- Spitfire List - https://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #854 The Underground Reich and the Obverse Oswald: Update on the Adventures of Eddie the Friendly Spook

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [1] The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by late spring of 2015. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more) con­tains FTR #850 [1].  (The pre­vi­ous flash dri­ve was cur­rent through the end of May of 2012 and con­tained FTR #748 [2].)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE [3].

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [4]

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [5].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE [6].

This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [7].

Intro­duc­tion: In this pro­gram, we exam­ine more of the fall­out from L’Af­faire Snow­den. We call Edward Snow­den the Obverse Oswald [8] because, like Lee Har­vey Oswald, he is a spook being traf­ficked around as the pub­lic face of an intel­li­gence oper­a­tion.

How­ev­er, where­as Oswald was infil­trat­ed into the U.S.S.R. and left­ist orga­ni­za­tions and brand­ed a “Com­mie” pri­or to being framed for Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion and killed before being able to defend him­self, Snow­den was infil­trate into Chi­na and Rus­sia and labeled a hero.

Ger­many’s behav­ior in con­nec­tion with this “op” is note­wor­thy.  When it was announced that Ger­many and Brazil [9] were upgrad­ing their IT infra­struc­tures because they were “shocked, shocked” that the NSA was con­duct­ing the activ­i­ties “dis­closed” by Snow­den, we not­ed that it was ludi­crous. Ger­many knew about this many years ago, as did the EU. The Ger­mans were part­ners in the espi­onage [10]!

In fact, far from being “shocked” about the event in which they had long been will­ing par­tic­i­pants, Ger­many “want­ed in” [11] to the exclu­sive Five Eyes club. We won­der if the alleged com­pro­mis­ing [12] of U.S. and British spies as a result of the Snow­den “op” might be a fur­ther attempt by Ger­many and the BND to gain access to the Five Eyes club. If Amer­i­can and British intel are com­pro­mised, it might strength­en the hand of the BND in this regard.

As we have not­ed in past updates on “The Adven­tures of Eddie the Friend­ly Spook,” Amer­i­can “Big Tech” is being tar­get­ed by the EU (“read Ger­many”). The EU is tak­ing steps against Google [13] that smack of pro­tec­tion­ism.

L’Af­faire Snow­den was, and is, a “psy-op” designed to justiy a pre-deter­mined indus­tri­al offen­sive against the U.S. and Sil­i­con Val­ley! We also won­der if the EU’s “right to be for­got­ten,” [14] like the oth­er steps tak­en by Ger­many, is designed to pro­tect the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work about which we speak so often.

The Snow­den “op” is being blamed in Britain [12] for the com­pro­mis­ing of British intel­li­gence agents and the gigan­tic hack of the OPM is being blamed for com­pro­mis­ing U.S. intel.

Note that the Snow­den op, as dis­cussed in FTR #762 [15] was aimed at desta­bi­liz­ing the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion, as well as poi­son­ing rela­tions between Chi­na and Rus­sia. The OPM hack has fur­ther dam­aged rela­tions with Chi­na, while mak­ing the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion look weak. One of the con­trac­tors with “root” access [16] to the OPM data is in Argenti­na, an epi­cen­ter of the Under­ground Reich.

It is being alleged that Russ­ian and Chi­nese spies had access to the “encrypt­ed” Snow­den files, fur­ther poi­son­ing rela­tions with Rus­sia. This is also con­sis­tent with what we pre­sent­ed in FTR #767 [17].

After dis­cussing the pos­si­bil­i­ty that it was Cit­i­zen Green­wald’s com­put­er files that were com­pro­mised, we high­light the fact that Mic­ah Lee [18], the secu­ri­ty expert hired to ramp up secu­ri­ty on Green­wald’s com­put­er not only was hired by the uber-reac­tionary Pierre Omid­yar (who par­tial­ly bankrolled the Ukrain­ian coup and the elec­tion of Hin­du nationalist/fascist Naren­dra Modi) but came to the Omid­yar empire via the Elec­tron­ic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion, an orga­ni­za­tion with dubi­ous cre­den­tials and numer­ous ties to the very ele­ments that fig­ure in the Snow­den “op.”

We high­light the ter­ri­fy­ing pos­si­bil­i­ties of cyber-ter­ror­ism against the U.S. and note that “Anony­mous,” [19] who­ev­er they may be, fore­shad­owed prob­lems at the New York Stock Exchange, Unit­ed Air­lines and the Wall Street Jour­nal’s web site. Although offi­cial­ly blamed on tech­ni­cal glitch­es, we sus­pect that the author­i­ties are dis­sem­bling in order to avoid pan­ic.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: The enig­mat­ic career [20] of EFF founder John Per­ry Bar­low; EFF’s role in run­ning inter­fer­ence [21] for Big Tobac­co; Glenn Green­wald’s [21] role in run­ning inter­fer­ence for Big Tobac­co; a dead­ly attack in Tunisia [22] that claimed the lives of a large num­ber of British cit­i­zens; spec­u­la­tion about the Tunisia attack being linked to Ger­many’s attempts to gain access to the Five Eyes club; review of Tunisia as the begin­ning point [23] of the “Arab Spring” and the appo­la­tion “the Wik­iLeaks rev­o­lu­tion” that was applied to the over­throw of the Tunisian gov­ern­ment; review of tech­no­crat­ic fas­cism [24]–the infer­nal ide­o­log­i­cal glue that binds Snow­den, Wik­iLeaks, Big Tech and the far right.

1. When it was announced that a new fiber-optics cable was going to be built con­nect­ing Europe to Brazil because Ger­many and the EU were “shocked, shocked” that the NSA was con­duct­ing the activ­i­ties “dis­closed” by Snow­den, we not­ed that it was ludi­crous. Ger­many knew about this many years ago, as did the EU. The Ger­mans were part­ners in the espi­onage!

L’Af­faire Snow­den was, and is, a “psy-op” designed to justiy a pre-deter­mined indus­tri­al offen­sive against the U.S. and Sil­i­con Val­ley!

“Ger­man Intel­li­gence Agency Knew NSA Was Spy­ing on Euro­pean Lead­ers as Ear­ly as 2008”  [10]by Nathaniel Mott; Pan­do Dai­ly [10]; 4/24/2015. [10]

Ger­many has been one of the harsh­est crit­ics [25] of the Nation­al Secu­rity Agency sur­veil­lance pro­grams revealed by whistle­blower Edward Snow­den in 2013. Yet a new report from Der Spiegel [26] indi­cates that the NSA spied on world lead­ers with the help of the country’s [27] elec­tronic sur­veil­lance agency, the Ger­man BND.

This coop­er­a­tion was revealed as the result of a par­lia­men­tary inves­ti­ga­tion into the rela­tion­ship between the Ger­man BND and the NSA. The inquiry showed that the NSA asked the Ger­man BND to hand over infor­ma­tion about defense con­trac­tors, large com­pa­nies, and politi­cians from both Ger­many and France.

Anoth­er report from the Die Zeit news­pa­per [28] indi­cates that the Ger­man BND knew it was hand­ing over [29] sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion to the NSA, yet it didn’t end the part­ner­ship, or lim­it the data it shared with the Amer­i­can intel­li­gence agency. It was too wor­ried about the NSA retal­i­at­ing by lim­it­ing the infor­ma­tion it shares.

That wouldn’t be the last time Ger­many com­pro­mised its ideals to receive infor­ma­tion from the NSA. The Wash­ing­ton Post report­ed in Decem­ber 2014 [30] that the coun­try pro­vided the NSA with the names, phone num­bers, and email address­es of sus­pected extrem­ists it feared would cause trou­ble in Europe.

These rev­e­la­tions make Germany’s objec­tions to the NSA sur­veil­lance pro­grams ring hol­low. Ger­man chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel was report­edly spied on [31] (some have said there’s no said there’s no con­crete evi­dence [32] of this alle­ga­tion) yet the Ger­man BND helped the NSA spy on oth­er politi­cians across Europe. The coun­try has con­demned dig­i­tal sur­veil­lance, but it reach­es out to the NSA when it needs to.

As I wrote when [33] the Wash­ing­ton Post first revealed the recent data-shar­ing:

There’s an inher­ent con­flict between a citizenry’s desire to main­tain its pri­vacy and its government’s desire to defend against ter­ror­ist attacks. That’s why it’s been so hard for reform advo­cates to make any progress in the fear-mon­ger­ing US Con­gress [34].

Bal­anc­ing the two com­pet­ing ideals is dif­fi­cult. The prob­lem is that Ger­many is try­ing to shield itself from any crit­i­cism for tip­ping the scales in favor of secu­rity by clos­ing its eyes, receiv­ing NSA help, then con­demn­ing the scale’s shift from pri­va­cy.

...

2. As we have not­ed in past updates on “The Adven­tures of Eddie the Friend­ly Spook,” Amer­i­can “Big Tech” is being tar­get­ed by the EU (“read Ger­many”).

“Europe’s Google Prob­lem” by Joe Nocera; The New York Times; 4/28/2015. [13]

Have you heard the term Gafa yet? It hasn’t caught on here in the Unit­ed States — and I’m guess­ing it won’t — but in France, it has become so com­mon that the news­pa­pers hard­ly need to spell out its mean­ing. Every­one there already knows what Gafa stands for: Google-Apple-Face­book-Ama­zon.

In Amer­i­ca, we tend to think of these com­pa­nies as four dis­tinct enti­ties that com­pete fierce­ly with each oth­er. But, in Europe, which lacks a sin­gle Inter­net com­pa­ny of com­pa­ra­ble size and stature, they “encap­su­late America’s evil Inter­net empire,” as Gideon Rach­man [35] put it in The Finan­cial Times on Mon­day. Nine out of 10 Inter­net search­es in Europe use Google — a more com­mand­ing per­cent­age than in the Unit­ed States — to cite but one exam­ple of their utter dom­i­nance in the coun­tries that make up the Euro­pean Union.

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, this dom­i­nance breeds wor­ry in Europe, how­ev­er fair­ly it was achieved. The French fear (as the French always do) the impo­si­tion of Amer­i­can cul­ture. The Ger­mans fear the rise of an indus­try more effi­cient [36] — and more prof­itable — than their own. Indus­try lead­ers, espe­cial­ly in pub­lish­ing, telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions and even autos fear that the Amer­i­can Inter­net com­pa­nies will dis­rupt their busi­ness­es and siphon away their prof­its. Euro­peans wor­ry about the use of their pri­vate data by Amer­i­can com­pa­nies, a wor­ry that was only exac­er­bat­ed by the Edward Snow­den spy­ing rev­e­la­tions. There is a pal­pa­ble sense among many politi­cians, reg­u­la­tors and busi­ness­peo­ple in Europe that the Con­ti­nent needs to devel­op its own Inter­net plat­forms — or, at the least, clip the wings of the big Amer­i­can Inter­net com­pa­nies while there’s still time.

I bring this up in the wake of the deci­sion by Mar­grethe Vestager, the Euro­pean Union’s rel­a­tive­ly new (she took office in Novem­ber) com­mis­sion­er in charge of com­pe­ti­tion pol­i­cy, to bring antitrust charges against Google [37], the cul­mi­na­tion of a five-year inves­ti­ga­tion. The case revolves around whether Google took advan­tage of its dom­i­nance in search to favor its own com­par­i­son-shop­ping ser­vice over those of its rivals. Vestager also opened an inquiry [38] into Google’s Android mobile oper­at­ing sys­tem — and said the Euro­pean Union would inves­ti­gate oth­er poten­tial vio­la­tions if need be.

Not long after announc­ing the charges, Vestager made a speech in Wash­ing­ton. “We have no grudge; we have no fight with Google,” she said. “In all our cas­es, we are indif­fer­ent to the nation­al­i­ty of the com­pa­nies involved. Our respon­si­bil­i­ty is to make sure that any com­pa­ny with oper­a­tions in the ter­ri­to­ry of the E.U. com­plies with our treaty rules.”

Well, maybe. But it is also true that, to an unusu­al degree, this inves­ti­ga­tion, espe­cial­ly in its lat­ter stages, has been dri­ven by pol­i­tics. The polit­i­cal rhetoric around Google in Europe has been so heat­ed that had Vestager decid­ed not to bring a case, her polit­i­cal stand­ing might have been weak­ened, “prob­a­bly com­pro­mis­ing her abil­i­ty to pur­sue effec­tive­ly oth­er high-pro­file antitrust cas­es,” wrote Car­los Kir­jn­er, an ana­lyst with San­ford C. Bern­stein & Co.

Con­sid­er, for instance, what hap­pened last year when Google was close to set­tling the case with Vestager’s pre­de­ces­sor, Joaquín Almu­nia. Google had agreed to make changes that it found cum­ber­some and intru­sive, but it want­ed to get the case behind it and move on. Instead, Euro­pean politi­cians, espe­cial­ly in France and Ger­many, and prod­ded by Google’s com­peti­tors [39], com­plained that Almunía was being too accom­mo­dat­ing to the com­pa­ny. “The offers by Google aren’t worth­less, but they’re not near­ly enough,” one such politi­cian, Gün­ther Oet­tinger of Ger­many, told The Wall Street Jour­nal [40].

At the time, Oet­tinger was serv­ing as the Euro­pean Union’s ener­gy com­mis­sion­er, mak­ing him one of the 28 com­mis­sion­ers who would have to approve any set­tle­ment. By Sep­tem­ber, he had been nom­i­nat­ed for a new job: com­mis­sion­er for dig­i­tal econ­o­my and soci­ety. At a hear­ing before a Euro­pean Par­lia­ment com­mit­tee, he took cred­it for blow­ing up the Google set­tle­ment.

As the dig­i­tal com­mis­sion­er, Oet­tinger has con­tin­ued to advo­cate for what has become the Ger­man posi­tion on Google — name­ly that Google’s pow­er must be reined in. In a speech two weeks ago, he essen­tial­ly said that Europe should begin reg­u­lat­ing Inter­net plat­forms in such a way as to allow home­grown com­pa­nies to over­take the Amer­i­can Inter­net giants. And on Thurs­day, a doc­u­ment leaked [41] from his office to The Wall Street Jour­nal that out­lined just such a plan, claim­ing that if noth­ing was done, the entire econ­o­my of Europe was “at risk” because of its depen­den­cy on Amer­i­can Inter­net com­pa­nies. There have even been calls in Europe to break up Google [42].

Europe has every right to reg­u­late any com­pa­ny and any sec­tor it wants. And it can bring antitrust charges as it sees fit. But giv­en the rhetoric sur­round­ing Google and the oth­er Amer­i­can Inter­net giants, sus­pi­cion of Europe’s real motives is jus­ti­fied.

From here, the Euro­pean charges against Google look a lot like pro­tec­tion­ism.

3. The EU has insti­tut­ed “right to be for­got­ten” leg­is­la­tion. We sus­pect that this may be aimed at guard­ing the secrets of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work and the Under­ground Reich. We have sim­i­lar sus­pi­cions about the Brazil/EU deal to devel­op fiber optic cables to evade NSA sur­veil­lance, this sup­pos­ed­ly because of the “rev­e­la­tions” of Edward Snow­den.

The EU/Brazil pre­tense is ludi­crous on its sur­face, because Ger­many has known about this for many years. Indeed, most of the infor­ma­tion has been on the pub­lic record for a long time.

” ‘Right to Be For­got­ten’–Europe’s Cen­sor­ship Over­reach” by Ed Royce; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 7/9/2015. [14]

. . . . If Orwell were alive today, what would this British author, who ear­ly on warned of the evil of the total­i­tar­i­an­ism, make of recent actions by our Euro­pean allies? A trou­bling legal move­ment named the “right to be for­got­ten” [43]has been gath­er­ing steam over the past year, spurred by a May 2014 deci­sion by Europe’s high­est court.

This so-called “right” gives Euro­peans the legal abil­i­ty to demand that Inter­net search engines, includ­ing Google, Bing and Yahoo, remove links to news arti­cles about them­selves that they do not like — delet­ing his­to­ry in cyber form. . . .

. . . . But under the Euro­pean court’s rul­ing, it does not even mat­ter whether the news arti­cles in ques­tion are fac­tu­al; search engines can be forced to remove links to web pages that fit vague descrip­tions such as “no longer rel­e­vant” or “inad­e­quate.”

Who gets to judge whether links to news arti­cles exist in Europe? It’s left to the search engines, and ulti­mate­ly the Euro­pean courts. Since the rul­ing, Google alone already has reviewed almost 1 mil­lion links and removed hun­dreds of thou­sands.

It gets worse. On June 12, France’s data-pro­tec­tion reg­u­la­tor [44]ordered Google to expand the so-called “right to be for­got­ten” to all its search engines, world­wide. This means that Euro­peans will get to decide what news arti­cles you and I and every per­son around the world can find. The French reg­u­la­tor is not alone in its chill­ing view. EU data-pro­tec­tion chiefs have also urged the glob­al removal of links. . . .

 4a. An inter­est­ing per­spec­tive on the OPM hack con­cerns the fact that an Argen­tine oper­a­tor had total access to the infor­ma­tion super­struc­ture of the OPM. Argenti­na, of course, is a major epi­cen­ter of the Under­ground Reich. Argenti­na is, of course, an epi­cen­ter of the Under­ground Reich.

This hack had sev­er­al effects:

 1. Exposed all US intel­li­gence agents secrets mak­ing them prone to black­mail or infil­tra­tion.

2. Hurt US Chi­nese rela­tions and US pub­lic opin­ion on Chi­na.

3. Fur­ther dis­cred­it­ed the Oba­ma Admin­is­tra­tion and Democ­rats espe­cial­ly, with Nation­al Secu­ri­ty issues.

4. Had Ms. Kather­ine Archule­ta dis­cred­it­ed as being a com­pe­tent Cab­i­net offi­cial — she is a female, his­pan­ic.  This will play into the hands of racists and oth­er peo­ple dis­gust­ed by EEOC and polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness.

As will be seen below, it has also alleged­ly placed Amer­i­can spies at risk.

“Encryp­tion “Would Not Have Helped” at OPM, Says DHS Offi­cial” by Sean Gal­lagher; Ars Tech­ni­ca; 6/16/2015. [16]

. . . . Some of the con­trac­tors that have helped OPM with man­ag­ing inter­nal data have had secu­ri­ty issues of their own—including poten­tial­ly giv­ing for­eign gov­ern­ments direct access to data long before the recent report­ed breach­es. A con­sul­tant who did some work with a com­pa­ny con­tract­ed by OPM to man­age per­son­nel records for a num­ber of agen­cies told Ars that he found the Unix sys­tems admin­is­tra­tor for the project “was in Argenti­na and his co-work­er was phys­i­cal­ly locat­ed in the [Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of Chi­na]. Both had direct access to every row of data in every data­base: they were root. Anoth­er team that worked with these data­bas­es had at its head two team mem­bers with PRC pass­ports. I know that because I chal­lenged them per­son­al­ly and revoked their priv­i­leges. From my per­spec­tive, OPM com­pro­mised this infor­ma­tion more than three years ago and my take on the cur­rent breach is ‘so what’s new?’ ” . . . .

4b. In an op-ed piece in the Finan­cial Times [45], Gillian Tett presents some sober­ing infor­ma­tion about Amer­i­ca’s vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to cyber-attacks.

“Pre­pare for the Com­ing Cyber Attacks on Amer­i­ca” by Gillian Tett; Finan­cial Times; 7/10/2015; p. 11.

Anoth­er week, anoth­er wave of cyber alarm in Amer­i­ca. On Wednes­day, the New York Stock Exchange and Unit­ed Air­lines sus­pend­ed activ­i­ty for sev­er­al hours due to mys­te­ri­ous com­put­ing prob­lems, while The Wall Street Jour­nal’s web­site briefly went down. All three insist­ed that the out­ages reflect­ed tech­ni­cal hitch­es, not mali­cious atack. But many are anx­ious after past assaults on mighty Amer­i­can com­pa­nies and agen­cies.

In Feb­ru­ary, Anthem, an insur­ance com­pa­ny, revealed that cyber hack­ers had stolen infor­ma­tion on 80m cus­tomers. The Wash­ing­ton-based Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment said cuber hack­ers hd tak­en data on mil­lions of fed­er­al employ­ees. Com­pa­nies rang­ing from retail­ers to banks have been attacked, too.

On Wednesday–just as the NYSE ws frozen–Cambridge uni­ver­si­ty and Lloyds insur­ance group released a report sug­gest­ing that if a cyber assault breached Amer­i­ca’s elec­tri­cal grid this could cre­ate $t tril­lion dol­lars of dam­age. A few min­utes lat­er, James Comey, the FBI direc­tor, told Con­gress that it is strug­gling to crack encryp­tion tools used by jihadis. In May, Mr. Comey said Islam­ic ter­ror­ists were “wak­ing up” to the idea of using mal­ware to attack crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture. It is scary stuff.

The key issue that investors, politi­cians and vot­ers need to onder is not sim­ly who might be the next tar­get, but whether Wash­ing­ton has the right sys­tem in place to han­dle these attacks. The answer is almost cer­tain­ly no. . . .

5a. Accord­ing to the UK gov­ern­ment, the Snow­den cache of files (the ‘blue­print’ for the NSA as Gleen Green­wald char­ac­ter­ized it [46]) may be in the hands of the Russ­ian and Chi­nese gov­ern­ments.

“Rus­sia and Chi­na ‘Broke into Snow­den Files to Iden­tify British and US spies’” by James Tap­per; The Guardian [12]; 6/13/2015. [12]

 Down­ing Street believes that Russ­ian and Chi­nese intel­li­gence agen­cies have used doc­u­ments from whistle­blower Edward Snow­den to iden­tify British and US secret agents, accord­ing to a report in the Sun­day Times.

The news­pa­per says MI6, Britain’s Secret Intel­li­gence Ser­vice, has with­drawn agents from over­seas oper­a­tions because Russ­ian secu­rity ser­vices had bro­ken into encrypt­ed files held by Amer­i­can com­puter ana­lyst Snow­den.

Snow­den pro­vided the Guardian with top secret doc­u­ments [47] from the US Nation­al Secu­rity Agency (NSA), which revealed that west­ern intel­li­gence agen­cies had been under­tak­ing mass sur­veil­lance of phone and inter­net use.

He fled to Hong Kong, then to Moscow, and the Sun­day Times claims that both Chi­nese and Russ­ian secu­rity offi­cials gained access to his files as a result.

The files held by Snow­den were encrypt­ed, but now British offi­cials believe both coun­tries have hacked into the files, accord­ing to the report.

The news­pa­per quotes a series of anony­mous sources from Down­ing Street, the Home Office and British intel­li­gence say­ing that the doc­u­ments con­tained intel­li­gence tech­niques and infor­ma­tion that would enable for­eign pow­ers to iden­tify British and Amer­i­can spies.

The news­pa­per quot­ed a “senior Down­ing Street source” say­ing that “Rus­sians and Chi­nese have infor­ma­tion”.

The source said “agents have had to be moved and that knowl­edge of how we oper­ate has stopped us get­ting vital infor­ma­tion”. The source said they had “no evi­dence” that any­one had been harmed.

A “senior Home Office source” was also quot­ed by the news­pa­per, say­ing: “Putin didn’t give him asy­lum for noth­ing. His doc­u­ments were encrypt­ed but they weren’t com­pletely secure and we have now seen our agents and assets being tar­get­ed.”

The Sun­day Times also quot­ed a “British intel­li­gence source” say­ing that Russ­ian and Chi­nese offi­cials would be exam­in­ing Snowden’s mate­r­ial for “years to come”.

...

5b. Against the back­ground of the alle­ga­tions of British spies being com­pro­mised, a ter­ror­ist inci­dent in Tunisia tar­get­ed British cit­i­zens.

“Cameron Vows a ‘Full’ Response to Attack” by Stephen Cas­tle; The New York Times; 6/30/2015. [22]

Shocked by the dead­liest ter­ror­ist attack on Britons in a decade, Prime Min­is­ter David Cameron [48] promised a “full spec­trum” response on Mon­day to the assault [49], which killed 39 tourists at a resort in Sousse, Tunisia [50], on Fri­day. At least 18 of the vic­tims, and pos­si­bly as many as 30, were British.

Mr. Cameron sent secu­ri­ty offi­cials and gov­ern­ment min­is­ters to the scene and promised to step up the fight against extrem­ism in Britain [51]. There­sa May, the home sec­re­tary, and Tobias Ell­wood, a For­eign Office min­is­ter, went on Mon­day to Tunisia [50], where British offi­cials are work­ing with the local author­i­ties to assess secu­ri­ty at beach resorts fre­quent­ed by Euro­pean tourists.

In con­crete pol­i­cy terms, how­ev­er, Mr. Cameron’s reac­tion was cau­tious, and he did not promise any imme­di­ate new antiter­ror­ism mea­sures at home or any increase in Britain [51]’s mil­i­tary involve­ment in fight­ing Islam­ic State mil­i­tants. . . .

5. Keep in mind that the giant hack of the US Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment (OPM) that just took place also poten­tially put the iden­ti­ties of US spies at risk.

“OPM Breach Just Put America’s Spies ‘At High Risk’” by Patrick Tuck­erDefense One [52]; 6/12/2015. [52]

Hack­ers may now have detailed bio­graph­i­cal infor­ma­tion and a vir­tual phone­book of every Unit­ed States intel­li­gence asset.

Stan­dard Form 86 — SF86 [53] for short — is where cur­rent and prospec­tive mem­bers of the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity put the var­i­ous bits of infor­ma­tion the bureau­cracy requires of them: Social Secu­rity num­bers, names of fam­ily mem­bers, coun­tries vis­ited and why, etc. If hack­ers have got­ten away with those records, as the Asso­ci­ated Press report­ed [54] Fri­day, America’s spies are in trou­ble.

Such a theft could yield a “vir­tual phone­book” of U.S. intel­li­gence assets around the world and a work­ing list of each one’s weak spot, said Patrick Skin­ner, for­mer CIA case offi­cer and direc­tor of spe­cial projects for the Soufan Group [55]. He said such a vul­ner­a­bil­ity was unprece­dent­ed.

“The spy scan­dals we’ve had in the past … they gave up maybe a dozen for­eign spies. It was a big deal. This, basi­cally is beyond that,” Skin­ner said. “It’s not giv­ing up for­eign spies…it’s admin­is­tra­tion, sup­port, logis­tics. Basi­cally, It’s a phone book for the [intel­li­gence com­mu­nity]. It’s not like they have your cred­it card num­ber. They have your life.”

If there’s any good news about the dis­clo­sure, it’s that it could have been worse. Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment records don’t detail spe­cific covert iden­ti­ties or mis­sions, assign­ments, or oper­a­tions. Records of that type would be held by the intel­li­gence agen­cies them­selves. “I don’t think it’s going to blow people’s cov­er but it’s going to put them at a real high coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence risk,” said Skin­ner.

Skin­ner said some of the infor­ma­tion in SF86 records is exact­ly the sort of infor­ma­tion that he, as an intel­li­gence oper­a­tive, would look to get on peo­ple he was tar­get­ing. “At my old job, you would spend a lot of time try­ing to get that bio­graph­i­cal infor­ma­tion because it can tell you a lot,” he said. “It’s why mar­keters try to get that much infor­ma­tion from you. If you have somebody’s entire life his­tory and net­work you can craft a pitch to them that they don’t see com­ing.”

What can the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity do to repair the dam­age? “I don’t think they can,” Skin­ner said. SF86 “reveals so much about the per­son that it makes them incred­i­bly vul­ner­a­ble. You can’t erase your past. These are the things you can’t change about peo­ple: you can’t change your par­ents, your con­tacts, or your trav­el. For­eign con­tacts? That’s a huge deal.”

One thing that could change as a result of the hack: OPM may begin to encrypt the data in its data­base. It’s a sim­ple secu­rity pre­cau­tion that many in the tech­nol­ogy com­mu­nity say OPM should long since have had in place.

...

Cer­tainly Skin­ner was tak­en aback. “They spend so much time train­ing us to main­tain our cov­er and then they keep this infor­ma­tion in an unen­crypted data­base? I encrypt my hard dri­ve; why don’t they?”

 6. So a trea­sure trove of US spy iden­ti­ties have just been lift­ed by some­one and just days lat­er the UK starts reas­sign­ing all its agents while claim­ing the Snow­den cache was hacked. It’s quite a sto­ry, espe­cially for any spies work­ing in the media or oth­er high pro­file areas [56].

Are the two events relat­ed? It’s very pos­si­ble. But also keep in mind that we real­ly have no idea who has the encrypt­ed cache.

Snowden’s Con­tin­gency: ‘Dead Man’s Switch’ Bor­rows From Cold War, Wik­iLeaks”  [18]by Kim Zetter; Wired [18]; 7/6/2013. [18]

The strat­egy employed by NSA whistle­blower Edward Snow­den to dis­cour­age a CIA hit job has been likened to a tac­tic employed by the U.S. and Russ­ian gov­ern­ments dur­ing the Cold War.

Snow­den, a for­mer sys­tems admin­is­tra­tor for the Nation­al Secu­rity Agency in Hawaii, took thou­sands of doc­u­ments from the agency’s net­works before flee­ing to Hong Kong in late May, where he passed them to Guardian colum­nist Glenn Green­wald and doc­u­men­tary film­maker Lau­ra Poitras. The jour­nal­ists have han­dled them with great cau­tion. A sto­ry in the Ger­man pub­li­ca­tion Der Spie­gal, co-bylined by Poitras, claims the doc­u­ments include infor­ma­tion “that could endan­ger the lives of NSA work­ers [57],” and an Asso­ci­ated Press inter­view with Green­wald this last week­end asserts that they include blue­prints for the NSA’s sur­veil­lance sys­tems [58]that “would allow some­body who read them to know exact­ly how the NSA does what it does, which would in turn allow them to evade that sur­veil­lance or repli­cate it.”

But Snow­den also report­edly passed encrypt­ed copies of his cache to a num­ber of third par­ties who have a non-jour­nal­is­tic mis­sion: If Snow­den should suf­fer a mys­te­ri­ous, fatal acci­dent, these par­ties will find them­selves in pos­ses­sion of the decryp­tion key, and they can pub­lish the doc­u­ments to the world.

“The U.S. gov­ern­ment should be on its knees every day beg­ging that noth­ing hap­pen to Snow­den,” Green­wald said in a recent inter­view with the Argen­tinean paper La Nacion [59], that was high­lighted in a much-cir­cu­lat­ed Reuters sto­ry [60]“because if some­thing does hap­pen to him, all the infor­ma­tion will be revealed and it could be its worst night­mare.”

It’s not clear if Snow­den passed all of the doc­u­ments to these third par­ties or just some of them, since Green­wald says Snow­den made it clear that he doesn’t want the NSA blue­prints pub­lished.

...

Green­wald told the Asso­ci­ated Press that media descrip­tions of Snowden’s tac­tic have been over-sim­pli­fied.

“It’s not just a mat­ter of, if he dies, things get released, it’s more nuanced than that,” he said. “It’s real­ly just a way to pro­tect him­self against extreme­ly rogue behav­ior on the part of the Unit­ed States, by which I mean vio­lent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it’s just a way to ensure that nobody feels incen­tivized to do that.”

The clas­sic appli­ca­tion of a dead man’s switch in the real world involves nuclear war­fare in which one nation tries to deter adver­saries from attack­ing by indi­cat­ing that if the gov­ern­ment com­mand author­ity is tak­en out, nuclear forces would launch auto­mat­i­cal­ly.

It has long been believed that Rus­sia estab­lished such a sys­tem for its nuclear forces in the mid-60s. Pra­dos says that under the Eisen­hower admin­is­tra­tion, the U.S. also pre-del­e­gat­ed author­ity to the North Amer­i­can Aero­space Defense Com­mand (NORAD), the Far East com­mand and the Mis­sile Defense Com­mand to use nuclear weapons if the nation­al com­mand author­ity were tak­en out, though the process was not auto­matic. These author­i­ties would have per­mis­sion to deploy the weapons, but would have to make crit­i­cal deci­sions about whether that was the best strat­egy at the time.

Snowden’s case is not the first time this sce­nario has been used for infor­ma­tion dis­tri­b­u­tion instead of weapons. In 2010, Wik­ileaks pub­lished an encrypt­ed “insur­ance file” on its web site in the wake of strong U.S. gov­ern­ment state­ments con­demn­ing the group’s pub­li­ca­tion of 77,000 Afghan War doc­u­ments that had been leaked to it by for­mer Army intel­li­gence ana­lyst Bradley Man­ning.

The huge file, post­ed on the Afghan War page at the Wik­iLeaks site, was 1.4 GB and was encrypt­ed with AES256. The file was also post­ed on tor­rent down­load sites.

It’s not known what the file con­tains but it was pre­sumed to con­tain the bal­ance of doc­u­ments and data that Man­ning had leaked to the group before he was arrest­ed in 2010 and that still had not been pub­lished at the time. This includ­ed a dif­fer­ent war log cache that con­tained 500,000 events from the Iraq War between 2004 and 2009, a video show­ing a dead­ly 2009 U.S. fire­fight near the Garani vil­lage in Afghanistan that local author­i­ties said killed 100 civil­ians, most of them chil­dren, as well as 260,000 U.S. State Depart­ment cables.

Wik­iLeaks has nev­er dis­closed the con­tents of the insur­ance file, though most of the out­stand­ing doc­u­ments from Man­ning have since been pub­lished by the group.

6.  Could Snow­den have used an encryp­tion method vul­ner­a­bil­ity that he wasn’t aware of? That seems pos­si­ble, but there’s anoth­er way gov­ern­ments could also get their hands on the unen­crypted data: hack Green­wald and the jour­nal­ists work­ing with him or any­one else with access to the doc­u­ments [61]. Mic­ah Lee was enlist­ed by Pierre Omid­yar’s First Look to see that Green­wald was­n’t hacked.

Omid­yar helped bankroll the Ukrain­ian coup [62], and Hin­du Nationalist/fascist Naren­dra Mod­i’s [63] elec­tion in India. Omid­yar’s foot­sol­diers [64]are well posi­tioned in the gov­ern­ments of both India [65] and Ukraine [66].

Note that, before going to work for Cit­i­zen Omid­yar, Mic­ah Lee was the com­put­er expert for the Elec­tron­ic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion. Its founder was a fel­low named John Per­ry Bar­low. A for­mer lyri­cist for the Grate­ful Dead, he was also Dick Cheney’s cam­paign man­ag­er and vot­ed for George Wal­lace in 1968.

“Meet the Man Hired to Make Sure the Snow­den Docs Aren’t Hacked” by Loren­zo Franceschi-Bic­chierai; Mash­able [18]; 5/27/2014. [18]

In ear­ly Jan­u­ary, Mic­ah Lee wor­ried jour­nal­ist Glenn Greenwald’s com­puter would get hacked, per­haps by the NSA, per­haps by for­eign spies.

Green­wald was a tar­get, and he was vul­ner­a­ble. He was among the first to receive tens of thou­sands of top secret NSA doc­u­ments from for­mer con­trac­tor Edward Snow­den, a scoop that even­tu­ally helped win the most recent Pulitzer prize [67].

Though Green­wald took pre­cau­tions to han­dle the NSA doc­u­ments secure­ly, his com­puter could still be hacked.

“Glenn isn’t a secu­rity per­son and he’s not a huge com­puter nerd,” Lee tells Mash­able. “He is basi­cally a nor­mal com­puter user, and over­all, nor­mal com­puter users are vul­ner­a­ble.”

Lee, 28, is the tech­nol­o­gist hired in Novem­ber to make sure Green­wald and fel­low First Look Media employ­ees use state-of-the-art secu­rity mea­sures when han­dling the NSA doc­u­ments, or when exchang­ing emails and online chats with sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion. First Look was born in Octo­ber 2013, after eBay founder Pierre Omy­diar pledged to bankroll [68] a new media web­site led by Green­wald, with doc­u­men­tary jour­nal­ists Lau­ra Poitras and Jere­my Scahill.

Essen­tially, Lee is First Look’s dig­i­tal body­guard, or as Green­wald puts it, “the mas­ter­mind” behind its secu­rity oper­a­tions.

Lee’s posi­tion is rare in the media world. But in the age of secret-spilling and the gov­ern­ment clam­p­down on reporters’ sources, news orga­ni­za­tions are aim­ing to strength­en their dig­i­tal savvy with hires like him.

“Every news orga­ni­za­tion should have a Mic­ah Lee on their staff,” Trevor Timm, exec­u­tive direc­tor and cofounder of Free­dom of the Press Foun­da­tion [69], tells Mash­able.

Timm believes the Snow­den leaks have under­scored dig­i­tal secu­rity as a press free­dom issue: If you’re a jour­nal­ist, espe­cially report­ing on gov­ern­ment and nation­al secu­rity, you can’t do jour­nal­ism and not wor­ry about cyber­se­cu­ri­ty.

“News orga­ni­za­tions can no longer afford to ignore that they have to pro­tect their jour­nal­ists, their sources and even their read­ers,” Timm says.

Once hired, Lee need­ed to trav­el to Brazil imme­di­ately. First Look has an office in New York City, but Green­wald works from his house locat­ed in the out­skirts of Rio de Janeiro.

Unfor­tu­nately, the con­sulate in San Fran­cisco near where Lee lives didn’t have an open spot for a visa appoint­ment. It would be at least two months before he’d be able to leave for Brazil.

Unde­terred, Lee cre­ated a smart (and legal) hack — a script that con­stantly scraped the consulate’s visa cal­en­dar to check for can­cel­la­tions. If it found any, it would text Lee, giv­ing him the oppor­tu­nity to hop online and book.

In less than 48 hours, he scored an appoint­ment and flew to Rio with­in days.

“That’s what he does. He’s bril­liant at find­ing solu­tions for any kind of com­puter pro­gram­ming chal­lenge,” Green­wald tells Mash­able. It’s exact­ly the kind of indus­tri­ous ini­tia­tive Green­wald need­ed.

When he got to Rio, Lee spent one entire day strength­en­ing Greenwald’s com­puter, which at that point used Win­dows 8. Lee was wor­ried spy agen­cies could break in, so he replaced the oper­at­ing sys­tem with Lin­ux, installed a fire­wall, disk encryp­tion and mis­cel­la­neous soft­ware to make it more secure.

The next day, Lee had a chance to do some­thing he’d been dream­ing of: peek at the trea­sure trove of NSA top secret doc­u­ments Snow­den had hand­ed to Green­wald in Hong Kong.

Since the begin­ning, Green­wald had stored the files in a com­puter com­pletely dis­con­nected from the Inter­net, also known as “air-gapped” in hack­er lin­go. He let Lee put his hands on that com­puter and pore through the doc­u­ments. Iron­i­cally, Lee used soft­ware ini­tially designed for cops and pri­vate inves­ti­ga­tors to sift through the moun­tain of seized doc­u­ments.

Lee spent hours read­ing and ana­lyz­ing a dozen doc­u­ments con­tain­ing once care­fully guard­ed secrets.

“I wasn’t actu­ally sur­prised. I was more like, ‘Wow, here’s evi­dence of this thing hap­pen­ing. This is crazy,’” he remem­bers. “At this point I kind of assume that all of this stuff is hap­pen­ing, but it’s excit­ing to find evi­dence about it.“
Sit­ting inside Greenwald’s house, famous­ly full of dogs,

Dur­ing his two days in Rio, Lee wore two hats: the dig­i­tal body­guard who secures com­put­ers against hack­ers and spies, and the tech­nol­o­gist who helps reporters under­stand the com­plex NSA doc­u­ments in their pos­ses­sion. In addi­tion to Green­wald, he also worked with Poitras, the doc­u­men­tary film­maker who has pub­lished a series of sto­ries based on the Snow­den doc­u­ments as part of both The Guardian’s and The Wash­ing­ton Post’s Pulitzer-win­ning cov­er­age.

For Green­wald, Lee’s skills, as well as his polit­i­cal back­ground (Lee is a long­time activist) make him the per­fect guy for the job.

“There’s a lot of real­ly smart hack­ers and pro­gram­mers and com­puter experts,” Green­wald tells Mash­able. “But what dis­tin­guishes him is that he has a real­ly sophis­ti­cated polit­i­cal frame­work where the right val­ues dri­ve his com­puter work.”

J.P. Bar­low, founder of the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion [70], where Lee used to work, agrees. There are two Lees, the activist and the hack­er, he says. One couldn’t exist with­out the oth­er.

“He acquired his tech­ni­cal skills in the ser­vice of his activism,” Bar­low tells Mash­able.

In some ways, Lee was des­tined to work on the Snow­den leaks. At Boston Uni­ver­sity in 2005, he was involved in envi­ron­men­tal and anti-Iraq War activism. His col­lege expe­ri­ence didn’t last long, though. After just one year he dropped out to pur­sue advo­cacy full-time.

“I had bet­ter things to do with my time than go to col­lege, because I want­ed to try and stop the war. And it didn’t work,” Lee says.

Dur­ing that time, he worked as a free­lance web design­er, despite no for­mal com­puter edu­ca­tion. He start­ed teach­ing him­self the com­puter pro­gram­ming lan­guage C++ when he was around 14 or 15 years old, in order to make video games. (Alas, none of those games are avail­able any­more.)

Then in 2011, Lee was hired by the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion, the dig­i­tal rights orga­ni­za­tion. “My dream job,” Lee says.

As an EFF tech­nol­o­gist, teach­ing secu­rity and cryp­to to novices was sec­ond nature for him. He was one of the peo­ple behind an ini­tia­tive in which tech­nol­o­gists taught dig­i­tal secu­rity to their fel­low employ­ees over lunchtime piz­za. And as CTO of the Free­dom of the Press Foun­da­tion, he helped orga­nize “cryp­topar­ties” to teach encryp­tion tools to jour­nal­ists and activists.

Lee became a go-to source for reporters look­ing for com­puter secu­rity and encryp­tion answers. After the first NSA leaks were pub­lished in June 2013, many reporters, not only those work­ing on the Snow­den leak, knew they’d need to pro­tect their own com­mu­ni­ca­tions. Lack­ing tech­ni­cal knowl­edge, they turned to Lee for help.

He recalls, for exam­ple, that he helped reporters at NBC get start­ed using encryp­tion. It was only when NBC News pub­lished a series of sto­ries based on the Snow­den doc­u­ments, with the con­tri­bu­tion of Glenn Green­wald, that Lee real­ized why they need­ed his guid­ance.

In ear­ly July 2013, he wrote what some con­sider one of the best intro­duc­tory texts about cryp­to, a 29-page white paper called “Encryp­tion Works [71].” Its title was inspired by an ear­ly inter­view with Snow­den — a Q&A on The Guardian’s site. The whistle­blower said,

“Encryp­tion works. Prop­erly imple­mented strong cryp­to sys­tems are one of the few things that you can rely on.”

Those words had a pro­found effect on Lee.

“That gave me a lot of hope, actu­ally, because I wasn’t sure if encryp­tion worked,” Lee says laugh­ing, his eyes bright­en­ing behind a pair of glass­es. He is lanky in jeans and a t‑shirt, behind a lap­top with stick­ers.

He’s a true hack­er, but one who hap­pens to explain extreme­ly com­pli­cated con­cepts in a way that’s easy to under­stand.

He was one of the first peo­ple Green­wald and Poitras, both on the Free­dom of the Press Foun­da­tion board, named for their “dream team,” Green­wald says — a group that would even­tu­ally cre­ate The Inter­cept [72], First Look Media’s first dig­i­tal mag­a­zine that would lat­er be instru­men­tal in break­ing new NSA sto­ries.

“He was top of my list,” Poitras tells Mash­able.

In the wake of the Snow­den leaks, which revealed the per­va­sive­ness of the NSA’s sur­veil­lance tech­niques, it seems no one, includ­ing jour­nal­ists, is safe. And it’s not just the NSA; oth­er branch­es of the U.S. gov­ern­ment have pres­sured jour­nal­ists to reveal their sources and have aggres­sively inves­ti­gated infor­ma­tion leaks.

“Con­cern has grown in the news indus­try over the government’s sur­veil­lance of jour­nal­ists,” New York Times lawyer David McCraw wrote in a recent court fil­ing [73].

...

At The Inter­cept, Lee is work­ing to make sure nobody leaves any traces. Mak­ing web­sites encrypt­ed, Lee says, “is the very bare min­i­mum basic of mak­ing it not real­ly easy for sources to get com­pro­mised.”

All these prac­tices aim to pro­tect jour­nal­ists’ and sources’ com­mu­ni­ca­tions, but han­dling the Snow­den doc­u­ments, and mak­ing sure no one who has them gets hacked, is also key. Unfor­tu­nately, that’s not as easy as installing an antivirus or a fire­wall.

When exchang­ing doc­u­ments, jour­nal­ists at The Inter­cept use a com­pli­cated series of pre­cau­tions. First of all, Lee says, doc­u­ments are nev­er stored on Inter­net-con­nect­ed com­put­ers; they live in sep­a­rate com­put­ers dis­con­nected from the web. To add an extra lay­er of pre­cau­tion when log­ging in to air-gapped com­put­ers, jour­nal­ists must use secure oper­at­ing sys­tem Tails [74].

So, imag­ine two employ­ees at First Look Media (we’ll call them Alice and Bob) need to send each oth­er Snow­den doc­u­ments. Alice goes to her air-gapped com­puter, picks the doc­u­ments, encrypts them and then burns them onto a CD. (It has to be a CD, Lee says, because thumb dri­ves are more vul­ner­a­ble to mal­ware.) Then Alice takes her CD to her Inter­net-con­nect­ed com­puter, logs in and sends an encrypt­ed email to Bob.

If you’re keep­ing score, the doc­u­ments are now pro­tected by two lay­ers of encryp­tion, “just in case,” Lee says, laugh­ing.

Then Bob receives the email, decrypts it and burns the file on a CD. He moves it to his own air-gapped com­puter where he can final­ly remove the last lay­er of encryp­tion and read the orig­i­nal doc­u­ments.

To pre­vent hack­ers from com­pro­mis­ing these air-gapped com­put­ers, Lee real­ly doesn’t want to leave any stone unturned. That’s why First Look has start­ed remov­ing wire­less and audio cards from air-gapped com­put­ers and lap­tops, to pro­tect against mal­ware that can the­o­ret­i­cally trav­el through air­waves. Secu­rity researchers have recent­ly sug­gested [75] it might be pos­si­ble to devel­op mal­ware that, instead of spread­ing through the Inter­net or via thumb dri­ves, could trav­el between two near­by com­put­ers over air­waves, effec­tively mak­ing air-gapped com­put­ers vul­ner­a­ble to hack­ers.

If this all sounds a lit­tle para­noid, Lee is the first to acknowl­edge it.

“The threat mod­el is para­noid,” Lee tells Mash­able, only half-jok­ing. But it’s not just the NSA they’re wor­ried about. (After all, the spy agency already has the doc­u­ments.) Oth­er spies, how­ever, would love to get their hands on the intel.

“Any type of adver­sary could be out to get the Snow­den doc­u­ments. But specif­i­cally large spy agen­cies. And I actu­ally think that the NSA and GCHQ aren’t as much as a threat com­pared to oth­er inter­na­tional ones,” Lee says. Apart from the NSA, Rus­sia and Chi­na are the real con­cerns.

“It’s not just this the­o­ret­i­cal prospect that maybe the gov­ern­ment is try­ing to read my emails or lis­tens to my phone calls,” Green­wald says. “I know for cer­tain that they are doing that.”

“I don’t think that the threat mod­el is para­noid at all,” Poitras says, not want­ing to under­es­ti­mate their ene­mies. “We have to be care­ful in terms of dig­i­tal secu­ri­ty.”

“All of the reporters who are work­ing on these sto­ries have a gigan­tic tar­get paint­ed on their backs,” says Soghoian.

Every pre­cau­tion, in oth­er words, is essen­tial, and makes it “much safer for us to oper­ate as adver­sar­ial jour­nal­ists,” says Lee.

Every lock on the door is nec­es­sary, and they should all be bolt­ed. What’s more, every door should be under the con­trol of First Look itself.

...

 

7. The Elec­tron­ic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion was co-found­ed by John Per­ry Bar­low. A polit­i­cal chameleon, Bar­low was a for­mer lyrit­i­cist for the Grate­ful Dead and Dick Cheney’s for­mer cam­paign man­ag­er. A perusal of his CV is reveal­ing [76]:

“John Per­ry Bar­low;” Wikipedia.com  [20]

. . . Weir and Bar­low main­tained con­tact through­out the years; a fre­quent vis­i­tor to Tim­o­thy Leary [77]’s facil­i­ty in Mill­brook, New York, Bar­low intro­duced the musi­cal group to Leary in 1967. . . .

. . . . He was engaged to Dr. Cyn­thia Horner, whom he met in 1993 at the Moscone Cen­ter [78] in San Fran­cis­co [79] while she was attend­ing a psy­chi­a­try [80] con­fer­ence and Bar­low was par­tic­i­pat­ing in a Steve Jobs [81] com­e­dy roast [82] at a con­ven­tion for the NeXT Com­put­er [83]. She died unex­pect­ed­ly in 1994 while asleep on a flight from Los Ange­les to New York, days before her 30th birth­day, from a heart arrhyth­mia appar­ent­ly caused by unde­tect­ed viral car­diomy­opa­thy [84].

. . .  Bar­low had been a good friend of John F. Kennedy, Jr. [85] ever since his moth­er Jacque­line Kennedy Onas­sis [86] had made arrange­ments for her son to be a wran­gler at the Bar Cross ranch for 6 months in 1978, and lat­er the two men went on many dou­ble dates in New York City [87] with Kennedy’s then-girl­friend Daryl Han­nah [88][15] [89] and Cyn­thia. . . .[16] [90]

. . . . Bar­low is a for­mer chair­man of the Sub­lette Coun­ty [91]Repub­li­can Par­ty [92] and served as west­ern Wyoming cam­paign coor­di­na­tor for Dick Cheney [93] dur­ing his 1978 Con­gres­sion­al cam­paign. . . .

. . . . By the ear­ly 2000s, Bar­low was unable to rec­on­cile his ardent lib­er­tar­i­an­ism [94] with the pre­vail­ing neo­con­ser­v­a­tive [95] move­ment and “did­n’t feel tempt­ed to vote for Bush”; after an arrest for pos­ses­sion of a small quan­ti­ty of mar­i­jua­na [96] while trav­el­ing, he joined the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty [97] and pub­licly com­mit­ted him­self to out­right polit­i­cal activism for the first time since his spell with the Repub­li­can Par­ty.[cita­tion need­ed [98]] Bar­low has sub­se­quent­ly declared that he is a Repub­li­can, includ­ing dur­ing an appear­ance on The Col­bert Report [99] on March 26, 2007,[30] [100][31] [101] and also claimed on many occa­sions to be an anar­chist.[32] [102] . . .. .

 . . . . All of my pres­i­den­tial votes, whether for George Wal­lace [103], Dick Gre­go­ry [104], or John Hagelin [105], have been protest votes.” . . . .

. . . . Bar­low cur­rent­ly serves as vice-chair­man of the EFF [106]’s board of direc­tors. The EFF was designed to medi­ate the “inevitable con­flicts that have begun to occur on the bor­der between Cyber­space and the phys­i­cal world.”[34] [107] They were try­ing to build a legal wall that would sep­a­rate and pro­tect the Inter­net from ter­ri­to­r­i­al gov­ern­ment, and espe­cial­ly from the US gov­ern­ment.[35] [108]

In 2012, Bar­low was one of the founders of the EFF-relat­ed orga­ni­za­tion the Free­dom of the Press Foun­da­tion [109] and also cur­rent­ly serves on its Board of Direc­tors.[36] [110] Bar­low has had sev­er­al pub­lic con­ver­sa­tions via video con­fer­ence with fel­low Free­dom of the Press Foun­da­tion Board of Direc­tors mem­ber Edward Snow­den [111],[37] [112][38] [113] and has appeared in inter­views with Julian Assange [114] of Wik­iLeaks [115] tout­ing Snow­den as “a Hero.”[39] [116] . . .

. . . . Bar­low is a friend and for­mer room­mate[24] [117] of entre­pre­neur Sean Park­er [118], and attend­ed Park­er’s con­tro­ver­sial 2013 wed­ding [119].[2 [120]. . . .

8. Both the Elec­tron­ic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion and Cit­i­zen Green­wald are among those who have run inter­fer­ence for Big Tobac­co. Green­wald worked for the pow­er­ful Wachtell Lip­ton law firm which helped to crush whistle­blow­ers who could reveal the truth about Big Tobac­co’s knowl­edge of the dam­age that they did.


“Shillers for Killers” by Mark Ames; Pan­do Dai­ly; 7/7/2015. [21]

Revealed: How the tobac­co indus­try paid jour­nal­ists, sci­en­tists, activists and lawyers to cov­er up the most dead­ly crime in human his­to­ry.

“Objec­tive No. 5: To prove that the cig­a­rette has been brought to tri­al by lynch law, engi­neered and fos­tered by unin­formed and irre­spon­si­ble peo­ple and orga­ni­za­tions in order to induce and incite fear.”

—“Project Truth,” Brown & Williamson

If you want an unvar­nished, raw peek at the pig trough of cor­rup­tion and sleaze, it’s all there in the 88 mil­lion-plus pages of once-secret tobac­co indus­try doc­u­ments, online and search­able in the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia at San Francisco’s online tobac­co library [121].

In my last arti­cle [122], I gave some back­ground on both the tobac­co industry’s dead­ly con­spir­acy against human­ity and on UCSF’s new 3.0 ver­sion [121]of its online search­able tobac­co doc­u­ments library [123].

Now it’s time to look at some of the acces­sories to the great­est crime in human his­tory [122], which killed 100 mil­lion peo­ple last cen­tury and with one bil­lion expect­ed to die this cen­tury from smok­ing. Every one of those deaths pre­ventable.

To rack up this many human kills for so many tens of bil­lions of dol­lars in prof­its over so many decades and not wind up in prison, the tobac­co indus­try has had to pay off an incred­i­ble num­ber of peo­ple and insti­tu­tions over the years.

As the doc­u­ments show (some embed­ded below), many of those peo­ple were paid under the table to bet­ter con­fuse, deceive, and con­tinue plun­der­ing the pub­lic. Those covert tobac­co shills are eas­ily the worst and most offen­sive, because they com­mit fraud on a pub­lic that trusts them.

But even those whose finan­cial rela­tion­ships with Big Tobac­co are above-board, such as tobac­co-hired cor­po­rate law firms, have been denounced in judi­cial court deci­sions as acces­sories to RICO rack­e­teer­ing laws—essentially mob lawyers, co-con­spir­a­tors in the great­est orga­nized mass mur­der-for-prof­it in human his­to­ry.

In this arti­cle, I’m going to name names. Some are sur­pris­ing; some shock­ing; oth­ers down­right hor­ri­fy­ing.

Let’s start with my col­leagues in the media and jour­nal­ism.

Mal­colm Glad­well & the Third Par­ty Advo­cates

>
“The best PR ends up look­ing like news,” brags one pub­lic rela­tions exec­u­tive. “You nev­er know when a PR agency is being effec­tive; you’ll just find your views slow­ly shift­ing.”

—Trust Us, We’re Experts

Three years ago, my col­league Yasha Levine dis­cov­ered [124]Mal­colm Gladwell’s name on a secret Philip Mor­ris doc­u­ment from the mid-1990s list­ing its top “Third Par­ty” advocates—meaning advo­cates who Philip Mor­ris believes can be relied upon to pro­mote its agen­da, while the pub­lic thinks they’re get­ting hon­est dis­in­ter­ested infor­ma­tion.

In the mar­ket­ing world, “third par­ty advo­cates” are con­sid­ered by far the most effec­tive medi­ums for push­ing out cor­po­rate messages—especially for a con­tro­ver­sial and unpop­u­lar client like a tobac­co giant. The idea is simple—use some­one else, whom the pub­lic con­sid­ers inde­pen­dent, to tro­jan horse your mes­sage. In plain words, as a for­mer PR exec­u­tive at Porter Nov­elli explained Third Par­ty advo­ca­cy:

“Put your words in some­one else’s mouth.”

In oth­er words, fraud.

Glad­well had been trained at a tobac­co-fund­ed right-wing group called the “Nation­al Jour­nal­ism Center”—whose oth­er alum­ni [125]include Ann Coul­ter, Fox’s Greg Gut­feld, Tim Car­ney [126], and Deb­bie Schlus­sel [127]. A con­fi­den­tial Philip Mor­ris memo [128]describes its rela­tion­ship with the Nation­al Jour­nal­ism Center’s alum­ni:

>
“As a direct result of our sup­port we have been able to work with alum­ni of this pro­gram.... about 15 years worth of jour­nal­ists at print and visu­al media through­out the country....to get across our side of the story....which has result­ed in numer­ous pieces con­sis­tent with our point of view.” [ellipses original—M.A.]

An exam­ple of Glad­well [129]align­ing with Philip Mor­ris mes­sag­ing: A Wash­ing­ton Post sto­ry in 1990, “Not Smok­ing Could Be Haz­ardous To Pen­sion Sys­tem,” [130]in which Glad­well essen­tially rehashed a 1987 indus­try study [131]car­ried out by a Philip Mor­ris-backed [132]think tank, the Nation­al Bureau of Eco­nomic Research (Levine dis­cov­ered a copy of this same 1987 study in the files of a top Philip Mor­ris com­mu­ni­ca­tions exec­u­tive, Vic­tor Han [133]). Glad­well con­cludes his con­trar­ian attack on smok­ing reg­u­la­tions by quot­ing anoth­er undis­closed “third par­ty advo­cate” on the tobac­co industry’s pay­roll, Gio Gori [134], whom Glad­well rep­re­sents as a dis­in­ter­ested “econ­o­mist” rather than a paid tobac­co indus­try pitch­man [134].

Oth­er media names on Philip Mor­ris’ third par­ty “mes­sage devel­op­ment” list reads like a who’s who of 1990s con­ser­v­a­tive pun­dits: Fred Barnes and Mort Kon­dracke (two-fifths of the orig­i­nal McLaugh­lin Group), Bill Kris­tol (whose mag­a­zine, Week­ly Stan­dard, was owned by Rupert Mur­doch, a Philip Mor­ris board direc­tor [135]), Bob Novak, Mona Charen, and George W. Bush press spokesman Tony Snow; poll­ster Scott Ras­mussen; fun­ny­men PJ O’Rourke and Dave Bar­ry (whose “humor­ous” columns appear in the files of RJ Reynolds [136]Philip Mor­ris [137], and the Tobac­co Insti­tute [138]); and even magi­cian Penn Jil­lette.

(Update: Dave Bar­ry tells Pan­do that he is mys­ti­fied as to why his name appears on Philip Mor­ris’ third par­ty list. He writes: “I’m stunned to see this; every­thing I ever wrote about the tobac­co indus­try in gen­eral, and Philip Mor­ris in par­tic­u­lar, was neg­a­tive. I detest the tobac­co indus­ry and I cer­tainly was nev­er paid by it, or col­luded with it.”)

There are numer­ous covert tobac­co spokes­men in Phillip Mor­ris’ secret files, from Mil­ton Fried­man and Mur­ray Roth­bard to just about every­one asso­ci­ated with the CATO Insti­tute [139], from its pres­i­dent and exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent down—and Rea­son mag­a­zine, includ­ing three edi­tors: Bob Poole, Jacob Sul­lum and Vir­ginia Postrel. The lib­er­tar­i­ans’ covert role in push­ing tobac­co pro­pa­ganda is of course less surprising—UCSF’s tobac­co inves­ti­ga­tors dis­cov­ered [140]that the Tea Par­ty was cre­ated by an alliance between Big Tobac­co and Koch broth­ers’ oil mon­ey.

Of all the tobac­co indus­try media cutouts of the 1990s, the one who did them the biggest sol­id was Bet­sy McCaugh­ey, whose 1994 arti­cles in the New Repub­lic blast­ing Clinton’s health care reforms won the Nation­al Mag­a­zine Award, and are cred­ited with killing HillaryCare [141]. Lat­er, after the dam­age was done and thou­sands went to their graves ear­ly from lack of access to health care, McCaughey’s report­ing was exposed by James Fal­lows [142]and oth­ers as a com­plete fraud [143], forc­ing the New Repub­lic to offi­cially apol­o­gize [144]f f to its read­ers.

McCaugh­ey, it turns out, was on Philip Mor­ris’ “Third Par­ty Mes­sage Devel­op­ment Con­tact List” iden­ti­fied as a “senior fel­low” at the tobac­co-fund­ed Man­hat­tan Insti­tute. Anoth­er doc­u­ment reveals [128]how Philip Mor­ris secret­ly edit­ed and guid­ed McCaughey’s arti­cles for the New Repub­lic:

>
Worked off-the-record with Man­hat­tan [Insti­tute] and writer Bet­sy McCaugh­ey as part of the input to the three-part expose in The New Repub­lic on what the Clin­ton plan means to you. The first part detailed specifics of the plan. The sec­ond part, to be pub­lished immi­nently, will focus on the impact the Clin­ton bill will have on cities. She will explore why med­ical edu­ca­tion will decline, why teach­ing hos­pi­tals will be dri­ven out of busi­ness, why region­al health alliances will shift the cost of car­ing for the poor off the fed­eral bud­get onto the backs of urban work­ers and their employ­ers, and why dis­con­tin­u­ing Med­ic­aid and enrolling the dis­ad­van­taged in HMO’s will fail.

The tobac­co indus­try covert­ly led the fight against HillaryCare in 1994, in part because the law would hike cig­a­rette tax­es to help pay for expand­ing health care cov­er­age. If you’re already killing close to half a mil­lion Amer­i­cans a year with tobac­co, what’s anoth­er 50,000 or so [145]extra deaths per year from lack of med­ical cov­er­age?

Going back to the ear­ly 1950s, when the tobac­co com­pany heads met in secret in the Plaza Hotel in Man­hat­tan to plot their con­spir­acy to fight sci­ence they knew had proven tobacco’s dead­ly effects, they set up a front group which came to be known as the Tobac­co Insti­tute, and paid PR giant Hill & Knowl­ton to secret­ly run it. In its first year of oper­a­tion, Hill & Knowl­ton mem­os detailed how they start­ed chang­ing mag­a­zine arti­cles. One memo reads:

“Advance knowl­edge was obtained of a sto­ry on smok­ing by Bob Con­si­dine for Cos­mopoli­tan mag­a­zine. Infor­ma­tion was sup­plied result­ing in sev­en revi­sions and five qual­i­fy­ing addi­tions to the sto­ry which was already in type.”

Hill & Knowl­ton also “con­tacted” a writer for TRUE mag­a­zine, Don­ald Coo­ley, as he pre­pared an arti­cle on smok­ing. Con­tact­ing him “entailed con­fer­ences with the author to work on fac­tual revi­sions.”

Even­tu­ally, with the tobac­co industry’s direct help, Coo­ley and TRUE issued a 48-page pro-smok­ing book­let, “Smoke With­out Fear,” [146]which had 350,000 copies dis­trib­uted by the tobac­co indus­try to jour­nal­ists and oth­ers around the coun­try. The book­let begins [147]:

IF you are a man or woman who smokes, relax and enjoy it. If you have tried to give up smok­ing a dozen times and failed, quit try­ing. If you have guilty feel­ings that you are weak-willed, immoral, and sui­ci­dal, begin anew to smoke with peace of mind.

They also suc­ceeded in sup­press­ing anti-tobac­co jour­nal­ism, in part by using intel­li­gence gath­ered from their huge web of media con­tacts about upcom­ing arti­cles. A 1954 Hill & Knowl­ton report boasts of hav­ing tak­en a nation­wide infor­mal sur­vey on “arti­cles planned on the smok­ing con­tro­versy,” arti­cles which they were able to lean on:

“Twen­ty mag­a­zines of nation-wide cir­cu­la­tion were work­ing on pieces and con­tact was estab­lished with authors and edi­tors. Such reg­u­lar check­ing con­tin­ues as a stan­dard prac­tice, requir­ing numer­ous con­tacts week­ly.”

They were espe­cially effec­tive in snuff­ing out any neg­a­tive jour­nal­ism on the new tele­vi­sion medi­um. An ear­ly 1950s memo reads:

“One neg­a­tively aimed pro­gram (WNBT) which was being sched­uled on the cig­a­rette con­tro­versy was post­poned after dis­cus­sion of [Tobac­co Insti­tute] facts.”

“Anoth­er TV pro­gram (ABC-TV, Mar­tin Agron­sky), which did deal with the cig­a­rette con­tro­versy, end­ed on a favor­able note after con­fer­ences with pro­duc­ers and pre­sen­ta­tion of facts.”

...

And it’s not just the main­stream press that rolled over for tobac­co pro­pa­ganda. An arti­cle [148]in the New Times [149], a 70s New Jour­nal­ism glossy, attacked the Amer­i­can Can­cer Soci­ety and Nation­al Can­cer Insti­tute as “the can­cer estab­lish­ment” and a “self-per­pet­u­at­ing bureau­cracy” behold­en to Big Med­i­cine against alter­na­tive can­cer ther­a­pies— “a net­work of vig­i­lantes pre­pared to pounce on any­one who pro­motes a can­cer ther­apy that runs against their sub­stan­tial prej­u­dices and prof­its.”

The Amer­i­can Can­cer Soci­ety was a leader in the fight to expose cig­a­rettes as mass-killing devices. But the arti­cle, writ­ten by Ruth Rosen­baum, avoid­ed any men­tion of tobac­co. It was con­sid­ered mav­er­ick enough by the left-alt press that, even years lat­er, it was includ­ed in a Project Cen­sored Top 20 Cen­sored sto­ries [150]com­pi­la­tion put out two decades lat­er, in 1997. Stan­ford his­tory pro­fes­sor Robert Proc­tor, author of “Gold­en Holo­caust,” explains what was wrong with this sto­ry:

Rosen­baum was fêt­ed as a lefty mav­er­ick, but a search of the tobac­co industry’s archives reveals a more sin­is­ter sto­ry.

Rosen­baum wrote her arti­cle with the help of Hill & Knowl­ton, the industry’s pub­lic rela­tions firm; she was also a per­sonal friend of Fred Panz­er at the Tobac­co Insti­tute and he, too, helped her with it. None of this was known to Jensen when he cel­e­brated Rosenbaum’s review for his Project Censored—nor, appar­ently, the fact that her arti­cles had earned her invi­ta­tions to work for the indus­try in lit­i­ga­tion.

Sci­ence

“[O]ur medical/scientific wit­nesses will say what­ever we want them to say.”

—Gabriel DiMar­co, RJ Reynolds vice pres­i­dent for research

One of the first things the tobac­co car­tel chiefs agreed to in 1953 when they secret­ly met to coor­di­nate their anti-sci­ence strate­gies was to set up a fraud­u­lent-sci­ence front called the Tobac­co Indus­try Research Com­mit­tee, lat­er renamed the Coun­cil on Tobac­co Research (CTR).

Secret tobac­co indus­try mem­os describe it as a “front” and a “shield.” The front group wound up fund­ing an enor­mous amount of med­ical research sup­pos­edly into links between tobac­co and can­cer, and can­cer in gen­eral. The pur­pose was to steer can­cer research away from out­side caus­es like smok­ing, to focus instead on micro-lev­el bio­chem­i­cal mech­a­nisms — for exam­ple, how some genes are turned on or off dur­ing car­cino­gen­e­sis. This way, sci­ence gets divert­ed, bought off, cor­rupted, and flood­ed with bias­es.

You can see this same strat­egy at work with the pow­er­ful Koch broth­ers’ large dona­tions [151]to can­cer research at Sloan-Ket­ter­ing — the pur­pose is not just PR, but also to con­trol the direc­tion of the research, which invari­ably will lead away from caus­es like pol­lu­tion from petro­chem­i­cals pro­duced by the Kochs, and into oth­er areas of research. (Sloan-Ket­ter­ing was fund­ed by tobac­co com­pa­nies from the 1950s through the 1970s; its direc­tor, Frank Hors­fall, said he believed cig­a­rettes got “undue blame” for can­cer.)

This sci­ence front group set up some­thing called “Spe­cial Projects”—hatchet jobs for pay, using schol­ars to assas­si­nate the cred­i­bil­ity of oth­er schol­ars’ work.

Colum­bia Uni­ver­sity sta­tis­ti­cian George Saiger was paid [152]$10,873 in 1966 (about $80,000 today) just to tes­tify before Con­gress deny­ing any link between cig­a­rettes and can­cer. The for­mer chair­man of Stanford’s Dept of Sta­tis­tics, Ingram Olkin [153], was paid $12,000 in 1976 ($50,000 today) to under­mine a Nation­al Heart Insti­tute report link­ing smok­ing to heart dis­ease. A Loril­lard memo approv­ing Olkin’s pay­ment demand­ed that he use “con­sid­er­a­tions oth­er than prac­ti­cal sci­en­tific mer­it.”

In all, between 1966 and 1990, the tobac­co com­pa­nies paid out more than $18 mil­lion into the secret “spe­cial projects” funds to schol­ars at top name insti­tu­tions— Alvan Fein­stein [154] from Yale, Carl Seltzer [155] from Har­vard [155], and the pres­i­dent of the Col­lege of Amer­i­can Pathol­o­gists, Vic­tor Buh­ler. At least 30 of these spe­cial projects shills tes­ti­fied before Con­gress or in courts with­out ever reveal­ing their covert finan­cial ties to the tobac­co indus­try.

...

Civ­il Lib­er­tar­i­ans

“The most promi­nent and valu­able of our con­sti­tu­tional ad ban allies is the Amer­i­can Civ­il Lib­er­ties Union (ACLU).”

—Tobac­co Insti­tute, 1987

“If John Got­ti want­ed to give $10,000, we would take it.”

Ira Glass­er [156], ACLU exec­u­tive direc­tor

In 1987, as the fed­eral and state gov­ern­ments were tak­ing up new laws ban­ning cig­a­rette ads, the tobac­co indus­try began secret­ly pump­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars into the ACLU’s cof­fers [157]. The tobac­co indus­try spends an esti­mated $13 bil­lion a year mar­ket­ing its products—and as we’ve since learned, the com­pa­nies poured much of their efforts into hook­ing those most vul­ner­a­ble to becom­ing addicts until death—young teenagers, minori­ties, women [158], the poor, men­tally ill, home­less, drug addicts (see: RJ Reynolds’ “Project Scum” [159]) and so on. Big Tobacco’s strat­egy was to fright­en the pub­lic with the ol’ First Amend­ment slip­pery slope fal­lacy: today it might be ban­ning tobac­co ads, tomor­row you’ll be banned and round­ed up into FEMA con­cen­tra­tion camps.

To make this argu­ment seem cred­i­ble, they enlist­ed the ACLU as their “third par­ty advo­cate.” Before the tobac­co fund­ing began, the ACLU did not lob­by against cig­a­rette adver­tis­ing bans; nor did it push for “smok­ers’ rights” in the work­place, against laws ban­ning smok­ing indoors. After the mon­ey start­ed pour­ing in, the ACLU began aggres­sively lob­by­ing to block laws ban­ning cig­a­rette ads on “First Amend­ment” grounds. And as soon as sci­ence defin­i­tively proved that sec­ond­hand smoke caus­es can­cer and oth­er diseases—killing 50,000 Amer­i­cans a year—the ACLU set up a spe­cial project, “ACLU Work­place Rights Project,” to fight against laws ban­ning indoor smok­ing.

...

The project was secret­ly ful­ly fund­ed by Philip Mor­ris and RJR Reynolds. The ACLU also set up a tobac­co indus­try lob­by front [160]called the Nation­al Task Force on Civ­il Lib­er­ties in the Work­place to help Big Tobac­co keep prof­it­ing off the deaths of tens of thou­sands of peo­ple vic­tim­ized by indoor smok­ers.

In an ACLU fundrais­ing pro­posal [161] to be “shared with RJR con­tacts,” the head of the ACLU’s Nation­al Task Force on Civ­il Lib­er­ties in the Work­place empha­sized the group’s val­ue as a third par­ty advo­cate in fight­ing new indoor smok­ing laws—or as the ACLU called them, “Lifestyle Dis­crim­i­na­tion Laws”:

The ACLU could make a much larg­er con­tri­bu­tion to the fight against lifestyle dis­crim­i­na­tion. The assets we would bring to this effort include:

Cred­i­bil­ity — The ACLU is uni­ver­sally known to stand on prin­ci­ple. Even our staunchest oppo­nents have nev­er charged us with act­ing out of self-inter­est. This could be extreme­ly valu­able.

In that same memo [161], the ACLU exec­u­tive warned that democ­racy and free­dom were at stake in defend­ing the big tobac­co com­pa­nies from laws ban­ning indoor smok­ing:

“If this trend con­tin­ues, smok­ers will soon encounter dis­crim­i­na­tion com­pa­ra­ble to that expe­ri­enced by racial minori­ties and women.”

In 1993, for­mer Wash­ing­ton Post reporter Mor­ton Mintz exposed [162]the dirty deal between the ACLU and Big Tobac­co in a report backed by the Amer­i­can Heart Asso­ci­a­tion and the Amer­i­can Can­cer Soci­ety. The ACLU respond­ed by send­ing their Direc­tor of Media Rela­tions, Phil Gutis, to Mintz’s press con­fer­ence (joined by Ralph Nad­er [163]) on his ACLU-Tobac­co exposé. The ACLU man took notes and report­ed back to his ACLU boss­es:

“[Mintz] is a retired nut with too much time on his hands and a bug up his ass about cig­a­rettes... The fall­out on this thing should be rel­a­tively minor as long as we can dodge as many press calls as pos­si­ble while get­ting our side of the sto­ry out to the majors.”

The head of the ACLU at the time, Ira Glass­er, went on the offen­sive attack­ing Mintz. (Glass­er lat­er led the ACLU’s sup­port [164]for the Cit­i­zens Unit­ed decision—and, com­pletely unre­lated of course, the ACLU report­edly took $20 mil­lion [165]from the Koch broth­ers, the biggest ben­e­fi­cia­ries of the Cit­i­zens Unit­ed case.)

...

Not every­one was hap­py with Glasser’s sleazy sell­outs. The head of the ACLU’s pow­er­ful (and far more right­eous) South­ern Cal­i­for­nia chap­ter, Ramona Rip­ston, com­plained to Glass­er about the ethics of tak­ing tobac­co com­pany mon­ey and lob­by­ing for their “rights,” com­par­ing it to the ACLU tak­ing mon­ey from a com­pany that mar­keted toys harm­ful to chil­dren and then defend­ing the company’s “con­sti­tu­tional right” to adver­tise and mar­ket the dead­ly prod­ucts. Glass­er wait­ed six months before respond­ing in a froth­ing six-page sin­gle-spaced memo, telling Rip­ston,

“I am dis­turbed about the demo­niza­tion of com­pa­nies like Philip Mor­ris.”

Much of what we know about the ACLU’s covert rela­tion­ship came from Mintz’s inves­ti­ga­tions, and from leaks from a dis­gusted for­mer ACLU employ­ee named John Fahs, author of, “Cig­a­rette Con­fi­den­tial.” Fahs calls the ACLU’s Big Tobac­co tie-up a “con­flict of inter­est unpar­al­leled in the his­tory of the mod­ern civ­il rights move­ment,” and sums it up:

“The work the ACLU has under­taken on behalf of cig­a­rette man­u­fac­tur­ers has been under­taken in direct exchange for funding—a quid pro quo arrange­ment in direct con­flict with the institution’s sta­tus as a gov­ern­ment-sub­si­dized, tax-exempt, non­profit insti­tu­tion. To wit, the ACLU has suc­cess­fully mount­ed an ambi­tious nation­wide leg­isla­tive lob­by­ing cam­paign on behalf of cig­a­rette com­pa­nies in the areas of employ­ment pro­tec­tions for smok­ers, free­dom of speech pro­tec­tions for unre­stricted cig­a­rette adver­tise­ments, nation­al health care reform leg­is­la­tion favor­ing smok­ers over non­smok­ers, and pro­tec­tion of smok­ers’ rights in parental cus­tody cas­es of asth­matic chil­dren.”

The tobac­co library reveals oth­er civ­il lib­er­ties and pri­vacy groups offer­ing their ser­vices to Big Tobac­co. In 1994, an RJ Reynolds mar­ket­ing direc­tor wrote to the head of the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion, Jer­ry Berman, send­ing him a list of top­ics they hoped to dis­cuss about pro­tect­ing tobac­co adver­tis­ing on the Inter­net. Top­ics includ­ed:

* What will the sysop’s lia­bil­ity be for online ser­vices rel­a­tive to minors and tobacco/alcoholic bev­er­age com­mer­cial mes­sages?

* Will com­mer­cial mes­sages deliv­ered via online services/interactive media sys­tems fall under FCC reg­u­la­tions, which pro­hibit alco­holic bev­er­age and tobac­co adver­tis­ing? Or, will they fall under the pro­tec­tion of the Bill of Rights like print?

Five months lat­er, at the end of 1994, the EFF’s exec­u­tive direc­tor wrote RJ Reynolds’s direct mar­ket­ing man­ager, Peter Michael­son, a pro­posal [166] solic­it­ing tobac­co mon­ey to fund an EFF project that would pro­tect Big Tobacco’s online mar­ket­ing, under the guise of First Amend­ment pro­tec­tions and Inter­net Free­dom. Titled “Project on the First Amend­ment and Con­tent Reg­u­la­tion in New Inter­ac­tive Media,” the EFF’s direc­tor explained that they opposed gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tions on online speech—such as “com­mer­cial tobac­co advertising”—because in the Inter­net age, the user has con­trol over con­tent, and can there­fore self-reg­u­late to avoid smok­ing ads. The EFF called for using “con­tent block­ing” tech­nolo­gies, rather than “intru­sive” gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tions.

The EFF head then laid out the strat­egy [166]:

A. Phase I White Paper “New First Amend­ment Para­me­ters for Con­tent-Based Reg­u­la­tion in Inter­ac­tive Media.”

Dur­ing the first six months of 1995, the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion and the new pub­lic pol­icy group under my direc­tion, the Cen­ter for Democ­racy and Tech­nol­ogy, will pre­pare a White Paper...

[The] paper will out­line a reg­u­la­tory mod­el for non-mass media inter­ac­tive ser­vices which (a) per­mits inter­ac­tive ser­vice providers to trans­mit, with­out lia­bil­ity, all law­ful con­tent, com­mer­cial or non-com­mer­cial, pro­vided that they (b) clear­ly iden­tify the nature of the pro­gram­ming (adult, tobac­co spon­sored, gen­eral view­ing, etc) and pro­vide sub­scribers user-friend­ly means for mak­ing view­er choic­es for them­selves and their chil­dren.”

In “Phase III: Pub­lic Edu­ca­tion and Con­sen­sus Build­ing,” the EFF pro­posed work­ing with “civ­il lib­er­ties groups” as well as Newt Gingrich’s “Progress and Free­dom Foundation”—heavily sup­ported by Big Tobac­co groups—to host meet­ings between the EFF, “the Cato Insti­tute, Her­itage Foun­da­tion, Cit­i­zens for a Sound Econ­o­my...”

Final­ly, the EFF head said it would cost $350,000 run­ning “1 and ½ pol­icy staff in 1995” to lob­by against reg­u­lat­ing tobac­co con­tent on the Inter­net, one-third of that com­ing from ISPs, and “100,000 for 1995 (payable in Decem­ber 1994 if pos­si­ble) and pos­si­bly an addi­tional $25,000 lat­er in the year” from RJ Reynolds. At the end of the let­ter, Berman sug­gests anoth­er pos­si­bil­ity if RJ Reynolds finds this plan too com­pli­cat­ed:

“We are also pre­pared to pur­sue a legal test of this alter­na­tive approach to reg­u­la­tion. For exam­ple, if MARC [RJR’s direct mar­keters] or RJR decid­ed to put one or anoth­er spon­sored on-line ser­vice up on the Inter­net or via Amer­i­ca-on-Line or oth­er on-line ser­vice, the white paper could become the basis of a legal brief chal­leng­ing the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of any gov­ern­men­tal effort to block the pro­gram­ming on the basis of cur­rent adver­tis­ing bans in elec­tronic media. . . . We have not bud­geted for this alter­na­tive at this point.”

By 2005, Inter­net account­ed for 14% of cig­a­rette sales, through hun­dreds of sites. Not only have the cig­a­rette com­pa­nies been able to avoid sales tax­es and thus starve states of rev­enues need­ed to treat cig­a­rette-induced health epi­demics, but a 2003 study pub­lished in JAMA (Jour­nal of the Amer­i­can Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion) found that chil­dren as young as eleven were able to get cig­a­rettes through the Inter­net 90 per­cent of the times they tried.

It all sounds so awful­ly familiar—civil lib­er­tar­ian groups clutch­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion, sound­ing the alarm on behalf of caus­es that some­how seem to ben­e­fit huge com­mer­cial inter­ests, all in the name of free­dom and lib­er­ty...

Whistle­blow­ers, lawyers & Glenn Green­wald

“We learned of a tobac­co insid­er who might know the whole story—who could tell us whether or not the tobac­co indus­try has been lev­el­ing with the pub­lic. That exec­u­tive was for­merly a high­ly placed exec­u­tive with a tobac­co com­pany. But we can­not broad­cast what crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion about tobac­co, addic­tion, and pub­lic health he might be able to offer... if we were to broad­cast an inter­view with him, CBS could be faced with a multi­bil­lion dol­lar law­suit. The fact is we are not even allowed to men­tion his name, or the name of the com­pany he worked for. And of course, we can­not show you his face.”

“60 Min­utes” [167]on tobac­co whistle­blower Jef­frey Wigand

“The threats just scared me to death. I mean, they’re intim­i­dat­ing.”

—Jef­frey Wigand

This is the age of the whistle­blower, the leak­er of secrets for the pub­lic good: Edward Snow­den, Chelsea Man­ning, Wik­iLeaks... While their leaks have helped expose ille­gal gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance and (in the case of Man­ning) pos­si­ble US col­lu­sion in war crimes in Iraq, Jef­frey Wigand, called “60 Min­utes Most Famous Whistle­blower,” [168]helped expose a con­spir­acy that killed 100 mil­lion peo­ple in the 20th cen­tury, and will kill one bil­lion peo­ple, most­ly from the devel­op­ing world, where the tobac­co com­pa­nies now focus their mar­ket­ing efforts. There is no war, no weapon, no man made death machine that comes close to cig­a­rettes in terms of kills.

We know about it now, thanks in part to whistle­blow­ers [169]like Wigand and a para­le­gal named Mer­rell Williams [170]. But if the tobac­co indus­try lawyers had their way, their names and the infor­ma­tion they exposed would like­ly still be secret.

Jef­frey Wigand, a top exec­u­tive at Brown & Williamson, was final­ly per­suaded by 60 Min­utes pro­duc­ers to go pub­lic with what he knew about how tobac­co com­pa­nies know­ingly spiked their cig­a­rettes to hook smok­ers for life. Agree­ing to blow the whis­tle cost Wigand his upper-mid­dle class life—his wife left him, he and his fam­ily came under such severe threats and harass­ment that CBS had to hire a coterie of for­mer Secret Ser­vice agents to pro­tect him round-the-clock, and he wound up going from top exec­u­tive liv­ing in a man­sion, to work­ing as a pub­lic high school chem­istry teacher.

And the worst of it was—when it came time to air his secrets, Wigand was cen­sored from the 60 Min­utes show due to threats of multi­bil­lion dol­lar law­suits..

Wigand’s name could not be men­tioned in the broad­cast; his face could not be shown. Per­haps even more chill­ing and bizarre is what hap­pened to the oth­er big tobac­co whistle­blower of the ear­ly 1990s, Mer­rell Williams, a para­le­gal at a tobac­co law firm who was so appalled by what he read, he leaked thou­sands of pages of doc­u­ments that even­tu­ally wound up with UCSF’s Stan Glantz, who now runs the dig­i­tal tobac­co doc­u­ments library.

In 1996, a judge in Mer­rell Williams’ home state of Ken­tucky put a gag order on the whistle­blower, legal­ly bar­ring him from talk­ing not just to 60 Min­utes and oth­er media, but, under threat of jail, from talk­ing about the leaked tobac­co doc­u­ments to his own lawyer.

You can watch the famous episode [167]of 60 Min­utes show­ing how these whistle­blow­ers were gagged—by the pow­er of pri­vate gov­ern­ments that are tobac­co giants. Recall that the annu­al rev­enues of the top five tobac­co com­pa­nies are larg­er than the GDP of about 80% of the coun­tries in the world. That is power—private gov­ern­ment pow­er.

Here is some of the tran­script of Mike Wal­lace sit­ting before a gagged Mer­rell Williams and his lawyer:

WALLACE: You want to tell me any­thing, Mr. Williams, about these doc­u­ments?

[CUT TO: Williams shown keep­ing his mouth shut and star­ing ahead]

WILLIAMS’ LAWYER: He can­not. He’s pro­hib­ited from mak­ing any pub­lic state­ments about the doc­u­ments, or his employ­ment, or any­thing he learned dur­ing his employ­ment, or any­thing he learned as a result of what he learned from the employ­ment.

WALLACE: What would hap­pen to him if he talked to me now about those doc­u­ments?

LAWYER: He very well could go to jail for six months.

WALLACE: Say this again?

LAWYER: There is present­ly pend­ing a motion by Brown & Williamson to hold Mer­rell in crim­i­nal con­tempt. And even under that cir­cum­stance, I’m still not allowed to talk to my client. [Mer­rell Williams shifts uncom­fort­ably in his seat, sighs, but keeps qui­et.]

WALLACE: I don’t understand—you’re not allowed to talk to your client? You’re sit­ting with your client right now.

LAWYER: Uh-huh.

WALLACE: And you’re not per­mit­ted, despite the fact that you rep­re­sent him?

LAWYER: Oh I can ask him about the Reds and what he thought of the World Series and things like that.

WALLACE: But you can­not—

LAWYER: About the guts of the case. About the doc­u­ments. What did you do? Why did you do it? It’s been our posi­tion that if Jef­frey Dah­mer killed and ate peo­ple—

WALLACE: Killed and ate people—the ser­ial killer?

LAWYER: Cor­rect. And he had coun­sel. Com­plete access. Adrich Ames had sold our country’s nation­al secu­rity secrets—he had coun­sel. The les­son to be learned here is that you can kill and eat peo­ple, you can sell nation­al secu­rity stuff, and you’re enti­tled to coun­sel. But if you take Brown & Williamson’s doc­u­ments, your rights are sus­pend­ed.

Add to that: Even Chelsea Man­ning has coun­sel; even Daniel Ells­berg had coun­sel; even Edward Snow­den would be grant­ed coun­sel.

It’s hard to com­pre­hend how 60 Min­utes was so intim­i­dated, after decades of fear­lessly tak­ing on the pow­er of every­thing from “The CIA’s Cocaine” [171]to mass fore­clo­sure fraud [172]to accus­ing the Viet­nam War’s top com­man­der, Gen­eral West­more­land [173], of lying about ene­my troop strength to keep the war going. How not even the US mil­i­tary, CIA or the mort­gage indus­try pow­er could intim­i­date 60 Min­utes into cen­sor­ship the way Big Tobac­co could.

Front­line fol­lowed up the 60 Min­utes tobac­co shock­er with its own inves­ti­ga­tion, “Smoke In the Eye” (avail­able online [174]). Host Daniel Schorr—who him­self had been dragged before Con­gress for leak­ing the sup­pressed 1976 Pike Com­mit­tee report on US intel­li­gence agency abuses—interviewed Wal­lace about the whistle­blower gag, and how Wal­lace was cowed by the most fear­some threat he’d ever faced as a jour­nal­ist:

>
DANIEL SCHORR: Mike Wal­lace was forced to admit he was gag­ging his own whis­tle-blow­er on orders.... Wal­lace would lat­er admit he had nev­er encoun­tered any­thing quite like this.

MIKE WALLACE: Nev­er before. Nev­er before. From time to time, cor­po­ra­tions will make their dis­plea­sure known to the hon­chos at CBS News, but we’re always pro­tected from it. In this par­tic­u­lar case, it was the CBS lawyers who told us that if were we to go ahead, there was a good pos­si­bil­ity that the Brown & Williamson Tobac­co cor­po­ra­tion would sue and sue for per­haps $10 bil­lion, $15 bil­lion.

The rea­son Wal­lace and “60 Min­utes” had to take the threat seri­ously was because ABC-TV news had just been forced to set­tle a $10 bil­lion law­suit filed by Philip Mor­ris over an inves­tiga­tive sto­ry accus­ing them of spik­ing cig­a­rettes to hook smok­ers. ABC was right, of course—but the tobac­co giant’s pow­er-lawyers man­aged to break ABC-TV, right or wrong, forc­ing them to issue a huge­ly humil­i­at­ing (and dam­ag­ing) pub­lic apol­ogy [175]in the mid­dle of a Mon­day Night Foot­ball game — an apol­ogy that Philip Mor­ris then reprint­ed in news­pa­per ads [176]all across the coun­try. As part of the set­tle­ment, ABC-TV news also agreed to cov­er the $15 mil­lion legal bill.

A lot of peo­ple prob­a­bly for­got that broad­cast TV inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ism once actu­ally took on power—private pow­er, gov­ern­ment pow­er. Inves­tiga­tive report­ing by TV broad­cast news real­ly grew big in the 1970s dur­ing the Water­gate and CIA scan­dals, and was large­ly snuffed by the end of the 1990s after a num­ber of expen­sive, dead­ly lawsuits—by pow­er­ful cor­po­ra­tions, our pri­vate gov­ern­ments.

And there’s no doubt that the Philip Mor­ris law­suit, lit­i­gated by the pow­er law firm Wachtell Lip­ton against ABC-TV, broke the back of adver­sar­ial TV inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ism. And with huge con­se­quences. Thanks to Wachtell Lipton’s threats, ABC can­celed what would have been the next tobac­co exposé—calling out, for the first time on TV, the huge shift in Philip Mor­ris’ and oth­er tobac­co com­pa­nies’ mar­ket­ing strate­gies to focus on sell­ing to poor­er, more vul­ner­a­ble mar­kets in the devel­op­ing world. The pub­lic was nev­er shown that episode; and since then, smok­ing rates have soared to cat­a­strophic lev­els, as mar­ket­ing and sales in devel­op­ing coun­tries con­tin­ues thanks to the lob­by­ing help [177]of the US Cham­ber of Com­merce.

Between 2005 and 2030, about 176 mil­lion peo­ple [178]will die from smoking—77 per­cent of them in devel­op­ing coun­tries, a mas­sive rever­sal from a few decades ear­lier. In Rus­sia, smok­ing rates for men and women tripled in just 15 years from 1985 to 2000—to two-thirds of men and one-third of women. In Mex­ico— where the rich­est man in the world (and New York Times own­er) Car­los Slim aligned his cig­a­rette empire with Philip Morris—60,000 peo­ple die a year from cig­a­rettes. Com­pare tobacco’s legal death toll with the war on ille­gal drugs’ death toll—a total of 60,000 killed [179]in the six worst years, 2006–2012. In oth­er words, it took six years for the drug war in Mex­ico to kill as many as legal tobac­co kills every year. That drug war is taper­ing off, while tobacco’s legal death toll is set to soar.

The ABC-TV exposé in 1994 on how the tobac­co com­pa­nies were ramp­ing up sales and mar­ket­ing to vul­ner­a­ble devel­op­ing coun­tries was nev­er shown. ABC-TV got a box full of secret Brown & Williamson files leaked by whistle­blower Mer­rell Williams short­ly after air­ing their first con­tro­ver­sial show. But thanks to the Philip Mor­ris law­suit filed by Wachtell Lip­ton, ABC-TV’s lawyers pan­icked and imme­di­ately seized all the leaked files from their jour­nal­ists, seized the copies of those leaked files, seized and impound­ed their reporters’ hard dri­ves, and pro­hib­ited their reporters from talk­ing about “the sin­gle most impor­tant pieces of paper in the his­tory of tobac­co ver­sus pub­lic health.”

When Frontline’s Daniel Schorr asked one of the ABC-TV reporters, Walt Bog­danich, if it was true that ABC had the Brown & Williamson leaks—and scoop—long before any­one else, Bog­danich, a Pulitzer Prize win­ner, answered:

“Well, there’s a lot I’d like to say about that top­ic. Unfor­tu­nately, I can’t. My com­pany has tak­en the posi­tion that no one is to speak about this and since I work for the com­pany, I’ve got to respect that.”

That was in 1996, mean­ing Bog­danich was still gagged more than two years after receiv­ing the leaks.

So it was thanks to Wachtell Lipton’s vicious and aggres­sive law­suit on behalf of Philip Mor­ris that TV jour­nal­ism was kneecapped, that 60 Min­utes was too fright­ened to take on tobac­co, that a mass Amer­i­can audi­ence nev­er learned of Big Tobacco’s plans to bring their mass-mur­der busi­ness to the more vul­ner­a­ble regions of the devel­op­ing world—and that the biggest whistle­blow­ers of the 1990s were gagged from show­ing their face or hav­ing their name men­tioned on the most pop­u­lar TV show in Amer­ica . . . even man­ag­ing to gag a whistle­blower from talk­ing to his own attor­ney, under threat of prison.

And this is where whistle­blow­er-irony becomes so dense, it col­lapses on itself: Because one of Wachtell Lipton’s young asso­ciates work­ing on the Philip Mor­ris law­suit against ABC-TV was a lawyer by the name of…. Glenn Green­wald.

We know Green­wald worked at Wachtell Lipton’s New York office at the time of Wachtell’s law­suit because Green­wald him­self [180] has talked about work­ing for Wachtell, begin­ning in 1993 as a sum­mer asso­ciate, then join­ing out of law school in 1994, and stay­ing on until the end of 1995.

But, of course, that isn’t nec­es­sar­ily evi­dence of hypocrisy. Per­haps Green­wald had no idea that the law firm he chose to work for was rep­re­sent­ing Philip Mor­ris in the most talked about case of 1994. That even though his own boss, Hen­ry Wachtell, was a reg­u­lar on nation­al TV news [181]defend­ing their tobac­co clients, he was still obliv­i­ous. Green­wald per­haps didn’t watch tele­vi­sion.

Or read news­pa­pers?

As the Wall Street Jour­nal report­ed at the time in an arti­cle titled “More Young Lawyers Want To Just Say No to Tobac­co Indus­try [182]”:

Unpop­u­lar clients have always posed prob­lems for lawyers, but the tobac­co industry’s need for lit­i­ga­tors is ris­ing to unprece­dented lev­els just as anti­smok­ing sen­ti­ment, par­tic­u­larly among young lawyers, is reach­ing a crescen­do. As a result, more firms are find­ing that tobac­co work can cause prob­lems rang­ing from con­flicts with oth­er clients to dif­fi­culty in hir­ing. [...]

Wachtell, Lip­ton, Rosen & Katz is one exam­ple. The firm, which pre­vi­ously worked for tobac­co com­pa­nies only on cor­po­rate mat­ters and secu­ri­ties lit­i­ga­tion, recent­ly took the job of rep­re­sent­ing Philip Mor­ris in a high-pro­file libel law­suit against Cap­i­tal Cities/ABC. The New York law firm is now han­dling the No. 1 cig­a­rette maker’s law­suit seek­ing to pre­vent Mass­a­chu­setts from try­ing to recoup the costs of smok­ing-relat­ed ill­ness­es.

It’s rea­son­able to assume Greenwald—ever the dili­gent researcher—must have joined Wachtell ful­ly aware that they were help­ing gag whistle­blow­ers and threat­en­ing jour­nal­ists: Green­wald says that he chose to work for Wachtell in 1994 after being recruit­ed [180]by over a dozen top law firms. But of course that doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily mean he worked on the spe­cific Philip Mor­ris case.

Except that a billing ledger dis­cov­ered in the tobac­co library shows Greenwald’s name [183] in a Wachtell Lip­ton bill to Philip Mor­ris....

...

Oth­er Wachtell Lip­ton mem­os show Greenwald’s name promi­nently dis­played on the let­ter­head [184] in aggres­sive, threat­en­ing let­ters against ABC-TV, against whistle­blower Jef­frey Wigand [185], and against whistle­blower Mer­rell Williams...

...

One Wachtell let­ter to ABC’s lawyers with Greenwald’s name up top, dat­ed Decem­ber 14, 1995, warns that Wigand’s tes­ti­mony in a Mis­sis­sippi tobac­co tri­al is “in direct defi­ance of a Ken­tucky Court order”— and demands that ABC turn over their source’s pri­vate tes­ti­mony to Wachtell Lip­ton. The pur­pose of course is to threat­en Wigand and ABC and thus to muz­zle them.

Greenwald’s name appears on the Wachtell Lip­ton let­ter­head of threat­en­ing legal let­ter after letter—targeting ABC-TV and tobac­co whistle­blow­ers . While it would be a stretch to say that Greenwald’s name appear­ing on the let­ter­head of so many Wachtell Philip Mor­ris legal threats means Green­wald was work­ing on that case right up through late 1995, one would have to stretch much fur­ther to believe that Green­wald was com­pletely unaware of what his own law firm was doing in the most famous legal case in the coun­try — a case he worked on.

The ques­tion isn’t that young Glenn Green­wald was a named play­er in the law­suits which destroyed broad­cast TV jour­nal­ism and gagged the most con­se­quen­tial whistle­blow­ers in his­tory; the ques­tion is, why has he nev­er said peep about Wigand and Mer­rell Williams? Green­wald styles him­self as the most fear­less out­spo­ken defend­er of whistle­blow­ers today—and yet he has absolute­ly noth­ing to say about the most famous whistle­blow­ers of the 1990s, a case he worked on from the oth­er side. . . . .

 

9. Fol­low­ing yesterday’s triplet of “glitch­es” that took down the New York Stock Exchange, Unit­ed Air­lines, and the Wall Street Journal’s home page, a num­ber of peo­ple are scratch­ing their head and won­der­ing if Anonymous’s tweet the pre­vi­ous day, which sim­ply stat­ed, “Won­der if tomor­row is going to be bad for Wall Street.... we can only hope,” was some­how relat­ed. Hmmm....

US offi­cials and the impact­ed com­pa­nies, how­ever, strong­ly deny that the tech­ni­cal dif­fi­cul­ties were any­thing oth­er than coin­ci­den­tal [19].

“U.S. Denies Cyber-Attack Caused Tech­ni­cal Glitch­es at NYSE, Unit­ed Air­lines and WSJ”  [19]by Oded Yaron; Haaretz [19]; 7/08/2015. [19]

Anony­mous hack­ers sug­gest they may be behind New York Stock Exchange fail; White House says no indi­ca­tion of mali­cious actors in tech­ni­cal dif­fi­cul­ties.

A series of tech­ni­cal glitch­es in the Unit­ed States on Wednes­day morn­ing East­ern Time have sparked rumors of a coor­di­nated cyber-attack. The New York Stock Exchange was shut down and Unit­ed Air­lines flights were ground­ed due to tech­ni­cal dif­fi­cul­ties. In addi­tion, the home page of the Wall Street Journal’s web­site tem­porar­ily went down. Amer­i­can offi­cials, how­ever, denied any con­nec­tion between the events, insist­ing the Unit­ed States was not under attack.

U.S. Home­land Secu­rity Sec­re­tary Jeh John­son said tech­ni­cal prob­lems report­ed by Unit­ed and the NYSE were appar­ently not relat­ed to “nefar­i­ous” activ­i­ty.

“I have spo­ken to the CEO of Unit­ed, Jeff Smisek, myself. It appears from what we know at this stage that the mal­func­tions at Unit­ed and the stock exchange were not the result of any nefar­i­ous actor,” John­son said dur­ing a speech at the Cen­ter for Strate­gic and Inter­na­tional Stud­ies, a Wash­ing­ton think tank.

“We know less about the Wall Street Jour­nal at this point, except that their sys­tem is in fact up again,” he added.

On Tues­day, the Twit­ter account of the hack­er group Anony­mous post­ed a Tweet that read, “Won­der if tomor­row is going to be bad for Wall Street.... we can only hope.” On Wednes­day after­noon, it tweet­ed, ” #YAN Suc­cess­fully pre­dicts @NYSE fail yes­ter­day. Hmm­mm.”

...

United’s com­puter glitch prompt­ed America’s Fed­eral Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion to ground all of the company’s depar­tures for almost two hours. Accord­ing to the air­line, more than 800 flights were delayed and about 60 were can­celed due to the prob­lem, which was lat­er resolved.

In a state­ment, Unit­ed said it had suf­fered from “a net­work con­nec­tiv­ity issue” and a spokes­woman for the com­pany said the glitch was caused by an inter­nal tech­nol­ogy issue and not an out­side threat.

The air­line, the sec­ond largest in the world, had a sim­i­lar issue on June 2, when it was forced to briefly halt all take­offs in the Unit­ed States due to a prob­lem in its flight-dis­patch­ing sys­tem.

Just as Unit­ed was bring­ing its sys­tems back on-line, trad­ing on the New York Stock Exchange came to a halt because of a tech­ni­cal prob­lem and the Wall Street Journal’s web­site expe­ri­enced errors.

The New York Stock Exchange sus­pended trad­ing in all secu­ri­ties on its plat­form short­ly after 11:30 A.M. for what it called an inter­nal tech­ni­cal issue, and can­celed all open orders. The exchange, a unit of Inter­con­ti­nen­tal Exchange Inc (ICE.N) said the halt was not the result of a cyber-attack. “We chose to sus­pend trad­ing on NYSE to avoid prob­lems aris­ing from our tech­ni­cal issue,” the NYSE tweet­ed about one hour after trad­ing was sus­pended. Oth­er exchanges were trad­ing nor­mal­ly.

A tech­ni­cal prob­lem at NYSE’s Arca exchange in March caused some of the most pop­u­lar exchange-trad­ed funds to be tem­porar­ily unavail­able for trad­ing. And in August 2013, trad­ing of all Nas­daq-list­ed stocks was frozen for three hours, lead­ing U.S. Secu­ri­ties and Exchange Com­mis­sion Chair Mary Jo White to call for a meet­ing of Wall Street exec­u­tives to insure “con­tin­u­ous and order­ly” func­tion­ing of the mar­kets.

White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednes­day that there was no indi­ca­tion of mali­cious actors involved in the tech­ni­cal dif­fi­cul­ties expe­ri­enced at the NYSE.

...

10. We con­clude by re-exam­in­ing one of the most impor­tant ana­lyt­i­cal arti­cles in a long time, David Golumbi­a’s arti­cle in Uncomputing.org about tech­nocrats and their fun­da­men­tal­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic out­look.

“Tor, Tech­noc­racy, Democ­ra­cy”  [24]by David Golum­bia; Uncomputing.org [24]; 4/23/2015. [24]

What might be described as the the­sis state­ment of this very impor­tant piece reads: “Such tech­no­cratic beliefs are wide­spread in our world today, espe­cially in the enclaves of dig­i­tal enthu­si­asts, whether or not they are part of the giant cor­po­rate-dig­i­tal leviathanHack­ers (“civic,” “eth­i­cal,” “white” and “black” hat alike), hack­tivists, Wik­iLeaks fans [and Julian Assange et al–D. E.], Anony­mous “mem­bers,” even Edward Snow­den him­self [186] walk hand-in-hand with Face­book and Google in telling us that coders don’t just have good things to con­tribute to the polit­i­cal world, but that the polit­i­cal world is theirs to do with what they want, and the rest of us should stay out of it: the polit­i­cal world is bro­ken, they appear to think (right­ly, at least in part), and the solu­tion to that, they think (wrong­ly, at least for the most part), is for pro­gram­mers to take polit­i­cal mat­ters into their own hands. . . First, [Tor co-cre­ator] Din­gle­dine claimed that Tor must be sup­ported because it fol­lows direct­ly from a fun­da­men­tal “right to pri­vacy.” Yet when pressed—and not that hard—he admits that what he means by “right to pri­vacy” is not what any human rights body or “par­tic­u­lar legal regime” has meant by it. Instead of talk­ing about how human rights are pro­tected, he asserts that human rights are nat­ural rights and that these nat­ural rights cre­ate nat­ural law that is prop­erly enforced by enti­ties above and out­side of demo­c­ra­tic poli­tiesWhere the UN’s Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion on Human Rights [187] of 1948 is very clear that states and bod­ies like the UN to which states belong are the exclu­sive guar­an­tors of human rights, what­ever the ori­gin of those rights, Din­gle­dine asserts that a small group of soft­ware devel­op­ers can assign to them­selves that role, and that mem­bers of demo­c­ra­tic poli­ties have no choice but to accept them hav­ing that role. . . Fur­ther, it is hard not to notice that the appeal to nat­ural rights is today most often asso­ci­ated with the polit­i­cal right, for a vari­ety of rea­sons (ur-neo­con Leo Strauss was one of the most promi­nent 20th cen­tury pro­po­nents of these views [188]). We aren’t sup­posed to endorse Tor because we endorse the right: it’s sup­posed to be above the left/right dis­tinc­tion. But it isn’t. . . .