Raid could result in forfeiture

by Compmanager

CARO — The lawyer for a Caro businessman called the Advertiser Friday to say that his client has been unfairly treated by the Thumb Narcotics Unit (TNU) after having property seized during a May 2 raid on two Caro businesses and the man’s apartment.

However, a document filed the same day in Tuscola County Circuit Court and provided to the Advertiser by Tuscola County Prosecutor Mark Reene, details the case and how legal action will be brought against the man as the result of a lengthy and thorough investigation.

Reene filed a Civil Forfeiture Complaint (CFC) from alleged evidence found during the May 2 search warrants executed at the former Clark gas station at 537 North State Street and Gran’s Party Mart, 1524 Remington Road, as well as a Caro apartment.

The document outlines how the case was built for the forfeiture of both commercial properties, as well as $114,024 in United States currency, $367 in United States currency and Mexico silver dollars, a laptop computer, the contents of six bank accounts and a 2005 Ford truck, all seized during the raid.

Reene said Monday it is expected that charges will be brought against Jamshid Bakshi Zahraie, owner of both businesses, and that the forfeiture of property is within the county’s legal rights after an investigation uncovered Zahraie’s alleged sale of synthetic cannabinoids. A synthetic cannabinoid is a chemical compound that “mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids” (like marijuana) and were added to the list of Schedule 1 controlled substances effective July 1, 2012.

The CFC record also lists evidence discovered at Zahraie’s residence which suggests Zahraie was “manufacturing synthetic Cannabinoids himself,” said the document.

Attorney John Melton of Marlette who is representing Zahraie contends that the amount of property seized by authorities does not match the amount of money his client could have earned by allegedly selling the banned controlled substances. He also claims the manufacturer of the substances assured Zahraie that the substance was legal to sell.

“He’s probably sold, at the most, $1,000 to $2,000 in profits (from the controlled substance), and they’ve come in and seized $250,000 in cash and property,” Melton said. “To me it’s a huge overreach. In the meantime, his bank account has been frozen, his cash has been seized and he’s in limbo.”

Melton said he and his client are asking to tell their side of the story because the raid and negative publicity has resulted in a loss of business.

“He’s relying on people walking into the store and buying things more than ever, so from our perspective, this is a huge overreach,” Melton said. “The manufacturer (of the substances at the center of the investigation) was telling him that it was completely legal. We’re going to get this resolved one way or another in court. I’m not blaming the prosecutor; I think it’s the drug task force that has gone way overboard. … We’re talking less than $5,000 (in revenue from selling the substances) and they seized more than $250,000 in cash, bank accounts and property. From our perspective it’s an overreach.”

But the civil forfeiture complaint filed by the prosecutor’s office details the investigation into Zahraie’s activities, as well as an itemized list of the property seized during the May raid.

“When we did the search warrant at the Clark station, we seized $114,024. It was kept in white plastic bags, basically grocery bags,” Reene said. “Now you may want to ask, I’m not sure, maybe there are a lot of other legitimate businesses here in the city of Caro that would be retaining that kind of U.S. currency — that amount — in white plastic grocery bags. I’m not familiar with it.

“Also, there’s a very easy question to ask here. He claims he’s generating revenue and so on and so forth. We’ve already asked the question, and maybe you want to ask again: ‘Show us the legitimate income.’ It’s not complicated, right? If you own a business, and he owns two of them … well you’re going to have receipts, right? You’re going to have purchases of product, and then you’re going to have subsequent sales, and then you’re going to pay taxes like every other business. So show us that. Where’s the revenue coming from? … It’s not like we’re turning over pop and potato chips and so on to generate a large amount of money. And the same with Gran’s Party store, so from their perspective: ‘You show us your business transactions. We don’t see them.’ So where does this $114,000 come from. We’re waiting to have that explanation.”

Melton’s claim that his client was unaware that synthetic cannabinoids had been outlawed is disputed by the CFC, which states that on June 30, 2012, Trooper Nathan Hopp contacted Zahraie at Gran’s Party Mart to inform him that the synthetic marijuana products that Hopp observed Zahraie allegedly selling were becoming illegal as of July 1, 2012. One month later on July 30, a detective purchased $35 of the controlled substance using TNU pre-recorded buy funds.

“This (investigation) has gone on for a long time, and any suggestion that he was confused — that he was told by the manufacturer that it’s legal — is exactly the opposite of what he was told by the people he should have been listening to,” Reene said.

The CFC alleges that the detective again purchased the controlled substance from Zahraie in August 2012, and that an investigation into a drug overdose complaint in late December 2012 yielded testimony that three individuals allegedly had been using a synthetic cannabinoid purchased from Zahraie, who they claim provided them three cigarette papers to smoke the substance.

Reene said other incidents of individuals becoming ill in connection with the case remained under investigation and would be added to the case.

A court document shows on January 2013 administrative tobacco search at Gran’s Party Mart resulted in the seizure of $23,911 worth of products in violation of the Tobacco Products Tax Act, and a “significant amount of K2 was also seized.”

The CFC states that TNU agents purchased controlled substances twice in April from Zahraie leading up to the May 2 raid.

“This is now filed with the court,” Reene said. “Ordinarily there is a lot of information that I would not be able to share for a variety of different reasons, but we got to the point that we did and have filed the Civil Forfeiture complaint, which kind of gives you a historical perspective of what’s going on in regards to investigating these businesses. How he was informed several times in the illegality of engaging in several activities, was warned by different agencies that he had to cease and desist. … That was done even before the law took effect … so he was informed at that point in time.

“In looking at the comments, I guess what I would say in response to Mr. Melton, I wouldn’t be critical of him, but it would appear that his client is not giving him all the client that he needs to fully understand this case. I wouldn’t say anything negative in regard to Mr. Melton, but he’s kind of indicating that we’re receiving information that isn’t accurate; well his client clearly isn’t disclosing all these things to him.”

The CFC filing does not concern criminal action, which Reene said is pending additional investigation.

“It’s for (forfeiture of) personal property, including the United States currency as well as the real property itself,” explained Reene. “The former Clark station as well as Gran’s Party Mart are all part of this action, and this is what the Controlled Substances Act allows us to do, to proceed with forfeiture.

“The investigating agency and the prosecutor’s office would become the owners of the property, and then liquidate it and convert it into a liquid asset for dispersal for use for law enforcement purposes.”

APD email says traffic money to fund future pay raises

 An Atlanta police source says there are concerns that linking pay raises to tickets creates an indirect quota system

Channel 2 Action News has obtained an email sent to Atlanta police that says traffic ticket money will fund future pay raises.

An Atlanta police source told Channel 2’s Amy Napier Viteri there are concerns that linking pay raises to tickets creates an indirect quota system, but the Mayor’s Office and the author of the email insist there’s no push to write more tickets.

The email from police union President Ken Allen explains future police pay raises will be funded through traffic tickets and court revenue. It comes on the heels of the passage of the city’s budget.

“The mayor has designated traffic court/ticket revenue for future pay increases ... (This is) the first time ever that a revenue stream has been designated to salaries,” Allen told officers in the email. “Future pay increases are in our hands. We need only enforce traffic violations as we are now, but increase our attendance in court to prevent cases being dismissed."

By phone, Allen told Viteri drivers cited for ticket offenses are slipping through the cracks.

“A bunch of people get out of legitimate traffic citations that have already been issued that are beating the system based on how the system is running,” Allen said.

A representative for the mayor’s office iterated sentiments about improving how the police department engages in traffic court, “especially regarding operations and the collections process … There is no push to increase revenues through the writing of additional tickets.”

But a police source told Viteri the plan could make officers work toward increasing citations, in hopes of a higher wage. Some drivers Viteri spoke to agree.

“I’m probably going to switch from sales and join the police force in that case, if that's the way it's working,” Ken Miller said.

Allen said enforcement of traffic laws won't change.

An Atlanta police representative said the department has not issued any directive for officers to write more tickets, nor informed them ticket writing is directly tied to their compensation.

On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden

Who is actually bringing 'injury to America': those who are secretly building a massive surveillance system or those who inform citizens that it's being done?

by Glenn Greenwald

The US government has charged Edward Snowden with three felonies, including two under the Espionage Act, the 1917 statute enacted to criminalize dissent against World War I. My priority at the moment is working on our next set of stories, so I just want to briefly note a few points about this.

Prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, there were a grand total of three prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act (including the prosecution of Dan Ellsberg by the Nixon DOJ). That's because the statute is so broad that even the US government has largely refrained from using it. But during the Obama presidency, there are now seven such prosecutions: more than double the number under all prior US presidents combined. How can anyone justify that?

For a politician who tried to convince Americans to elect him based on repeated pledges of unprecedented transparency and specific vows to protect "noble" and "patriotic" whistleblowers, is this unparalleled assault on those who enable investigative journalism remotely defensible? Recall that the New Yorker's Jane Mayer said recently that this oppressive climate created by the Obama presidency has brought investigative journalism to a "standstill", while James Goodale, the General Counsel for the New York Times during its battles with the Nixon administration, wrote last month in that paper that "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom." Read what Mayer and Goodale wrote and ask yourself: is the Obama administration's threat to the news-gathering process not a serious crisis at this point?

Few people - likely including Snowden himself - would contest that his actions constitute some sort of breach of the law. He made his choice based on basic theories of civil disobedience: that those who control the law have become corrupt, that the law in this case (by concealing the actions of government officials in building this massive spying apparatus in secret) is a tool of injustice, and that he felt compelled to act in violation of it in order to expose these official bad acts and enable debate and reform.

But that's a far cry from charging Snowden, who just turned 30 yesterday, with multiple felonies under the Espionage Act that will send him to prison for decades if not life upon conviction. In what conceivable sense are Snowden's actions "espionage"? He could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He did none of those things.

What he did instead was give up his life of career stability and economic prosperity, living with his long-time girlfriend in Hawaii, in order to inform his fellow citizens (both in America and around the world) of what the US government and its allies are doing to them and their privacy. He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld.

That's what every single whistleblower and source for investigative journalism, in every case, does - by definition. In what conceivable sense does that merit felony charges under the Espionage Act?

The essence of that extremely broad, century-old law is that one is guilty if one discloses classified information "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation". Please read this rather good summary in this morning's New York Times of the worldwide debate Snowden has enabled - how these disclosures have "set off a national debate over the proper limits of government surveillance" and "opened an unprecedented window on the details of surveillance by the NSA, including its compilation of logs of virtually all telephone calls in the United States and its collection of e-mails of foreigners from the major American Internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and Skype" - and ask yourself: has Snowden actually does anything to bring "injury to the United States", or has he performed an immense public service?

The irony is obvious: the same people who are building a ubiquitous surveillance system to spy on everyone in the world, including their own citizens, are now accusing the person who exposed it of "espionage". It seems clear that the people who are actually bringing "injury to the United States" are those who are waging war on basic tenets of transparency and secretly constructing a mass and often illegal and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus aimed at American citizens - and those who are lying to the American people and its Congress about what they're doing - rather than those who are devoted to informing the American people that this is being done.

The Obama administration leaks classified information continuously. They do it to glorify the President, or manipulate public opinion, or even to help produce a pre-election propaganda film about the Osama bin Laden raid. The Obama administration does not hate unauthorized leaks of classified information. They are more responsible for such leaks than anyone.

What they hate are leaks that embarrass them or expose their wrongdoing. Those are the only kinds of leaks that are prosecuted. It's a completely one-sided and manipulative abuse of secrecy laws. It's all designed to ensure that the only information we as citizens can learn is what they want us to learn because it makes them look good. The only leaks they're interested in severely punishing are those that undermine them politically. The "enemy" they're seeking to keep ignorant with selective and excessive leak prosecutions are not The Terrorists or The Chinese Communists. It's the American people.

The Terrorists already knew, and have long known, that the US government is doing everything possible to surveil their telephonic and internet communications. The Chinese have long known, and have repeatedly said, that the US is hacking into both their governmental and civilian systems (just as the Chinese are doing to the US). The Russians have long known that the US and UK try to intercept the conversations of their leaders just as the Russians do to the US and the UK.

They haven't learned anything from these disclosures that they didn't already well know. The people who have learned things they didn't already know are American citizens who have no connection to terrorism or foreign intelligence, as well as hundreds of millions of citizens around the world about whom the same is true. What they have learned is that the vast bulk of this surveillance apparatus is directed not at the Chinese or Russian governments or the Terrorists, but at them.

And that is precisely why the US government is so furious and will bring its full weight to bear against these disclosures. What has been "harmed" is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability. If anything is a crime, it's that secret, unaccountable and deceitful behavior: not the shining of light on it. 

How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did

Target has got you in its aim

Every time you go shopping, you share intimate details about your consumption patterns with retailers. And many of those retailers are studying those details to figure out what you like, what you need, and which coupons are most likely to make you happy. Target, for example, has figured out how to data-mine its way into your womb, to figure out whether you have a baby on the way long before you need to start buying diapers.

Charles Duhigg outlines in the New York Times how Target tries to hook parents-to-be at that crucial moment before they turn into rampant — and loyal — buyers of all things pastel, plastic, and miniature. He talked to Target statistician Andrew Pole — before Target freaked out and cut off all communications — about the clues to a customer’s impending bundle of joy. Target assigns every customer a Guest ID number, tied to their credit card, name, or email address that becomes a bucket that stores a history of everything they’ve bought and any demographic information Target has collected from them or bought from other sources. Using that, Pole looked at historical buying data for all the ladies who had signed up for Target baby registries in the past. From the NYT:

[Pole] ran test after test, analyzing the data, and before long some useful patterns emerged. Lotions, for example. Lots of people buy lotion, but one of Pole’s colleagues noticed that women on the baby registry were buying larger quantities of unscented lotion around the beginning of their second trimester. Another analyst noted that sometime in the first 20 weeks, pregnant women loaded up on supplements like calcium, magnesium and zinc. Many shoppers purchase soap and cotton balls, but when someone suddenly starts buying lots of scent-free soap and extra-big bags of cotton balls, in addition to hand sanitizers and washcloths, it signals they could be getting close to their delivery date.

Or have a rather nasty infection…

As Pole’s computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy.

One Target employee I spoke to provided a hypothetical example. Take a fictional Target shopper named Jenny Ward, who is 23, lives in Atlanta and in March bought cocoa-butter lotion, a purse large enough to double as a diaper bag, zinc and magnesium supplements and a bright blue rug. There’s, say, an 87 percent chance that she’s pregnant and that her delivery date is sometime in late August.

via How Companies Learn Your Secrets – NYTimes.com.

And perhaps that it’s a boy based on the color of that rug?

So Target started sending coupons for baby items to customers according to their pregnancy scores. Duhigg shares an anecdote — so good that it sounds made up — that conveys how eerily accurate the targeting is. An angry man went into a Target outside of Minneapolis, demanding to talk to a manager:

Target knows before it shows.

“My daughter got this in the mail!” he said. “She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?”

The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man’s daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.

(Nice customer service, Target.)

On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. “I had a talk with my daughter,” he said. “It turns out there’s been some activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you an apology.

What Target discovered fairly quickly is that it creeped people out that the company knew about their pregnancies in advance.

“If we send someone a catalog and say, ‘Congratulations on your first child!’ and they’ve never told us they’re pregnant, that’s going to make some people uncomfortable,” Pole told me. “We are very conservative about compliance with all privacy laws. But even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.

Bold is mine. That’s a quote for our times.

So Target got sneakier about sending the coupons. The company can create personalized booklets; instead of sending people with high pregnancy scores books o’ coupons solely for diapers, rattles, strollers, and the “Go the F*** to Sleep” book, they more subtly spread them about:

“Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We’d put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We’d put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.

“And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works.”

via How Companies Learn Your Secrets – NYTimes.com

So the Target philosophy towards expecting parents is similar to the first date philosophy? Even if you’ve fully stalked the person on Facebook and Google beforehand, pretend like you know less than you do so as not to creep the person out.

Duhigg suggests that Target’s gangbusters revenue growth — $44 billion in 2002, when Pole was hired, to $67 billion in 2010 — is attributable to Pole’s helping the retail giant corner the baby-on-board market, citing company president Gregg Steinhafel boasting to investors about the company’s “heightened focus on items and categories that appeal to specific guest segments such as mom and baby.”

Target was none too happy about Duhigg’s plans to write this story. They refused to let him go to Target headquarters. When he flew out anyway, he discovered he was on a list of prohibited visitors.

I think most readers of the excellent piece will find it both unsettling and unsurprising. With all the talk these days about the data grab most companies are engaged in, Target’s collection and analysis seem as expected as its customers’ babies. But with their analysis moving into areas as sensitive as pregnancy, and so accurately, who knows how else they might start profiling Target shoppers? The store’s bulls-eye logo may now send a little shiver of fear down the closely-watched spines of some, though I can promise you that Target is not the only store doing this. Those people chilled by stores’ tracking and profiling them may want to consider going the way of the common criminal — and paying for far more of their purchases in cash.

Liberty, NY cops sued for arresting man who replaced town’s name with ‘Tyranny’ on ticket

By Stephen C. Webster

Two police officers in Liberty, New York were sued on Thursday by a Connecticut man who claims he was handcuffed and berated after a judge objected to him writing expletives and crossing out the town’s name and replacing it with “TYRANNY” on a speeding ticket.

Willian Barboza (pictured left), 22, was joined in the suit by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the law firm Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, objecting to a charge of aggravated harassment slapped on Barboza in May 2012. That charge was overturned in March of this year, the NYCLU explained in a media advisory.

In addition to scratching out “Liberty” and replacing it with “Tyranny,” Barboza wrote on his mail-in payment form, “FUCK YOUR SHITTY TOWN BITCHES.” The payment was rejected and a judge ordered Barboza to appear in court, at which time he was handcuffed to a bench and booked into a holding facility before posting $200 in bail.

“No one should get arrested for speech,” Barboza said in the NYCLU advisory. “All I did was express my frustration with a ticket and I almost ended up in jail. I want to make sure nobody else ends up in a similar situation because of this law.”

The NYCLU appears to be involved in the case not just to punish the town of Liberty, but to strike the aggravated harassment law from the state for good. The law bans any speech delivered “with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person,” which they contend is flatly unconstitutional. The civil rights group won a similar case in 2003 against the law’s ban on speech mean to annoy or alarm, prompting the New York Police Department to cease arrests for such conduct.

“New York’s aggravated harassment statute must be struck from the books, once and for all,” NYCLU attorney Mariko Hirose explained. “No one else should have to suffer the way Mr. Barboza did.”

Carteret deputy tases, blinds tied dog

By William R. Toler

When Rebecka Brown returned home June 5, she noticed a business card stuck in her door.

That card was from Det. Joey Cooper, a deputy with the Carteret County Sheriff’s Office.

“Naturally I called the number immediately to find out why an officer had been here,” she wrote on a Facebook page.

Det. Cooper told her he was there to serve a warrant to her husband for failure to appear in court in relation to a ticket he had received while hunting. She also found out something horrifying.

“He then told me he had to tase my dog.”

When she asked why, Brown says Det. Cooper told her that Merlin, the family’s year-old lab/boxer mix, had attacked him. “I asked him if he was okay… I was in complete shock! He said he was fine, not so much as a scratch on him.”

[Note: Merlin was attached to a 10' lead in the backyard, not roaming freely.]

“He instructed me that the taser did not shock Merlin because only one prong made a connection with him,” she said adding that Det. Cooper told her how to remove the prong. When the call ended, she went to check on her wounded pup. “Merlin wouldn’t let me near him. I could see the prong protruding from his back but but he just cowered and whined,” she said.

After several attempts to coax Merlin over so she could remove the prong, she noticed something strange about his eye. “There was a little blood under the lid of his right eye and the eyeball itself resembled an old rubber party balloon.” After she and a friend removed the prong she noticed his eyeball was ripped open.


Brown said she immediately called Det. Cooper back but got his voicemail. She then called the Sheriff’s Office to report her dog’s injuries. An hour later, she says two deputies showed up to investigate.


“They asked to see Merlin, so I took them inside to him,” she said. “As soon as he saw them, he cowered to the side, wimpered, and started to visibly shake. The deputy took a step towards him and Merlin started to growl. He was responding to the uniform… I informed the deputy that this is not his normal behavior and that he is responding out of fear. A uniform, just like theirs, had seriously injured him…. he was afraid of another round with that uniform!”

She believes the eye injury was caused by either a flashlight or a nightstick.

Brown’s quest for accountability continued.

I tried to file a formal complaint with the Sheriff’s Department and I was shuffled away. I went to the magistrate to press charges for animal cruelty and I was told that I couldn’t because he is a law enforcement officer!!! So, I went to the district attorneys office to lodge a complaint and get an investigation underway. I was directed to the SBI (State Bureau of Investigation).”

She has also taken to the internet for justice starting a website, a Facebook page and a petition. On the Justice for Merlin Facebook page, Brown has been updating those interested in her “roadblocks” with law enforcement and the justice system, as well as Merlin’s recovery.

After multiple calls to District Attorney Scott Thomas, an internal investigation was finally started. On Wednesday, Brown says she was visited by Sheriff Asa Buck and an internal affairs officer.
Following the meeting she posted:

Both the sheriff and internal affairs feel that the investigation revealed that the deputy is without fault. He stated that he was afraid when he and Merlin met in my back yard and that the Deputy is thankful that he grabbed the taser rather than his firearm. I was further informed that the deputy had every legal right to be on the property and had a right to defend himself. They do not believe that the deputy entered my back yard with the intent of harming Merlin and that Merlin’s injuries are an unfortunate situation. After Merlin is done with all of his vet visits, I am to inform the department and they will see about getting the bills paid.
…
I honestly don’t know how I feel about all this. I’m angry that my dog was hurt. I’m very angry that my dog will never regain full sight in that eye. I’m hurt that my children are affected by this to the point that they tell me they are afraid of cops. I’m angry that the use of tasers on animals is endorsed by our county. The county considers this matter closed.
…
I’ve never known the sheriff to be anything but honorable. I am so confused and hurt.

Begin rant:

Justified? Afraid of a dog that was tied up?

There is not justification for harming an animal if you just get spooked. The deputy, according to Brown, admitted that he didn’t have a scratch on him. So how can this assault be justified?

If it had not been a law enforcement officer, the individual responsible for the injuries to Merlin would be brought up on animal cruelty charges. But because of the incestuous investigation, the perp gets to walk.

The Department shouldn’t have to compensate for the vet bills…the individual who committed the act should be the responsible party. Badges don’t grant extra rights and individuals are responsible for their own actions.

End rant.

Carteret County Sheriff’s Office
Sheriff Asa Buck
304 Craven Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
(252) 504-4800

FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time

While much of the news coverage of FBI Director Robert Mueller's Congressional hearing this week focused on his admission that the FBI has used drones domestically, there were some other points raised, including his "defense" of the broad surveillance techniques that appears to amount to the idea that it just takes too long to obey the Constitution and go through the proper procedures before getting information:

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mueller addressed a proposal to require telephone companies to retain calling logs for five years — the period the N.S.A. is keeping them — for investigators to consult, rather than allowing the government to collect and store them all. He cautioned that it would take time to subpoena the companies for numbers of interest and get the answers back.

“The point being that it will take an awful long time,” Mr. Mueller said.

Well, shucks. Having some amount of oversight, someone in a position to make sure that the data requested is legit would just take too long? It seems like Mueller maybe has been watching too many episodes of 24. First off, it does not take an "awful" long time. Law enforcement has regularly been able to go through legal processes to get a wiretap or subpoena other information very, very rapidly, especially when they make it clear it's an emergency situation. But the fact is, it's unlikely that most of these searches are such a timely emergency that they need the data now, and can't wait an hour or so until an employee at the telco can retrieve it for them.

Mueller later made some outrageous claims about how long it would take the telcos to respond to a request for information following the standard procedures in an emergency.

“In this particular area, where you’re trying to prevent terrorist attacks, what you want is that information as to whether or not that number in Yemen is in contact with somebody in the United States almost instantaneously so you can prevent that attack,” he said. “You cannot wait three months, six months, a year to get that information, be able to collate it and put it together. Those are the concerns I have about an alternative way of handling this.”

Mr. Mueller did not explain why it would take so long for telephone companies to respond to a subpoena for calling data linked to a particular number, especially in a national security investigation.

He didn't explain it because it wouldn't take that long -- especially with the telcos who generally have a cozy relationship with law enforcement and a "how high?" response to the "jump!" command from the government.

Yes, I'm sure it's more convenient for the government to not have to wait an hour or so to get this info. And it's more convenient not to have to wait for a telco employee to make sure the request is legit and to retrieve the info, but we don't get rid of our Constitutional protections because of convenience for the surveillance state. The whole point of the rights of the public against such intrusions is that we, as a country, have made a conscious choice that surveillance over the population is not supposed to be convenient. It's supposed to involve careful checks and balances to avoid abuse. It's a shame that so many in our own government don't seem to recognize this basic point.

Mueller also admitted that the goal is to collect as much data as possible to "connect the dots."

“What concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key,” he said. “What you want is as many dots as you can. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field,” he said. “Now, you know, it may make that decision that it’s not worth it. But let there be no mistake about it. There will be fewer dots out there to connect” in trying to prevent the next terrorist attack.

Again, this is an anti-Constitutional argument. It's an argument that says any violation of privacy and civil liberties is okay if something collected might possibly be useful later. But that's not how we're supposed to do things in the US. We're only supposed to allow law enforcement to collect the dots if there's evidence that the dots show some law being broken. Furthermore, we've already seen that having lots of dots actually makes it harder to connect the dots. Since Mueller is one of the folks who has claimed that today's system might have prevented 9/11, he ought to know that the 9/11 Commission never said that an absence of dots was the problem leading to the attack, but rather the failure of existing agencies to actually do anything with the dots/evidence they had. Collecting more dots doesn't make you any more likely to connect them. In fact, it's much more likely to send you on a wild goose chase -- including some that will potentially infringe upon the rights of innocent people.

Skype Provided Backdoor Access to the NSA Before Microsoft Takeover

The NSA saga continues in the Redmond-based empire, this time with a new report aimed at Microsoft’s flagship VoIP platform Skype.

A report published by The New York Times and citing people who asked not to be named for obvious reasons, Skype developed its own user-monitoring system before the Microsoft acquisition in October 2011.

It appears that US intelligence agencies have insisted that local software companies must cooperate closer with the NSA, so it asked several top vendors, including Skype, to put together secret teams to develop systems that would provide them with backdoor access to users’ conversations.

The source claims that the NSA wanted “to control the process themselves” and thus skip the process of contacting the parent company and asking for details on select user accounts.

This is how Skype Project Chess was born. “Less than a dozen people inside Skype” have been asked to develop a hidden system that would allow the NSA to access conversations and user details at any time.

Skype officially joined the PRISM program on February 6, 2011, so it’s believed that the backdoor access system was already up and running at that time, more than half a year before the Microsoft acquisition was completed.

It’s not yet confirmed, but it appears that those tools have already been removed from Skype, as part of Microsoft’s network updates over the years. Tipsters, on the other hand, claim that companies involved in this NSA secret plan have kept the monitoring systems to “control the process themselves.”

The interesting thing is that Microsoft is now refusing to comment on this report, even though the company has often denied stories claiming that Skype calls can be wiretapped.

The only thing we got from Microsoft in the PRISM scandal is the public statement rolled out this month and claiming that it never provides user details to the government on a voluntary basis.

“We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”

NSA: If Your Data Is Encrypted, You Might Be Evil, So We'll Keep It Until We're Sure

There's been plenty of commentary concerning the latest NSA leak concerning its FISA court-approved "rules" for when it can keep data, and when it needs to delete it. As many of you pointed out in the comments to that piece -- and many others are now exploring -- the rules seem to clearly say that if your data is encrypted, the NSA can keep it. Specifically, the minimization procedures say that the NSA has to destroy the communication it receives once it's determined as domestic unless they can demonstrate a few facts about it. As part of this, the rules note:

In the context of a cryptanalytic effort, maintenance of technical data bases requires retention of all communications that are enciphered or reasonably believed to contain secret meaning, and sufficient duration may consist of any period of time during which encrypted material is subject to, or of use in, cryptanalysis.

In other words, if your messages are encrypted, the NSA is keeping them until they can decrypt them. And, furthermore, as we noted earlier, the basic default is that if the NSA isn't sure about anything, it can keep your data. And, if it discovers anything at all remotely potentially criminal about your data, it can keep it, even if it didn't collect it for that purpose. As Kevin Bankston points out to Andy Greenberg in the link above:

The default is that your communications are unprotected.

That's the exact opposite of how it's supposed to be under the Constitution. The default is supposed to be that your communications are protected, and if the government wants to see it, it needs to go to court to get a specific warrant for that information.

The Snowden Principle

By John Cusack

John Cusack, actor, filmmaker, and board member of journalism advocacy group Freedom of the Press Foundation, on the ethics of civil disobedience in whistleblowing.

At the heart of Edward Snowden's decision to expose the NSA's massive phone and Internet spying programs was a fundamental belief in the people's right-to-know. "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them," he said in an interview with the Guardian.

From the State's point of view, he's committed a crime. From his point of view, and the view of many others, he has sacrificed for the greater good because he knows people have the right to know what the government is doing in their name. And legal, or not, he saw what the government was doing as a crime against the people and our rights.

For the sake of argument, this should be called The Snowden Principle.

When The Snowden Principle is invoked and revelations of this magnitude are revealed; it is always met with predictable establishment blowback from the red and blue elites of state power. Those in charge are prone to hysteria and engage in character assassination, as are many in the establishment press that have been co-opted by government access . When The Snowden Principle is evoked the fix is always in and instead of looking at the wrongdoing exposed, they parrot the government position no matter what the facts

The Snowden Principle just cannot be tolerated...

Even mental illness is pondered as a possible reason that these pariahs would insist on the public's right to know at the highest personal costs to their lives and the destruction of their good names. The public's right to know---This is the treason. The utter corruption, the crime.

But as law professor Jonathan Turley reminds us, a lie told by everyone is not the truth. "The Republican and Democratic parties have achieved a bipartisan purpose in uniting against the public's need to know about massive surveillance programs and the need to redefine privacy in a more surveillance friendly image," he wrote recently.

We can watch as The Snowden Principle is predictably followed in the reaction from many of the fourth estate - who serve at the pleasure of the king.

Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC suggests that Glenn Greenwald's coverage was "misleading" and said he was too "close to the story." Snowden was no whistleblower, and Glenn was no journalist she suggests.

Jeffrey Toobin, at the New Yorker, calls Snowden "a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison."

Another journalist, Willard Foxton, asserted that Glenn Greenwald amounted to the leader of a "creepy cult."

David Brooks of the New York Times accuses Snowden- not the Gov--of betraying everything from the Constitution to all American privacy ...

Michael Grunwald of TIME seems to suggest that that if you are against the NSA spying program you want to make America less safe.

Then there's Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, who as Gawker points out, almost seems to be arguing that a journalist's job is to keep government secrets not actually report on them.

The Snowden Principle makes for some tortured logic.

The government's reaction has been even worse. Senators have called Snowden a "traitor," the authorities claim they're going to treat his case as espionage. Rep. Peter King outrageously called for the prosecution of Glenn Greenwald for exercising his basic First Amendment rights. Attacks like this are precisely the reason I joined the Freedom of the Press Foundation board (where Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras also serve as board members)

As Chris Hedges rightly pointed out, this cuts to the heart of one of the most important questions in a democracy: will we have an independent free press that reports on government crimes and serves the public's right to know?

It cannot be criminal to report a crime or an abuse of power. Freedom of the Press Foundation co-founder Daniel Ellsberg argues that Snowden's leaks could be a tipping point in America. This week he wrote "there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material," including his own leak of the Pentagon Papers.

The Snowden Principle, and that fire that inspired him to take unimaginable risks, is fundamentally about fostering an informed and engaged public. The Constitution embraces that idea. Mr. Snowden says his motivation was to expose crimes -spark a debate, and let the public know of secret policies he could not in good conscience ignore - whether you agree with his tactics or not, that debate has begun. Now, we are faced with a choice, we can embrace the debate or we can try to shut the debate down and maintain the status quo.

If these policies are just, then debate them in sunlight. If we believe the debate for transparency is worth having we need to demand it. Snowden said it well, "You can't wait around for someone else to act."

Within hours of the NSA's leaks, a massive coalition of groups came together to plan an international campaign to oppose and fix the NSA spying regime. You can join them here - I already did. The groups span across the political spectrum, from Dick Armey's FreedomWorks to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and longtime civil rights groups like ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press.

As more people find out about these abuses, the outrage mounts and the debate expands. Many in the mainstream media have shown that the public can't count on them to stand up to internal pressure when The Snowden Principle is evoked to serve the national interest, and protect our core fundamental rights.

The questions The Snowden Principle raises when evoked will not go away....How long do they expect rational people to accept using the word "terror" to justify and excuse ever expanding executive and state power ? Why are so many in our government and press and intellectual class so afraid of an informed public? Why are they so afraid of a Free Press and the people's right to know?

It's the government's obligation to keep us safe while protecting our constitution . To suggest it's one or the other is simply wrong.

Professor Turley issues us a dire warning:

"In his press conference, Obama repeated the siren call of all authoritarian figures throughout history: while these powers are great, our motives are benign. So there you have it. The government is promising to better protect you if you just surrender this last measure of privacy. Perhaps it is time. After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who warned that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

See what's happened already in the short time only because the PRISM program was made public, here.

NYPD 'Hunting Of Man' T-Shirts Seen On On-Duty Officers In Queens

On-duty members of the NYPD's Queens Warrant Squad were spotted outside a city courthouse last week wearing T-shirts imprinted with a Ernest Hemingway quote, that in the context of the officers' work, could be considered very disturbing:

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter."

Tipsters, who passed along the photo below, told Gothamist and SocialistWorker.org that the cops had badges around their necks, and that words on the front of their T-shirts read, "Fugitive Enforcement NYPD."



The Queens Warrant Squad was described by ABC News as "an elite team of parole officers whose job every day is to track down fugitive felons on the run."

The cops wearing the T-shirts were seen escorting a woman into the Queens courthouse at 125-01 Queens Boulevard on a misdemeanor charge.

As Gothamist notes, the T-shirts likely violate NYPD code, which prohibits "any item of apparel which contains a Department logo or shield, or in any way identifies its wearer with the New York City Police Department unless approved by the Uniform and Equipment Review Committee, prior to being worn by a member of the service, uniformed or civilian, on or off-duty."

It's also not the first time the quote-- taken correctly from Hemingway's 1936 essay, "On The Blue Water: A Gulf Stream Letter"- has been employed by NYPD brass.

Graham Rayman over at The Village Voice remembers:

In 1996, members of the Street Crime Unit, a plainclothes task force which roamed neighborhoods looking for guns, had T-shirts made with the same quote. In 1999, members of the Street Crime Unit shot unarmed Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo 41 times and killed him. The unit was later disbanded.

Former NYPD Commissioner Howard Safir also used the quote during a 60 Minutes interview when describing his work with the U.S. Marshalls Service.

NYPD officer Hasan Hamdy-- who a grand jury ruled wouldn't be indicted for fatally shooting unarmed National Guardsman Noel Polanco last year-- was a member of the Queens Warrant Squad.

My Life Under NYPD Surveillance: A Brooklyn Student and Charity Leader on Fear and Mistrust

By Asad Dandia

My name is Asad Dandia although friends know me as Ace. I am an American citizen, born in Brooklyn, where I have lived my whole life with my family. I am 20 years old, and I am a practicing Muslim.

I am currently a student at a CUNY community college, and I hope to become a social worker. Since November 2011, I have been active in a community-based charity and religious outreach group originally called Fesabeelillah Services of NYC (FSNYC), and now known as Muslims Giving Back.

Giving charity is one of the core principles of Islam, and as a Muslim, I feel it is my duty to help the needy members of my community, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In other words, my charity work is a central part of my religious practice.

I believe it is especially important for Muslim youth to contribute to society. Many Muslims of my generation are first or second generation Americans, so it is our responsibility to set the standard, to be active and positive contributors to our society, and to leave behind a legacy of good work for the next generation of American Muslims to take up. Our charitable work is gratifying and empowering, and helps us be better practicing Muslims, by allowing us to fulfill an intrinsic tenet of our faith.

FSNYC began as a charity serving low-income people in New York City. We helped the homeless, donated money to families in times of need, and fundraised to support these and other charitable activities.

In March 2012, a man named Shamiur Rahman messaged me on Facebook. I didn't know at the time that he was working as a police informant. Rahman told me he was trying to become a better practicing Muslim, and that he wanted to get involved with FSNYC. He asked me whether there were "any events or anything" he could attend soon. We had several friends in common, and I was happy to help him in his quest for religious self-improvement, so I introduced him to my friends in FSNYC. He started to attend all our meetings and became a part of my circle of friends. On several occasions, I invited him to my family's house, where he met my parents and ate with our family. Once, he spent the night in my family's home.

Rahman would ask everyone he met for their phone number, often within minutes of meeting them. He also often tried to take photos with or of people he met through me.

The next month, two friends separately told me that they had heard that NYPD informants had infiltrated FSNYC. I was advised to step down to avoid being targeted, but I decided not to step down because I knew that I had not done anything wrong. Still, I stopped publicizing FSNYC's activities and following up on many matters regarding the organization.

When I told other FSNYC members about the NYPD informant, one board member decided to be less active in the organization, and several members told me that they would stop their activities with our group largely because of their fear of being spied on by police informants. In June 2012, FSNYC stopped functioning.

I wanted to revive my religious charitable work and community service. Some friends and I created a new group called Muslims Giving Back. We took our first shopping trip in July 2012 to buy food to donate to needy families in our community. Throughout that summer, Muslims Giving Back worked to fundraise and distribute food donations to needy community members. During this time, Rahman remained active within Muslims Giving Back and our group of volunteers and friends.

On October 2, 2012, Rahman posted a message on Facebook in which he revealed that he had been employed by the NYPD as an informant and sent to infiltrate our community and organizations. Until that moment, I had no idea that Rahman was working for the NYPD as an informant.

When I learned the news, I froze. It was a terrifying feeling. I couldn't believe that an NYPD informant had been in my home. I feared even more for my family than for myself.

About 10 days later, a religious leader at my mosque, Masjid Omar, asked me to stop holding Muslims Giving Back meetings at the mosque—which, until then, had been our primary meeting place and a substantial source of our fundraising—and to avoid bringing new people to the mosque. The group's members now gather in front of the mosque, but do not meet inside of it. Instead, after we meet up, we go from the mosque to our food storage facility, and from there we make delivery rounds.

The Masjid Omar religious leader also said that Muslims Giving Back would no longer be permitted to solicit donations from congregants after Friday services. This has been a major blow to our organization, which had relied on these weekly calls to raise money for our work. As a result, Muslims Giving Back has struggled to raise the funds we need to buy food and serve our community's needs.

After Muslims Giving Back members learned that Rahman had sent a photo of some of us to the NYPD, we stopped posting public pictures of ourselves engaging in charity. We used to post these pictures as part of our community outreach, and to encourage other young Muslims to join us. Now, we worry our visibility will draw law enforcement attention. For example, on the Muslims Giving Back Facebook page, we only post photos of members with their faces blurred out. This hurts our ability to promote our work and to serve as an example to other young Muslims.

Our objective is to continue fulfilling our duty as Muslims and despite the difficulties, we still fundraise to purchase and deliver food to poor Muslim and non-Muslim families in the greater New York area. But our sense of community and trust has been damaged, and our organization's reputation and legitimacy has suffered. I used to try to be as inclusive and public as possible about my charitable work—now, I communicate mainly with people I know personally.

I still can't understand why people who are feeding the poor are being targeted by the NYPD. For me, Islam is about more than just praying at the mosque and fasting. Islam is about getting involved and engaging with the greater world. My friends and I do so by serving our community through helping those less fortunate. The NYPD surveillance program has made it harder for me to practice my religion, even though I have done nothing wrong. I am taking part in the lawsuit filed today so that I may again practice my religion freely, without fear. This lawsuit is a stand against injustice on behalf of my community, my family, and my organization.

Foreign politicians and officials who attended the 2009 G20 summit in London had their calls intercepted and computers monitored by the host country's government.

by Nathan Mattise

The impact of Edward Snowden's leaked information now extends beyond the NSA. Today, The Guardian reported that—according to documents uncovered by Snowden—foreign politicians and officials who attended the 2009 G20 summit in London had their calls intercepted and computers monitored by the host country's government.

The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the NSA's sister organization in the UK, used "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to spy on visiting diplomats according to The Guardian. Unlike the US spying drama being justified for national security, these G20 documents suggest this surveillance was for simple political gain.

The pure scale of the reported operation is impressive. Fake Internet cafes were set up with e-mail interception programs and key-logging software. Delegate BlackBerrys were monitored for phone call and e-mail information. And a total of 45 analysts had access to 24/7, real time telephone information from summit attendants. The documents apparently go into specific details, as The Guardian reported:

One document refers to a tactic which was "used a lot in recent UK conference, eg G20." The tactic, which is identified by an internal codeword which The Guardian is not revealing, is defined in an internal glossary as "active collection against an e-mail account that acquires mail messages without removing them from the remote server." A PowerPoint slide explains that this means "reading people's e-mail before/as they do."

The documents state that the overall initiative was "very successful" during its six months of operation. The timing of this leak is particularly fitting as the UK is set to host the G8 nations for a conference this week.

The Government’s Spying Is Not As Bad As The Whistleblower Said … It’s WORSE

Whistleblower Claims Validated … and Then Some

The government is attacking whistleblower Edward Snowden by claiming that he was lying about the scope of the NSA’s spying on Americans.

However, CNET reports today:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler’s disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii “wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president.”

***

Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls — in case an analyst needed to access the recordings in the future. A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established “listening posts” that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, “whether they originate within the country or overseas.” That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.

***

A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA “may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.” A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically — on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to “target” a specific American citizen.

***

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency’s analysts have the ability to access the “content of a call.”

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA’s surveillance process involves “billions” of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.

***

Former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN last month that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously made telephone call. “All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not,” he said. Clemente added in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the “intelligence community” — an apparent reference to the NSA — “there’s a way to look at digital communications in the past.”

Remember that Snowden also revealed that the NSA is tapping into the servers of 9 big internet companies. Two government officials have admitted that as many as 50 American companies are now feeding the NSA with real-time user data. And we’ve documented that the NSA gives information gained through spying to large corporations.

Bloomberg reports:

Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said. [We documented Tuesday that the government is illegally spying on all Americans ... and then giving the info to giant corporations.]

These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden ….

Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries.

Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords.

***

Microsoft and other software or Internet security companies have been aware that this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments, according to two U.S. officials. Microsoft doesn’t ask and can’t be told how the government uses such tip-offs, said the officials, who asked not to be identified because the matter is confidential.

***

Some U.S. telecommunications companies willingly provide intelligence agencies with access to facilities and data offshore that would require a judge’s order if it were done in the U.S.…

***

Most of the arrangements are so sensitive that only a handful of people in a company know of them, and they are sometimes brokered directly between chief executive officers and the heads of the U.S.’s major spy agencies, the people familiar with those programs said.

Michael Hayden, who formerly directed the National Security Agency and the CIA, described the attention paid to important company partners: “If I were the director and had a relationship with a company who was doing things that were not just directed by law but were also valuable to the defense of the Republic, I would go out of my way to thank them and give them a sense as to why this is necessary and useful.”

***

Intel’s McAfee unit, which makes Internet security software, regularly cooperates with the NSA, FBI and the CIA, for example ….

***

In exchange, leaders of companies are showered with attention and information by the agencies to help maintain the relationship, the person said.

***

Following an attack on his company by Chinese hackers in 2010, Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, was provided with highly sensitive government intelligence linking the attack to a specific unit of the People’s Liberation Army, China’s military, according to one of the people, who is familiar with the government’s investigation. Brin was given a temporary classified clearance to sit in on the briefing, the person said.

According to information provided by Snowden, Google, owner of the world’s most popular search engine, had at that point been a Prism participant for more than a year.

***

The information provided by Snowden also exposed a secret NSA program known as Blarney. As the program was described in the Washington Post (WPO), the agency gathers metadata on computers and devices that are used to send e-mails or browse the Internet through principal data routes, known as a backbone.

That metadata includes which version of the operating system, browser and Java software are being used on millions of devices around the world, information that U.S. spy agencies could use to infiltrate those computers or phones and spy on their users.

“It’s highly offensive information,” said Glenn Chisholm, the former chief information officer for Telstra Corp (TLS)., one of Australia’s largest telecommunications companies, contrasting it to defensive information used to protect computers rather than infiltrate them.

According to Snowden’s information, Blarney’s purpose is “to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence,” the Post said.

***

Lawmakers who oversee U.S. intelligence agencies may not understand the significance of some of the metadata being collected, said Jacob Olcott, a former cybersecurity assistant for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

“That’s what makes this issue of oversight so challenging,” said Olcott, now a principal at Good Harbor Security Risk Management in Washington. “You have a situation where the technology and technical policy is far outpacing the background and expertise of most elected members of Congress or their staffs.”

While companies are offered powerful inducements to cooperate with U.S. intelligence, many executives are motivated by patriotism or a sense they are defending national security, the people familiar with the trusted partner programs said.

Indeed, former top NSA executives Thomas Drake and William Binney, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez – a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities – and others say that Snowden’s revelations are only “the tip of the iceberg”.

AP reports:

Interviews with more than a dozen current and former government and technology officials and outside experts show that, while Prism has attracted the recent attention, the program actually is a relatively small part of a much more expansive and intrusive eavesdropping effort.  

Americans who disapprove of the government reading their emails have more to worry about from a different and larger NSA effort that snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet’s backbone. That program … copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis.

***

Deep in the oceans, hundreds of cables carry much of the world’s phone and Internet traffic. Since at least the early 1970s, the NSA has been tapping foreign cables. It doesn’t need permission. That’s its job.

But Internet data doesn’t care about borders. Send an email from Pakistan to Afghanistan and it might pass through a mail server in the United States, the same computer that handles messages to and from Americans. The NSA is prohibited from spying on Americans or anyone inside the United States. That’s the FBI’s job and it requires a warrant.

Despite that prohibition, shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to plug into the fiber optic cables that enter and leave the United States, knowing it would give the government unprecedented, warrantless access to Americans’ private conversations.

Tapping into those cables allows the NSA access to monitor emails, telephone calls, video chats, websites, bank transactions and more. It takes powerful computers to decrypt, store and analyze all this information, but the information is all there, zipping by at the speed of light.

“You have to assume EVERYTHING is being collected,” said Bruce Schneier, who has been studying and writing about cryptography and computer security for two decades.

***

The New York Times disclosed the existence of this effort in 2005. In 2006, former AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed that the company had allowed the NSA to install a computer at its San Francisco switching center, a spot where fiber optic cables enter the U.S.

***

Americans’ personal emails can live in government computers, but analysts can’t access, read or listen to them unless the emails become relevant to a national security investigation.

The government doesn’t automatically delete the data, officials said, because an email or phone conversation that seems innocuous today might be significant a year from now.

***

Two decades from now, the government could have a trove of American emails and phone records it can tap to investigative whatever Congress declares a threat to national security.

***

In slide made public by the newspapers, NSA analysts were encouraged to use data coming from both Prism and from the fiber-optic cables.

Prism, as its name suggests, helps narrow and focus the stream. If eavesdroppers spot a suspicious email among the torrent of data pouring into the United States, analysts can use information from Internet companies to pinpoint the user.

With Prism, the government gets a user’s entire email inbox. Every email, including contacts with American citizens, becomes government property.

Once the NSA has an inbox, it can search its huge archives for information about everyone with whom the target communicated. All those people can be investigated, too.

That’s one example of how emails belonging to Americans can become swept up in the hunt.

In that way, Prism helps justify specific, potentially personal searches. But it’s the broader operation on the Internet fiber optics cables that actually captures the data, experts agree.

“I’m much more frightened and concerned about real-time monitoring on the Internet backbone,” said Wolf Ruzicka, CEO of EastBanc Technologies, a Washington software company. “I cannot think of anything, outside of a face-to-face conversation, that they could not have access to.”

***

Schneier, the author and security expert, said it doesn’t really matter how Prism works, technically. Just assume the government collects everything, he said.

He said it doesn’t matter what the government and the companies say, either …. “No one is telling the truth.”

App pays you to spot illegally parked cars

Becoming a bounty hunter may soon get a lot easier.

SpotSquad is a mobile phone application in the works that allows users to report illegally parked cars and get a cut of the fine paid as a reward.

Created by a technology startup in Winnipeg, Canada, the app aims to crowdsource parking enforcement at privately run lots and potentially on public streets.

The reporting process is as simple as taking a photo of the car, which is GPS tagged while optical character recognition reads and records the license plate number, then choosing from a list the type of infraction observed -- everything from expired meters to unauthorized parking in a handicapped spot.

Based on the location of the vehicle, the report is automatically sent to the operator of the lot, or local law enforcement if it’s on public property. Then personnel is dispatched to issue a notice, ticket or have it towed.

Company co-founder Chris Johnson tells FoxNews.com that last point is important, as the photos and reports themselves will not be submitted as evidence in court, at least not at this stage.

Down the road, if the system proves to be effective, he thinks it’s possible that laws could be written to allow it to be directly involved in issuing citations, but for now is intended to be used more along the lines of a smartphone-based Crime Stoppers program for these minor offenses.

SpotSquad is in talks with several parking lot management companies, and hopes to have a pilot program up and running in Winnipeg by July, according to Johnson.

Details are still being worked out, but the proposed business model would see the company take a percentage of the fine paid, which it will then split with the reporting user on an increasing scale, depending on the number of successful reports they’ve filed. Ranks ranging from Private to General bring a gaming aspect to the experience.

Although SpotSquad is currently focused on the Canadian market, Johnson definitely sees an opportunity to expand into the United States, where there are approximately 10 times as many drivers as in its neighbor to the north.

As for people who might take issue with it, he says "just read the signs, follow the rules and you won’t have a problem."

It's Come To This: Commentators Arguing That The Press Commits A Crime In Exposing NSA Surveillance

Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President Bush, apparently really hates it when government overreach is exposed. We last mentioned him when he attacked Wikileaks in the aftermath of its publishing of various State Department cables. Now, with the new NSA surveillance scandal, he's back (of course) and taking the lovely position that it's perfectly fine to charge journalists who publish information about NSA surveillance with crimes.

Greenwald’s crime is violating 18 USC § 798, which makes it a criminal act to publish classified information revealing government cryptography or communications intelligence.

The law is absolutely clear. It states: “Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes , or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Of course, there's also that fancy First Amendment, which Thiessen would prefer to ignore:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It would appear that 18 USC 798 is exactly what is forbidden by the First Amendment. It is a law abridging the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Defenders of Thiessen and the NSA will point out that there are lots of times the courts have said this is okay, but I'm not sure what kind of defense that is, other than nitpicking why the First Amendment is something to ignore. Personally, I think that the First Amendment is fairly important, and worry about any laws that appear to push back on the basic concept of it.

Indefinite Detention of Americans Survives House Vote

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted again Thursday to allow the indefinite military detention of Americans, blocking an amendment that would have barred the possibility.

Congress wrote that authority into law in the National Defense Authorization Act two years ago, prompting outrage from civil libertarians on the left and right. President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it.

Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 200 to 226.

But opponents, among them the Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered the amendment to end that authority, argued that such detention is a stain on the Constitution that unnecessarily militarizes U.S. law enforcement.

"It is a dangerous step toward executive and military power to allow things like indefinite detention under military control within the U.S.," Smith said. "That's the heart and essence of this issue."

Smith's amendment, which also had Republican sponsors including Reps. Chris Gibson (N.Y.) and Justin Amash (Mich.), would guarantee that anyone arrested in the United States gets a trial.

Republican opponents argued that such a move would just invite terrorists to come to the United States, citing the recent Boston bombings and the consulate attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as evidence that terrorists were determined to harm the U.S. They said that applying the Constitution on U.S. soil amounted to a free pass to people bent on trying to destroy the country.

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), compared ending indefinite detention to giving someone a free pass in a game of hide-and-seek.

"There was a phrase in that game called 'olly olly oxen free' -- meant you could come out, you were safe, you no longer had to hide," Cotton argued. "This amendment is the olly olly oxen free amendment of the war on terrorism. It invites Al Qaeda and associated forces to send terrorists to the Untied States and recruit terrorists on U.S. soil."

Smith was not impressed by the argument, noting that more than 400 terrorists have been captured, tried and convicted in the United States.

"No one who we have captured in the U.S. as a terrorist have we failed to convict," said Smith, noting the 2009 arrest and prosecution of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "underwear bomber." "Let's trust the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't threaten us. The Constitution protects us."

Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (Va.) offered a substitute amendment that barely passed -- 214 to 211 -- to affirm the habeus corpus rights of U.S. suspects to be presented to a judge, but Smith and others said it did little. Indeed, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of all terrorism suspects to be presented to a judge, and passing a measure that would limit habeus to Americans would actually limit the right, said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).

"The notion that the United States should conduct itself according to the Constitution and the law of war should not be controversial," said Nadler.

Another measure that passed on a voice vote was a requirement that the administration report to Congress if Americans do get held by the military. But Smith said neither of those measures did much.

"The fundamental question is, do you believe that the president should have the power to indefinitely detain people who are captured in the U.S. without normal due proess of law?" Smith said. "The rest of this just sort of moves it around on the edges but very clearly leaves that power with the president -- a power that I don't think he should have."

US Chamber Of Commerce: Bollywood Is So Successful Without Strong Copyrights That It Will Fail Unless India Strengthens Its Copyrights

The US Chamber of Commerce, the giant lobbying organization who led the fight for SOPA/PIPA, is apparently so invested in "must have stronger copyright laws" that it doesn't even bother making sense any more. It's released a bizarre statement claiming that India needs stronger copyright laws, because Bollywood is so successful. Right upfront, it notes how successful things have been:

Boasting the largest film industry in the world, the creative sector lies at the heart of the Indian culture and economy. As one of India’s largest employment sectors, an endless array of local professionals from technical, theatrical, and creative backgrounds are helping churn out 1,000 films in more than 20 languages annually.

You'd think those are signs that copyright law was working (largest film industry in the world, largest employment sectors, over 1,000 films produced annually -- about double Hollywood) and that this would imply that whatever level of copyright there is in India -- which is supposed to be an incentive to creativity -- was doing a decent job. But, no, apparently it's all broken.

The government, however, must improve national intellectual property (IP) laws and enforcement if it is going to seize on this opportunity and gain recognition in the global market and further empower local creators.

Hmm. Wait, you just said that it's the world's largest film industry and an unqualified success. So, why does it need to improve those laws and enforcement?

Specifically, Indian copyright law is unclear with the 2012 Copyright Act amendments further complicating and contradicting previous rule of law. Furthermore, the 2012 Act provides for broad exceptions that are incompatible with international norms. Also measuring relatively loware enforcement efforts, which are weak in application and don’t provide widely available civil and procedural remedies for copyright infringement.

And, yet, this laxity incentivized the creation of nearly double the films that Hollywood produces. Perhaps -- and I'm just suggesting things here -- the "international norms" and the higher levels of enforcement are holding back the industries elsewhere. If anything, this report seems to suggest that other countries should move towards broad exceptions, since it appears to have been quite successful in India.

Furthermore, much of the paper seems to suggest that India needs to fix its copyright laws to embrace the international opportunity for its films -- but that (again) makes no sense. India's IP laws don't apply outside of India, so they have no impact on the international opportunities, which are governed by other IP laws. And, again, if the industry is doing great in India (with little enforcement and greater exceptions), doesn't this indicate that India should push for the same elsewhere to better embrace that international opportunity?

It's quite a world in which the US Chamber of Commerce seems to be arguing that an example of a success story should lead to that successful model emulating less successful markets. I don't know how much money the MPAA pays the US Chamber of Commerce for these kinds of pieces, but it's not getting its money's worth.

What happened to David Mery, the techy who was arrested as a terrorist in a London tube station because of his coat

David Mery


[Editor's note: I mentioned the arrest of technology editor David Mery in my recent Guardian column on Prism; he wrote in to correct some details and explain the astounding circumstances of how Britain's absurd war on terror caught him in its mesh for the crime of wearing a coat in the summer -CD]




I was observed directly when I entered Southwark tube station and then on CCTV. All the time it was by Met police officers. To my knowledge no computer algorithms were involved. In Naked Citizen, Patrick Hafner mixes the interview he did with me and some CCTV recognition algorithms, but the two are not directly related. The Met police officers at the entrance of the station were those who found my behaviour suspicious and decided initially to stop and search me under s44 of the Terrorism Act.

Who exactly took the decision to arrest me and the choice of legislation is less clear, as it appears that initially officers wanted to arrest me under the Terrorism Act but were overruled and decided on Public Nuisance (which can still carry a life sentence).

The Met and IPCC investigation files are still retained (until 2015 and 2014) but my police national computer record was deleted as well as my fingerprints and DNA, and I eventually also got the photographs back. The short version of the whole story is here.

That I let a tube train pass by without boarding it is the only important dispute in the police version of events and mine. That's the police version. Mine is that I tried to board the first train that arrived, but was then stopped by the police.

The Metropolitan Police never got the CCTV footage (the officer in charge was told to do so by his superior but never did and is the main reason he got some warning), Transport for London retained it only for 14 days and I asked for it too late.

The BTP apparently did have it, but did not give it to me and have no idea what happened to it. (I wrote this up and the first requests)

What is more relevant in the context of your story is that unrelated intelligence on file that was linked to work connections was a input in the decision to arrest me.

As I wrote: 'The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me instead of releasing me. It was because of my connection with my employer. Apparently, on August 4th, 2004 there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. (The next day I find out that there had indeed been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp worker claiming there was an armed intruder in one of the buildings.)

Also that some staff had been seen taking photographs of trains at the tube station with a camera phone. (Most of my colleagues do have camera phones – also on 2nd June, as part of a team building exercise, new graduates were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman.)'

As you probably know, and as it no longer exist there's no issue in now naming my then employer, it was Symbian. As the provider of the OS for the then majority of smartphone, Symbian obviously must have had some relationship with GCHQ at least for export control regulation of encryption.

Your conclusion about my experience: 'Once a computer ascribes suspiciousness to someone, everything else in that person's life becomes sinister and inexplicable.' remains entirely valid and is why I fought so hard to expunge my records and help fight for other innocents as well. I've included a short list of examples of why this suspiciousness may make one's like sinister (in the context of the NDNAD) here.