Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Snowden’s Ride, Part 10: The Beginning of World War III?

Greeks protest­ing austerity

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 IPart IIPart IIIPart IVPart VPart VIPart VII, Part VIIIPart IXPart X, Part XI, Part XIIPart XIIIPart XIVPart 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.

 “Ger­many Nixes Sur­veil­lance Pact with US, Britain” by Frank Jor­dans; Asso­ci­ated Press; 8/2/2013.

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. . . .

“Why NSA Sur­veil­lance Will Be More Dam­ag­ing Than You Think” by James Fal­lows; The Atlantic; 7/30/2013.

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....

NSA Blow­back: Ger­man Min­is­ter Floats US Com­pany Ban; Der Spiegel; 8/5/2013.

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 . . . .

“U.S. Sur­veil­lance Puts Inter­net Gov­er­nance at Risk” by Michael Geist; Mon­treal Gazette; 7.30/2013.

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. . . .

“World Brief­ing | Europe: Report On U.S. Spy Sys­tem” by Suzanne Daley; The New York Times; 9/6/2001.

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 . . .

 “Qaeda Mes­sages Prompt U.S. Ter­ror Warn­ing” by Eric Schmitt; The New York Times; 8/2/2013.

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.” . . . .

“U.S. Cuts Take Increas­ing Toll on Job Growth” by Jackie Calmes and Cather­ine Ramp­bell; The New York Times; 8/2/2013.

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.” . . . .

“N.S.A. Leaks Make Plan for Cyberde­fense Unlikely” by David E. Sanger; The New York Times; 8/13/2013.

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?” . . . .


28 comments for “Snowden’s Ride, Part 10: The Beginning of World War III?”

  1. The “balka­niza­tion” of the inter­net has been going on for some time. It may not be as obvi­ous if you live within the US but when the inter­net first started every­thing was in Eng­lish and it was indeed a world­wide com­mu­nity. How­ever, for the last 6 or 7 years all the mayor search engines detect your IP and will forcibly take you to, for exam­ple: Google.ar (if you live in Argentina), Yahoo.mx (If you live in Mex­ico), youtube.br (if you live in Brazil) and all the pages will appear in Span­ish or Por­tuguese. This hap­pens EVEN IF you set your pref­er­ences to Eng­lish or US. This, of course, is being done for com­mer­cial pur­poses and it used to drive me up the wall until I found a way to mask my IP. So, stor­ing infor­ma­tion domes­ti­cally is just the last step in this direction.

    What I don’t under­stand is the FTR 700 pro­gram you ref­er­enced in Snowden’s Ride, Part 9. As you know, I am new to your web site and it will prob­a­bly take me years to get up to speed with all the work you’ve done so I apol­o­gize if you have clar­i­fied this in pre­vi­ous posts but, I see a con­tra­dic­tion in the Under­ground Reich’s desire to debil­i­tate and balka­nize Europe and the US so they can once again con­sol­i­date them­selves as the new world power based in Germany.

    First of all it would con­tra­dict Germany’s pub­lic image and the image the Ger­mans have of them­selves as you can see in the fol­low­ing article:


    “The Ger­mans are not yet openly angry. That would be out of char­ac­ter in a peo­ple who have, since the sec­ond world war, been eager to atone for the past and be good Euro­pean part­ners. In one recent poll, 34% of Ger­mans even said they empathised with the wrath of the south­ern Europeans. ”

    “The Ger­mans are not alone in these views. The Dutch, Finns and Slo­vaks broadly share them. What makes Ger­many dif­fer­ent is that it is big and cen­tral. To his­to­ri­ans such as Bren­dan Simms of Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity, author of a new book, “Europe: the Strug­gle for Supremacy”, this sounds eerily famil­iar. Europe has long grap­pled with the “Ger­man ques­tion”. Some­times Ger­many was too weak, some­times too strong. Or, as Henry Kissinger, a for­mer Amer­i­can sec­re­tary of state, put it, refer­ring to Ger­many just after uni­fi­ca­tion in 1871, it was “too big for Europe, but too small for the world”. Today, Mr Simms argues, “it sits uneasily at the heart of an EU that was con­ceived largely to con­strain Ger­man power but which has served instead to increase it, and whose design flaws have unin­ten­tion­ally deprived many other Euro­peans of sovereignty.”

    The ques­tion is whether Ger­many can use its power by unapolo­get­i­cally lead­ing. Given Germany’s past, its polit­i­cal cul­ture mil­i­tates against even try­ing. As Joschka Fis­cher, a for­mer for­eign min­is­ter, jokes, “it’s nice to go to a con­fer­ence of ‘young lead­ers’, but you don’t want a con­fer­ence of ‘junge Führer’.” Most Ger­mans worry that oth­ers might again come to hate or fear them. Their neigh­bours are less con­cerned. As Poland’s for­eign min­is­ter, Radek Siko­rski, put it in a speech in Berlin in 2011, “I fear Ger­man power less than I am begin­ning to fear Ger­man inactivity.”

    Another prob­lem would be French and British mis­trust and rejec­tion of Germany’s eco­nomic supremacy as it states in the fol­low­ing article:


    “The French deliv­ered a loud ”non” to Berlin’s euro poli­cies, hand­ing a first-round vic­tory to the social­ist Fran­cois Hol­lande, whose cen­tral cam­paign pledge was to reopen Chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel’s euro­zone fis­cal pact, an inter­na­tional treaty signed by 25 EU lead­ers. Almost one-in-five French also voted for the euro­pho­bic National Front of Marine Le Pen,who wants the sin­gle cur­rency scrapped and the French franc restored.”

    And last but not least, even though fas­cist ele­ments within the US (mainly patriot and mili­tia move­ments) have indeed been push­ing for seces­sion, why would fas­cist Amer­i­can politi­cians over­turn the Posse Comi­ta­tus Act, increase mil­i­tary spend­ing and mil­i­ta­rize the police force?


    This doesn’t sound like a fed­eral gov­ern­ment that would allow secession.

    Maybe I’m mis­taken but if the Under­ground Reich were to come out openly as the Fourth Reich it would prob­a­bly do so through the US instead of Ger­many. As you said: “Could the recent Snow­den affair and Russia’s open defi­ance of the US vis-à-vis Syria be the pre­lude to WWIII?”….

    Posted by Shibusa | August 3, 2013, 12:06 pm
  2. @Shibusa–

    You are indeed new to this website.

    This site con­tains all the work I have done since 1979, plus a library of anti-fascist books that are fun­da­men­tal to under­stand­ing the lines of argu­ment pre­sented here.

    The Man­ning text on the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal orga­ni­za­tion is essen­tial. So are the Reiss text on the Nazis going under­ground and the Tetens text on the re-instituion of Nazi ele­ments in Ger­many after the war.

    You ques­tions have been answered already.

    You need to take the time nec­es­sary to come to terms with the material.

    Admit­tedly, the sheer vol­ume of infor­ma­tion pre­sented here is daunting.

    On top of that, the analy­sis is sophis­ti­cated, and not for those of super­fi­cial or rigid mindset.

    The Reich is an Under­ground Reich. It pro­ceeds for­ward using “other means,” as I have stressed time and again.

    You need to read the books and do some key word searches.

    When you come up with the results of those key­word searches, take time to digest the posts and broad­casts that they yield.

    Search for “Von Clause­witz”, “other means”, “Ber­tels­mann”, “proxy war”, “Serpent’s Walk”, “cor­po­racracy”, “Mus­lim Broth­er­hood”, “Friedrich List”, “Dorothy Thomp­son”, “Nazi con­nec­tions to 9/11″, “Lof­tus”, “B as in Bush”, “von Bolschwing”, “von Damm”, “Gip­per”, “Under­ground Reich”.

    You are think­ing in old terms. The Under­ground Reich, on the other hand, antic­i­pated the future.

    Using the EMU, Ger­many is already doing what they set out to do.

    Many inside, and out­side, of Europe are begin­ning to under­stand, albeit too late.

    Again, patience and per­se­ver­ance are an absolute must, if you wish to grasp the lines of inquiry pre­sented here.

    Thanks for your atten­tion to this website.



    Posted by Dave Emory | August 3, 2013, 3:08 pm
  3. @Shibusa–

    Another thought: Check out this post;


    It con­tains the last 7 or eight min­utes of a pro­gram I did in May of 1980.

    Then lis­ten to the entire broad­cast, one hour in length.

    See how that cor­re­sponds to what has hap­pened in the more than three decades since it was recorded.

    Then lis­ten to, and read the descrip­tion for, FTR #186, recorded in Decem­ber of 1999.


    Sup­ple­ment that with FTR #310. http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-310-bush-league-associates-and-actions-of-the-georges-bush-part-1/

    Then lis­ten to, and read the descrip­tion for, FTR #356, recorded almost two years later, as well as FTR #464, recorded two years after #356.



    Note my obser­va­tions about BCCI/Bush/FBI direc­tor Mueller.

    In addi­tion check out side “A” of FTR #412, recorded in June of 2003. See if the dis­cus­sion bears any rel­e­vance to what has hap­pened since then.


    This will give you some per­spec­tive on Yours Truly, as well as the mate­r­ial itself.

    Thanks again for pay­ing atten­tion to this website.



    Posted by Dave Emory | August 3, 2013, 3:36 pm
  4. test

    Posted by participo | August 3, 2013, 9:22 pm
  5. @Participo–

    Your dif­fi­cul­ties post­ing com­ments may well have been due to the fact that I was work­ing on the site.

    Oth­ers have had sim­i­lar prob­lems, under the circumstances.



    Posted by Dave Emory | August 4, 2013, 2:40 pm
  6. @Dave: Yeah. Well, it hap­pens. No biggie.

    In any case, I’d like to know one thing, and it con­cerns both Brad Man­ning & Snow­den: Why is it, that Bradley Man­ning is now about to serve 150+ years in prison, while Snow­den, who arguably did far more dam­age, has been allowed to go free, into the hands of the Russians?

    Man­ning, use­ful idiot that he ended up being, at least seemed to gen­uinely believe that he was doing the world a favor.....but Snow­den? I think we both can agree that he was play­ing us all along, and HE KNEW IT. And yet, the lat­ter man is now roam­ing the streets of Moscow.....

    Posted by Steven L. | August 4, 2013, 4:30 pm
  7. @Steven L.–

    The dif­fer­ence is that Bradley Man­ning is a “use­ful idiot”–a gen­uinely tragic fig­ure, in the clas­si­cal sense.

    He is not a hero, how­ever. He down­loaded a num­ber of doc­u­ments onto a flash drive and leaked them with­out know­ing what was on all of them.

    That is very, very reck­less and could, con­ceiv­ably, have got­ten mil­lions killed. (Sup­pose there was info about access to nukes on there, which, for all B.M. knew, might have been the case.)

    He is a young gay guy sort­ing through iden­tity issues–nothing wrong with that. How­ever there is a time and a place for everything.

    Mil­i­tary intel­li­gence is NOT the place for that!!

    Man­ning is not a spook on assignment–Snowden is.

    Mannning is not Under­ground Reich. Snow­den is.

    Man­ning stayed in the U.S.–Snowden took off for points dis­tant as his infor­ma­tion was com­ing to light, cour­tesy of an overt Nazi fel­low trav­eler (Glenn Greenwald.)

    Snow­den is most likely BND and/or some Fifth Col­umn Under­ground Reich ele­ment in U.S. intel.

    He was not “allowed” to go free–he had sen­si­tive info and a sup­port struc­ture to trans­port him to China, then Russia.

    He also had a dooms­day sce­nario in place–IF some­thing hap­pened to him, the pil­lars of the tem­ple would be col­lapsed around him.

    Read the posts I’ve put up at length and in detail.



    Posted by Dave Emory | August 4, 2013, 4:47 pm
  8. @Shibusa: Back in 2010, when Merkel was first push­ing the hard aus­ter­ity pol­icy pre­scrip­tions, I shared your sur­prise because, as the arti­cle you cite points out, that Ger­many would risk a devel­op­ing a rep­u­ta­tion for dic­tat­ing to its neigh­bors. But that doesn’t change the fact that the poli­cies com­ing out of Berlin have been nuts ever since the finan­cial cri­sis hit. It didn’t make sense given the bold­ness of the cries for aus­ter­ity back then. But it’s less shock­ing now, when you look at just what has been gained in the last three years: it’s basi­cally been a vari­ant on the Rea­gan Rev­o­lu­tion for Europe: The ordolib­eral far-right eco­nomic phi­los­o­phy — with its unhealthy fix­a­tion on debt and supply-side ordolib­eral eco­nomic the­o­ries — is now enshrined as per­ma­nent poli­cies for all mem­ber nations. The Fis­cal Com­pact caps debt and there are going to be new eco­nomic pol­icy over­sight bod­ies that are going to enforce and “coor­di­nate” eco­nomic pol­icy. When you take all that into account, the price paid in terms of national image doesn’t seem so high. After all, the price is merely the opin­ion of today’s pop­u­lace. That’s poten­tially just a tem­po­rary thing. But the fun­da­men­tal changes to how the EU/eurozone gov­erns itself that are being dis­cussed could end up being in place for decades to come. There’s a lot at stake.

    Also note that the offi­cial pub­lic stance that Germany’s polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment has taken is that of depict­ing the South­ern Euro­pean pop­u­laces as being ‘lazy spend­thrifts are try­ing to steal all our hard-earned money’. This is a reflec­tion of the ten­sions you cite because the Ger­man pub­lic really does need to think that Ger­many is being vic­tim­ized and sucked dry in order to ratio­nal­ize the eco­nomic dev­as­ta­tion being caused by the aus­ter­ity. It’s the same rhetoric across EU in the nations push­ing for aus­ter­ity pol­icy and it’s very anal­o­gous to the way the GOP focuses in the US public’s atten­tion on “ille­gal aliens” and peo­ple on pub­lic assis­tants as being the source of all eco­nomic and social ills. Sim­i­larly, we see nearly the entire Ger­man eco­nomic estab­lish­ment push­ing ordolib­eral non­sense argu­ment to make the case that Ger­many sim­ply has no choice but to demand aus­ter­ity poli­cies. They’re bull­shit argu­ments, in terms of the under­ly­ing eco­nom­ics, but they’re emo­tion­ally appeal­ing bull­shit argu­ments and great for mim­ic­k­ing pop­ulist sentiments.

    In terms of strate­gic objec­tives, get­ting the Euro­pean pop­u­lace to accept ordolib­eral dogma as some sort of meta­phys­i­cal truth would be a HUGE prize. Once a pop­u­lace start take its money TOO seri­ously, with the kind of reli­gious fer­vor that you find amongst the var­i­ous strains of far-right eco­nomic thought, that pop­u­lace is going to be at the mercy of the rul­ing oli­garchs that actu­ally run the econ­omy. It’s an ele­gantly bru­tal way to take con­trol over people’s lives under a decen­tral­ized coali­tion of the cor­po­rate enti­ties that run the econ­omy and dom­i­nate the gov­ern­ment. And it’s been ordolib­eral non­sense enshrined in the kind of intel­lec­tual dis­hon­esty one expects from a Grover Norquist or David Koch that is mak­ing it hap­pen. Don’t for­get that the over­ar­ch­ing goals of the ordolib­eral econ­o­mists are closely shared with their inter­na­tional neo-liberal coun­ter­parts of the Aus­trian School/Koch/Norquist variety.

    Just take a moment, and think about the fact that the fol­low­ing arti­cle was pub­lished a cou­ple of weeks ago, with­out any guf­faw­ing but in an entirely self-serious man­ner. It’s about an idea about has to find a long-term solu­tion to Europe’s ongo­ing finan­cial woes get­ting floated in policy-making cir­cles by Oliver Gar­nier, the chief econ­o­mist at Soci­ete Gen­erale, one of biggest, most lever­aged banks in Europe and a major recip­i­ent of the 2008 AIG bailout. The under­ly­ing prob­lem is that no one can come up with a viable long-term debt reduc­tion solu­tion for the ail­ing euro­zone economies since the austerity-alone solu­tion has been such a dis­as­ter. Mr Garnier’s idea? Set up a “Euro­pean Treu­hand (Trust) Agency”, mod­eled after the state-privatization Treuhan­danstalt agen­cies used after Ger­man reuni­fi­ca­tion to pri­va­tize East Ger­man assets. The new agency would be cap­i­tal­ized by Ger­man savers and be used to “invest in” the state assets of the ail­ing euro­zone economies. THAT’s the big solu­tion get­ting ped­dled at this point in the cri­sis. And it’s sup­posed to be an improve­ment over the ol’ “let’s pri­va­tize state assets at fire­sale prices”-model that kept get­ting pushed even after it fails. So instead of out­right pri­va­ti­za­tions, we’ll get some sort of weird public-private part­ner­ship arrange­ment where Ger­man savers are now directly own­ing the state-assets of their neigh­bors. Some­how no one sees any long-term prob­lems with this approach. This is where we are:

    Euro Zone Still Look­ing for a Han­dle on Cri­sis
    Pub­lished: July 22, 2013

    PARIS — What if Ger­man savers were to help res­cue Greece, Por­tu­gal or Spain by invest­ing in their state assets and com­pa­nies rather than bail­ing them out with taxpayer-backed loans? That novel idea for recy­cling Berlin’s huge cur­rent account sur­plus, avoid­ing fire-sale pri­va­ti­za­tions in the weak­est euro zone states and fuel­ing growth in south­ern Europe comes from the French econ­o­mist Olivier Garnier.

    Mr. Gar­nier, the chief econ­o­mist of Société Générale, argues that cre­at­ing an agency in charge of pur­chas­ing, restruc­tur­ing and pri­va­tiz­ing state-owned assets could, over time, solve sev­eral of Europe’s deep eco­nomic problems.

    Such a “Euro­pean Treu­hand (Trust) Agency” would offer a “debt-for-equity con­ver­sion” that could repair the pub­lic finances of the euro zone’s bailed-out states, reduce North-South cur­rent account imbal­ances in the 17-nation cur­rency area and gen­er­ate invest­ment in Europe’s periphery.

    Mr. Gar­nier argues that the idea would offer Ger­man savers a bet­ter return than park­ing their sur­plus cash in domes­tic bank deposits earn­ing zero nom­i­nal inter­est, and would be polit­i­cally more palat­able for Ger­mans than risky tax­payer loans to gov­ern­ments that might never be able to repay the debt.

    The fact that such long-shot pro­pos­als are doing the rounds four years into the bloc’s debt cri­sis high­lights how few of the under­ly­ing prob­lems that caused it have been resolved.

    This idea may be timely as Chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel tries to soften Berlin’s image as Europe’s stern aus­ter­ity enforcer and show a gen­tler side with ini­tia­tives to help fight youth unem­ploy­ment in crisis-stricken euro zone coun­tries. But to bit­ter Greeks or Spaniards, it might look more like an exer­cise in Ger­man col­o­niza­tion than a help­ing hand. While Dutch, Aus­trian or Finnish savers might join, the “Euro­pean” agency would inevitably be dom­i­nated by Ger­man money.

    When the top-selling Ger­man daily news­pa­per Bild ran a head­line at the start of the debt cri­sis in 2010 scream­ing “Sell your islands, you bank­rupt Greeks! — and the Acrop­o­lis, too,” it caused fury, rekin­dling resent­ments smol­der­ing since World War II.

    Quot­ing Finance Min­is­ter Wolf­gang Schäuble’s com­ment that “we want to show that we are not just the world’s best savers,” Mr. Gar­nier says: “He should have added that the Ger­mans have to show they can be wiser investors, mak­ing a more effi­cient use of their sav­ings and of their related tax­pay­ers’ guarantees.”

    His idea has a Ger­man prece­dent. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and Ger­man uni­fi­ca­tion in 1990, a trustee agency known as the “Treuhan­danstalt” was set up to restruc­ture, wind up or sell off East Ger­man state enter­prises. Some top tal­ents of West Ger­man busi­ness were recruited to help shake out and spin off east­ern companies.

    But this exam­ple points to some of the obsta­cles to Mr. Garnier’s pro­posal. The Treuhan­danstalt was crit­i­cized for lay­ing off nearly 2.5 mil­lion work­ers of the 4 mil­lion it had inher­ited and for clos­ing busi­nesses that crit­ics said were prof­itable. It con­tributed to East-West resent­ment over the social and finan­cial costs of uni­fi­ca­tion, and its first pres­i­dent was assas­si­nated by (West Ger­man) Marxists.

    Pri­va­tiz­ing state-owned com­pa­nies and prop­erty are a key part of the bailout pro­grams pre­scribed by the Euro­pean Union and the Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund for the euro zone’s debt-laden gov­ern­ments. Yet Greece’s con­sis­tent fail­ure to meet its pri­va­ti­za­tion rev­enue goals high­lights just how hard it is to attract seri­ous investors to coun­tries mired in deep reces­sion, and to sell even prof­itable busi­nesses for a fair price.


    Else­where in the region, so-called vul­ture funds of pri­vate equity investors are look­ing to pick up stakes in blue-chip Span­ish com­pa­nies at knock-down prices after bailed-out banks were forced to divest.

    With Mr. Garnier’s model, a long-term invest­ment vehi­cle funded by both pri­vate sec­tor sav­ings and the Ger­man gov­ern­ment, or with a state guar­an­tee, would buy up the assets, tak­ing them off their gov­ern­ments’ books, then restruc­ture and run them until they could be sold off profitably.

    The Ger­man econ­o­mists Daniel Gros and Thomas Mayer sug­gested last year that Ger­many should cre­ate a sov­er­eign wealth fund, like those of Nor­way, Sin­ga­pore and Saudi Ara­bia, to invest excess sav­ings. Such a fund would be a safer and more effi­cient way to place Ger­man sav­ings than in unre­mu­ner­ated deposits, they argued, and would have the side ben­e­fit of low­er­ing the euro’s exchange rate, which would ben­e­fit strug­gling south Euro­pean economies.

    Mr. Gar­nier would put that money to work inside the euro zone. He notes that Germany’s state-owned devel­op­ment bank, KfW, is already dip­ping a toe in these waters by pro­vid­ing loans through its Span­ish coun­ter­part to credit-starved small and medium-size businesses.

    Mr. Garnier’s pro­posal raises three other issues: Would the agency be able to run the assets more effi­ciently than cur­rent own­ers? How would the risk to Ger­man savers’ cap­i­tal be mit­i­gated? And how could the assets be val­ued at prices accept­able to all?

    His answer to each ques­tion is that the sta­tus quo is worse: The assets are molder­ing while gov­ern­ments des­per­ately need the money. Ger­mans face risks from the bailed-out coun­tries as tax­pay­ers, so why not get some return on their sav­ings? And the assets could be priced in a way that allowed for some upside for south Euro­pean states if they fetch more on the market.

    “I see all the hur­dles, but it would be ill-advised to rely only on fis­cal trans­fers to share risks among euro zone economies,” Mr. Gar­nier said in an inter­view. “A Euro­pean fis­cal union raises even big­ger obsta­cles than this — aban­don­ing bud­get sov­er­eignty — and writ­ing off offi­cial debt would be fraught with legal and polit­i­cal obstacles.”

    Notice Mr. Garnier’s final argu­ment comes down to ‘yeah, there are seri­ous prob­lems with this plan, but just look at the sta­tus quo and the prospect of the aban­don­ment of bud­get sov­er­eignty with the pro­posed Euro­pean fis­cal union.’ That’s how bad the options are right now because bad options are the only options avail­able due to Bundesbank-derived eco­nomic BS. Now Mr. Garnier’s idea is the kind of idea that ends up in pub­li­ca­tions like the Finan­cial Times as a real, seri­ous pro­posal to sell one nation to another as part of a long-term debt-solution. Nation-state usury is now appar­ently the solu­tion to ‘mal-integration’.

    July 29, 2013 9:12 am
    The Finan­cial Times
    Mar­kets Insight: Cross-border equity own­er­ship is key to euro­zone risk-sharing

    By Olivier Gar­nier
    The euro­zone has been suf­fer­ing ‘mal-integration’

    Accord­ing to the new “Brus­sels con­sen­sus”, the only viable solu­tion to lower the risk of bal­ance of pay­ments crises within the euro­zone is by mov­ing closer to fis­cal union. There is lit­tle doubt that cross-country risk-sharing is required in a mon­e­tary union. But it would be ill-advised to rely on mutu­al­i­sa­tion mech­a­nisms through fis­cal trans­fers only, as opposed to market-based mech­a­nisms.

    In large fed­er­a­tions such as the US or Ger­many, the fed­eral bud­get is nei­ther the sole nor even the main chan­nel of risk-sharing among states. Indeed, stud­ies show the largest absorber against state-specific shocks is cross-ownership of equity cap­i­tal, far ahead of the fed­eral tax-transfer system.

    Advo­cat­ing increased reliance on market-based risk-sharing mech­a­nisms could appear coun­ter­pro­duc­tive since cross-border pri­vate finan­cial flows have exac­er­bated the boom and bust in periph­ery economies. How­ever, the euro­zone has been suf­fer­ing from “mal-integration”: flows from the core to the periph­ery largely took the form of debt, as opposed to direct and equity invest­ment. Mean­while, equity cap­i­tal has been flow­ing “uphill”: over the past 12 years, Ger­many has been a net importer of equity cap­i­tal from the rest of the eurozone.

    As a com­ple­ment to bank­ing union, it is thus key to pro­mote a gen­uine and com­plete finan­cial inte­gra­tion by enhanc­ing cross-border cap­i­tal own­er­ship of banks and cor­po­rates. In the­ory, this process should take place spon­ta­neously through mar­ket mech­a­nisms. In periph­eral economies, the fall in share prices and labour costs should cre­ate attrac­tive invest­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties for core coun­try com­pa­nies and investors. In prac­tice, how­ever, this process is hin­dered by many obsta­cles both in the periph­ery and in the core. There­fore, more cen­tralised solu­tions com­bin­ing pri­vate and pub­lic funds are nec­es­sary, at least as cat­a­lysts in the ini­tial stage of this process.

    First, the Euro­pean offi­cial sec­tor could help in restruc­tur­ing the for­eign lia­bil­i­ties of periph­eral coun­tries by a sort of debt-to-equity con­ver­sion. So far, finan­cial assis­tance to mem­ber states has been pro­vided through loans, thus adding to their debt bur­den. As a result, a sub­stan­tial share of the periph­ery gov­ern­ment debt is now held by gov­ern­ments and inter­na­tional organ­i­sa­tions. Exchang­ing debt for equity would be an alter­na­tive to offi­cial sec­tor involve­ment, pro­vid­ing imme­di­ate and sub­stan­tial relief to periph­ery states while being more accept­able by core states than “vol­un­tary” debt haircuts.

    This could be done by estab­lish­ing an agency in charge of buy­ing, restruc­tur­ing and pri­vatis­ing state-owned assets. Stronger exper­tise, polit­i­cal inde­pen­dence and a longer time span (10–15 years, thus pre­vent­ing “fire sales” and giv­ing time to restruc­ture assets), would make this agency more effec­tive than exist­ing national pri­vati­sa­tion schemes, which have so far achieved dis­ap­point­ing results.


    Since one of the fun­da­men­tal prob­lems with the pri­va­ti­za­tion schemes has been the lack of inter­ested buy­ers and the extremely low bids, notice that for Mr. Garnier’s scheme to work the new Euro­pean invest­ment agency is going to have to pay sub­stan­tially more for state assets than what coun­tries like Greece have been able to fetch in the mar­kets. So some­how nations will have to “sweeten the deal” enough to gar­ner those higher prices. Or the scheme could unfold, but at much lower prices than Mr. Gar­nier is pre­dict­ing, thus not solv­ing the under­ly­ing debt problem.

    Also note that it appears that Mr. Gar­nier is imag­ing that this agency will invest in, and take con­trol of, state assets, and then spend the next 10–15 years “restruc­tur­ing” those assets with the long-term plan of even­tual full pri­va­ti­za­tion. So, basi­cally, we’re look­ing at a scheme where Ger­man pub­lic funds get invested in a giant account that forms public-private part­ner­ships with the state-assets of ail­ing economies, then makes the invest­ments over the next 10–15 years required to turn them into prof­itable enter­prises, and then sells them off to pri­vate investors. In other words, this is the pri­va­ti­za­tion DREAM for Europes oli­garchs: Instead of out­right pri­vaiza­tion, where investors buy the state-assets, warts and all, and pay the costs of new invest­ments and restruc­tur­ing, the Euro­pean is going to pay the price instead and only even­tu­ally sell off the assets after all the expen­sive invest­ments have been made. By putting the Ger­many public’s sav­ing directly at risk, it guar­an­tees a hyper-austerity atti­tude will be taken dur­ing any restruc­tur­ing because now the Ger­mans can be told “these are your com­pa­nies and assets that you have at risk and there­fore [insert pro-austerity argu­ment]”. And once the com­pa­nies have been “restruc­tured”, they get sold off, hope­fully for a profit. At best, the Ger­man pub­lic might make an ok return on its invest­ments under this scheme, but the even­tual own­ers of the pri­va­tized assets could end up mak­ing WAY more in the long run by dodg­ing the ini­tial “restruc­tur­ing costs”. Pretty sweet.


    Sec­ond, a greater share of the struc­tural Ger­man exter­nal sur­plus should be recy­cled through direct and equity invest­ment in the rest of the euro­zone. By lend­ing its excess sav­ings to the other euro­zone mem­bers, Ger­many has been able to accu­mu­late record-high cur­rent account sur­pluses with­out fac­ing the risk of exchange rate appre­ci­a­tion and cur­rency losses on for­eign asset holdings.

    But the debt cri­sis has been a bru­tal reminder that credit risk replaces exchange rate risk within a mon­e­tary union. As a result, Ger­man pri­vate cap­i­tal out­flows have reversed, while deposits at the Bun­des­bank have surged. In other words, Ger­man excess sav­ings are now pri­mar­ily inter­me­di­ated by the eurosystem.


    A more ambi­tious idea would be to cre­ate a Ger­man long-term invest­ment vehi­cle funded by both pri­vate and gov­ern­ment sav­ings (or ben­e­fit­ing from a gov­ern­ment guar­an­tee), and designed to take equity stakes in periph­ery economies. The involve­ment of gov­ern­ment money would be key to entice risk-averse Ger­man savers.

    Such asset prop­erty trans­fers would face major polit­i­cal obsta­cles, espe­cially in the periph­ery. But bear in mind that hur­dles to fis­cal union would be much higher.

    This is the new “hot” idea get­ting bandied about in the lat­est phase of the euro­zone cri­sis. And the “fis­cal untion” Mr. Gar­nier warns is worse than his pro­posal just might be worse because it would almost cer­tainly involve some sort of “econ­omy czar” that will have sweep­ing pow­ers over national gov­ern­ments. And those pow­ers will be used to enforce an ordolib­eral, anti-populist vision. Part of the rea­son there’s been such unwa­ver­ing sup­port of aus­ter­ity poli­cies by Europe’s lead­er­ship is that there’s a gen­eral con­sen­sus amongst Europe’s elite (and the global elite gen­er­ally) that harsh aus­ter­ity mea­sures tied to eco­nomic per­for­mance is the only accept­able model going for­ward. That’s the con­sen­sus. Both the Grover Norquist/David Koch-style of eco­nom­ics AND the Jens Weidmann/Bundesbank-style of eco­nomic fit very well in that kind of eco­nomic par­a­digm because they both have the prop­er­ties of fetishiz­ing low-inflation and market-place supremacy for deter­min­ing life out­comes (it’s just less exreme under ordolib­er­al­ism). It’s hor­ren­dously stu­pid unless you want to ensure mad­ness. But it’s a great mind­set for turn­ing the econ­omy into a giant debtor’s prison. And Europe’s elites are really deter­mined to imple­ment some sort of eco­nomic death trap where unelected offi­cials get vast pow­ers to “coor­di­nate pol­icy” in a way that enforces a far-right-lite (one-hopes) policy-framework:

    Paris, Berlin look to shake up euro zone leadership

    ri May 31, 2013 10:03am EDT

    * France, Ger­many open debate over Eurogroup president

    * Paris and Berlin favour a per­ma­nent appoint­ment to post

    * Pro­posal calls into ques­tion job of cur­rent chairman

    * Dutch Eurogroup head has unset­tled mar­kets over Cyprus

    By Luke Baker

    BRUSSELS, May 31 (Reuters) — France and Ger­many have thrown their weight behind cre­at­ing a per­ma­nent pres­i­dent for eco­nomic pol­icy in the euro zone, a role that would mark a fun­da­men­tal over­haul of how the cur­rency bloc is managed.

    Their back­ing calls into ques­tion the per­for­mance of Dutch Finance Min­is­ter Jeroen Dijs­sel­bloem, who was appointed chair­man of the Eurogroup of finance min­is­ters of the 17-nation cur­rency area in Jan­u­ary, to serve ini­tially for 2–1/2 years.

    Dijs­sel­bloem, who suc­ceeded Lux­em­bourg Prime Min­is­ter Jean-Claude Juncker, has unset­tled finan­cial mar­kets since tak­ing office, espe­cially with com­ments about Cyprus and how bank depos­i­tors could finance future bailouts.

    Those views, while sup­ported by some at the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank and the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, have irked other offi­cials in Paris, Berlin and Brussels.

    At a meet­ing in Paris on Thurs­day, Pres­i­dent Fran­cois Hol­lande and Chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel agreed to pro­pose to fel­low lead­ers appoint­ing a per­ma­nent Eurogroup head, which France has long favoured.

    “A full-time pres­i­dent of the Eurogroup with rein­forced pow­ers, includ­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of del­e­gat­ing power to other euro zone min­is­ters,” their joint “con­tri­bu­tion” to next month’s EU sum­mit said under the head­ing “Rein­forc­ing euro zone gov­er­nance and legitimacy”.

    Merkel’s spokesman said the aim was to cre­ate a posi­tion with a much more ded­i­cated focus on euro zone issues.

    It should not be a euro zone finance min­is­ter but a pres­i­dent whose job would be to coor­di­nate work inten­sively,” said Stef­fen Seib­ert. “It will be a very demand­ing job.”

    The Franco-German doc­u­ment said the pro­posal should be imple­mented within two years. It also said euro zone lead­ers should hold more fre­quent sum­mits than the two annual ses­sions they already have and be able to instruct spe­cial­ist min­is­ters of the euro zone to work more closely on issues such as employ­ment, social affairs, research and indus­try.

    Both moves could widen the gap between a euro zone core and other mem­ber states of the Euro­pean Union that are not in the sin­gle cur­rency, and put national gov­ern­ments rather than the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion in the driver’s seat.


    There isn’t much more infor­ma­tion pub­licly avail­able so far about what these new Eurogroup Pres­i­den­tial pow­ers will entail, but it looks like that vision vaguely dis­cussed by Merkel and Hol­lande that “would mark a fun­da­men­tal over­haul of how the cur­rency bloc is man­aged” has sort of already been adopted by the larger euro­zone policy-making com­mu­nity:

    EU Insider
    EU — between the Cen­trifu­gal and Cen­tripetal Forces
    Pub­lished on 30 July 2013 16:07, Adelina Marini, Zagreb, Twit­ter: @AdelinaMarini
    Last change on: 30 July 2013 16:07

    The past Euro­pean polit­i­cal sea­son can be remem­bered with the iso­la­tion of the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion and in par­tic­u­lar its pres­i­dent — Jose Manuel Bar­roso, who is serv­ing a sec­ond term after the will of the prin­ci­ple of the least resis­tance. In the past year, the for­mer prime min­is­ter of Por­tu­gal demon­strated exces­sive energy and high ambi­tions not only for the deep­en­ing of the EU inte­gra­tion, with the euro­zone at the epi­cen­tre, but to hold the reins of that inte­gra­tion in his hands. A zeal that was poured with cold water by the Franco-German polit­i­cal cen­tre and also by the Dutch-British loos­en­ing actions. Pres­i­dent Bar­roso hoped that the June sum­mit in Brus­sels will dupli­cate the ambi­tion and vision of the last year’s Euro­pean Coun­cil in June when the lead­ers of the mem­ber states decided to begin the con­struc­tion of the bank­ing union and also to be pre­sented with ideas for the deep­en­ing of the Eco­nomic and Mon­e­tary Union (EMU), which is the eurozone.


    In terms of eco­nomic poli­cies at the euro area level, Angela Merkel and Fran­cois Hol­lande directly respond to the Euro­pean Commission’s ques­tions, say­ing that in order to have strong coor­di­na­tion of the eco­nomic poli­cies it is first needed to develop a set of indi­ca­tors that will be able to make a com­monly accepted diag­no­sis of the euro­zone and of all the mem­bers that share the com­mon cur­rency. These indi­ca­tors should be able to iden­tify the weak­nesses and vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties of the econ­omy at large, but also of the mar­kets of goods, labour and ser­vices. Merkol­lande agree with the Com­mis­sion that the areas of com­mon coor­di­na­tion should be the labour mar­kets; unem­ploy­ment and social inclu­sion; but also pen­sion poli­cies; prod­uct mar­kets; com­mon tax­a­tion; effi­ciency of the pub­lic sec­tor; edu­ca­tion systems.

    Regard­ing the con­trac­tual agree­ments, Hol­lande and Merkel are firm that the con­cept of these agree­ments needs to be defined more specif­i­cally first, tak­ing into account the spe­cific sit­u­a­tion in every mem­ber state. But lead­ing in this will be the mem­ber states, not the Com­mis­sion. France and Ger­many are not against the cre­ation of a new sys­tem for “lim­ited and con­di­tional finan­cial assis­tance” for the euro area, but any new enhance­ment of the euro­zone should be left for after the Euro­pean elec­tions next year when the Euro­pean insti­tu­tions will have new pres­i­dents. Among the other ideas the two coun­tries offer for con­sid­er­a­tion are more fre­quent euro­zone sum­mits; appoint­ment of a per­ma­nent Eurogroup chief; build­ing of sep­a­rate struc­tures within the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, espe­cially for the euro­zone to ensure “ade­quate demo­c­ra­tic con­trol and legit­i­macy” of the decision-making process.

    Notice how Merkel and Hol­lande (some­one who is sup­pos­edly sort of opposed to the per­ma­nent austerity-regime) first talk about the need to coor­di­nate poli­cies across a broad array of areas: labour mar­kets; unem­ploy­ment and social inclu­sion; but also pen­sion poli­cies; prod­uct mar­kets; com­mon tax­a­tion; effi­ciency of the pub­lic sec­tor; edu­ca­tion sys­tems. And then there’s vague dis­cus­sion about agree­ment over the need for a per­ma­nent Eurogroup pres­i­dent and build­ing sep­a­rate struc­tures within the euro­zone to ensure “ade­quate demo­c­ra­tic con­trol and legit­i­macy” of the decision-making process. That’s a pretty strong indi­ca­tion that the vague plans Merkel and Hol­lande are talk­ing about for the expan­sion of pow­ers of the Eurogroup pres­i­dent to are prob­a­bly going to fur­ther threaten “ade­quate demo­c­ra­tic con­trol and legit­i­macy” of the decision-making process. This is where we are, and it’s only been a few years since these over-the-topic power-play antics have begun.



    Tomor­row begins in October

    The out­come of the June 27–28 sum­mit shows that the Franco-German vision has def­i­nitely pre­vailed, but the time­line for the bolder reforms is left for after the elec­tions in Ger­many in the end of Sep­tem­berd. In their con­clu­sions, the lead­ers have writ­ten down that they will hold close con­sul­ta­tions and the issue will again be reviewed in Octo­ber when will the set of indi­ca­tors be dis­cussed and the areas the ex ante coor­di­na­tion will cover. And in Decem­ber will be taken the final deci­sion about how and where to go. In the mean­time, the social dimen­sion fo the EMU will be enhanced for which the Com­mis­sion is expected to present con­crete pro­pos­als this autumn.


    There will be plenty of ongo­ing attempts to imple­ment some form of far-right nut­ti­ness in the US but it will take a Tea Party-ish form. In Europe, where the US far-right’s brand of eco­nomic Lib­er­tar­i­an­ism isn’t nearly as palat­able, it’s going to be Bundesbank-brand nut­ti­ness. But it’s no longer long a ques­tion of whether or not we can fea­si­bly see fascist-natured lead­er­ship com­ing from Berlin and Frank­furt over the future of Europe. It’s what we’ve been see­ing for sev­eral years now. Fascist/far-right lead­er­ship emanates from tons of gov­ern­ments around the world all the time. And that includes plenty of other nations inside and out­side the EU. The austerity/union-busting/“structural reform” phe­nom­ena is transna­tional. The EU/eurozone lead­er­ship entered The Twigh­light Zone soon after the finan­cial cri­sis and The Twigh­light Zone is not exited eas­ily. And they were led by the ordolib­er­al­ist ideals so at this point it’s just a mat­ter of try­ing to under­stand how it is that Germany’s dom­i­nant eco­nomic posi­tion is being used to cre­ate a strange far-right tomor­row for Europe. Psy-op-ing the Ger­man pop­u­lace with far-right eco­nomic dogma that man­dates aus­ter­ity as the only viable solu­tion has been one of the tools used by Merkel & Friends from the begin­ning. It’s the sim­i­lar to the far-right dogma ped­dled by the GOP in the US and elsewhere.

    Sorry for the long rant! Got car­ried away there.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 4, 2013, 11:20 pm
  9. Thank you so much for all the tips and point­ers. I will check them out. I know at a vis­ceral and intu­itive level (not to men­tion the per­sonal expe­ri­ence I had with some of the peo­ple and insti­tu­tions you’ve men­tioned) that every­thing you say is true. Under­stand­ing it at an intel­lec­tual level is not that easy. As you said, I need time to process all the info. I lis­ten to 4 or 5 of your pro­grams every day but the mate­r­ial is so vast I didn’t know where to start.

    You’re absolutely right when you said one needs an open mind to under­stand all of this. Before I came across your web site I was con­vinced the prob­lem was Israel and Zion­ism until I lis­tened to one of your shows where you said the US was openly sup­port­ing Israel while secretly sus­tain­ing a true alle­giance with Saudi Ara­bia. It was like a bucket of cold water had fallen on my head and all of a sud­den many things made sense. It should have been obvi­ous since 911 con­sid­er­ing all the hijack­ers were from Saudi Ara­bia but that just goes to show how the media can make any­one think a dog is a cat when one can clearly see it is not!

    “The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood” was pre­cisely the key­word search which led me to your web site. After the Boston marathon bomb­ing Glenn Beck cre­ated a HUGE media sen­sa­tion by say­ing he would reveal some­thing within the next few days that would “bring down the US gov­ern­ment”. (God! He’s such a drama queen!)…. Well, his big rev­e­la­tion was the con­nec­tion between the Obama admin­is­tra­tion and the “Mus­lim Broth­er­hood”. And of course, his dis­clo­sure didn’t bring down the US gov­ern­ment (Sur­prise! Sur­prise!) but it did make me curi­ous about this orga­ni­za­tion of which I knew noth­ing about. Have you noticed increased traf­fic to your web site since the Boston Marathon bomb­ing? If you have, this could very well be the rea­son. In his effort to “shock the nation” Beck may have inad­ver­tently sent many peo­ple your way.

    Bless your heart and thank you for so self­lessly shar­ing your work with every­one. If I can ever be of ser­vice please do not hes­i­tate to con­tact me.

    Posted by Shibusa | August 5, 2013, 8:24 am
  10. And once again the Amer­i­can pub­lic gets a friendly reminder that declar­ing a “War on Drugs” against their fel­low cit­i­zens wasn’t just a cal­lous exam­ple of col­lec­tive cru­elty, it was also a really stu­pid self-inflicted injury to the fab­ric of the civil soci­ety:

    More Sur­veil­lance Abuse Exposed! Spe­cial DEA Unit Is Spy­ing On Amer­i­cans And Cov­er­ing It Up
    Rick Ungar, Contributor

    8/05/2013 @ 11:21AM

    As Amer­i­cans sort through their feel­ings regard­ing the dis­clo­sure of the mas­sive col­lec­tion of meta­data by the National Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion, we are now learn­ing of what may be a far more insid­i­ous vio­la­tion of our con­sti­tu­tional rights at the hands of a gov­ern­ment agency.

    Reuters is report­ing that a secret U.S. Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion branch has been col­lect­ing infor­ma­tion from “intel­li­gence inter­cepts, wire­taps, infor­mants and a mas­sive data­base of tele­phone records” and dis­sem­i­nat­ing the data to author­i­ties across the nation to “help them launch crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions of Americans.”

    In this case, the Amer­i­cans who are being sub­jected to these inves­ti­ga­tions are sus­pected drug dealers.

    The unit of the DEA that is con­duct­ing the sur­veil­lance is known as the Spe­cial Oper­a­tions Divi­sion (“SOD”) and is made up of a part­ner­ship of numer­ous gov­ern­ment agen­cies includ­ing the NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS and the Depart­ment of Home­land Security.

    While there are sug­ges­tions that ele­ments of the pro­gram may be legal, there is obvi­ous con­cern on the part of those run­ning the program—a con­cern that has not pre­vented them from going ahead with the col­lect­ing and using of covertly gath­ered data—that the sur­veil­lance effort may not be entirely kosher. We know this to be true because, accord­ing to doc­u­ments reviewed by Reuters, DEA agents are specif­i­cally instructed never to reveal nor dis­cuss the exis­tence and uti­liza­tion of SOD pro­vided data and to fur­ther “omit the SOD’s involve­ment from inves­tiga­tive reports, affi­davits, dis­cus­sions with pros­e­cu­tors and court­room tes­ti­mony. Agents are instructed to then use ‘nor­mal inves­tiga­tive tech­niques to recre­ate the infor­ma­tion pro­vided by SOD.’”

    The last line of the direc­tive is par­tic­u­larly disturbing.

    By instruct­ing agents to use “nor­mal inves­tiga­tive tech­niques to recre­ate the infor­ma­tion pro­vided by SOD”, law enforce­ment is being instructed to flat out lie when dis­clos­ing how they came across the tips or other infor­ma­tion pro­vided by SOD lead­ing to an arrest. These agents are directed to give sub­stance to the lie by fab­ri­cat­ing a false source or method uti­lized to gain infor­ma­tion lead­ing to an arrest.

    In law enforce­ment par­lance, it is called “par­al­lel construction.”

    Accord­ingly to a for­mer fed­eral agent, the SOD ‘tip’ sys­tem works as follows:

    “You’d be told only, ‘Be at a cer­tain truck stop at a cer­tain time and look for a cer­tain vehi­cle.’ And so we’d alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehi­cle, and then have a drug dog search it.”

    When the SOD tip leads to an arrest, the agents then pre­tend that the drug bust was the sur­prise result of pulling the vehi­cle over as a rou­tine traf­fic stop.

    So secre­tive is the pro­gram, SOD requires that agents lie to the judges, pros­e­cut­ing attor­neys and defense attor­neys involved in a trial of a defen­dant busted as a result of SOD surveillance—a com­plete and clear vio­la­tion of every American’s right to due process, even when that Amer­i­can is a low-life drug dealer.

    Every crim­i­nal defen­dant is enti­tled to the legit­i­mate data and facts sur­round­ing their arrest so that their coun­sel can exam­ine the pro­pri­ety of the arrest and attack pro­ce­dures that may be improper and ille­gal under the law in defense of their client. When sen­si­tive, clas­si­fied data is involved in such a case (data pos­si­bly col­lected in sur­veil­lance of a for­eign national that reveals incrim­i­nat­ing evi­dence involv­ing an Amer­i­can), it is the pre­rog­a­tive of the judge to decide what should and should not be admit­ted into evidence.

    As for the pros­e­cu­tors, not every­one is enam­ored with the idea of such deceit, even if it pro­duces con­vic­tions. Reports Reuters:

    One cur­rent fed­eral pros­e­cu­tor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent mis­led him, the pros­e­cu­tor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was han­dling, the pros­e­cu­tor said, a DEA agent told him the inves­ti­ga­tion of a U.S. cit­i­zen began with a tip from an infor­mant. When the pros­e­cu­tor pressed for more infor­ma­tion, he said, a DEA super­vi­sor inter­vened and revealed that the tip had actu­ally come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

    “I was pissed,” the pros­e­cu­tor said. “Lying about where the infor­ma­tion came from is a bad start if you’re try­ing to com­ply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of prob­lems with dis­cov­ery and can­dor to the court.” The pros­e­cu­tor never filed charges in the case because he lost con­fi­dence in the inves­ti­ga­tion, he said.

    Now, before you get car­ried away with this being some fur­ther proof of the Obama Jus­tice Department’s (the DOJ over­sees the activ­i­ties of the DEA) desire to infringe upon the pri­vacy rights of Amer­i­cans, you should know that the pro­gram has been active since 1994. Thus, while one could legit­i­mately crit­i­cize the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion for con­tin­u­ing the pro­gram, lay­ing it all at the feet of the cur­rent admin­is­tra­tion would sim­ply be wrong.

    The dis­clo­sure of the SOD pro­gram is upset­ting a great many legal and con­sti­tu­tional experts through­out the nation. Speak­ing to Reuters, Har­vard Law Pro­fes­sor, Nancy Gertner—who also spent sev­en­teen years on the bench as a fed­eral judge—said,

    “I have never heard of any­thing like this at all. It is one thing to cre­ate spe­cial rules for national secu­rity. Ordi­nary crime is entirely dif­fer­ent. It sounds like they are pho­ny­ing up investigations.”

    Other con­sti­tu­tional and legal experts point out that the pro­gram is more dis­turb­ing than the recent NSA dis­clo­sures involv­ing the col­lec­tion of phone meta­data as the NSA effort is geared towards catch­ing ter­ror­ists while the DEA pro­gram is tar­get­ing com­mon crim­i­nals who, as Amer­i­cans, are enti­tled to their con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tions no mat­ter what their alleged crimes.


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 5, 2013, 12:21 pm
  11. @Dave: Well, yeah.

    In any case, I guess it wouldn’t hurt to re-read some of this stuff, espe­cially thanks to recent developments.

    Posted by Steven L. | August 5, 2013, 3:19 pm
  12. @Shibusa–

    My com­ment is NOT an indict­ment or attack.

    The fact that you had been so thor­oughly and eas­ily mis­lead about Jews/Israel/Zionism is as good an indi­ca­tion as any about The Under­ground Reich’s suc­cess in its efforts.

    Jews and Israel are com­pletely irrel­e­vant to any sub­stan­tive dis­cus­sion of world affairs.

    (Analy­sis of Israel/Arab con­flict gen­er­ally ignores the impor­tant considerations–the tri­par­tite clan con­trol used by the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire to main­tain con­trol in that part of the world–Nashashibis and Hamshemites sub­sumed to the Hus­seini clan. It also ignores other key con­sid­er­a­tions such as the Treaty of Sam Remo of 1920 and the Mizrahi–the Jews eth­ni­cally cleansed from Arab coun­tries fol­low­ing Israel’s found­ing and the 1948 war of inde­pen­dence. More than twice the num­ber of Jews were eth­ni­cally cleansed from Arab lands [over a roughly 30-year period] as “Pales­tini­ans” were eth­ni­cally cleansed in Israel. The land deeded to the Mizrahi was more than FIVE times the ter­ri­tory of mod­ern Israel. Many of those Jews set­tled in Israel and they are the foun­da­tion of the elec­toral base of the Israeli right wing and very, very right wing they are.)

    The Jews are 0.2% of the world’s pop­u­la­tion with 0.0% of the world’s oil.

    Despite man­i­fest­ing a largely medieval cul­ture, the Arabs, who DO con­trol the world’s oil sup­ply and have been aligned with the Reich in both its above-ground and Under­ground phases, have manip­u­lated world opin­ion very successfully.

    As dis­cussed in the Dorothy Thomp­son arti­cle and excerpt I have ref­er­enced so often, eco­nomic con­trol auto­mat­i­cally leads to polit­i­cal control.

    Note, also, my empha­sis on “Serpent’s Walk,” a man­i­festo and far more than the “novel” it pur­ports to be.

    Pub­lished by the National Alliance–one of Glenn Greenwald’s Nazi clients–it refers to con­trol­ling the opinion-forming media.

    The rea­son I dis­cuss the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work so often is deriv­a­tive of the fact that it is–as one banker called it–“the great­est con­cen­tra­tion of money power under a sin­gle con­trol in all of world history”–(see FTR #152).

    In FTR #99, the Bor­mann net­work is dis­cussed in the con­text of the tides of 20th cen­tury cap­i­tal flow.

    An impor­tant analy­sis, that.



    Posted by Dave Emory | August 5, 2013, 4:43 pm
  13. It’s inter­est­ing that the com­ments com­ing from offi­cials on all sides are that the can­cel­la­tion of treaty was com­pletely irrel­e­vant because the treaty hadn’t invoked in years. It raises the obvi­ous ques­tion “Ok, so if it’s irrel­e­vant, is that because there are newer treaties in place that also ensure the same level of exten­sive intelligence-sharing?” And if there ARE other treaties or poli­cies still in place, doesn’t that mean Merkel just bla­tantly tried to deceive the Ger­man elec­torate into think­ing some mean­ing­ful change took place just months before the elec­tion? It’s a curi­ous polit­i­cal move:

    Ger­many ter­mi­nates Cold War spy pact
    August 4, 2013

    BERLIN (AP)–Germany can­celed a Cold War-era sur­veil­lance pact with the United States and Britain on Fri­day in response to rev­e­la­tions by U.S. National Secu­rity Agency leaker Edward Snow­den about those coun­tries’ alleged elec­tronic eaves­drop­ping operations.

    The move appeared largely sym­bolic, designed to show that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment was tak­ing action to stop unwar­ranted sur­veil­lance directed against its cit­i­zens with­out actu­ally jeop­ar­diz­ing rela­tions with Wash­ing­ton and Lon­don. With weeks to go before national elec­tions, oppo­si­tion par­ties had seized on Snowden’s claim that Ger­many was com­plicit in the NSA’s intelligence-gathering operations.

    Gov­ern­ment offi­cials have insisted that U.S. and British intel­li­gence were never given per­mis­sion to break Germany’s strict pri­vacy laws. But they con­ceded last month that an agree­ment dat­ing back to the late 1960s gave the United States, 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,” Ger­man For­eign Min­is­ter Guido West­er­welle said in a statement.

    British For­eign Office brushed off the sig­nif­i­cance of the Ger­man move. “It’s a loose end from a pre­vi­ous era which is right to tie up,” the For­eign Office said in a state­ment, not­ing that the agree­ment had not been used since 1990.

    A spokes­woman for the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Ruth Ben­nett, con­firmed that the agree­ment had been can­celed but declined to com­ment fur­ther on the issue.

    A Ger­man offi­cial, speak­ing on con­di­tion of anonymity, also said the can­cel­la­tion would have lit­tle prac­ti­cal con­se­quences. He said the agree­ment had not been invoked since the end of the Cold War and would have no impact on cur­rent intel­li­gence coop­er­a­tion between Ger­many and its North Atlantic Treaty Orga­ni­za­tion allies. The offi­cial spoke on con­di­tion of anonymity because he was not autho­rized to pub­licly dis­cuss the issue.

    Ger­many is cur­rently in talks with France to can­cel its part of the agree­ment as well.


    You have to won­der if France’s gov­ern­ment is like “WTF? Us too?” or if this was all expected.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 5, 2013, 6:46 pm
  14. @Dave: Well said con­cern­ing Israel. About now the Snow­den Affair cov­ered in this series of posts, I agree with every­thing that has been said so far but I have one inter­ro­ga­tion remain­ing. What about inter-agency competition/rivalry/jealousy in all this? We know that since 9/11 the NSA and the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity have been tak­ing more and more space and pieces of the action in the intel­li­gence mat­ters of the coun­try. Is that con­ceiv­able that some peo­ple in the older agen­cies feel that some­how they are the losers in that con­text? That they have lost, in their esti­ma­tion, “the edge”, have been put aside, down­graded, etc? It is just a thought but maybe there is some­thing there.

    Keep going.

    Posted by Claude | August 7, 2013, 7:11 am
  15. Via zero­hedge:


    NSA Pricked The “Cloud” Bub­ble For US Tech Companies


    Wolf Richter http://www.testosteronepit.com http://www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

    The cloud is a growth indus­try. And a reli­gion in Sil­i­con Val­ley: you’re bet­ter off with all your data and soft­ware stored in a data cen­ter some­where on the planet. It’s at the core of Big Data. It’s a bea­con of growth that revenue-challenged tech giants like Ora­cle and IBM wave in the faces of antsy investors.
    What we thought had been encrypted and secured on US servers, pro­tected by trust­wor­thy Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions, has been made acces­si­ble, as we now know from the Snow­den leaks, not only to com­pa­nies that are will­ing to pay for it, but also to the NSA, other mem­bers of the Intel­li­gence Com­mu­nity, gov­ern­ment agen­cies in the US, state and local law enforce­ment agen­cies, as well as allied for­eign gov­ern­ments. Made pos­si­ble by for­merly secret pro­vi­sions in the Patriot Act and the For­eign Intel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act.
    But there is a price to pay. Tens of bil­lions of dol­lars, it turns out. The reac­tions by for­eign com­pa­nies and gov­ern­ments to these rev­e­la­tions have “an imme­di­ate and last­ing impact” on the US cloud com­put­ing indus­try, deter­mined the Infor­ma­tion Tech­nol­ogy & Inno­va­tion Foun­da­tion.
    In a sur­vey con­ducted after the Snow­den leaks, 10% of the for­eign com­pa­nies using cloud com­put­ing ser­vices said they’d already can­celled a project with a US cloud provider and 56% said they’d be less likely to use US-based providers. Con­versely, among US stake­hold­ers in the cloud sec­tor, 36% said that the NSA leaks would make it more dif­fi­cult doing busi­ness out­side the US. The report esti­mated that if US cloud com­pa­nies lose between 10% and 20% of their for­eign busi­ness over three years, it will cost them between $21.5 bil­lion to $35 billion.

    But the report cau­tions it could get much more expen­sive “if for­eign gov­ern­ments enact pro­tec­tion­ist trade bar­ri­ers that effec­tively cut out US providers.” In Europe, momen­tum in that direc­tion is growing.

    Ger­man Fed­eral Data Pro­tec­tion com­mis­sion­ers threat­ened with new bureau­cratic hur­dles. Inte­rior Min­is­ter Hans-Peter Friedrich announced that “who­ever fears their com­mu­ni­ca­tion is being inter­cepted in any way should use ser­vices that don’t go through Amer­i­can servers.” And Jus­tice Min­is­ter Jörg-Uwe Hahn called for an out­right boy­cott of US companies.

    More at link

    Posted by Swamp | August 7, 2013, 10:25 am
  16. Glenn Green­wald recently con­firmed that that he was given 15–20,000 clas­si­fied docu­muents by Snow­den and what he’s released so far is a tiny por­tion of what he’s plan­ning on releas­ing. He also claims that Wik­iLeaks prob­a­bly doesn’t have the full set of doc­u­ments but that only he and Laura Poitras have them (pre­sum­ably this doesn’t include the mys­tery indi­vid­u­als with the encrypted doc­u­ments). Out­side experts have also been hired to help inter­pret the doc­u­ments. In another week or so, accord­ing to Green­wald, there should be another major rev­e­la­tion about US spy­ing in Latin Amer­ica:

    Glenn Green­wald: Snow­den Gave Me 15–20,000 Clas­si­fied Documents

    Reuters | Posted: 08/06/2013 8:45 pm EDT

    * Jour­nal­ist says he speaks to Snow­den almost daily

    * For­mer NSA con­trac­tor happy with debate on inter­net privacy

    By Anthony Boadle

    BRASILIA, Aug 6 (Reuters) — Glenn Green­wald, the Amer­i­can jour­nal­ist who pub­lished doc­u­ments leaked by fugi­tive for­mer U.S. intel­li­gence con­trac­tor Edward Snow­den, plans to make new rev­e­la­tions “within the next 10 days or so” on secret U.S. sur­veil­lance of the Inter­net.

    “The arti­cles we have pub­lished so far are a very small part of the rev­e­la­tions that ought to be pub­lished,” Green­wald on Tues­day told a Brazil­ian con­gres­sional hear­ing that is inves­ti­gat­ing the U.S. inter­net sur­veil­lance in Brazil.

    “There will cer­tainly be many more rev­e­la­tions on spy­ing by the U.S. gov­ern­ment and how they are invad­ing the com­mu­ni­ca­tions of Brasil and Latin Amer­ica,” he said in Portuguese.

    The Rio de Janeiro-based colum­nist for Britain’s Guardian news­pa­per said he has recruited the help of experts to under­stand some of the 15,000 to 20,000 clas­si­fied doc­u­ments from the National Secu­rity Agency that Snow­den passed him, some of which are “very long and com­plex and take time to read.”

    Green­wald told Reuters he does not believe the pro-transparency web­site Wik­iLeaks had obtained a pack­age of doc­u­ments from Snow­den, and that only he and film­maker Laura Poitras have com­plete archives of the leaked mate­r­ial.

    Green­wald said Snow­den, who was in hid­ing in Hong Kong before fly­ing to Rus­sia in late June, was happy to leave a Moscow air­port after being granted tem­po­rary asy­lum, and pleased that he had stirred up a world­wide debate on inter­net pri­vacy and secret U.S. sur­veil­lance pro­grams used to mon­i­tor emails.

    “I speak with him a lot since he left the air­port, almost every day. We use very strong encryp­tion to com­mu­ni­cate,” Green­wald told the Brazil­ian leg­is­la­tors. “He is very well.”


    Last month, in an arti­cle co-authored by Green­wald, the Brazil­ian news­pa­per O Globo reported that the NSA spied on Latin Amer­i­can coun­tries with pro­grams that can mon­i­tor bil­lions of emails and phone calls for sus­pi­cious activ­ity. Latin Amer­i­can coun­tries fumed at what they con­sid­ered a vio­la­tion of their sov­er­eignty and demanded expla­na­tions and an apology.


    In Brazil, the largest U.S. trad­ing part­ner in South Amer­ica, angry sen­a­tors ques­tioned Pres­i­dent Dilma Rousseff’s planned state visit to Wash­ing­ton in Octo­ber and a billion-dollar pur­chase of U.S.-made fighter jets Brazil is considering.

    Mem­bers of the Sen­ate For­eign Rela­tions Com­mit­tee pep­pered Green­wald with ques­tions on Tues­day, such as whether the NSA was capa­ble of spy­ing on Brazil’s com­mer­cial secrets, includ­ing the dis­cov­ery of promis­ing off­shore oil reserves, and the com­mu­ni­ca­tions of the country’s pres­i­dent and armed forces.

    Green­wald had no details on spe­cific tar­gets and said the doc­u­ments did not name telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions and inter­net com­pa­nies in the United States and Brazil that might have col­lab­o­rated with the NSA’s col­lec­tion of inter­net users’ data.


    Mean­while, Wash­ing­ton is work­ing through diplo­matic chan­nels to per­suade gov­ern­ments to stop com­plain­ing about the sur­veil­lance pro­grams, he said.

    “The Brazil­ian gov­ern­ment is show­ing much more anger in pub­lic than it is show­ing in pri­vate dis­cus­sions with the U.S. gov­ern­ment,” Green­wald told reporters. “All gov­ern­ments are doing this, even in Europe.”

    In a speech at the United Nations on Tues­day, Brazil­ian For­eign Min­is­ter Anto­nio Patri­ota called the inter­cep­tion of telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions and acts of espi­onage in Latin Amer­ica “a seri­ous issue, with a pro­found impact on the inter­na­tional order.” But he did not men­tion the United States by name.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 8, 2013, 8:07 pm
  17. The GOP is being pre­dictably ‘help­ful’ with the task of defus­ing grow­ing ten­sions in US inter­na­tional rela­tions:

    The Hill
    GOP sen­a­tors want Obama to take fur­ther steps against Russia

    By Jeremy Herb — 08/08/13 01:45 PM ET

    Pres­i­dent Obama should expand sanc­tions against Russ­ian human rights vio­la­tors, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lind­sey Gra­ham (R-S.C.) said Thursday.

    The two sen­a­tors issued a joint state­ment that said they “obvi­ously agree” with Obama’s deci­sion to can­cel a planned meet­ing next month with Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

    But the two said Obama should go much farther.

    They called on the pres­i­dent to fin­ish the last phase of a Euro­pean mis­sile defense shield that’s been scrapped and push for a new round of NATO expan­sion to include Georgia.

    “Now we must move beyond sym­bolic acts and take the steps nec­es­sary to estab­lish a more real­is­tic approach to our rela­tions with Rus­sia,” McCain and Gra­ham said. “That means demon­strat­ing to the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment that there will be con­se­quences for its con­tin­ued actions that under­mine Amer­i­can national interests.”


    Obama earned praise from Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats alike on Wednes­day for skip­ping the sum­mit, as hawks from both par­ties have been incensed with Putin for sup­port­ing Syr­ian Pres­i­dent Bashar Assad, as well as the Snow­den affair.

    But Thursday’s state­ment from McCain and Gra­ham high­lights the fact that the bipar­ti­san sup­port is likely to be short-lived unless there is a change in the U.S.-Russia rela­tion­ship, whether it’s pol­icy changes from Moscow or fur­ther U.S. actions against the Kremlin.

    Obama has an uneven rela­tion­ship with Gra­ham and McCain on for­eign pol­icy. They have been his biggest detrac­tors on issues like Syria, but he dis­patched the pair to Egypt this week to speak with mem­bers of the mil­i­tary, the interim gov­ern­ment and Mus­lim Brotherhood.

    How­ever, McCain said Mon­day in Egypt that the over­throw of Pres­i­dent Moham­mad Morsi was a coup — a des­ig­na­tion the Obama admin­is­tra­tion has resisted.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 8, 2013, 8:58 pm
  18. It looks like the grand plan by the NSA to improve secu­rity is to announce a 90% reduc­tion in the num­ber of Sys­tem Admin­is­tra­tors. They’ll be replaced with more com­put­ers?

    Busi­ness Insider
    NSA to cut sys­tem admin­is­tra­tors by 90 per­cent to limit data access
    By Jonathan Allen

    Filed Aug 9th, 2013

    The National Secu­rity Agency, hit by dis­clo­sures of clas­si­fied data by for­mer con­trac­tor Edward Snow­den, said Thurs­day it intends to elim­i­nate about 90 per­cent of its sys­tem admin­is­tra­tors to reduce the num­ber of peo­ple with access to secret information.

    Keith Alexan­der, the direc­tor of the NSA, the U.S. spy agency charged with mon­i­tor­ing for­eign elec­tronic com­mu­ni­ca­tions, told a cyber­se­cu­rity con­fer­ence in New York City that automat­ing much of the work would improve security.

    “What we’re in the process of doing — not fast enough — is reduc­ing our sys­tem admin­is­tra­tors by about 90 per­cent,” he said.

    The remarks came as the agency is fac­ing scrutiny after Snow­den, who had been one of about 1,000 sys­tem admin­is­tra­tors who help run the agency’s net­works, leaked clas­si­fied details about sur­veil­lance pro­grams to the press.

    Before the change, “what we’ve done is we’ve put peo­ple in the loop of trans­fer­ring data, secur­ing net­works and doing things that machines are prob­a­bly bet­ter at doing,” Alexan­der said.

    Using tech­nol­ogy to auto­mate much of the work now done by employ­ees and con­trac­tors would make the NSA’s net­works “more defen­si­ble and more secure,” as well as faster, he said at the con­fer­ence, in which he did not men­tion Snow­den by name.

    These efforts pre-date Snowden’s leaks, the agency has said, but have since been accelerated.


    It’s looks like Skynet Jr. or one of its sib­lings is going to be respon­si­ble for an increas­ing num­ber of deci­sions in how this sen­si­tive data is inter­preted and han­dled. This also means Skynet Jr’s is going to get ‘aquainted’ with human­ity via tasks like pars­ing Cha­troulette ses­sions for signs of ter­ror­ism. And now you know the rest of the story...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 12, 2013, 7:17 pm
  19. Tak­ing a page from Russia’s recent rum­blings about US elec­tron­ics, it looks like China might be mov­ing away from US IT tech­nol­ogy:

    China to probe IBM, Ora­cle, EMC for secu­rity con­cerns — paper

    SHANGHAI | Fri Aug 16, 2013 7:49am EDT

    (Reuters) — China’s Min­istry of Pub­lic Secu­rity and a cabinet-level research cen­tre are prepar­ing to inves­ti­gate IBM Corp, Ora­cle Corp and EMC Corp over secu­rity issues, the offi­cial Shang­hai Secu­ri­ties News said on Friday.

    The report fol­lows rev­e­la­tions by for­mer U.S. spy agency con­trac­tor Edward Snow­den of wide­spread sur­veil­lance, includ­ing a pro­gram known as PRISM, by the National Secu­rity Agency and his asser­tion that the agency hacked into crit­i­cal net­work infra­struc­ture at uni­ver­si­ties in China and in Hong Kong.

    Doc­u­ments leaked by Snow­den revealed that the NSA has had access to vast amounts of Inter­net data such as emails, chat rooms and video from large com­pa­nies, includ­ing Face­book and Google, under a gov­ern­ment pro­gram known as Prism.

    “At present, thanks to their tech­no­log­i­cal supe­ri­or­ity, many of our core infor­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy sys­tems are basi­cally dom­i­nated by for­eign hard­ware and soft­ware firms, but the Prism scan­dal implies secu­rity prob­lems,” the news­pa­per quoted an anony­mous source as saying.

    China’s Min­istry of Pub­lic Secu­rity declined to com­ment on the reported probe, and the State Council’s Devel­op­ment Research Cen­tre, one of the groups report­edly involved, told Reuters they were not car­ry­ing out such an investigation.

    A spokesper­son for the Min­istry of Indus­try and Infor­ma­tion Tech­nol­ogy (MIIT), which over­sees China’s IT indus­try, said it could not con­firm any­thing because of the matter’s sen­si­tiv­ity. Another MIIT offi­cial told Reuters they were unaware of the reported probe.

    IBM said in an emailed state­ment to Reuters that the com­pany was unable to com­ment. Ora­cle and EMC were not imme­di­ately avail­able for comment.

    China, repeat­edly accused by the United States of hack­ing, was given con­sid­er­able ammu­ni­tion by Snowden’s alle­ga­tions, which Bei­jing has used to point the fin­ger at Wash­ing­ton for hypocrisy.

    Chi­nese reg­u­la­tors and the police have begun a series of inves­ti­ga­tions in recent weeks into how for­eign and domes­tic com­pa­nies do busi­ness in the world’s second-biggest economy.


    Ditto Europe:

    Merkel Urges Euro­pean Inter­net Push to Blunt U.S. Sur­veil­lance
    By Arne Delfs & Tony Czuczka — Jul 19, 2013 7:06 AM CT

    Ger­man Chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel said Europe should pro­mote home-grown Inter­net com­pa­nies to avoid U.S. sur­veil­lance as she sought to keep the spy­ing affair out of her re-election campaign.

    Merkel, at a 90-minute news con­fer­ence in Berlin today before she goes on sum­mer vaca­tion, said she is press­ing U.S. offi­cials for infor­ma­tion on the scale of the National Secu­rity Agency’s spy­ing on global com­mu­ni­ca­tions in Ger­many. That includes the Prism pro­gram, which mines data from tech­nol­ogy companies.

    “In view of this debate, we have to look at what we’re able to do in Europe,” Merkel said. Just as Euro­pean com­pa­nies build Air­bus planes to com­pete with Boe­ing Co., “we have to ask our­selves which tech­ni­cal abil­i­ties we want to have in Europe in the Inter­net. Oth­er­wise, we become depen­dent. A con­ti­nent like Europe should have this ambition.”

    Germany’s oppo­si­tion, trail­ing in polls before the Sept. 22 fed­eral elec­tion, is crit­i­ciz­ing Merkel as slow to inves­ti­gate the sur­veil­lance alle­ga­tions by ex-NSA con­trac­tor Edward Snow­den. While a poll for ARD tele­vi­sion today said 69 per­cent of Ger­mans aren’t sat­is­fied with her government’s efforts to obtain infor­ma­tion from Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s admin­is­tra­tion, 70 per­cent said her response has lit­tle or no effect on how they will vote as Merkel seeks a third term.

    Merkel expressed under­stand­ing today for U.S. secu­rity needs after the Sept. 11 ter­ror­ist attacks on New York and Wash­ing­ton, say­ing Obama’s state­ment that pri­vacy must be weighed against secu­rity “is right.” Yet that doesn’t jus­tify turn­ing Ger­many into a “sur­veil­lance state,” she said.
    ‘Not My Job’

    Queried repeat­edly by reporters about the U.S. response to Ger­man con­cerns, Merkel said that she is wait­ing for answers and let­ting her cab­i­net min­is­ters take the lead. “It’s not my job to get into the details of Prism,” she said. While she has a “100 per­cent inter­est” in dis­clo­sure, “to some degree this is out of my hands.”

    Ger­man law­mak­ers across party lines are call­ing for Europe to build up rivals to com­pa­nies such as Google Inc. (GOOG) and Face­book Inc. (FB) “Europe has to do some­thing against the Amer­i­cans’ mar­ket power,” Wolf­gang Bos­bach, a mem­ber of Merkel’s Chris­t­ian Demo­c­ra­tic Union who heads parliament’s Inte­rior Affairs Com­mit­tee, said yes­ter­day in an inter­view. “I refuse to accept U.S. dom­i­nance of the indus­try,” oppo­si­tion Social Demo­c­ra­tic law­maker Dieter Wiefel­spuetz said.

    Gov­ern­ment aid prob­a­bly won’t ease Euro­pean fears, Dieter Kempf, the head of the Bitkom indus­try group in Ger­many, said in an e-mailed state­ment. It’s hard to imag­ine that “projects financed with tax­payer money can even remotely keep up with U.S. com­pa­nies that have invested bil­lions in tech­nol­ogy devel­op­ment over the years,” he said.


    One would think that Sil­i­con Val­ley would be a wee bit more con­cerned about the global plum­met in trust in US busi­ness. But, if you think about it, there’s no rea­son today’s Sil­i­con Val­ley firms can’t sim­ply move out of Sil­i­con Val­ley and then par­tic­i­pate in what could be a global boom in invest­ment in new IT secu­rity tech­nolo­gies:

    IT Secu­rity Indus­try To Expand Ten­fold
    Richard Sti­en­non, Con­trib­u­tor
    8/14/2013 @ 11:38AM

    Gov­ern­ments around the world have com­man­deered the Inter­net, as Bruce Schneier so suc­cinctly points out in The Atlantic. How is that going to impact the IT secu­rity indus­try? This $60 bil­lion indus­try researches, devel­ops, and sells fire­walls, anti-malware, authen­ti­ca­tion, encryp­tion, and 80 other cat­e­gories of prod­ucts. With each advance in the threat level rep­re­sented by hack­ers, cyber crim­i­nals, and cyber spies there has been a new batch of ven­dors which come on the scene to counter threats that bypass pre­vi­ous tech­nolo­gies and spend­ing has increased.

    Spend­ing on IT secu­rity is poised to grow ten­fold in ten years. Every orga­ni­za­tion from the largest oil and gas refiner, to the small­est bank has under­spent on secu­rity. Clas­sic risk man­age­ment method­olo­gies call for trade-offs in secu­rity. Unlikely events, Black Swans, are not accounted for. This protect-against-the-known phi­los­o­phy is what led to most defense con­trac­tors and even the Depart­ment of Defense being com­pletely vul­ner­a­ble to sophis­ti­cated tar­geted attacks from for­eign spy agen­cies. The recent rapid growth of tech­nol­ogy ven­dors to ward off cyber attacks is a blip com­pared to what is coming.

    Even the most sophis­ti­cated Chi­nese cyber spies do not appear to be well funded. They use shelf ware and their teams work reg­u­lar hours. The NSA on the other hand is shock­ingly replete with funds. The US Intel­li­gence Com­mu­nity bud­get of $70 bil­lion is twice the size of the Aus­tralian mil­i­tary bud­get. The NSA has donated $160 mil­lion to its sis­ter agency, GCHQ, in the UK for intel­li­gence gath­er­ing. The invest­ment in cre­at­ing Total Infor­ma­tion Aware­ness over the last decade has stunned the industry.

    There will be a response to this threat against all com­mu­ni­ca­tions. That response will be hun­dreds of new IT secu­rity ven­dors crop­ping up all over the world. Thanks to a dra­matic increase in dis­trust of US com­pa­nies this boom in tech­nol­ogy will not be cen­tered on Sil­i­con Val­ley. Just as the dra­con­ian anti-encryption mea­sures of the ‘90s drove devel­op­ment off­shore, major cloud providers will have to push their engi­neer­ing and research into coun­tries that are more open and con­sid­er­ate of pri­vacy and transparency.

    As engi­neers do, great minds around the world are today fig­ur­ing out the tech­nol­ogy to route around sur­veil­lance. The mar­ket is there. Fund­ing will be read­ily avail­able. It will be the ulti­mate irony if a tech giant like Huawei becomes a trusted provider of infra­struc­ture because there is less chance that its exec­u­tives are secretly work­ing with the NSA.


    It would indeed be an ulti­mate iron if Huawei becomes a glob­ally trusted provider of IT infra­struc­ture for han­dling sen­si­tive data. It also seems kind of unlikely, but who knows.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 16, 2013, 11:31 am
  20. Pre­sum­ably there must be some­thing on Mr. Miranda’s lap­top that some­one REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to get their hands on, because it’s really hard to see how detain­ing Glenn Greenwald’s part­ner for nine hours as part of an “anti-terrorism” inquiry was deemed to be a good idea. When Green­wald says “I don’t under­stand why they don’t realise that all it’s going to accom­plish is the exact oppo­site effect,” he’s prob­a­bly right. Act­ing like some weird police-state towards Greenwald’s part­ner is kind of exactly the oppo­site of what one would have thought the UK would want to be doing right now:

    Snow­den case: Brazil ‘con­cerned’ after UK deten­tion
    18 August 2013 Last updated at 21:50 ET

    Brazil says the deten­tion under British ter­ror laws of one of its cit­i­zens at London’s Heathrow air­port caused “grave con­cern” and was “unjustified”.

    David Miranda, the part­ner of Guardian jour­nal­ist Glenn Green­wald who pub­lished doc­u­ments leaked by Edward Snow­den, was held at Heathrow for nine hours on his way to Rio de Janeiro.

    He report­edly had his mobile phone, lap­top, DVDs and other items seized.

    Mr Miranda was later released by British authorities.

    Mr Green­wald called his partner’s deten­tion an “intim­i­da­tion” and a “pro­found attack on press freedoms”.

    Under the Ter­ror­ism Act 2000, UK police can hold some­one at an air­port for up to nine hours — but the power must be used appro­pri­ately and pro­por­tion­ately and is sub­ject to inde­pen­dent scrutiny.

    Amnesty Inter­na­tional says the inci­dent shows the law can be abused for what it described as “petty and vin­dic­tive reasons”.

    ‘Seri­ous threat’

    “At 08:05 on Sun­day 18 August 2013 a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow Air­port under Sched­ule 7 of the Ter­ror­ism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was sub­se­quently released at 17:00,” said a state­ment issued by the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police.

    Mr Green­wald said the British author­i­ties’ actions in hold­ing Mr Miranda amounted to “intim­i­da­tion and bullying”.

    “They never asked him about a sin­gle ques­tion at all about ter­ror­ism or any­thing relat­ing to a ter­ror­ist organ­i­sa­tion,” he told the BBC World Service’s News­day programme.

    “They spent the entire day ask­ing about the report­ing I was doing and other Guardian jour­nal­ists were doing on the NSA stories.

    “The prin­ci­ple point, since they kept him for the full nine hours, is to try and send a mes­sage of inti­ma­tion and bullying.

    “I don’t under­stand why they don’t realise that all it’s going to accom­plish is the exact oppo­site effect — I’m going to report more aggres­sively and with a more embold­ened mind,” Mr Green­wald told the BBC.

    The Brazil­ian gov­ern­ment issued an offi­cial state­ment soon after the release of Mr Miranda.

    The for­eign min­istry doc­u­ment says there was no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for detain­ing an “indi­vid­ual against whom there are no charges that can legit­i­mate the use of that [anti-terror] legislation”.

    It also says Brazil expects inci­dents “such as the one that hap­pened to the Brazil­ian cit­i­zen today” not to be repeated.

    Mr Miranda was fly­ing back from the Ger­man cap­i­tal, Berlin, to Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with Mr Green­wald, when he was detained in tran­sit through Heathrow.

    In Ger­many, he had met US film-maker Laura Poitras, who has also been work­ing on the Snow­den files with Mr Green­wald and The Guardian. accord­ing to the newspaper.

    Fol­low­ing his deten­tion at Heathrow, Brazil­ian gov­ern­ment offi­cials and Guardian lawyers were called to the air­port, The Guardian says.


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 18, 2013, 7:52 pm
  21. @Pterrafractyl–

    Actu­ally, the Miranda inci­dent doesn’t sur­prise me, for all its super­fi­cial clumsiness.

    Miranda was trans­fer­ring doc­u­men­ta­tion from Poitras to Green­wald. That’s why they con­fis­cated his elec­tronic equipment.

    Why is Poitras in Germany?

    There are plenty of other places for her to be.

    Same place as Peter Sunde–founder of Pirate Bay and joined at the hip with far-right, Nazi-linked spook net­work WikiLeaks.

    Sunde began PB while work­ing for Siemens, itself inex­tri­ca­bly linked with BND at one level and the Bor­mann network/Underground Reich at another.

    The more time passes, the more this is look­ing like a BND pen­e­tra­tion and psy-op, using the pow­er­ful “deep fifth col­umn” in U.S. and prob­a­bly U.K.

    Also: I coun­sel you pay some seri­ous atten­tion to Grup­pen­fuhrer Greenwald.



    This scum­bag is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is made out to be.

    I have noted G-wald’s 11-year rela­tion­ship with Austrian-born lawyer Achatz.

    He was vaca­tion­ing in Brazil to get over his bro­ken heart–or so we’re told–when he met Miranda, with whom it was love at first sight.

    I won­der if Achatz MIGHT have been a case offi­cer of sorts for G-wald.

    They were part­ners and prac­ticed law together. Maybe that was all there was to it–practicing law together by day and but­ter­ing each other’s buns by night.

    Per­haps there was more to it, however.

    I do have a sug­ges­tion for Poitras, Green­wald and Miranda. Why don’t they move to Rus­sia, that way they can be closer to their icon/guru Snowden.

    Rus­sia is a world renowned bas­tion of civil lib­er­ties, free­dom of expres­sion and inter­net free­dom, in par­tic­u­lar. (I don’t pass judge­ment here–like Egypt, Rus­sia is fac­ing a desta­bi­liza­tion pro­gram, using Islamist com­bat­ants of the Under­ground Reich directed by the Under­ground Reich/GOP fac­tion of U.S. intel. Nonethe­less, I wouldn’t want to live there.)

    And they just LOVE gay peo­ple in Rus­sia! Hey what’s not to like Laura, Glenn and David?! Off to Moscow with you!



    Posted by Dave Emory | August 19, 2013, 12:34 pm
  22. @Dave: You have to won­der if this is part of what prompted the UK’s Heathrow freak­out: Wik­ileaks pub­lished a ~400GB encrypted “insur­ance file” Sat­ur­day morn­ing, sim­i­lar to Snowden’s “dead man’s swich”. No one knows what’s in the file. Just that there’s 400GB of some­thing in it:

    The Daily Dot
    Is Wik­iLeaks bluff­ing, or did it really just post all its secrets to Face­book?
    By Aja Romano on August 17, 2013

    Some­one remind Wik­iLeaks that the U.S does not respond well to blackmail.

    We’d think this was some kind of inter­ac­tive Inter­net mys­tery if we didn’t know bet­ter, but in fact Wik­iLeaks has released about 400 giga­bytes’ worth of mys­te­ri­ous data in a series of encrypted tor­rent files called “insur­ance.” And no one can open it.


    With noth­ing bet­ter to go on, the Inter­net has decided that “insur­ance” may be code for “back off” to the U.S. government—coming just before the sen­tenc­ing of Wik­iLeaks cause célèbre Bradley Manning.

    File encryp­tion means that the data is hid­den and no one can see what’s in the shared files with­out a key to unlock them—which, of course, hasn’t been pub­licly released.

    The size of one of the files is 349 giga­bytes, which means that there’s either A) enough tex­tual data inside to power a nation­wide secu­rity cri­sis for the next 300 years or so, or B) a few very incrim­i­nat­ing pieces of video footage.


    But the most pop­u­lar the­o­ries between the com­ments of Face­book, Red­dit, and Hacker News, are that the data con­tains infor­ma­tion about the iden­ti­ties of U.S. secret agents cur­rently serv­ing around the world.

    Wik­iLeaks has always anonymized the names of any agents asso­ci­ated with the data in its leaks in order to pro­tect their iden­ti­ties. But with a file­name like “Insur­ance,” a few peo­ple are bet­ting that the web­site is prepar­ing for a fight with any gov­ern­ments who want to keep its info out of the hands of the public.

    Another pop­u­lar the­ory is that the files con­tain the entirety of a dump that came from the lat­est Wik­iLeaks hero, Edward Snowden.

    “[C]ould it be that Snow­den did a data­base dump of their entire main­frame, like Man­ning essen­tially did?” spec­u­lated a user called swid­die on Red­dit. “The file could con­tain the per­sonal infor­ma­tion on every­one, aka stasi files, the NSA ever spied on.”

    That file, if it existed, could be far big­ger than 400 gigs.

    The files, which were seeded as tor­rents pub­licly, went up around 1:30am East­ern, roughly 12 hours or so after a sen­tenc­ing judge called the actions of for­mer U.S. sol­dier Bradley Man­ning in leak­ing clas­si­fied data to Wik­iLeaks “wan­ton and reckless.”


    As long as the files are released with­out the keys that unlock them, it’s impos­si­ble for any­one, even the gov­ern­ment, to get inside.

    But if Wik­iLeaks releases the keys to the public—and all the gov­ern­ments of the world at once—then it’s pos­si­ble that the war on unau­tho­rized access to gov­ern­ment secrets could get a lot more dangerous.

    Or a lot more interesting.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 19, 2013, 12:56 pm
  23. There’s an inter­est­ing admis­sion in Greenwald’s response to the UK detain­ment: Green­wald says Britain will be “sorry” for the act, stat­ing “I will be far more aggres­sive in my report­ing from now. I am going to pub­lish many more doc­u­ments. I am going to pub­lish things on Eng­land too. I have many doc­u­ments on England’s spy sys­tem. I think they will be sorry for what they did”. So Green­wald was hold­ing back, for what­ever rea­son, info on the UK’s spy­ing that he now deems news­wor­thy after his partner’s arrest. Are there other coun­tries that Green­wald has lots of “in case you piss me off”-info on that we have yet to learn about?

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 19, 2013, 1:32 pm
  24. In the lat­est Snow­den leak, we’re learn­ing that the NSA was spy­ing on the pres­i­dents of Brazil and Mex­ico, lead­ing to the expected out­rage from both gov­ern­ments. Brazil is also call­ing for inter­na­tional reg­u­la­tions on cyber espi­onage:

    US-Brazil ten­sions rise after new NSA spy report

    The Asso­ci­ated Press

    RIO DE JANEIRO — The Brazil­ian gov­ern­ment con­demned a U.S. spy pro­gram that report­edly tar­geted the nation’s leader, labeled it an “unac­cept­able inva­sion” of sov­er­eignty and called Mon­day for inter­na­tional reg­u­la­tions to pro­tect cit­i­zens and gov­ern­ments alike from cyber espi­onage.

    In a sign that fall­out over the spy pro­gram is spread­ing, the news­pa­per Folha de S.Paulo reported that Pres­i­dent Dilma Rouss­eff is con­sid­er­ing can­cel­ing her Octo­ber trip to the U.S., where she has been sched­uled to be hon­ored with a state din­ner. Folha cited uniden­ti­fied Rouss­eff aides. The president’s office declined to comment.

    The For­eign Min­istry called in U.S. Ambas­sador Thomas Shan­non and told him Brazil expects the White House to pro­vide a prompt writ­ten expla­na­tion over the espi­onage allegations.

    The action came after a report aired Sun­day night on Globo TV cit­ing 2012 doc­u­ments from NSA leaker Edward Snow­den that indi­cated the U.S. inter­cepted Rousseff’s emails and tele­phone calls, along with those of Mex­i­can Pres­i­dent Enrique Pena Nieto, whose com­mu­ni­ca­tions were being mon­i­tored even before he was elected as pres­i­dent in July 2012.

    Mexico’s gov­ern­ment said it had expressed its con­cerns to the U.S. ambas­sador and directly to the U.S. administration.

    Brazil­ian For­eign Min­is­ter Luiz Alberto Figueiredo said, “We’re going to talk with our part­ners, includ­ing devel­oped and devel­op­ing nations, to eval­u­ate how they pro­tect them­selves and to see what joint mea­sures could be taken in the face of this grave situation.”

    He added that “there has to be inter­na­tional reg­u­la­tions that pro­hibit cit­i­zens and gov­ern­ments alike from being exposed to inter­cep­tions, vio­la­tions of pri­vacy and cyberattacks.”

    Jus­tice Min­is­ter Eduardo Car­dozo said at a joint news con­fer­ence with Figueiredo that “from our point of view, this rep­re­sents an unac­cept­able vio­la­tion of Brazil­ian sovereignty.”

    “This type of prac­tice is incom­pat­i­ble with the con­fi­dence nec­es­sary for a strate­gic part­ner­ship between two nations,” Car­dozo said.

    Ear­lier, Sen. Ricardo Fer­raco, head of the Brazil­ian Senate’s for­eign rela­tions com­mit­tee, said law­mak­ers already had decided to for­mally inves­ti­gate the U.S. program’s focus on Brazil because of ear­lier rev­e­la­tions that the coun­try was a top tar­get of the NSA spy­ing in the region. He said the probe would likely start this week.

    “I feel a mix­ture of amaze­ment and indig­na­tion. It seems like there are no lim­its. When the phone of the pres­i­dent of the repub­lic is mon­i­tored, it’s hard to imag­ine what else might be hap­pen­ing,” Fer­raco told reporters in Brasilia. “It’s unac­cept­able that in a coun­try like ours, where there is absolutely no cli­mate of ter­ror­ism, that there is this type of spying.”

    Dur­ing the Sun­day night TV pro­gram, U.S. jour­nal­ist Glenn Green­wald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and first broke the story about the NSA pro­gram in Britain’s Guardian news­pa­per after receiv­ing tens of thou­sands of doc­u­ments from Snow­den, told the news pro­gram “Fan­tas­tico” that a doc­u­ment dated June 2012 shows that Pena Nieto’s emails were being read. The document’s date is the month before Pena Nieto was elected.

    The doc­u­ment indi­cated who Pena Nieto would like to name to some gov­ern­ment posts, among other information.

    It’s not clear if the spy­ing continues.

    As for Brazil’s leader, the NSA doc­u­ment “doesn’t include any of Dilma’s spe­cific inter­cepted mes­sages, the way it does for Nieto,” Green­wald told The Asso­ci­ated Press in an email. “But it is clear in sev­eral ways that her com­mu­ni­ca­tions were inter­cepted, includ­ing the use of DNI Pre­sen­ter, which is a pro­gram used by NSA to open and read emails and online chats.”


    So we seem to be head­ing towards a fas­ci­nat­ing pos­si­bil­ity that there will be calls for inter­na­tional reg­u­la­tions on spy­ing. It could actu­ally be a won­der­ful turn of events if such a debate unfolds because part of what’s made the global response to the Snow­den Affair such a missed oppor­tu­nity is the gen­eral atti­tude in the reports and com­men­tary that only the NSA and GSHQ are the only one’s doing the spy­ing. If we were, instead, dis­cussing the global phe­nom­ena of mass sur­veil­lance by vir­tu­ally every gov­ern­ment that can afford to do it cou­pled with ubiq­ui­tous cor­po­rate spy­ing that takes place by cor­po­ra­tions all over the globe, well now THAT would be really a use­ful global dis­cus­sion. Because even if the NSA and the rest of the “Five Eyes” dis­ap­peared tomor­row it’s hard to see how there still wouldn’t be mass spy­ing still tak­ing place all over. So could we actu­ally see coun­tries like France, for instance, vol­un­tar­ily call for aggres­sive inter­na­tional enforce­ment of anti-corporate espi­onage rules? And will China agree to never ever spy in the UN again with some expected inter­na­tional penalty if they get caught?

    And what about domes­tic mass spy­ing? Can we can gov­ern­ments around the world to agree to inter­na­tional sanc­tions if they’re ever found to be engag­ing in wide­spread sur­veil­lance? Because while NSA spy­ing cer­tainly isn’t help­ful for the peo­ple of Rus­sia, China, Brazil, the EU, or any­where else, it’s still domes­tic spy­ing by one’s own gov­ern­ment that puts indi­vid­u­als in the great­est dan­ger. For exam­ple, as we also learned today, the US Drug Enforce­ment Agency and other law enforce­ment agen­cies have been pay­ing AT&T for access to a secret phone-record data­base for use in crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions since 2007. And the data­base con­tains records going back to 1987. This is in addi­tion to theother secret mass-surveillance data­base estab­lished in 1994 for use by US law enforce­ment. Could we see a call for every UN mem­ber to end domes­tic spy­ing by all their law enforce­ment agen­cies too? Because that would be pretty neat.

    And then there are some really inter­est­ing ques­tions that could arise from this kind of dis­course: For instance, let’s say...
    1. There exists a hor­ri­bly point­less and destruc­tive global set of laws that should have never existed in the first place and only fuels police-state trends but some­how became the sta­tus quo largely though the efforts of a hypo­thet­i­cal Coun­try A.
    2. And let’s say this hor­ri­ble set of laws inevitably leads the emer­gence of power orga­nized crim­i­nal syn­di­cates across the globe includ­ing in Coun­try A’s neigh­bor, Coun­try B.
    3. And let’s say Coun­try A has also been spy­ing on Coun­try B’s pres­i­dent.
    4. And let’s say Coun­try B’s pres­i­dent turns out to be deeply tied to those same orga­nized crim­i­nal forces that prob­a­bly never would have existed if it wasn’t for Coun­try A’s insis­tence on the inter­na­tional adop­tion of the afore­men­tioned hor­ri­ble laws.

    What should Coun­try A do after find­ing out that Coun­try B’s pres­i­dent is friends with orga­nized crim­i­nals in this, uh, hypo­thet­i­cal sit­u­a­tion?

    Another inter­est­ing ques­tion that might arise: If the new envi­sioned global rules are going to involve things like expec­ta­tions that gov­ern­ments that are offi­cially allies shouldn’t ever spy on each other, what does the global com­mu­nity do about the fact that vir­tu­ally every gov­ern­ment, soci­ety, and major insti­tu­tion is gen­er­ally run by peo­ple that are utterly untrust­wor­thy? Because a “no spy­ing” pact has a major trust fac­tor involved. That’s one of the big open ques­tions that has yet to be answered although it’s been an open ques­tion since the dawn of civ­i­liza­tion so it prob­a­bly shouldn’t be surprising.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 2, 2013, 6:57 pm
  25. @Pterrafractyl–

    This one is gen­uinely funny. An inter­na­tional treaty/agreement/regulatory doc­u­ment or body to “reg­u­late” cyberes­pi­onage?! Or any other kind of espionage?

    Really? How funny. Does any­one really think that any major intel­li­gence ser­vice would abide by such a thing?

    Another hilar­i­ous ele­ment to L’Affaire Snow­den con­cerns the shock­ing, shock­ing “rev­e­la­tion” that NSA spied on EU, the U.N. and other indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions that EVERY MAJOR INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ON EARTH SPIED ON, as a mat­ter of course.

    A sub­stan­tive point of con­tem­pla­tion con­cerns the obses­sion of jour­nal­ists and politi­cos with NSA.

    Since Ger­many, France and other NATO coun­tries do the same thing, WHY do you sup­pose they aren’t focal points of criticism?

    That’s one of the indi­ca­tions that BND/Underground Reich is prob­a­bly the exec­u­tive author­ity here.

    You would think that some­one gen­uinely con­cerned about such things would be equally con­cerned with Ger­man abuses, as well.

    Yet Laura Poitras, Peter Sunde (founder of Pirate Bay and a big sup­porter of WikiLeaks)live in Germany.

    Another point: Snow­den leaked 58,000 pages of doc­u­ments on NSA, et al.

    Do you think he actu­ally read those 58,000 pages?

    That’s the equiv­a­lent of 100 books of 580 pages each.

    I seri­ously doubt it.

    Note the story I men­tioned in a response to GK, which I will include in an upcom­ing post.


    If what Oliver Rob­bins is say­ing is true, then what’s going on here is some­thing fun­da­men­tally different.



    Posted by Dave Emory | September 2, 2013, 7:56 pm
  26. Heh, just in time for Obama’s trip to Swe­den Julian Assange made a request to Swe­den to inves­ti­gate new alle­ga­tions of US spy­ing on Wik­ileaks going back to 2009. It includes a pre­vi­ously reported theft of three lap­tops at an air­port in Sep­tem­ber 2010 while Assange was trav­el­ing from Stock­holm to Berlin. Assange’s 186 page includes claims that “an intel­li­gence source” told him that an Aus­tralian intel­li­gence orga­ni­za­tion responded to a Swedish Secu­rity Ser­vice request for infor­ma­tion about him­self in August 2010. Assange is said to be plan­ning on mak­ing sim­i­lar requests for inves­ti­a­tions into US spy­ing in Ger­many and Aus­tralia:

    The Age
    Julian Assange seeks inves­ti­ga­tion into FBI, US intel­li­gence activ­ity
    Sep­tem­ber 3, 2013
    Philip Dorling

    Wik­iLeaks pub­lisher and Sen­ate can­diq­date Julian Assange has lodged a for­mal com­plaint ask­ing Swedish police to open a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion into alleged ille­gal United States intel­li­gence activ­ity in Europe directed against Wik­iLeaks and himself.

    Mr Assange also says that “through an intel­li­gence source” he became aware that an Aus­tralian intel­li­gence organ­i­sa­tion responded to a Swedish Secu­rity Ser­vice request for infor­ma­tion about him­self in August 2010.

    In a signed affi­davit Mr Assange presents evi­dence in rela­tion to US mil­i­tary intel­li­gence inves­ti­ga­tions into Wik­iLeaks and him­self as far back as 2009 and US Fed­eral Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion searches as recently as 2012–13.

    The 186-page doc­u­ment lodged by Mr Assange’s lawyers with Swedish police on Sun­day reviews evi­dence of US intel­li­gence and crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions tar­get­ing Wik­iLeaks, includ­ing details dis­closed in the trial of US Army pri­vate Bradley Man­ning (now known as Chelsea Man­ning) who last month was sen­tenced to 35 years’ impris­on­ment for leak­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands of secret US mil­i­tary and diplo­matic reports.

    The affi­davit also high­lights pre­vi­ously unre­ported events includ­ing phys­i­cal sur­veil­lance of Mr Assange by US mil­i­tary intel­li­gence at a con­fer­ence in Berlin in Decem­ber 2009 and the sus­pected ille­gal seizure on Sep­tem­ber 27, 2010 of the Wik­iLeaks publisher’s suit­case while he was fly­ing from Stock­holm to Berlin in Sep­tem­ber 2010.

    Mr Assange alleges the lost lug­gage car­ried three lap­tops con­tain­ing Wik­iLeaks infor­ma­tion, data and com­mu­ni­ca­tions between Wik­iLeaks and the organisation’s lawyers. Mr Assange believes his suit­case may have been “seized unlaw­fully, as part of an intel­li­gence oper­a­tion with the pur­pose of gath­er­ing infor­ma­tion about me, Wik­iLeaks, and/or our upcom­ing pub­li­ca­tions and in an attempt to unllaw­fully estab­lish the iden­tity of Wik­iLeaks’ sources”.

    Mr Assange refers to reports that the Aus­tralian Secu­rity Intel­li­gence Organ­i­sa­tion assisted the US FBI espi­onage probe directed against him­self. He fur­ther alleges that an Aus­tralian intel­li­gence organ­i­sa­tion pro­vided infor­ma­tion to the Swedish Secu­rity Ser­vice – SAPO – in August 2010. Mr Assange does not iden­tify the agency, but it is under­stood he is refer­ring to ASIO.

    It is a mat­ter of pub­lic record that the US gov­ern­ment began a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion focused on Wik­iLeaks and Mr Assange in 2010. Aus­tralian diplo­matic cables released to Fair­fax Media under free­dom of infor­ma­tion laws revealed that senior US Jus­tice Depart­ment offi­cials described the inves­ti­ga­tion as being “unprece­dented in scale and nature”.

    Mr Assange has been iden­ti­fied by US pros­e­cu­tors as an alleged co-conspirator, guid­ing and direct­ing Pri­vate Manning’s dis­clo­sure of clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion. The US Jus­tice Depart­ment recently con­firmed that its inves­ti­ga­tion of Wik­iLeaks is active and ongoing.

    Mr Assange’s com­plaint has been lodged by his lawyers with Swedish police to seek an “effec­tive rem­edy” to alleged ille­gal activ­i­ties directed against him­self and WikiLeaks.

    “I am informed by my legal advis­ers that this for­mal doc­u­ment may trig­ger an inves­ti­ga­tion and that inde­pen­dent judi­cial bod­ies may seek expla­na­tions of the respon­si­ble author­i­ties as a result,” Mr Assange says. “I file this affi­davit in the knowl­edge that there will likely be pres­sures for this mat­ter not to be inves­ti­gated, but in the knowl­edge that the law requires an inves­ti­ga­tion. I request that Swedish judi­cial author­i­ties act swiftly to ques­tion and arrest if nec­es­sary those who are likely to have infor­ma­tion about or bear crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­ity for the actions taken against Wik­iLeaks and my per­son as detailed in this affidavit.”

    Mr Assange notes that US Pres­i­dent Barack Obama is sched­uled to travel to Swe­den on Mon­day and that his del­e­ga­tion in likely to include senior offi­cials from the White House and the State Depart­ment which have been directly involved in the US response to Wik­iLeaks’ publications.

    “Mem­bers of the del­e­ga­tion may have infor­ma­tion rel­e­vant to an inves­ti­ga­tion of this mat­ter,” Mr Assange suggests.

    It is under­stood that Mr Assange intends to lodge a sim­i­lar request for a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion in Ger­many, and that a related com­plaint may also be lodged in Australia.


    While it wouldn’t be sur­pris­ing if the US was some­how involved it’s worth point­ing out that the con­tent of those lap­tops would have been of inter­est to just about any­one. It’s also a reminder of a wave of lap­top thefts from gov­ern­ment employ­eees back in 2007–2010-ish. Do an news search for “stolen lap­top” from those years, and you’ll see arti­cle after arti­cle kind of like this one:

    Cyber attacks con­tinue to grow
    Hack­ing, viruses breach gov­ern­ment, indus­try, uni­ver­sity firewalls

    msnbc.com news ser­vices
    updated 5/29/2009 12:41:36 PM ET

    Cyber espi­onage, attacks, breaches, viruses — they are all among the con­cerns Pres­i­dent Barack Obama cited Fri­day when he announced he will cre­ate a new White House office of cyber secu­rity, with that cyber czar report­ing to the National Secu­rity Coun­cil as well as to the National Eco­nomic Council.

    The nation’s vul­ner­a­bil­ity to cyber attacks has long been a con­cern. The Cen­ter for Strate­gic and Inter­na­tional Stud­ies said in a Decem­ber report that the U.S. Defense Depart­ment alone has said its com­put­ers are probed hun­dreds of thou­sands of times each day.

    These pub­licly known cases of hacks, thefts and viruses at gov­ern­ment, mil­i­tary, util­i­ties and edu­ca­tional sites are just some examples:

    Law enforce­ment com­put­ers were struck by a mys­tery com­puter virus last week, forc­ing the FBI and the U.S. Mar­shals to shut down part of their net­works as a pre­cau­tion. The U.S. Mar­shals said it dis­con­nected from the Jus­tice Department’s com­put­ers as a pro­tec­tive mea­sure after being hit by the virus; an FBI offi­cial said only that that agency was expe­ri­enc­ing sim­i­lar issues and was work­ing on the prob­lem. “We too are eval­u­at­ing a net­work issue on our exter­nal, unclas­si­fied net­work that’s affect­ing sev­eral gov­ern­ment agen­cies,” said FBI spokesman Mike Kor­tan, who did not elab­o­rate or iden­tify the other agencies.

    Spies have hacked into the elec­tric grid of the United States, a for­mer gov­ern­ment offi­cial said last month, and they left behind com­puter pro­grams that would let them dis­rupt ser­vice. The intru­sions were dis­cov­ered after elec­tric com­pa­nies gave the gov­ern­ment per­mis­sion to audit their sys­tems, said the ex-official. In April, offi­cials in the U.S., Britain and Ger­many accused Chi­nese hack­ers backed by China’s mil­i­tary of intrud­ing into their gov­ern­ment and defense com­puter net­works. China has denied the accusation.

    America’s air traf­fic con­trol sys­tems are vul­ner­a­ble to cyber attacks, and sup­port sys­tems have been breached in recent months to allow hack­ers access to per­son­nel records and net­work servers, accord­ing to an audit released this month by the Depart­ment of Transportation’s inspec­tor gen­eral. The audit con­cluded that although most of the attacks dis­rupted only sup­port sys­tems, they could spread to the oper­a­tional sys­tems that con­trol com­mu­ni­ca­tions, sur­veil­lance and flight infor­ma­tion used to sep­a­rate air­craft. The report noted sev­eral recent cyber attacks, includ­ing a Feb­ru­ary inci­dent, in which hack­ers gained access to per­sonal infor­ma­tion on about 48,000 cur­rent and for­mer FAA employ­ees, and an attack in 2008 when hack­ers took con­trol of some FAA net­work servers.

    The National Archives this month reported it is miss­ing a com­puter hard drive con­tain­ing mas­sive amounts of sen­si­tive data from the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion, includ­ing Social Secu­rity num­bers, addresses, and Secret Ser­vice and White House oper­at­ing pro­ce­dures, con­gres­sional offi­cials said. The drive, from the Archives facil­ity in Col­lege Park, Md., was lost between Octo­ber 2008 and March 2009 and con­tained 1 ter­abyte of data — enough mate­r­ial to fill mil­lions of books. One of for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent Al Gore’s three daugh­ters is among those whose Social Secu­rity num­bers were on the drive, but it was not clear which one. Other infor­ma­tion includes logs of events, social gath­er­ings and polit­i­cal records.

    A six-month hack­ing effort at the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia, Berke­ley resulted in 97,000 Social Secu­rity num­bers being stolen, said Shel­ton Waggener, UC Berkeley’s asso­ciate vice chan­cel­lor for infor­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy, said this month. Hack­ers infil­trated restricted com­puter data­bases from Octo­ber 2008 to April 9, putting at risk health and other per­sonal infor­ma­tion on 160,000 stu­dents, alumni and oth­ers. In addi­tion to Social Secu­rity num­bers, data included birth dates, health insur­ance infor­ma­tion and some med­ical records dat­ing back to 1999.

    USAJobs.gov, the offi­cial job site of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, was hacked, along with career site Monster.com in Jan­u­ary. “It appears that Monster.com’s data­base and USAJobs.gov’s data­base were com­pro­mised and con­tact and account infor­ma­tion was stolen,” said Sophos, a secu­rity soft­ware firm. “Data stolen included users’ login names, pass­words, email addresses, names, phone num­bers and some demo­graphic data.” The sites’ mil­lions of users were advised to imme­di­ately change their passwords.

    In March, 2008, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity said a com­puter hacker gained entry to its server and that about 10,000 of the pre­vi­ous year’s grad­u­ate stu­dents and appli­cants may have had their per­sonal infor­ma­tion com­pro­mised, with 6,600 hav­ing their Social Secu­rity num­bers exposed. The school said it would pro­vide the appli­cants with free iden­tity theft recov­ery ser­vices and help them with credit mon­i­tor­ing and fraud alerts.

    As many as 1,500 Defense Depart­ment com­put­ers were taken offline in June 2007, because of a cyber attack, Pen­ta­gon offi­cials said. Defense Sec­re­tary Robert Gates said the Pen­ta­gon sees hun­dreds of attacks a day, and this one had no adverse impact on depart­ment oper­a­tions. He said the Pen­ta­gon shut the com­put­ers down when a pen­e­tra­tion of the sys­tem was detected.

    At the Uni­ver­sity of Mis­souri, a com­puter hacker accessed the Social Secu­rity num­bers of more than 22,000 cur­rent or for­mer stu­dents in May 2007, the sec­ond such attack that year, offi­cials said. The hacker obtained the infor­ma­tion through a Web page used to make queries about the sta­tus of trou­ble reports to the university’s com­puter help desk, which is based in Colum­bia. The infor­ma­tion had been com­piled for a report, but the data had not been removed from the com­puter system.

    The U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture’s com­puter sys­tem was breached in June 2006, when a hacker broke in over a week­end and may have obtained names, Social Secu­rity num­bers and pho­tos of 26,000 Washington-area employ­ees and con­trac­tors, the depart­ment said. The infor­ma­tion was used for staff or con­trac­tor badges in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. and the sur­round­ing area, spokes­woman Terri Teu­ber said. Those who might have been affected were noti­fied by e-mail and were being sent letters.

    The Veteran’s Admin­is­tra­tion lost track of a lap­top in May 2006 that held per­sonal data about 26.5 mil­lion Amer­i­can vet­er­ans. The story of the miss­ing files hit just as U.S. news was pep­pered with other tales of miss­ing or stolen com­put­ers that year con­tain­ing 100 mil­lion pieces of data, includ­ing Social Secu­rity and credit card num­bers. The VA said the lap­top, recov­ered a month later, had been taken home by a sub­con­trac­tor, and that no data was taken from the com­puter. Ear­lier this year, the VA agreed to pay up to $20 mil­lion in class-action law­suit to vet­er­ans whose data was on the laptop.

    In 2004, an FBI com­puter con­sul­tant gained access to the secret pass­words of Direc­tor Robert Mueller and oth­ers using free soft­ware found on the Inter­net. The con­sul­tant, Joseph Thomas Colon, was sen­tenced in 2006 to six months of home deten­tion after a fed­eral judge said Colon was not try­ing to harm national secu­rity or use the infor­ma­tion for finan­cial gain. In his guilty plea, Colon acknowl­edged that he made his way into the deep­est reaches of the FBI’s inter­nal com­puter net­work on four occa­sions in 2004.


    There’s the stan­dard espionage/identity-theft motives for steal­ing lap­tops and hack­ing into gov­ern­ment and insti­tu­tional sys­tem. But another inter­est­ing poten­tial motive for steal­ing large datasets of per­sonal data linked to things like email addresses, tele­phone num­bers, social secu­rity num­bers, etc, is for con­nect­ing the dots in the large meta­data set that are now col­lected as a rou­tine legal and com­mer­cial activ­ity. So you have to won­der just how many enti­ties all over the world have legal access to large vol­umes of anonymized meta­data and how much of that data could be deanonymized using the kind of data that might be on one of those many stolen gov­ern­ment lap­tops or just legally pur­chased. Google and Microsoft are team­ing up to sue the US gov­ern­ment for per­mis­sion to pub­licly dis­close more infor­ma­tion about the rules they have to abide by in shar­ing infor­ma­tion with gov­ern­ments. So it would be nice if this law­suit could shed more light on the extent of non-NSA enti­ties that also have access to large vol­umes of meta­data:

    Europe vs NSA: Know thy­self, know thy neigh­bor
    Date 03.09.2013
    Author Michael Knigge
    Edi­tor Rob Mudge

    For Euro­peans, Edward Snowden’s rev­e­la­tions about mass sur­veil­lance con­ducted by the US and the UK beg an obvi­ous ques­tion: Do other Euro­pean coun­tries engage in sim­i­lar activ­i­ties? The answer is telling.

    Thanks to the dis­clo­sures of National Secu­rity Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snow­den, Euro­pean cit­i­zens now know more about how they are being mon­i­tored by Amer­i­can and British intel­li­gence agen­cies than by their own Euro­pean services.

    That, in a nut­shell, is the ironic out­come of the Snow­den rev­e­la­tions from a Euro­pean perspective.

    “There is just so much we don’t know,” is how Jan­neke Slöet­jes of Dutch dig­i­tal rights group Bits of Free­dom sums up the sen­ti­ment among Euro­pean data pri­vacy advo­cates about sur­veil­lance efforts by Euro­pean intel­li­gence services.

    Com­pared to what we have recently learnt about US and UK ser­vices, Euro­pean intel­li­gence agen­cies still oper­ate in total dark­ness, says Eric King, head of research at London-based Pri­vacy Inter­na­tional. “And I think that that in itself is a sig­nif­i­cant problem.”

    To be sure, Euro­pean gov­ern­ments, in response to the Snow­den dis­clo­sures, were quick to con­demn the NSA’s behav­ior and to assure cit­i­zens that they will address the mat­ter with the Obama admin­is­tra­tion. But that was only lip ser­vice, says Jérémie Zim­mer­mann, co-founder of the French pri­vacy group La Quad­ra­ture du Net:

    “In the wake of the PRISM rev­e­la­tions we would expect from all gov­ern­ments here in the EU not only to ask the US for an apol­ogy for this behav­ior, but also to actively engage in pro­tect­ing us against such behav­ior. What we see is the oppo­site.

    Lack of response

    No one in the EU had pushed for any real con­se­quences for the NSA’s behav­ior, for instance revok­ing the transat­lantic safe har­bor agree­ment which stip­u­lates that the data of Euro­pean cit­i­zens is appro­pri­ately pro­tected by the US, notes Zimmermann.

    But even on their home turf, when Euro­pean intel­li­gence ser­vices them­selves were directly impli­cated by the Snow­den rev­e­la­tions — like the British GCHQ or Germany’s BND — Euro­pean gov­ern­ments remained tight-lipped.

    In Ger­many, fol­low­ing dis­clo­sures that the BND shares huge amounts of data with the NSA, Berlin assured the pub­lic that the infor­ma­tion trans­fer did not include data of Ger­mans cit­i­zens. In an attempt to put an end to the mat­ter for good, the Ger­man gov­ern­ment then floated the idea of a bilat­eral no-spy agreement.

    And in the UK — a self-described major player in global sur­veil­lance — the behav­ior of the GCHQ caused hardly a stir. “In Britain there has not been a pub­lic debate about this,” says King. “There have not been any promises to fix this issue. Indeed our main over­sight mech­a­nism, the Intel­li­gence and Secu­rity Com­mit­tee, put out a report just two weeks after the rev­e­la­tions about PRISM and basi­cally gave it a clean bill of health. They said it was com­pletely law­ful and there were no con­cerns at all.”

    Lack of debate

    Given this com­bi­na­tion of gov­ern­men­tal ret­i­cence and pub­lic dis­in­ter­est, it is no sur­prise that the next obvi­ous ques­tion in light of the Snow­den affair — what is being col­lected by Euro­pean intel­li­gence agen­cies and how is this done — has, so far, not been addressed.

    The clos­est thing to find­ing out what kind of infor­ma­tion Europe’s national spy ser­vices are col­lect­ing on cit­i­zens was prob­a­bly trig­gered in France by a piece in the daily Le Monde. Accord­ing to the un-sourced arti­cle pub­lished in early July, French exter­nal intel­li­gence ser­vice DGSE runs its own mass data sur­veil­lance oper­a­tion. Accord­ing to the paper, DGSE col­lects “all e-mails, SMSs, tele­phone calls, Face­book and Twit­ter posts” and stores the meta­data in a mas­sive three-floor under­ground bunker at the DGSE’s head­quar­ters in Paris.

    And in Ger­many, Der Spiegel reported that the BND plans to invest 100 mil­lion euros ($132 mil­lion) over the next five years to beef up its own Inter­net sur­veil­lance capabilities.


    But in both cases the dis­clo­sures failed to spark a broader debate about the meth­ods, capa­bil­i­ties and goals of the respec­tive national intel­li­gence services.

    And yet a vig­or­ous debate about sur­veil­lance is des­per­ately needed, argues Slöet­jes of Bits of Free­dom. “One of the most trou­bling issues here is, even though our gov­ern­ment con­demned what the NSA did ini­tially, that behind the scenes the Dutch gov­ern­ment is work­ing on a pro­posal to allow a whole­sale tap of the Inter­net.” That, notes Slöet­jes, would mir­ror the British approach detailed by Snow­den. The mea­sure could be intro­duced in the Dutch par­lia­ment this fall.


    Shared inter­ests

    “Euro­pean intel­li­gence ser­vices have the exact same inter­ests as the Amer­i­cans do,” says Slöet­jes. “They want to know as much as they can. And your pri­vacy is going to take a backseat.”

    French dig­i­tal rights advo­cate Zim­mer­mann agrees and notes that this is not a new phe­nom­e­non. Euro­pean sur­veil­lance mea­sures increased in line with US efforts fol­low­ing the 9/11 ter­ror­ist attacks, he says. That trend has con­tin­ued: “It is quite obvi­ous that gov­ern­ments all across Europe are also engaged in mass surveillance.”

    Still, there are two key dif­fer­ences. The first is that fund­ing for Euro­pean intel­li­gence pales in com­par­i­son to their US coun­ter­parts. And the sec­ond, and more impor­tant dis­tinc­tion, is that all major Inter­net and many major telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions com­pa­nies are based in the US and there­fore fall under the juris­dic­tion of US intel­li­gence agencies.

    The point made at the end of the arti­cle — that there still exists a large dif­fer­ence in the intel­li­gence capa­bil­i­ties of US and its Euro­pean coun­ter­parts because the major inter­net com­pa­nies and tele­coms are all based in the US — is a valid point. But that’s only true for now because it’s look­ing like one of the biggest con­se­quences likely to result from the Snow­den Affair is the devel­op­ment of a much larger EU IT indus­try and that means a lot more peo­ple around the world are going to have to be con­cerned about which EU spy agen­cies are going to have access to that data. The push to over­haul the EU’s data pri­vacy laws is expected to be com­pleted next year and there’s no short­age of happy-talk about all the great new pro­tec­tions that could be put in place. But as we saw above, there’s also no short­age of EU intel­li­gence ser­vices that would love to get their dig­i­tal hands on all that data. Folks con­cerned about the future of data pri­vacy need to keep an eye on the debate over those new rules. Good luck with that!

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 5, 2013, 9:06 pm
  27. The gov­ern­ments of France and Mex­ico are once again pissed off about spy­ing:

    The Daily Dot
    New Snow­den leak: The U.S. spied on French citizens

    By Patrick How­ell O’Neill on Octo­ber 21, 2013

    New leaks from whistle­blower Edward Snow­den reveal that the National Secu­rity Agency made 70.3 mil­lion record­ings of French cit­i­zens’ tele­phone calls in a period of just 30 days. From Dec. 10, 2012, to Jan. 8, 2013, as reported in the French news­pa­per Le Monde, NSA was able to auto­mat­i­cally record French phone calls and SMS mes­sages based on each target’s key­words, com­mu­ni­ca­tions his­tory, and metadata.

    All this info is listed under an NSA espi­onage pro­gram called US-985D. It names tech­niques used to inter­cept French com­mu­ni­ca­tions as “DRTBOX” and “WHITEBOX.” Tech­ni­cal details on the pro­grams are sparse, but the results speak for them­selves: DRTBOX col­lected 62.5 mil­lion pieces of data and WHITEBOX recorded “7.8 mil­lion elements.”

    Tar­gets include peo­ple asso­ci­ated with ter­ror­ism and “peo­ple tar­geted sim­ply because they belong to the worlds of busi­ness, pol­i­tics or French state administration.”

    French Inte­rior Min­is­ter Manuel Valls called the rev­e­la­tions “shock­ing” and demanded “pre­cise expla­na­tions by US author­i­ties in the com­ing hours.”

    On Mon­day morn­ing, France sum­moned the U.S. ambas­sador to answer ques­tions about the report just as U.S. Sec­re­tary of State John Kerry landed in Paris to hold meet­ings about Syria.

    The new leaks, pub­lished today by Glenn Green­wald and Jacques Fol­lorou at Le Monde, are accom­pa­nied by a set of slides that illus­trate the NSA’s sur­veil­lance capa­bil­i­ties. Graphs show an aver­age of 3 mil­lion inter­cepts per day with peaks of 7 mil­lion on Dec. 24, 2012, and Jan. 7, 2013.


    Pri­vacy researcher Christo­pher Soghoian and Le Monde’s Damien Leloup hypoth­e­sized that the phone calls inter­cepted by the NSA were likely inter­na­tional rather than domestic.

    This news comes right on the heels of rev­e­la­tions that the NSA hacked into the emails of Mex­i­can pres­i­dents Felipe Calderon and Enrique Peña Nieto for sev­eral years to pro­vide “deep insight into pol­i­cy­mak­ing and the polit­i­cal sys­tem” of Mexico.

    News of NSA spy­ing around the globe has made waves from Brazil to the Nether­lands. In Ger­many, Amer­i­can and Ger­man intel­li­gence col­lab­o­rated to spy on Ger­man citizens.

    “This sort of prac­tice between part­ners that invades pri­vacy is totally unac­cept­able,” French For­eign Min­is­ter Lau­rent Fabius said, “and we have to make sure, very quickly, that this no longer happens.”

    One of the inter­est­ing memes that appears to have formed in the global response to the NSA spy­ing is that domes­tic spy­ing by non-NSA gov­ern­ments appears to by pretty ok based on the sub­dued global response to all of the news about non-NSA/GSHQ domes­tic spy­ing. But since “we have to make sure, very quickly, that this no longer hap­pens”, it seems rather impor­tant that gov­ern­ments start a global dia­logue on what, exactly, gov­ern­ment s are going to be allowed to do in the future? After all, if “this sort of prac­tice between part­ners that invades pri­vacy is totally unac­cept­able”, then this kind of calls for a mas­sive GLOBAL reduc­tion in all spy agen­cies every­where since spy­ing between gov­ern­ments is ram­pant. Espe­cially with more and more global free trade agree­ments on the horizon...everyone is a trade part­ner with every­one else now and any spy­ing between trade part­ners is now a pos­si­ble act of indus­trial espi­onage. So, accord­ing to these new rules, the US is prob­a­bly allowed to spy on North Korea, maybe Iran, and...any­where else?

    But the ques­tion of just how much spy­ing activ­ity is allow­able in the future we’re all going to cre­ate in global part­ner­ship with each other really needs to become part of the global con­ver­sa­tion. Because if the trend in grow­ing global spy­ing capac­i­ties con­tin­ues, but the tar­gets for that spy­ing keep shrink­ing down to just domes­tic audi­ences, there’s going to be a lot more domes­tic spy­ing in the future due, in part, to an incred­i­ble capac­ity to spy and noth­ing but domes­tic tar­gets. So if inter­na­tional spy­ing by gov­ern­ments is no longer going to be part of the world order (except on North Korea...that coun­try will be everyone’s spy­ing free­bie), we had bet­ter alert gov­ern­ments about this devel­op­ment pretty soon so they can start dis­man­tling the grow­ing global Intel­li­gence Indus­trial Com­plex right away.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 21, 2013, 11:56 am
  28. Here’s a pre­view of what’s com­ing up from Green­wald & Friends: sep­a­rate reports on NSA spy­ing for every Latin Amer­i­can nation:

    Agence France-PresseOctober 22, 2013 06:18
    All Latin Amer­i­can coun­tries spied on by US

    Glenn Green­wald, the for­mer Guardian reporter who broke many of the recent sto­ries about secret US sur­veil­lance pro­grams, claimed Mon­day that all Latin Amer­i­can coun­tries had been spied on by Washington.

    Speak­ing to a press asso­ci­a­tion, he said he would report about each case in the region and warned that more spy­ing within the United States would also be revealed.

    Greenwald’s com­ments came as France and Mex­ico angrily demanded swift expla­na­tions Mon­day about fresh leaks by for­mer US secu­rity con­trac­tor Edward Snowden.


    Mul­ti­ple Latin Amer­i­can meet­ings were mon­i­tored, Green­wald said, includ­ing those of the Orga­ni­za­tion of Amer­i­can States (OAS), as well as talks on free trade treaties, although he did not go into more details.

    Accord­ing to Green­wald, dis­clo­sures released Mon­day by the French news­pa­per Le Monde, which cre­ated con­tro­versy between Paris and Wash­ing­ton, had been in the hands of the French daily for some time.

    The alle­ga­tions, the lat­est from leaks by Snow­den, marred a visit to Paris by US Sec­re­tary of State John Kerry, where he dis­cussed moves to try to end the war in Syria.

    The reporter, who resigned last week from British daily The Guardian, told the assem­bly that doc­u­ments being leaked by Snow­den are kept in dif­fer­ent parts of the world.


    Green­wald also stated that “the major­ity of sto­ries that are sig­nif­i­cant remain to be reported” so, at the cur­rent pace, we’ll maybe see the bulk of the “sig­nif­i­cant” sto­ries for the NSA trea­sure trove exhausted some time around the mid­dle of 2014? Maybe?

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 23, 2013, 9:31 am

Post a comment