Snowdon is a dummy

New York Times
Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?
By VICKI DIVOLL
Published: January 16, 2013


PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

It certainly explains why we our government and the chancellor(s) are thought to be receptive to terrorism and a danger for the security of US-citizens.

Walter...you can do better than that!

We spy...you spy...all god;s chillen do spyin'!

I would be absolutely amazed if ANY governmental official of our country actually thought the state of Germany or any Chancellor thereof...IS RECEPTIVE to terrorism against the US...or is a particular danger to the security of the US.

Well, Frank, you wrote numerous times here on this thread that the NSA keeps the USA safe and citizens secure.

And most if not all US-politicians said they same ... and that the program is helpful against terrorism, keeps citizens secure ... did I say that already? ... has nothing to do with economic espionage ...

We are talking here about the NSA and not the CIA,isn't it?

Following Roger’s allegations, on Sunday, a senior FBI official told the New York Times that it was the bureau’s conclusion that Snowden had acted alone.

Absolutely kafkaesque!!!!

So it is in Moscow that Snowden remains. Kucherena gently reminded the world that if he did try and leave, he would forfeit his asylum status. He is a guest of the Russian Federation, whether he likes it or not. And, in some sense, its captive. No one quite knows how long his exile might last. Months? Years? Decades?

It is a sad marriage when you feel the need to spy on your own wife or husband and it is a sad nation where the government feel the need to do massive spying on it own people.

I always was raised with the understanding that only totalitarian governments did mass spying on everyday citizens and the very idea that my government would used my money to spy on me is as annoying as if my wife did not trust me and would used household funds to hired a private detective to shadow me.

You might feel like you wish to live in a totalitarian/total surveillance state but most of the American people by the polls do not share you love for a police state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/nobel-writers-nsa-_n_4414951.html

Some of the world's most famous writers have signed an open appeal against the National Security Agency that says the U.S. government's mass surveillance chills freedom of thought.

Nobel laureates Orhan Pamuk, J.M. Coetzee, Elfriede Jelinek, Günter Grass and Tomas Tranströmer are among hundreds of "writers against mass surveillance" worldwide who have signed the open appeal, which calls on governments and corporations to respect citizens' privacy rights.

"Surveillance violates the private sphere and compromises freedom of thought and opinion," the appeal says. "As we have seen, this power is being systemically abused."

Other notable signers include Richard Ford, Margaret Atwood, Umberto Eco, Yann Martel, Dave Eggers, Colum McCann, Sapphire, Ian McEwan, and Don DeLillo. In Europe the appeal was released on Tuesday -- Human Rights Day.

The writers' statement asks the United Nations to create an international bill of digital rights. The U.S., along with surveillance partners that include the United Kingdom and Australia, have sought to weaken a U.N. resolution that would express support for digital privacy.

"We are really very worried about mass surveillance," said Janne Teller, a Danish writer who helped organize the open message. "We think it's undermining democracy totally, and we are shocked that more people aren't up in arms about it,"

Teller said she doesn't believe writers are threatened more than ordinary citizens by mass surveillance, but their work makes them particularly attuned to its dangers.

"I think it's quite significant when you have 560 or so of the greatest contemporary writers, from all across the world, expressing a very serious concern, because these are people who always work on the big philosophical questions of life," Teller said. "Hopefully their concern matters to politicians."

Last month, the writers' rights group PEN released survey results that found a "chilling effect" from disclosures of the NSA's mass surveillance. American writers polled by the group said they have avoided mentioning controversial topics and criticizing the government.

Teller, who lives in New York, said she hopes Americans will join the writers' outrage over mass surveillance by adding their names to a public version of the appeal.

"This undermines all the freedoms and values that I otherwise love about America," Teller said. "So I can't understand why Americans can accept mass surveillance in this way, it's totally against the freedom ideals."

Read the full document, "A Stand for Democracy in the Digital Age," below. A full list of signatories is available here.

In recent months, the extent of mass surveillance has become common knowledge. With a few clicks of the mouse the state can access your mobile device, your e-mail, your social networking and Internet searches. It can follow your political leanings and activities and, in partnership with Internet corporations, it collects and stores your data, and thus can predict your consumption and behaviour.
The basic pillar of democracy is the inviolable integrity of the individual. Human integrity extends beyond the physical body. In their thoughts and in their personal environments and communications, all humans have the right to remain unobserved and unmolested.

This fundamental human right has been rendered null and void through abuse of technological developments by states and corporations for mass surveillance purposes.

A person under surveillance is no longer free; a society under surveillance is no longer a democracy. To maintain any validity, our democratic rights must apply in virtual as in real space.

* Surveillance violates the private sphere and compromises freedom of thought and opinion.

* Mass surveillance treats every citizen as a potential suspect. It overturns one of our historical triumphs, the presumption of innocence.

* Surveillance makes the individual transparent, while the state and the corporation operate in secret. As we have seen, this power is being systemically abused.

* Surveillance is theft. This data is not public property: it belongs to us. When it is used to predict our behaviour, we are robbed of something else: the principle of free will crucial to democratic liberty.

WE DEMAND THE RIGHT for all people, as democratic citizens, to determine to what extent their personal data may be collected, stored and processed, and by whom; to obtain information on where their data is stored and how it is being used; to obtain the deletion of their data if it has been illegally collected and stored.

WE CALL ON ALL STATES AND CORPORATIONS to respect these rights.

WE CALL ON ALL CITIZENS to stand up and defend these rights.

WE CALL ON THE UNITED NATIONS to acknowledge the central importance of protecting civil rights in the digital age, and to create an International Bill of Digital Rights.

WE CALL ON GOVERNMENTS to sign and adhere to such a convention.

A person under surveillance is no longer free; a society under surveillance is no longer a democracy. To maintain any validity, our democratic rights must apply in virtual as in real space.

* Surveillance violates the private sphere and compromises freedom of thought and opinion.

* Mass surveillance treats every citizen as a potential suspect. It overturns one of our historical triumphs, the presumption of innocence.

* Surveillance makes the individual transparent, while the state and the corporation operate in secret. As we have seen, this power is being systemically abused.

* Surveillance is theft. This data is not public property: it belongs to us. When it is used to predict our behaviour, we are robbed of something else: the principle of free will crucial to democratic liberty.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/surveillance-states-and-the-end-of-freedom/

Surveillance States and the End of Freedom
2013 AUGUST 19
by Ian Welsh
The detention of David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald’s husband has led to much hand wringing. He was forced to give up the passwords to his phone and his computer, was threatened with jail, and was only allowed to have a lawyer if he chose one of the police’s list. He was not, of course, allowed to be silent. This is the law, nothing illegal was done.

But of more interest to me is an article by Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian. He details the threats made by the government if he did not destroy or hand over the files, including the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian’s basement. The most telling graph is this one:

The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes – and, increasingly, it looks like “when”.

We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most reporting – indeed, most human life in 2013 – leaves too much of a digital fingerprint.

It’s not just digital in the sense of online. Again the endgame is this: recognition software linked to cameras, drones, even spy satellites. Facial recognition, gait recognition, IR signatures and more. This stuff is pretty reliable. You will be tracked 24/7. You will go nowhere without it being possible to know where you have gone. You will do nothing online without it being tracked. The hysteria over online bullying will be used to make online anonymity (as limited as it already is), straight up illegal.

Everything you do will be tracked. Audio is being added to many cameras now, as well, so they won’t just see what you do, they will hear it. Fools will dismiss this as paranoia, it is simply fact, this is the end game, this is where the surveillance web leads, when you add the telecom revolution on top of this. This is more intrusive than what Orwell had in Big Brother, because they didn’t record, if someone wasn’t listening at the time, you were ok.

I have long said that I will know people are serious about change when it is a public ethic that a surveillance camera is evil, and the moment one is put up, it is destroyed. If you want to stop this short of that, you will need draconian laws.

1) No audio surveillance. Period.

2) The government cannot use surveillance to follow, watch or listen to anyone without a court warrant. That court warrant expires in X years (probably 3), and once it expires, the person is given all records gained. Furthermore there can be no blanket court orders, every one must be individual.

3) No public cameras. If you need a place watched, hire someone to do it. We have an unemployment problem anyway.

4) Private surveillance cameras in private places only, no transmission of those records off-site, no linking of those records to anything else (the standard practice in many stores is to photograph you as you pay and link that to your credit card) and all records are destroyed after 24 hours. This applies not just to customers, but to employees, who should have rights as well. As a business the results of their work are your business, the second by second record of how they do the job is rarely your business and if it is, hire a supervisor.

5) A right to privacy. The current laws assume that if you are in a public place you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Those laws were not made with blanket surveillance and the telecom revolution in mind. To put it in vulgar terms, regular photography is ok, but you cannot be stalked. Someone cannot follow you around, photographing you, whether in person or remotely, without your permission, the above mentioned court-order or perhaps, reasonable suspicion you are about to commit a crime. I”m leery of the last, simply because of the abuse of such clauses we’ve seen from the police. (ie. good laws cannot protect bad people, see Machiavelli.)

All of the above laws must be backed up with criminal sentences, not fines, or they will not be obeyed.

As I have said repeatedly, individuals have the right to know what their government is doing, and government has no right to know what citizens are doing except under very prescribed circumstances.

If you want some form of surveillance, the only good form would be making sure that every police officer has a camera on them at all times. Even that I have doubts about, since sometimes it actually is best to let someone off with a warning.

A working society requires people to have discretion and use it. No set of laws works in all circumstances. But as with children, if they won’t use their discretion, if they won’t behave properly, then draconian laws are necessary. It is clear that our lords and masters think they have a right to track us 24/7. That can’t be allowed, and what will happen if it occurs (and it’s close) is far worse than a few criminals getting away because there wasn’t a camera nearby.