints out of the FBI's database and stop this repeated invasion of privacy is either with a court order or if the agency that requires your prints to be collected also requests for them to be removed. There appears to be no way for an individual to ask to have their prints removed on their own[1]

We are disappointed that the FBI chose to go down this path. It could just as easily have designed its database to keep non-criminal data separate from criminal data. Or even better, the FBI could go back to its old practices and not keep the data at all.

[1] Although there may be nothing you can do about the FBI database, local law enforcement generally faces oversight from local lawmakers and is susceptible to grassroots pressure. If you want to know whether law enforcement agencies in your community is using biometric technology, check out EFF's Street Level Surveillance Project, where you can file a public records act request to find out.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #74 

AT&T helped U.S. spy on the Internet on a vast scale

The New York Times is reporting that the National Security Agency's ability to spy on vast quantities of Internet traffic passing through the United States has relied on its extraordinary, decades-long partnership with a single company -- the telecom giant AT&T.

While it has been long known that American telecommunications companies worked closely with the spy agency, newly disclosed N.S.A. documents show that the relationship with AT&T has been considered unique and especially productive. One document described it as "highly collaborative," while another lauded the company's "extreme willingness to help."
AT&T's cooperation has involved a broad range of classified activities, according to the documents, which date from 2003 to 2013. AT&T has given the N.S.A. access, through several methods covered under different legal rules, to billions of emails as they have flowed across its domestic networks. It provided technical assistance in carrying out a secret court order permitting the wiretapping of all Internet communications at the United Nations headquarters, a customer of AT&T.

The N.S.A.'s top-secret budget in 2013 for the AT&T partnership was more than twice that of the next-largest such program, according to the documents. The company installed surveillance equipment in at least 17 of its Internet hubs on American soil, far more than its similarly sized competitor, Verizon. And its engineers were the first to try out new surveillance technologies invented by the eavesdropping agency.

One document reminds N.S.A. officials to be polite when visiting AT&T facilities, noting, "This is a partnership, not a contractual relationship."

Continue reading here . . .

Now notice how Obama deceives the American People about this "partnership":

Of course the NSA is not "reading" billions of emails and text messages. That's impossible -- and it was Obama's intent to focus on the "impossibility" of reading billions of emails and text messages.

But it's a simple matter for the NSA's computers to "read" billions of messages.

Remember, all electronic communications are "digital." All electronic communications are managed by "digital" computers."

The NSA systems easily scan the billions of emails and text messages for "key words" or "key phrases" that are represented by digital bit-strings.

When an email or text message contains a key-word or key-phrase the message is extracted and stored on a separate data set.

That data set is then compared to other data sets to determine the source (the email owner) and if there is a pattern that might indicate a threat -- which might be anything from an al-Qaeda plot to a TEA Party meeting. Using its criteria, the NSA spins this message off to another data set.

This hierarchal -- bottom-up -- process may have many levels and many iterations -- refining the data -- producing information.

And the NSA compares those information sets to information sets produced from your phone messages, banking transactions, medical records, credit card purchases and anything else they have stored on their massive data warehouses producing intelligence -- and you can take that to the bank!

I've said it before. If the NSA wants a particular data set, it has that data set.

When the spooks show up at Wells-Fargo bank, the bank gives them what they want.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #75 

Obama's Socialist databases


John Velisek says there are many areas that will need to be cleaned up after our current President has left his legacy of chaos and unconstitutional power grabs. One of the most damaging is the compilation of databases on almost every American based on race, class and income.

Obama has instituted a plan whereby 330 million Americans will be put into databases which will encompass all aspects of every American life. Not since the socialist system of Stalin has so much information been officially gathered by a government on its citizens. These citizens have not committed crimes, but will be in a position of being classified as the government sees fit.

These databases can be used to further the socialist cause with every white classified as "racist" and blacks, gays and immigrants classified as protected. The government can then use the rights the government has given itself -- without any push back from Congress or the Judiciary -- to implement even more of their agenda.

These databases could be used to affect every aspect of American life. The federal government can claim that they are necessary because of the inequality of social, racial and economic justice.

Bureaucrats are currently compiling information on housing, healthcare, neighborhoods, personal information, credit cards, places of employment to push "disparate impact" as a means of government control of societal change.

The databases have not yet been used on a personal level. It has been used against banks, ostensibly claiming not enough loans are made to minorities. This is then used to shakedown the banks for money to force redistribution on those the government chooses.

It has been used in schools to question the suspension of blacks.

Databases will require city and state governments to abide by federal zoning laws to force municipalities to make more low income housing available. It will even come into play against companies that will not hire minorities with criminal backgrounds.

Housing is a prime example of a database that is socialist both in nature and design. Just rolled out by Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act database is intended to balance the nation racially by each and every locality. Any locality that has less than a 50% non-white population will be considered segregated and will be targeted by the U.S. Government.

The government will "pressure" localities into zoning changes to relocate inner city minorities and immigrants to new low-income housing. Not only will these localities be forced into these changes, but they must guarantee that all amenities, parks, stores, schools are close enough for minorities to make the use of them or they will face the loss of federal funding.

Congress and localities will have no input into any of the requirements. Those requirements will be set by the government with the assistance of civil rights groups.

This is socialist engineering at its finest, with no Congressional oversight or passing of any laws required under the Constitution.

Your mortgage information, including all personal data, is being stored in the "National Mortgage Database Project", run by Mel Watt, a former Congressional Black Caucus member. Again there is no legitimate purpose for a 16-year database broken down by race which includes individual credit scores and employment records. This will give the federal government the opportunity to pry into all your personal finance information including bankruptcies.

The government wants us to believe that the information is needed for "research and policy making". Does anyone not think this is a perfect vehicle, much like IRS targeting, to single out those who oppose the government? This information will even include the interest rate you are payng, the amount of land your house sits on, and even the square footage of your house.

Your credit will also be a part of the government's database. Ostensibly, this information is being collected by the Consumer Federal Protection Board, another scheme set up by this administration, to find "credit inequality" among races, to prosecute those found not to meet the Administrations demands and inevitably, to demand lower rates for protected classes. The CFPB also requires a database on minority hiring to include employment data, credit card accounts, with all transactions, collected and sorted by race.

The Education Department currently has a database on school suspensions by race to be used to reform schools with a disparate number of minority suspensions no matter what the reason. Civil rights groups have already indicated that even if there is no complaint about discrimination, and no evidence of racism, the numbers will be used to "prove" that it does exist.

There could be personal lawsuits filed by civil rights groups for monetary damages on an epic level and reparations on a personal level for perceived slights where none exist.

We could see a socialist police state based on diversity that micromanages our everyday lives to achieve political correctness of a national scale.

The question now is will Congress act to stop the use of these databases that breach the Americans citizens' right to privacy? Congress needs to stand up to this categorizing and cataloguing of the American people into different classes, different ethnicities, and different races to implement "disparate impact" mandates.

Individuals can only stand up to the government forces arrayed against them with the support of the politicians they elect to represent them. It should be made abundantly clear that this administration and any administration that follows will not be allowed to further an agenda without the consent of the governed. The alphabet soup of government bureaucracies were not instituted to make law, but to implement the laws as stated by the legislators that the people have chosen to represent them.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved