Author Topic: they know what you are doing  (Read 126465 times)

Offline robomont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Gold 212
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #300 on: September 10, 2013, 09:33:27 PM »
sky you have done a great job of maintaining this thread.thumbs up.
i just want to say about that behind the scene persuasion.ive had dish network for three months it also comes with sleep has more steady and regular since i got it.almost like it is controlling my sleep habits.its still in the theory stage but im putting it out there for us to consider.
ive never been much for rules.
being me has its priviledges.


Offline burntheships

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gold 268
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #301 on: September 10, 2013, 09:46:27 PM »
@ Sky, really good work documenting the play out,
as Robo said, good job lady!

And @ Robo, I unplug my Wi Fi at night....
and I sniff Lavender!

"This is the Documentary Channel"
- Zorgon

Offline robomont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Gold 212
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #302 on: September 10, 2013, 09:59:13 PM »
oh im not complaining.but im usually up at three in the morn but here lately ive been on a 1-8am sleep may be a seasonal thing but just wanted see if others habits changed because of wifi.

who knows the nsa may be hacking voting machines.they could be manipulating intelligence the other agencies get.the skies the limit.they could mwnipulating the flow of money.controling well production so that fuel prices fluctuate at there bidding.on a world wide scale.
i dont know if you know about this sight.its kinda creepy.
ive never been much for rules.
being me has its priviledges.


Offline robomont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Gold 212
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #303 on: September 10, 2013, 10:01:50 PM »
ive never been much for rules.
being me has its priviledges.


Offline burntheships

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gold 268
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #304 on: September 10, 2013, 10:06:19 PM »

IMO, great site. I do not recall ever a frivolous write up
from them. They do have some serious heavy duty stuff,
if I recall correctly the man who runs Cryptome had
interaction at one time with Assange.
"This is the Documentary Channel"
- Zorgon

Offline burntheships

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gold 268
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #305 on: September 10, 2013, 10:41:16 PM »
Just a little amusement....

"This is the Documentary Channel"
- Zorgon

sky otter

  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #306 on: September 11, 2013, 05:02:46 AM »

hi guys.. i just find this whole thing un-freakin-believeable..and sad and a sign of worse to come if
it continues down the road of isn't sy-fi anymore..and it isn't run by those who know how to do it or even what to do with it..they can't analysis it - it's too big so they have to relie on the machines ..not good   -  not good...NOT GOOD  :(
i used to think the rise of the machines was just impossible.. now i don't and i have to work so that it doesn'tsit in my brain and  bother me...the last two lines are telling.

robo..i don't have wi-fi but can see how, if you were sensitive,  it could get to you..
bts..funny song...?  ;)

gotta check out those links..thanks

The NSA machine: Too big for anyone to understand
MATT APUZZO | September 11, 2013 07:00 AM EST

WASHINGTON — The surveillance machine grew too big for anyone to understand.

The National Security Agency set it in motion in 2006 and the vast network of supercomputers, switches and wiretaps began gathering Americans' phone and Internet records by the millions, looking for signs of terrorism.

But every day, NSA analysts snooped on more American phone records than they were allowed to. Some officials searched databases of phone records without even realizing it. Others shared the results of their searches with people who weren't authorized to see them.

It took nearly three years before the government figured out that so much had gone wrong. It took even longer to figure out why.

Newly declassified documents released Tuesday tell a story of a surveillance apparatus so unwieldy and complex that nobody fully comprehended it, even as the government pointed it at the American people in the name of protecting them.

"There was no single person who had a complete technical understanding," government lawyers explained to a federal judge in 2009.

During a summer in which former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden released America's surveillance secrets to the world, the Obama administration has repeatedly tried to reassure people that the NSA's powers were kept in check by Congress and the courts. The mistakes discovered in 2009 have been fixed, the president said, a reflection of that oversight.

But the documents from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court show that, in developing the world's most sophisticated surveillance network, even senior lawyers and officials weren't sure how the system worked and didn't understand what they were told.

"It appears there was never a complete understanding among the key personnel . regarding what each individual meant by the terminology," lawyers wrote in March 2009 as the scope of the problems came into focus.

As a result, the judges on the surveillance court, who rely on the NSA to explain the surveillance program, approved a program that was far more intrusive than they believed.

"Given the executive branch's responsibility for and expertise in determining how best to protect our national security, and in light of the scale of this bulk collection program, the court must rely heavily on the government to monitor this program," Judge Reggie B. Walton wrote in a 2009 order that found the NSA had repeatedly misrepresented its programs.

In Congress, meanwhile, only some lawmakers fully understand the programs they have repeatedly authorized and are supposed to be overseeing. For instance, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., one of the sponsors of the USA Patriot Act, has said he never intended it to be used to collect and store the phone records of every American.

And when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked whether the government was doing that, he testified, "No." Yet Snowden's revelations, published in Britain's Guardian newspaper, show that is what happened.

There is no evidence in the new documents suggesting the NSA used its surveillance powers to spy on Americans for political purposes, a fear of many critics who recall the FBI's intrusive monitoring of civil rights leaders and anti-war protesters in the 1960s. Instead, the documents blame the years of government overreaching on technical mistakes, misunderstandings and lack of training.

From 2006 through early 2009, for instance, the NSA's computers reached into the database of phone records and compared them with thousands of others without "reasonable, articulable suspicion," the required legal standard.

By the time the problems were discovered, only about 10 percent of the 17,835 phone numbers on the government's watch list in early 2009 met the legal standard.

By then, Walton said he'd "lost confidence" in the NSA's ability to legally operate the program. He ordered a full review of the surveillance.

In its long report to the surveillance court in August 2009, the Obama administration blamed its mistakes on the complexity of the system and "a lack of shared understanding among the key stakeholders" about the scope of the surveillance.

"The documents released today are a testament to the government's strong commitment to detecting, correcting and reporting mistakes that occur in implementing technologically complex intelligence collection activities, and to continually improving its oversight and compliance processes," Clapper said in a statement Tuesday.

The surveillance court was satisfied by those improvements; it allowed the NSA to continue collecting phone records every day, a practice that continues today.

Now, the Obama administration is fending off lawsuits and a push in Congress to rein in the surveillance.

An unusual coalition of liberal Democrats and Republican civil libertarians has proposed several bills that would either scrap the phone surveillance entirely or require more oversight.

President Barack Obama has said he's open to more oversight but says the surveillance is essential to keep the country safe.

Obama and Clapper have said the changes made in 2009 resulted in tightened controls. American data is still collected but only seldom looked at, officials said. And it is kept on secure computer servers equipped with special software to protect it from analysts looking to illegally snoop.

"There are checks at multiple levels," NSA Deputy Director John Inglis told Congress in July. "There are checks in terms of what an individual might be doing at any moment in time."

The same checks that protect Americans' personal data were also supposed to protect the NSA's information. Yet Snowden, a 29-year-old contractor, managed to walk out with flash drives full of the nation's most highly classified documents.

The NSA is still trying to figure out, in such a complex system, exactly how Snowden defeated those checks.

"I think we can say that they failed," Inglis said. "But we don't yet know where."


Associated Press writers Stephan Braun, Adam Goldman, Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan, Ted Bridis, Jim Drinkard and Paul Elias in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Offline burntheships

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gold 268
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #307 on: September 11, 2013, 08:30:54 AM »

bts..funny song...?  ;)

Well, to be more accurate, I should have said "theme music"...
and had specifically in mind those guys and gals in the NSA that spy
on their wives, spouses, love interests, etc.


Indeed, the race is the finish line for the Rise of The Machines.

"This is the Documentary Channel"
- Zorgon

sky otter

  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #308 on: September 12, 2013, 07:21:08 AM » here's are real shocker.. stuff shared with the overlords.. surprised am i....NOT
NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel
• Secret deal places no legal limits on use of data by Israelis
• Only official US government communications protected
• Agency insists it complies with rules governing privacy

entire doc at link

Read the NSA and Israel's 'memorandum of understanding'

NSA and Israeli intelligence: memorandum of understanding – full document
Top-secret document shows how intelligence being shared with Israel would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications

Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 September 2013 10.40 EDT

The agreement for the US to provide raw intelligence data to Israel was reached in principle in March 2009, the document shows.
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.

Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.

The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.

The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.

The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.

But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."

According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.

Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.

"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.

In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.

"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA's surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.

The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.

The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.

Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".

It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".

The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.

Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.

The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".

Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.

Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.

The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.

While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.

"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner."


In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."

Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."


The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.

It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.

However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."


The Guardian asked the Obama administration how many times US data had been found in the raw intelligence, either by the Israelis or when the NSA reviewed a sample of the files, but officials declined to provide this information. Nor would they disclose how many other countries the NSA shared raw data with, or whether the Fisa court, which is meant to oversee NSA surveillance programs and the procedures to handle US information, had signed off the agreement with Israel.

In its statement, the NSA said: "We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.

"NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information."

sky otter

  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #309 on: September 12, 2013, 09:02:06 PM »

parts of a 2008 secret court order just gets better, doesn't it..

Parts Of Secret Yahoo Court Order Will Be Declassified, Justice Department Says

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER 09/12/13 08:18 PM ET EDT 

WASHINGTON -- The federal government says it will declassify parts of a 2008 secret court order that required Yahoo to turn over customer data under the National Security Agency's PRISM data-gathering program.

In a filing Thursday with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Justice Department said that the declassification would make possible the publication of "much of the court's opinion and order." But the department said that some of the information in the opinion must remain classified and would be redacted.

Thursday's ruling came after the presiding judge on the court ordered the government to conduct a "declassification review" of the 2008 order and legal briefs in the case.

Yahoo was among several U.S. Internet businesses identified as giving the National Security Agency access to customer data under the PRISM program. In a filing with the FISA Court in June, Yahoo asked that the 2008 opinion be released, along with legal briefs in the case. In a subsequent filing the next month, Yahoo said that the disclosure of the opinion and briefs would allow the company to "demonstrate that it objected strenuously to the directives that are now the subject of debate, and objected at every stage of the proceeding," but that its objections were overruled.

Revelations about the PRISM program by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden have prompted a broader debate about government monitoring and the privacy of Americans' communications.

The case is separate from another one Yahoo has pending that urges the FISA Court to allow the company to disclose data on national security orders it received under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Facebook, Google and Microsoft have similar motions pending with the court.

Neither Yahoo nor the Justice Department had any comment on Thursday's filing.

sky otter

  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #310 on: September 14, 2013, 08:04:38 PM »

NSA Surveillance Documents Released By Officials

Declassified court documents highlight NSA violations in data collection for surveillance
By Ellen Nakashima, Julie Tate and Carol Leonnig,September 10, 2013

The National Security Agency for almost three years searched a massive database of Americans’ phone call records attempting to identify potential terrorists in violation of court-approved privacy rules, and the problem went unfixed because no one at the agency had a full technical understanding of how its system worked, according to new documents and senior government officials.

Moreover, it was Justice Department officials who discovered the problem and reported it to the court that oversees surveillance programs, the documents show, undermining assertions by the NSA that self-reporting is part of its culture.

The improper activity went on from May 2006 to January 2009, according to a March 2009 opinion by Judge Reggie B. Walton, who serves on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

It was one of more than a dozen documents declassified and released Tuesday in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups and at the direction of President Obama in the wake of the June disclosure by former NSA contractor Edward J. Snowden of the massive phone records collection.

“The documents released today are a testament to the government’s strong commitment to detecting, correcting and reporting mistakes that occur in implementing technologically complex intelligence collection activities, and to continually improving its oversight and compliance processes,” said James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence.

A strong rebuke of the NSA by the court comes less than a month after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a highly critical FISA court opinion that took the agency to task for its operation of a separate surveillance program. Taken together, the documents released by the office over the past month paint a troubling picture of an agency that has sought and won far-reaching surveillance powers to run complex domestic data collection without anyone having full technical understanding of the efforts, and that has repeatedly misrepresented the programs’ scope to its court overseer.

Such revelations call into question the effectiveness of an oversight program that depends on accurate disclosure by the NSA to a court that acts in secret and says it lacks the resources to verify independently the agency’s assertions.

“It has finally come to light that the FISC’s authorizations of this vast collection program have been premised on a flawed depiction of how the NSA uses” the phone data, Walton wrote.

“This misperception by the FISC existed from the inception of its authorized collection in May 2006, buttressed by repeated inaccurate statements made in the government’s submissions,” he continued.

Privacy procedures “have been so frequently and systemically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall [phone records] regime has never fully functioned effectively,” he said.

The “bulk records” program began without any court or congressional approval shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but was put under court supervision in May 2006 when American phone companies balked at providing the data solely at the request of the executive branch.

Under the program, the NSA receives daily transfers of all customer records from the nation’s phone companies. Those records include numbers called, the calls’ time and duration, but not the content of conversations.

Beginning in late January 2009, Justice Department officials began notifying the court of problems, in particular that the NSA had been running an automated “alert list” on selected phone numbers without meeting the court-required standard of “reasonable and articulable suspicion” that those numbers were tied to terrorists.

Justice Department officials notified the court that the NSA had been searching the business records “in a manner directly contrary” to the court’s orders “and directly contrary to the sworn attestations of several Executive Branch officials,” Walton wrote in a Jan. 29, 2009, order.

NSA Director Keith B. Alexander suggested to the court that the violations stemmed from a belief by NSA personnel that not all the databases were covered by the same privacy rules, Walton wrote in his March opinion.

“That interpretation of the court’s orders strains credulity,” Walton said.

Walton also suggested that the NSA’s Office of General Counsel deliberately chose to approve the use of phone numbers that did not meet the court standards because such procedures were in keeping with other NSA collection activities.

In March 2009, the court took the unusual step of ordering the government to seek approval to query the database on a case-by-case basis “except where necessary to protect against an imminent threat to human life.”

go to this link (below) and click on the document to read it..sadly but no real surprise
 there are still blacked out parts

Declassified FISA court documents on intelligence collection
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper declassified documents about intelligence collection under Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Sept. 10, 2013.

» Declassified court documents highlight NSA violations

FISA court documents

Pub August 19 2009 Report of the US With Attachments 20130910
Pub Dec 12 2008 Supplemental Opinions From the FISC
Pub Feb 12 2009 Memorandum of US
Pub Feb 26 2009 Notification of Compliance Incident
Pub Jan 28 2009 Order Regarding Prelim Notice of Compliance
Pub Jun 22 2009 Order
Pub Mar 5 2009 Cover Letter to Chairman of Intel and Judiciary Committees
Pub March 2 2009 Order From FISC
Pub May 24 2006 Order From FISC
Pub Nov 5 2009 Supplemental Opinion and Order
Pub NSA Business Records FISA Review 20130909
Pub Sep 3 2009 Cover Letter to Chairman of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees
Pub Sep 3 2009 Primary Order From FISC
Pub Sept 25 2009 Order Regarding Further Compliance Incidents
14 documents
SOURCE: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Published Sept. 10, 2013.

sky otter

  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #311 on: September 17, 2013, 03:23:25 PM »

well i am sure to be left behind in the technology department...may go back to the two tin cans and that first link..


Google Knows The WiFi Passwords Of Every Android User: Report
The Huffington Post  |  Posted: 09/17/2013 7:26 am EDT  |  Updated: 09/17/2013 4:51 pm EDT

Google might have access to WiFi passwords used by every single Android user, a new report suggests. That is a whole lot of WiFi passwords -- maybe most of them in the world.

“If an Android device (phone or tablet) has ever logged on to a particular Wi-Fi network, then Google probably knows the Wi-Fi password,” Computer World's Michael Horowitz wrote last week.

“Considering how many Android devices there are, it is likely that Google can access most Wi-Fi passwords worldwide.” In the April-June period of 2013, Android had accounted for 79 percent of phones shipped worldwide.

Privacy advocates claim that Google's Android mobile operating system has backup tools that indicate a copy of everyone's WiFi passwords are saved onto Google servers. New Android devices can "suck in" old passwords,

login data and device settings once Android owners have set up their Gmail address and password. Though users can switch off this backup functionality, doing so causes them to lose other helpful features such as bookmarks.

"At any point, you can disable this feature, which will cause data to be erased," Google commented in an article at "

This data is encrypted in transit, accessible only when the user has an authenticated connection to Google and stored at Google data centers, which have strong protections against digital and physical attacks."

The news comes at a time when Internet users are becoming unusually sensitive about the privacy of their personal data. In April, a Google transparency report

said the government is asking the company for more data than ever before. This latest development leaves a key question without a clear answer: Would Google need to hand over these passwords if the government came calling?

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, recently asked for more transparency from the government about their mining for data on the Internet, but insisted that government spying is the "nature of our society." The news on Google's WiFi password storage comes after a report by Der Spiegel that found the NSA can access most smartphone data.


  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #312 on: September 17, 2013, 03:33:25 PM »
Haven't really read the thread, am just responding to the title.

If it concerns you just be like me.

I don't know what I am doing half the time, so I figure they'll have even more trouble working it out...


sky otter

  • Guest
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #313 on: September 19, 2013, 01:24:51 PM »

McCarthy would be very happy.
..i can't read or watch the news anymore and will probably not post anything else in here..
it's making it too hard to maintain  an equal and happy  attititude

sad sad day  :(

ACLU: Papers Show Domestic Spying Goes Too Far

By PAUL ELIAS 09/19/13 02:38 PM ET EDT 

SAN FRANCISCO -- Civil liberties groups released newly obtained documents Thursday that they say show innocent Americans being swept into a broad nationwide counterterrorism program.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations released 1,800 so-called suspicious activity reports that local law enforcement officials and others submitted to two California intelligence-gathering repositories called fusion centers.

The documents, nearly all of which were obtained by the ACLU through a public records request, do not appear to show valuable counterterrorism intelligence.

"An off-duty supervising dispatcher with Sacramento P.D. noticed a female subject taking pictures of the outside of the post office in Folsom on Riley Street this morning," reads one suspicious activity report created June 4, 2010, and released Thursday. "The female departed as a passenger in a silver Mazda."

Another reports a Lodi Police Department sergeant "reporting on a suspicious individual in his neighborhood." The sergeant, whose name is redacted from the document released Thursday, said he "has been long concerned about a residence in his neighborhood occupied by a Middle Eastern male adult physician who is very unfriendly."

The fusion center program was a target of a blistering Congressional report last year complaining that too many innocent Americans engaging in routine and harmless behavior have become ensnared in the program.

The ACLU and others are calling on the Obama administration to overhaul the program so that only activities with legitimate links to terrorism investigations are reported.

"We want the administration to stop targeting racial and religious minorities," ACLU lawyer Linda Lye said. She said they are calling on the Obama administration "to stop targeting people engaging in Constitutionally protected behavior like taking photographs."

A Senate report last year concluded that the multibillion-dollar information-sharing program created in the aftermath of 9/11 has improperly collected information about innocent Americans and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism. The report suggested the program's intent ballooned far beyond anyone's ability to control.

What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.

The lengthy, bipartisan report was a scathing evaluation of what the Department of Homeland Security has held up as a crown jewel of its security efforts, which has created 72 fusion centers across the country to collect reports from local law enforcement and others. Some 1,700 of the reports released Thursday came from the fusion center in Sacramento.

A Senate Homeland Security subcommittee reviewed more than 600 unclassified reports over a one-year period and concluded that most had nothing to do with terrorism.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Matthew Chandler at the time called the senate report "out of date, inaccurate and misleading." He said that it focused entirely on information being produced by fusion centers and did not consider the benefit the involved officials got receiving intelligence from the federal government.


Nameless And Shameless:
 Masked DEA Agents Raid Innocent Women, Refuse To Reveal Their Identities

Posted: 09/18/2013 2:57 pm EDT  |  Updated: 09/18/2013 3:32 pm EDT

 Radley Balko Become a fan

Over a three-day period in June 2007, heavily armed SWAT teams, supported by tanks and helicopters, descended on Detroit's Eight Mile Road. The massive operation involved police and agents from 21 different local, state and federal branches of law enforcement, and was intended to rid the notoriously crime-ridden area of drug houses, prostitutes and wanted fugitives.

After conducting hundreds of raids, the authorities made 122 arrests, according to The Detroit News, and seized about 50 ounces of marijuana, 6.5 ounces of cocaine and 19 guns.

When Caroline Burley, now 51, first heard the boom around 5:30 on the evening of June 13, it sounded like it had come from outside her bedroom window. She rushed to investigate, and as she came out of the room, a man with a gun confronted her, threw her into a wall and then hurled her to the floor. A SWAT team had burst through her front door. Wearing only her nightgown, she asked for mercy. She recently had back surgery, she explained. Instead, one officer, then another kept her close to the floor by putting a boot in her back, according to court filings.

Caroline's mother, Geraldine Burley, was sitting at her computer in the basement when she heard a loud thud overhead, followed by a scream from her daughter and a man's voice ordering Caroline Burley to the floor. When she ascended the stairs, she too found a gun pointed at her head, and a man ordered her to get on the floor as well. She thought at first that she was being robbed.

Geraldine, now 70, pleaded with the man to let her move to the floor slowly, explaining to him that she'd had both of her knees replaced. Instead, another officer approached, grabbed her by the face, demanded that she "get the frig on the floor," then threw her into a table. She tumbled to the ground. At that point, she said later in a deposition, everything turned to "a fire, white and ringing in my ear." Another officer came up from the basement with her grandson, stepping on her knees in the process. She cried out again in pain.

The officers searched the home but found no drugs, weapons or any other contraband. (They arrested Geraldine's grandson on an unrelated misdemeanor warrant.)

Since the 1980s, SWAT teams have become an increasingly common tool in the war on crime. By one estimate, more than 100 times per day in America, police teams break down doors to serve search warrants on people suspected of drug crimes. Innocent citizens like the Burleys often become the victims of violent law enforcement tactics.

In the wake of the raid on their home, the two women have tried to navigate a disorienting labyrinth of police bureaucracies and court filings to secure damages for the injuries they sustained during the raid and for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. More than six years later, however, the government agencies involved still won't tell the women the names of the officers and agents who raided their home -- a key piece of information necessary in lawsuits like this one. It isn't enough merely to show that the government violated the plaintiffs' rights; by federal law, the victims must be able to show that a specific officer or group of officers was responsible. This burden is something of a double standard, given that individual officers are rarely required to pay damages. The government pays the award.

As the drug war continues to encourage the use of aggressive police tactics, the Burleys' frustrations with the court system punctuate just how difficult it can be for innocent victims, who become collateral damage in the war against drugs, to get redress for the harm done to them.

According to the Burleys' accounts, the officers who raided their home were clad in black. Some wore balaclava masks or face shields that hid all but their eyes. Others pulled their hats down low to shield their identities. They had also obscured their names and badge numbers. Once the Burleys' house had been thoroughly searched, both women asked the officers for their names. After holding an impromptu meeting, the officers told the Burleys that they wouldn't divulge any information that could identify them individually. Instead, they told the women that they had just been raided by "Team 11." The women weren't given a search warrant.

"Team 11 appears to have been a name given just for that operation," Stanley Okoli, an attorney for the Burleys, told The Huffington Post. "Or just a name to confuse them. It wasn't a designation that gave them any meaningful way to obtain the officers' identities."

Joe Key, a retired police officer with 24 years of experience, founded the SWAT team in Baltimore, and now consults for police agencies and testifies as an expert witness. He criticized the idea of officers refusing to identify themselves. "Accountability of the police officer to the public is absolute," he told The Huffington Post.

"If there are undercover officers whose identities need to be protected -- and I don't know that that was the case here -- then you send different officers in to conduct the raid. If this is really what happened, there's no excuse for it."

According to press accounts, Operation Eight Mile was coordinated by the Wayne County Sheriff's Office, but in response to the Burleys' initial requests for information, Wayne County claimed to have no record of the raid. Instead, the county directed the women to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

That, too, proved fruitless. The DEA told the Burleys that the agency was "experiencing a transition," and promised to provide information on the raid at a later date. That never happened. It wasn't until the Burleys filed a lawsuit in state court that Wayne County finally released documents related to the raid, which included a DEA report with the names of the agents.

Neither the Wayne County Sheriff's Office, nor the DEA, would comment for this article.

According to the report, the agents who conducted the raid at the Burleys belonged to a DEA team called Group 6. For Operation Eight Mile, members of Group 6 were paired with officers from state and local agencies, and renamed Team 11, the name the officers gave the Burleys.

In response to questionnaires from the Burleys' attorneys, the officers involved in the raid denied violating the Burleys' civil rights. But none of them at the time denied being on the team that raided the house.

During depositions of the defendants, however, attorneys for the Burleys were in for a surprise. The DEA agents denied they were ever in the Burley home. They claimed that Group 6 had been split in two, with half the agents raiding the Burleys' house, and the other half raiding a nearby house at the same time.

Each of the agents named in the DEA report claimed that they were in the other home, not the Burleys'. Each told a story about one officer's erroneous deployment of an explosive distraction device during that raid. The vivid memory, each of them claimed, explained why they were able to recall their whereabouts so specifically. They testified that the fact that they were named in the DEA report must have been a clerical error.

Attorneys for the Burleys then deposed other members of Group 6 not named in the DEA report. If indeed the raids had been conducted simultaneously, and a clerical error had misidentified which team went where, then these other members of the team must have been the ones in the Burleys' home. But they too denied ever being there.

There's no question that the Burleys were raided. But every officer who could have plausibly been involved claimed to be somewhere else at the time. Deputies from Wayne County were also part of the raid team, but each of them claimed to have been outside of the house, guarding the perimeter. None could recall which agents were with them, however, or where their fellow officers were when the raid took place.

"It's one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen," Okoli said. "I asked, 'which amongst you went to one address?' and they said they couldn't remember. So I asked, 'which amongst you went to the other address?' and they said they couldn't remember."

Because they waited until they gave depositions to deny their presence at the raid, the DEA agents made things difficult for the Burleys. Assuming the agents were telling the truth, the Burleys would need to start all over in identifying the agents who raided their house. And that's assuming they could get a waiver on the statute of limitations, which had by then expired.

In June 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman first dismissed the Burleys' claims against Wayne County, then preempted a jury verdict in the trial against the federal agents. He ruled that, given the evidence, no reasonable jury could find in the plaintiffs' favor, and in addition ordered the Burleys to pay the DEA agents $5,000 to compensate them for court costs.

"These women are destitute," Okoli told HuffPost. "That was completely discretionary. He didn't have to do that." Because the women couldn't pay, the government moved to garnish their Social Security disability checks to cover the fine.

The Burleys appealed, and earlier this month, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Wayne County officials from the lawsuit, but reinstated the suit against the federal agents. The court found that "the agents' intent to conceal contributed to the plaintiffs' impaired ability to identify them." The court also vacated the order for the Burleys to pay court costs.

But the court still stopped short of ordering the government to produce the names of the agents who conducted the raid. The Burleys and their attorneys will need to fight the government's lawyers and Friedman, who will preside over the new trial as well.

Okoli welcomes the Sixth Circuit's decision. But he said that, in addition to having to go before Friedman -- who appeared hostile to his clients' case -- again, the Burleys are at even more of a disadvantage than they were in the first trial. The agents and their attorneys are now aware of inconsistencies the first trial exposed in their stories, and can attempt to explain them away. "We lost that element of surprise," Okoli said.

The Burleys' failure to win compensation for the raid on their home is hardly unusual. And while this case may be particularly egregious, the tendency of police agencies to be stingy with information following a mistaken raid is also common. Police officers enjoy qualified immunity, so it isn't enough to show that police made a clear mistake, or even that they were negligent, no matter how much harm has been done.

But wading into the legal weeds about what police agencies can and can't do in these cases overlooks the fact that what they can do isn't necessarily what they ought to do. When confronted with these cases, political leaders and police officials could choose one of two routes. They can show some contrition, admit they made mistakes, move to make the victims whole again and look to ensure that the same mistakes don't happen again. Or they can hunker down, cut off the flow of information and engage in every bit of bureaucratic chicanery and legal maneuvering they can in order to escape accountability.

"What happened in the house, whether the women were violated or whether their account is overblown, that's up to a jury to decide," Joe Key says. "But the government must make itself accountable and transparent. This kind of stonewalling goes against everything the Fourth Amendment is supposed to represent."

HuffPost writer and investigative reporter Radley Balko is also the author of the new book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 01:32:06 PM by sky otter »

Offline Ellirium113

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
  • Gold 303
  • We are here
Re: they know what you are doing
« Reply #314 on: September 19, 2013, 02:01:34 PM »
I found this informative clip on Magnetic Media...Anyone running around with sensitive info on a USB stick or solid state drive may want to listen up on this to raise awareness on how you may THINK your erased data is gone...

[youtube][/youtube] USA, LLC
Free Click Tracking USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[February 21, 2018, 06:35:07 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[February 21, 2018, 06:23:13 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[February 21, 2018, 05:41:06 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by zorgon
[February 21, 2018, 04:48:19 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[February 21, 2018, 04:06:56 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Irene
[February 21, 2018, 09:45:51 AM]

Australien Skies 2 - Exclusive Premiere by thorfourwinds
[February 20, 2018, 10:10:11 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 20, 2018, 08:21:05 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by petrus4
[February 20, 2018, 05:10:21 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[February 20, 2018, 04:10:16 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 20, 2018, 01:52:22 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by space otter
[February 20, 2018, 07:11:59 AM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[February 20, 2018, 05:53:51 AM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 06:54:51 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 06:28:01 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 05:44:09 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 03:28:14 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 03:05:34 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 02:35:45 PM]

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 01:51:36 PM]