Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
Updated on 8/7/2013.
COMMENT: Before doing summary posts (or, perhaps, broadcasts in lieu of that) we highlight some additional, devastatingly interesting developments in connection with L’Affaire Snowden.
We have done numerous posts since the beginning of this dance macabre, and emphatically encourage users of this website to study them at length and in detail: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV, Part XV, Part XVI. It is well beyond the scope of this article to sum up the information presented in them. Users of this website are emphatically encouraged to examine them at length and detail.
In this post, we note more interesting developments in EU defense and intelligence posture, justified as an outgrowth of the Snowden “disclosures” (note the quotes.) Perhaps even more significantly, we highlight potential developments vis a vis the future of The Internet which may drastically affect the American economy and world affairs.
Taken together, these developments MIGHT signal the beginning of a Third World War–perhaps economic in nature and/or military. The implications for U.S. internet business and the American economy could not be exaggerated.
We note that this massive, critically important series will be “downloaded” as a series of broadcasts presently.
A number of considerations to be weighed in this post:
- In our last post, we speculated: “Will the collaboration between NSA and BND be decoupled, “by popular request” and “in keeping with democratic principle,” after the disclosures by Snowden?”
- That same day, just such a measure was announced! (See text excerpts below.)
- We note, again, that Germany does EXACTLY the same thing! The Germans are planning on expanding their program!
- Supposedly justified by Snowden’s disclosures, the EU is developing its own military force, internet surveillance and intelligence service. Will this be used against troubled eurozone austerity victims, or against the U.S. and/or U.K.? We highlighted this in our last post.
- The damage to U.S. internet business–and the U.S. economy–appears more and more likely as a result of “Snowden’s ride.” (See text excerpts below.)
- A German minister has floated the idea of banning Google and other U.S. companies from doing business in Europe as a result of the Snowden disclosures. (See text excerpts below.)
- Beyond damage to the U.S. economy, the regulation of the internet may gravitate more toward a U.N.–controlled paradigm, much as China and Russia have been endorsing. This adds still greater dimension to Snowden’s decamping first to China and then to Russia. (See text excerpts below.)
- In past posts, we have speculated that the “psy-op” that Snowden and the Underground Reich structure that commands him may intend to alienate to younger, more idealistic voters from Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. That remains a key part of our analysis. We also note that the fallout from the psy-op may propel the big money in Silicon Valley toward the Nazified GOP in upcoming elections. In addition, focus on the NSA scandal will detract attention and support from Obama’s attempts at realizing his political agenda.
- We stress, yet again, that blaming all of this on “NSA spying” is misplaced. This information has, almost in its entirety, been public for years. Indeed, as we stress, yet again, a European Parliament report on this very phenomenon (NSA/Echelon/Menwith Hill) was published shortly before the 9/11 attacks. (See text excerpts below.)
- We should also emphasize that the Third World War would be waged in true Von Clausewitz style. It will be done through “Other Means.”
- Economics and politics would be used, on the balance, instead of military means with regard to the United States, as expressed to Dorothy Thompson in 1940. Proxy war, using the Muslim Brotherhood, seems altogether likely. Drones would make an effective force against dissident European nations and peoples, so that German citizens would not have to join combatant ranks. Another effective device would be Tesla/HAARP technology, such as tornado manipulation, already “on the table.”
- On the day after this post was published, two developments reinforce our working hypothesis. As reported by The New York Times, threats against U.S. embassies in North Africa (made by Al Qaeda) have increased. U.K. facilities also appear to be threatened. This will ramp up divisions in the United Stats over NSA surveillance, as well as exacerbating tensions between the U.S. and other countries over that same issue. As discussed in so many posts and programs, Al Qaeda is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Underground Reich’s proxy warriors and Germany’s erstwhile allies in World War II. In our last post, we speculated about just such an eventuality! One wonders if these threats were real or simply “chatter” generated to test and overextend the monitoring capabilities of U.S. and U.K. intel. (See text excerpts below.)
- In that same issue of The New York Times, there was a story about the effect of the GOP-mandated sequester on the U.S. economy–disastrous in a word. Manifesting “Kamikaze economics,” the GOP is forcing German-endorsed austerity on the United States at a time when we cannot afford it, in diametric opposition to fundamental economic theory and practice. This will further damage the U.S. economy and military, realizing Von Clausewitz’s goals for Germany, vis a vis the United States. (See text excerpts below.)
- In an update, we note that a casualty of Snowden’s Ride may be plans for U.S. cyberdefense. Whether this ends up enabling a future cyberterrorist incident remains to be seen. (See text excerpts below.)
- Yet another update by the vigilant “Pterrafractyl” informs us that both China and–surprise–Germany and the EU are pushing for developing technology to compete with U.S. technology. This will undoubtedly damage the U.S. economy.
EXCERPT: Germany canceled a Cold War-era surveillance pact with the United States and Britain on Friday in response to revelations by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden about those countries’ alleged electronic eavesdropping operations.
Chancellor Angela Merkel had raised the issue of alleged National Security Agency spying with President Barack Obama when he visited Berlin in June. But with weeks to go before national elections, opposition parties had demanded clarity about the extent to which her government knew of the intelligence gathering operations directed at Germany and German citizens.
Government officials have insisted that U.S. and British intelligence were never given permission to break Germany’s strict privacy laws. But they conceded that an agreement dating back to the late 1960s gave the U.S., Britain and France the right to request German authorities to conduct surveillance operations within Germany to protect their troops stationed there.
“The cancellation of the administrative agreements, which we have pushed for in recent weeks, is a necessary and proper consequence of the recent debate about protecting personal privacy,” Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in a statement. . . .
EXCERPT: This column over the weekend, by the British academic John Naughton in the Guardian, takes us one more step in assessing the damage to American interests in the broadest sense– commercial, strategic, ideological — from the panopticon approach to “security” brought to us by NSA-style monitoring programs.
Naughton’s essay doesn’t technically tell us anything new. For instance, see earlier reports like this, this, and this. But it does sharpen the focus in a useful way. Whoever wrote the headline and especially the subhead did a great job of capturing the gist:
Edward Snowden’s not the story. The fate of the internet is.
The press has lost the plot over the Snowden revelations. The fact is that the net is finished as a global network and that US firms’ cloud services cannot be trusted.
In short: because of what the U.S. government assumed it could do with information it had the technological ability to intercept, American companies and American interests are sure to suffer in their efforts to shape and benefit from the Internet’s continued growth.
* American companies, because no foreigners will believe these firms can guarantee security from U.S. government surveillance;
* American interests, because the United States has gravely compromised its plausibility as world-wide administrator of the Internet’s standards and advocate for its open, above-politics goals.
Why were U.S. authorities in a position to get at so much of the world’s digital data in the first place? Because so many of the world’s customers have trusted* U.S.-based firms like Google, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc with their data; and because so many of the world’s nations have tolerated an info-infrastructure in which an outsized share of data flows at some point through U.S. systems. Those are the conditions of trust and toleration that likely will change.
The problem for the companies, it’s worth emphasizing, is not that they were so unduly eager to cooperate with U.S. government surveillance. Many seem to have done what they could to resist. The problem is what the U.S. government — first under Bush and Cheney, now under Obama and Biden — asked them to do. [This, by the way is wrong. It predates both Bush/Cheney and Obama Biden. I discussed this on air, from open sources, well before either team assumed power. This highlights my statement that; “Journalists are like a flock of birds. When one lands, they all land. When one flies away, they all fly away.”–D.E.] As long as they operate in U.S. territory and under U.S. laws, companies like Google or Facebook had no choice but to comply. But people around the world who have a choice about where to store their data, may understandably choose to avoid leaving it with companies subject to the way America now defines its security interests.
Here’s Naughton’s version of the implications:
The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty….
EXCERPT: With the NSA spying scandal continuing to make headlines in Europe, the German Justice Minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, has raised the possibility of new, tangible measures to punish corporations that participate in American spying activities. In an interview with Die Welt, the liberal Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger called for the creation of EU-wide rules to regulate the protection of information, and said that, once those rules are in place, “United States companies that don’t abide by these standards should be denied doing business in the European market.”
Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said that a package of EU measures is required in order to fight “the widespread spying of foreign spy services” and that German data protection laws should be a yardstick for the rest of the European Union — German privacy laws are considerably tighter than those of the United States and much of Europe.
German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich also raised corporate accountability in July, when he suggested requiring European firms to report any data they hand over to foreign countries. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, who is running for reelection in September as part of the pro-business Free Democratic Party, did not further specify which kinds of penalties she would like American companies to face, though it seems unlikely that Europe would completely ban companies like Google, which dominate the online search market, or Facebook from doing business. Both of those companies were implicated in the documents leaked by former intelligence worker Edward Snowden.
It is the latest development in a German election season that has come to be dominated by online privacy issues. Chancellor Angela Merkel has faced widespread criticism from the opposition for her handling of the NSA scandal and Peer Steinbrück, the Chancellor candidate of the opposition SPD party, recently told German television channel ZDF that Merkel should demand written assurances from the Americans they will respect German laws and interests and not engage in industrial espionage . . . .
EXCERPT: One year ago, many users were engaged in a contentious debate over the question of who should govern the Internet. The debate pitted the current model led by a U.S.-based organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, supported by the U.S.) against a government-led, United Nations-style model under which countries such as China and Russia could assert greater control over Internet governance. The differences between the two approaches were never as stark as some portrayed since the current model grants the U.S. considerable contractual power over ICANN, but the fear of greater foreign government control over the Internet led to strong political opposition to UN involvement.
While supporters of the current model ultimately prevailed at a UN conference in Dubai last December where most Western democracies, including Canada, strongly rejected major Internet governance reforms, the issue was fundamentally about trust. Given that all governments have become more vocal about Internet matters, the debate was never over whether government would be involved, but rather about who the global Internet community trusted to lead on governance matters. . . .
. . . . Not only do the surveillance programs themselves raise enormous privacy and civil liberties concerns, but oversight and review is conducted almost entirely in secret with little or no ability to guard against misuse. In fact, U.S. officials have now acknowledged providing inaccurate information on the programs to elected politicians, raising further questions about who is watching the watchers.
The surveillance programs have emerged as a contentious political issue in the U.S., and there are several reasons why the reverberations are likely to extend to the global Internet governance community.
First, the element of trust has been severely compromised. Supporters of the current Internet governance model frequently pointed to Internet surveillance and the lack of accountability within countries such as China and Russia as evidence of the danger of a UN-led model. With the public now aware of the creation of a massive, secret U.S.-backed Internet surveillance program, the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue.
Second, as the scope of the surveillance becomes increasingly clear, many countries are likely to opt for a balkanized Internet in which they do not trust other countries with the security or privacy of their networked communications. This could lead to new laws requiring companies to store their information domestically to counter surveillance of the data as it crosses borders or resides on computer servers located in the U.S. In fact, some may go further by resisting the interoperability of the Internet that we now take for granted.
Third, some of those same countries may demand similar levels of access to personal information from the Internet giants. This could create a “privacy race to the bottom,” where governments around the world create parallel surveillance programs, ensuring that online privacy and co-operative Internet governance is a thing of the past. . . .
EXCERPT: [Notice when this was published–9/6/2001.–D.E.] . . . The United States-led spying system known as Echelon can monitor virtually every communication in the world — by e-mail, phone or fax — that bounces off a satellite, the European Parliament was told. But in reporting on a yearlong study of the system that was prompted by concern that American companies were using data from the system to gain a competitive edge, Gerhard Schmid, a German member of the Parliament, said that many European countries had similar abilities . . .
EXCERPT: The United States intercepted electronic communications this week among senior operatives of Al Qaeda, in which the terrorists discussed attacks against American interests in the Middle East and North Africa, American officials said Friday.
The intercepts and a subsequent analysis of them by American intelligence agencies prompted the United States to issue an unusual global travel alert to American citizens on Friday, warning of the potential for terrorist attacks by operatives of Al Qaeda and their associates beginning Sunday through the end of August. Intelligence officials said the threat focused on the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, which has been tied to plots to blow up American-bound cargo and commercial flights.
The bulletin to travelers and expatriates, issued by the State Department, came less than a day after the department announced that it was closing nearly two dozen American diplomatic missions in the Middle East and North Africa, including facilities in Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Britain said Friday that it would close its embassy in Yemen on Monday and Tuesday because of “increased security concerns.” . . . .
EXCERPT: . . . .Corporate and academic economists say that Washington’s fiscal fights have produced budget policies that amount to a self-inflicted drag on the economy’s recovery.
Joseph J. Minarik, director of research at the corporate-supported Committee for Economic Development and a former government economist, said he could not remember in postwar times when fiscal policy was so at odds with the needs of the economy.
“The macroeconomic situation is highly unusual,” he said, adding: “We have to be concerned about our debt getting totally out of hand, so we are concerned about the federal budget. But the concern has got to be tempered by the fact that we have got to get some economic growth going as well.” . . . .
. . . . “The disjunction between textbook economics and the choices being made in Washington is larger than any I’ve seen in my lifetime,” said Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. “At a time of mass unemployment, it’s clear, the economics textbooks tell us, that this is not the right time for fiscal retrenchment.”
Given that rough consensus in an otherwise quarrelsome profession, he added, “To watch it be ignored like this is exasperating, horrifying, disheartening.” . . . .
EXCERPT: Even while rapidly expanding its electronic surveillance around the world, the National Security Agency has lobbied inside the government to deploy the equivalent of a “Star Wars” defense for America’s computer networks, designed to intercept cyberattacks before they could cripple power plants, banks or financial markets.
But administration officials say the plan, championed by Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency and head of the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, has virtually no chance of moving forward given the backlash against the N.S.A. over the recent disclosures about its surveillance programs.
Senior agency officials concede that much of the technology needed to filter malicious software, known as malware, by searching incoming messages for signs of programs designed to steal data, or attack banks or energy firms, is strikingly similar to the technology the N.S.A. already uses for surveillance.
“The plan was always a little vague, at least as Keith described it, but today it may be Snowden’s biggest single victim,” one senior intelligence official said recently, referring to Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who released documents revealing details of many of the agency’s surveillance programs.
“Whatever trust was there is now gone,” the official added. “I mean, who would believe the N.S.A. when it insists it is blocking Chinese attacks but not using the same technology to read your e-mail?” . . . .