Assange - The Stain of Blood Is Upon Their Hands

SCROLL down for blog comment & further information LINK to transcript of VIDEO - here COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news report Julian Assange to RT: WikiLeaks gives 'most accurate picture of war' Uploaded on 24 Oct 2010 SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBsMK1eQ7A8 ⟴   We Expect A Counter-Attack RT News Reporter Last question.  The Pentagon have put their PR machine into operation after you released the Afghan War Diaries.  What are you expecting from them this time around? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, we expect a similar sort of counter-attack.  Every time you release something like this, we expect a counter-attack.  You're never quite sure what it is.  It tends to be a different thing, [that] each time is seized upon and then amplified [cough].  here ⟴ Sex Allegations Sweden ⟴ " ... Assange has previously suggested that the allegations are part of a smear campaign following his website's release of thousands of secret US Army documents relating to Afghanistan."  here ⟴ Stain of Blood On Their Hands ⟴ Well, it looks like America eventually found a less predictable and waaaaaay more creative solution, than mere propaganda as the follow-up, counter-response to WikiLeaks releases  ... ... or Sweden just happened to fortuitously and coincidentally oblige with: (a) a pretext to legally assault and decommission, WikiLeaks editor, Julian Assange (via Sweden police 'allegations', minus proper procedures, minus proper recording of prosecution witnesses, minus a key sworn statement, obtained as result of 'informal' interview between friends and police associates, police database tampering, dismissed by  Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne for lack of sufficient evidence, etc);  (b) arrest Julian Assange. Oddly, by proxy (UK authorities, on behalf of Sweden, on behalf of USA, rather than direct arrest by Sweden, on behalf of their acknowledged US masters - see links below), when Sweden had ample opportunity to interview and arrest, while Assange remained in Sweden, before asking Swedish authorities for permission to travel from Sweden). Allegations against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, took an unexpected turn yesterday when Sweden's top prosecutor announced she was reopening a rape investigation. It is the second time the country's authorities have made a U-turn over whether the Australian-born journalist should face charges. The warrant was abruptly rescinded within 24 hours and last week Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne said all charges against the 39-year-old would be dropped. But Ms Finne's boss, Marianne Ny, Sweden's chief prosecutor, has overruled that decision after new information reportedly came to light on Tuesday.  [above, source - here] ⟴ It looks like the Stockholm prosecutor Finne has most likely been overruled from the top. And I'm not talking overruled merely by Ms Marianne Ny. Overruled by whoever Marianne Ny answers to in government, which has stake (and is lawfully entitled to intervene) in matters concerning the state and foreign diplomacy. ⟴ Perhaps arrest by proxy was chosen, in an attempt to mask this farce and to create an appearance of the assault on Julian Assange as a 'genuine' article, in a way that a direct Swedish arrest may not have conveyed. Delayed, proxy arrest (which included the spectacle of a EAW, Interpol Red Notice, Swedish leak to press, and a London arrest), was also possibly effected to get maximum PR mileage (propaganda, manufacture of consent, smear) out of staging a performance for all that fenzied (and expected) media coverage.  (c) de facto imprisonment of Julian Assange for almost 5 years in total now without charge, trapping WikiLeaks editor in the Ecuador embassy in London for 3 years now (where he has been granted political asylum), at the threat of arrest and extradition to Sweden (which would pave the way to subsequent extradition to USA). The arrest of Assange was executed to decommission Assange, while no doubt allowing the US time to build its 120-man taskforce case in America. Note:  Assange has committed no crime, so the US has to work towards creating such 'crime' - and that's heading in the direction of redefining journalism as 'terrorism').  I find it very hard to believe Assange has been detained for 5 years and is in grave danger of extradition to the US,  simply because of mere 'accident,' 'misunderstanding,' 'bad luck', or merely the result of jealousies which arose from obliging those Swedish women ... who were keen to bed Assange. I'm more inclined to believe  the events in Sweden were a set-up. ⟴ Breathtaking Hypocrisy & Flagrant Political Persecution British Foreign Office minister, Hugo Swire, hypocritically spoke of a 'stain' on Ecuador's reputation for (rightfully and lawfully) granting politically persecuted journalist, Julian Assange, political asylum:  British Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire said in a statement Thursday that it would make a formal protest to Ecuador over its decision to provide asylum to Assange. "Ecuador must recognize that its decision to harbor Mr Assange more than three years ago has prevented the proper course of justice," said Swire in a statement. British police have guarded Ecuador's London Embassy around the clock at an estimated cost of more than US$15.6 million, which has placed pressure on the British government to resolve the long-standing issue. Swire alleged that the harboring of Assange constituted an abuse of diplomatic relations and was a “growing stain on the country’s reputation." This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Ecuador-Says-UK-Criticism-Over-Julian-Assange-Unacceptable-20150817-0021.html ⟴ As witnessed by the British Foreign Office propaganda attack on Educator, instead of censure of Sweden's refusal to progress this matter and to interview Julian Assange in London, it's plain to see that Britain and Sweden have obviously colluded (and continue to collude) with US authorities to deprive Julian Assange of liberty, with a view to eventually handing up Julian Assange to USA.  ⟴ From where I stand, Sweden's politicians and public servants - along with their British and US counterparts - collectively have the stain of Julian Assange's blood on their corrupt hands. By that I mean, theirs is the guilt of taking life - the life of Julian Assange, presently detained 5 years without charge, at the threat of arrest and extradition to a country in which he will be entombed alive, for daring to expose American war crimes. ⟴ The footsoldiers of the powerful have stolen 5 years of Julian Assange's life by imposing a corruptly engineered, and politically motivated, de facto captivity that is in flagrant breach of international law, aimed at only one thing:  extradition of Julian Assange to the United States to face life imprisonment or a death sentence, on trumped up 'espionage' charges or the like, that the US Dept of Justice team is probably banging out in some form or other, right now. (Hey, this contempt for international law and conventions, and the fondness for trumped up accusations, seems to be a recurring theme ... lol). The players also happen to be same footsoldiers of the powerful, who, in turn, are stained with the blood of tens of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Upon them is the stain of actual blood of war crimes (exposed by Assange), and they and their public representatives are grimly determined in their aim to put Assange away. So, behind the recent public propaganda statement attack on Ecuador, behind the pending official complaint/attack on Assange,  and behind the 5 year de facto without-charge imprisonment of Julian Assange,  are the same powers that are responsible for the war crimes in Iraq & Aghanistan exposed by WikiLeaks.  In the case of Iraq:  from war waged following US manufacture of false pretext for invasion  (ie 'weapons of mass destruction'). How psychopathic does this get? Rightfully, British Foreign Office ought to be condemning Sweden for its inaction and failure to progress this undemocratic and baseless legal assault on journalist-publisher, Julian Assange. Despite ample opportunity, it is Sweden that has failed to act - over the space of 5 years.  And the world knows it. ⟴ Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the British role in the political persecution of  journalist, Julian Assange (who was excluded in 2014 from changes in British law to prevent exactly this kind of without-charge unjust detention), the British Foreign Office has slunk as low as to resort to publicly smearing and condemning Ecuador. Perverse conduct, in the form of attack on Ecuador by the British, is a 'tell' that patently shows the British hand in this injustice and ongoing political persecution. With straight faces, British officials call for 'justice' as a leverage and as media smear, in an attempt to impose injustice upon Julian Assange, based on the falsehood of Sweden police allegations and the farce of Sweden government's and Sweden prosecution's failure to take appropriate action (carefully sidestepping even interviewing Assange during the 5 years he has been a political prisoner in England). The same British authorities that assault the sovereignty of Ecuador insult the intelligence of the watching world. But the world knows that these same colluding authorities are behind the Sweden set-up, the politician persecution, and denial of justice - and denial of rightful, internationally recognised, protections - to whistleblower journalist Julian Assange. Naturally, Ecuador rejects this outrageous political smear ⟴  ⟴ Bring the Sick Bucket ⟴ USA Threatens Sovereign Nations ⟴ USA Seeks to Influence Foreign Court Cases ⟴ USA Even Targets United Nations ⟴ Sweden Could Not Say 'No' To USA (Even If It Wanted To) ⟴ source | slate | here ⟴ ⟴ Sweden's US-Anglo Alliance Ties Sweden US Subservience & Collaboration A troubling History  ⟴ Sweden Secret Mass Spying Agreement With USA & UK After 50 years of secret cooperation, in 2004, Sweden established formal and even closer ties between the Swedish FRA (National Defence Radio Establishment - more info here) and the Authority's signal scout colleagues in the US:  namely, NSA (world famous for mass surveillance of entire countries, allied heads of government and corporate spying), and the British GCHQ - in direct cooperation. [here] ⟴ ⟴ LINK  |  Sweden's secret mass spying agreement with the US & UK http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fdokument-avslojar-fra-s-hemliga-avtal-med-usa Sweden | More http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html [source:  here] ⟴ Sweden Joins 'Five Eyes' US, UK & Allied Intelligence Cooperative British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell gave an indication of the scale of collaboration between Sweden, the US and Britain at a European Parliament hearing on state surveillance in early September. “A new organization has joined the “Five Eyes” and is seen as the largest cooperating partner to [the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters] GCHQ outside the English-speaking countries—and that is Sweden,” he said. [here]  ⟴ Interesting that, journalist, Duncan Campbell makes an 'appearance'. Cambell revealed the existence of the ECHELON surveillance program in 1988 (US-Anglo 'Five Eye' alliance satellite trunk communications sweeping intercepts). Campbell knows all about intelligence, security, and British political persecution from up close and personal - here. ⟴ Sweden Bows to US Pressure Copyright Infringement According to an unreleased US Embassy cable in possession of Swedish Television, the US pressure on Sweden to deal with file-sharing issues continued in the years that followed. In the cable, which dates back to 2008, the US Embassy presented a list of six items that they wanted to see addressed, all related to online copyright infringement. A year later, five of these six items were indeed turned into action, including the appointment of more copyright police and prosecutors, backed up by educational anti-piracy campaigns. Of course, the Pirate Bay wasn’t left unmentioned in this cable either. The cable writer mentions that it was hard for the Embassy to get openly involved in piracy related issues, because most of the press coverage was unfavorable towards the copyright industry. “The Pirate Bay raid was portrayed as the Government of Sweden caving in to United States Government pressure. This delicate situation made it difficult, if not counter-productive, for the Embassy to play a public role in IPR issues,” it adds.  [here] Bear in mind, that the above Sweden-US (& allies) collaboration history is not  an exhaustive study in Swedish-US collaboration.  Even so, the above is sufficient as an indication of where Sweden likely stands with regard to USA and its 'problem,' WikiLeaks and journalist-publisher, Julian Assange. If Sweden bends to American pressure and will do so on relatively insignificant matters (ie not designated as 'national security' issues) such as copyright, imagine the pressure the US would bring down to bear.  And imagine the Swedish (& other government) inclination to bend to such US pressure ... if we pretend for one moment that Sweden (or UK) were an 'unwilling' accomplices in the persecution and de facto imprisonment of Julian Assange, publisher-journalist who exposed US and allied war crimes.  Defence Secretary Robert Gates on the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 7 December 2010 "Gates said it sounded good to him." 91,000 Afghans killed (incl. civilians, soldiers & militants) Number who have died through indirect causes related to the war est. additional 360,000 people [here] coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents (ie concealment of civilian casualties) ⟴ 6 US soldiers killed [ Sec Def Robert Gates Video 7/12/2010 ]  while Gates refers to 'serious losses' before telling us how he's revived by visiting the scene of mass scale death visited upon Afghanistan by USA US War Casualties - Afghanistan Total US Dead:  2,316 as at June 2015 [here] For some perspective on what may count as 'serious losses,' maybe Gates ought to take a look at the Afghan dead figures (*) 2010     30     31     24     19     34     60     65     55     42     50     53     33     2010 TOTAL:  496 Considering this is an invasion of another country, just shy of 500 dead in 2010 isn't exactly big numbers, when you compare this to losses on the other side. The grand total of US dead for the entire Afghanistan operation is: 2,316 But the US figures don't look so good when it comes to injuries sustained:  massive number of US injured, which comes at an immediate & long-term cost to the taxpayer. Military US War Casualties - Iraq 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'  - page 22 Total US Dead:  4,412 mostly Army then abt. 1/4 Marines as at Dec 2014 MASSIVE number of wounded US Wounded Total:  31,949 as at Dec 2014 [here] US War Casualties - Afghanistan Total US Dead:  2,316 as at June 2015 (ie During 14 Years of US Occupation) [here] Further Confirmation US Deaths -  here ⟴ [Note:  Above Nations Complicit] ⟴ WikiLeaks Exposes War Crimes IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN [ Slate  |  here ] ⟴ Arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 7 December 2010 "Gates said it sounded good to him." ⟴  WikiLeaks Collateral Murder IRAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 Uploaded on 7 Dec 2010 Defence Secretary Robert Gates Afghanistan COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Robert Gates airforce |  recruited CIA 1966 Strategic Air Command as an intelligence officer intelligence briefings rejoined the CIA as an intelligence analyst left the CIA in 1974 > staff of National Security Council returned to the CIA in late 1979 [ Gates nominated as Director of CIA  1987 Withdrew his name after it became clear the Senate would reject the nomination due to controversy about his role in the Iran-Contra affair. ]  1991 -  nominated 2nd time by Pres George H. W. Bush confirmed & sworn Director of CIA (under President George H. W. Bush) "...former division chief Melvin Goodman testified that the agency was the most corrupt and slanted during the tenure of William Casey with Gates serving as Deputy. According to Goodman, Gates was part of an agency leadership that proliferated false information and ignored 'reality'. National Intelligence Council chairman Harold P. Ford testified that during his tenure, Gates had transgressed professional boundaries" close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. served for 26 years in CIA and the National Security Council MA history Indiana Uni 1966 PhD in Russian & Soviet history | Georgetown Uni in 1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates I'm going to hazard a guess and say that US Secretary of Defence & CIA man Robert Gates knew exactly what kind of predicament Julian Assange was in when he was arrested on those rather handy Sweden police 'sexual misconduct' allegations  on 7 Dec. 2010. Mood Music   COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds Red Right Hand source:  https://youtu.be/RrxePKps87k ⟴  (I like the drama of this song & it fits in with vision I have of the entire across-borders psychopathic government alliance and political persecution of Assange. Mute Robert Gates & watch him while also listening to Nick Cave.)  ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Other PLEASE SUPPORT Journalist, Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy, London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ Collateral Murder WikiLeaks Iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 ⟴ While I may have encountered Afghanistan war death figures in the media before, I don't have a recall of what little I may have read.  So this is probably the first time I've given the figures any real thought. I'm yet to read articles relating to WikiLeaks and the Afghanistan War Logs (although by now I must have encountered some, since forgotten, mentions in the press).  ꕤ

Cybersecurity: Darktrace

British cyber company Darktrace ramps up D.C. presence, investors take notice  By Aaron Gregg July 26 at 5:57 PM Follow @Post_AG Washington has always been a government town. But in recent years, the economic pinch of sequestration and other federal cutbacks has many local business leaders wondering where the next source of revenue will come from. Many see cybersecurity as a possible path away from government dependency, hoping that experts from the region’s intelligence community can find ways to sell their expertise to multi-national corporations that want to shore up their data. Darktrace, a Britain-based cybersecurity company that tries to spot internal threats by applying big data analysis to employees’ behavioral patterns, is one of the upstarts seeking to turn the region’s indigenous intelligence know-how into a commercial operation. The company announced Wednesday that it closed a $22.5 million round of financing from Summit Partners, a prominent venture capital firm. The company says it will use the capital to continue expanding its international footprint, hiring sales and marketing people to help broaden its customer base. Last month, the young firm opened a cyber operations center in Columbia, Md., to give it closer proximity to the wealth of talent sitting next door at the National Security Agency. “We’re taking the know-how that people from government agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA have, and helping people in the commercial private sector to identify threats,” chief executive Nicole Eagan said. Eagan said the company’s plan is to approximate the so-called five eyes of the international spy community — a collaboration of government intelligence agencies from New Zealand, Australia, Britain, the United States and Canada — and sell it to the private sector. Right now Darktrace has offices in all five locations. “When you start to realize that cyber is a global problem, a cyber-threat can originate in one part of the world and culminate in another part of the work,” Eagan said. The company employs about 100 people, but its workforce is spread across 16 cities on four continents, with plans to expand into Latin America. [Related: Founded by spies and mathematicians, Darktrace isn’t your typical cyber-security firm] The company was founded two years ago by a union of Cambridge mathematicians and NSA veterans, with the help of close to $10 million in seed funding from Invoke Capital, a British venture capital firm backed by Mike Lynch, founder of British IT company Autonomy. Darktrace is one of many firms trying to spot data breaches in real time. The company’s Enterprise Immune System technology uses complex mathematical algorithms to take a behavioral “fingerprint” of each company’s day-to-day operations, created from seemingly mundane details such as when particular people tend to log in to certain systems and what they do there, where they work from and from what computer they log in. When something looks out of the ordinary, the company is notified in real time, and management gets a weekly update on the biggest threats it needs to worry about. “What Darktrace offers is an intelligent platform which learns what normal behavior is, and picks out what is unusual,” said Dan Raywood, an information security analyst at IT consultancy 451 Research. After spending a few years honing its product with early testers that included BT Group, a British telecommunications corporation, the company said it is done with research and development and is now focusing its efforts on getting to market. Today, Darktrace works with more than 100 corporations worldwide. It takes on customers by offering them a 30-day free trial, after which they are asked to commit to a three- or four-year contract. The company said more than 80 percent of the companies that try the free trial sign a contract. Darktrace declined to provide details of its financial performance. The company is operating in a crowded field with new firms popping up every day. “Whilst not totally unique, Darktrace has an interesting proposition at a time when spotting the anomaly is a key trend,” Raywood said.  Aaron Gregg covers the local economy for Capital Business, the Post’s local business section. He studied music (Jazz guitar) and political science at Emory University in Atlanta, and has a graduate degree in public policy from Georgetown. SOURCE http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/british-cyber-company-darktrace-ramps-up-dc-presence-investors-take-notice/2015/07/26/0fbef782-316d-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html --------------------- COMMENT LOL .. wonder if this is CIA venture capital? Cambridge makes me think of Cambridge Five and NSA's the mass surveillance mob that's been spying on European corporations and politicians. So is this some kind of UK intel meets US intel off the grid (and therefore opaque) Five Eyes clone?  Govt intelligence agencies aren't exactly transparent, so it probably hasn't got anything to do with being 'opaque'.  Maybe it's about having some legit cover, while keeping close tabs on big business? Or, .... I've got an over-active imagination.  LOL --------------------- Founded by spies and mathematicians, Darktrace isn’t your typical cybersecurity firm "... part of a contingent of cybersecurity executives accompanying British Prime Minister David Cameron on his recent trip to Washington, where the two countries announced the launch of a joint cyber-sharing initiative." http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-it/founded-by-spies-and-mathematicians-darktrace-isnt-your-typical-cybersecurity-firm/2015/02/15/eb71787e-b079-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html

UK - Privacy International - Surveillance Industry - Surveillance General

Meet the privacy activists who spy on the surveillance industry by Daniel Rivero Illustration by Shutterstock, Elena Scotti/Fusion April 6, 2015 http://fusion.net/story/112390/unveiling-secrets-of-the-international-surveillance-trade-one-fake-company-at-a-time/ LONDON– On the second floor of a narrow brick building [...] Once he’s infiltrated the trade show, he’ll pose as an industry insider, chatting up company representatives, swapping business cards, and picking up shiny brochures that advertise the invasive capabilities of bleeding-edge surveillance technology. Few of the features are ever marketed or revealed openly to the general public, and if the group didn’t go through the pains of going undercover, it wouldn’t know the lengths to which law enforcement and the intelligence community are going to keep tabs on their citizens. “I don’t know when we’ll get to use this [company], but we need a lot of these to do our research,” Omanovic tells me. (He asked Fusion not to reveal the name of the company in order to not blow its cover.) The strange tactic– hacking into an expo in order to come into close proximity with government hackers and monitors– is a regular part of operations at Privacy International, a London-based anti-surveillance advocacy group founded 25 years ago. Omanovic is one of a few activists for the group who goes undercover to collect the surveillance promotional documents. “At last count we had about 1,400 files,” Matt Rice, PI’s Scottish-born advocacy officer says while sifting through a file cabinet full of the brochures. “[The files] help us understand what these companies are capable of, and what’s being sold around the world,” he says. The brochures vary in scope and claims. Some showcase cell site simulators, commonly called Stingrays, which allow police to intercept cell phone activity within a certain area. Others provide details about Finfisher– surveillance software that is marketed exclusively to governments, which allows officials to put spyware on a target’s home computer or mobile device to watch their Skype calls, Facebook and email activity. The technology buyers at these conferences are the usual suspects — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service– but also representatives of repressive regimes —Bahrain, Sudan, pre-revolutionary Libya– as the group has revealed in attendees lists it has surfaced. At times, companies’ claims can raise eyebrows. One brochure shows a soldier, draped in fatigues, holding a portable device up to the faces of a sombre group of Arabs. “Innocent civilian or insurgent?,” the pamphlet asks. “Not certain?” “Our systems are.” The treasure trove of compiled documents was available as an online database, but PI recently took it offline, saying the website had security vulnerabilities that could have compromised information of anyone who wanted to donate to the organization online. They are building a new one. The group hopes that the exposure of what Western companies are selling to foreign governments will help the organization achieve its larger goal: ending the sale of hardware and software to governments that use it to monitor their populations in ways that violate basic privacy rights. The group acknowledges that it might seem they are taking an extremist position when it comes to privacy, but “we’re not against surveillance,” Michael Rispoli, head of PI’s communications, tells me. “Governments need to keep people safe, whether it’s from criminals or terrorists or what it may be, but surveillance needs to be done in accordance with human rights, and in accordance with the rule of law.” The group is waging its fight in courtrooms. In February of last year, it filed a criminal complaint to the UK’s National Cyber Crime Unit of the National Crime Agency, asking it to investigate British technology allegedly used repeatedly by the Ethiopian government to intercept the communications of an Ethiopian national. Even after Tadesse Kersmo applied for– and was granted– asylum in the UK on the basis of being a political refugee, the Ethiopian government kept electronically spying on him, the group says, using technology from British firm Gamma International. The group currently has six lawsuits in action, mostly taking on large, yet opaque surveillance companies and the British government. Gamma International did not respond to Fusion’s request for comment on the lawsuit, which alleges that exporting the software to Ethiopian authorities means the company assisted in illegal electronic spying. “The irony that he was given refugee status here, while a British company is facilitating intrusions into his basic right to privacy isn’t just ironic, it’s wrong,” Rispoli says. “It’s so obvious that there should be laws in place to prevent it.” PI says it has uncovered other questionable business relationships between oppressive regimes and technology companies based in other Western countries. An investigative report the group put out a few months ago on surveillance in Central Asia said that British and Swiss companies, along with Israeli and Israeli-American companies with close ties to the Israeli military, are providing surveillance infrastructure and technical support to countries like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan– some of the worst-ranking countries in the world when it comes to freedom of speech, according to Freedom House. Only North Korea ranks lower than them. PI says it used confidential sources, whose accounts have been corroborated, to reach those conclusions. Not only are these companies complicit in human rights violations, the Central Asia report alleges, but they know they are. Fusion reached out to the companies named in the report, NICE Systems (Israel), Verint Israel (U.S./ Israel), Gamma (UK), or Dreamlab (Switzerland), and none have responded to repeated requests for comment. The report is a “blueprint” for the future of the organization’s output, says Rice, the advocacy officer. “It’s the first time we’ve done something that really looks at the infrastructure, the laws, and putting it all together to get a view on how the system actually works in a country, or even a whole region,” says Rice. “What we can do is take that [report], and have specific findings and testimonials to present to companies, to different bodies and parliamentarians, and say this is why we need these things addressed,” adds Omanovic, the researcher and fake company designer. The tactic is starting to show signs of progress, he says. One afternoon, Omanovic was huddled over a table in the back room, taking part in what looked like an intense conference call. “European Commission,” he says afterwards. The Commission has been looking at surveillance exports since it was revealed that Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain were using European tech to crack down on protesters during the Arab Spring, he added. Now, PI is consulting with some members, and together they “hope to bring in a regulation specifically on this subject by year’s end.” *** Privacy International has come a long way from the “sterile bar of an anonymous business hotel in Luxembourg,” where founder Simon Davies, then a lone wolf privacy campaigner, hosted its first meeting with a handful of people 25 years ago. In a blog post commemorating that anniversary, Davies (who left the organization about five years ago) described the general state of privacy advocacy when that first meeting was held:     “Those were strange times. Privacy was an arcane subject that was on very few radar screens. The Internet had barely emerged, digital telephony was just beginning, the NSA was just a conspiracy theory and email was almost non-existent (we called it electronic mail back then). We communicated by fax machines, snail mail – and through actual real face to face meetings that you travelled thousands of miles to attend.” Immediately, there were disagreements about the scope of issues the organization should focus on, as detailed in the group’s first report, filed in 1991. Some of the group’s 120-odd loosely affiliated members and advisors wanted the organization to focus on small privacy flare-ups; others wanted it to take on huge, international privacy policies, from “transborder data flows” to medical research. Disputes arose as to what “privacy” actually meant at the time. It took years for the group to narrow down the scope of its mandate to something manageable and coherent. Gus Hosein, current executive director, describes the 90’s as a time when the organization “just knew that it was fighting against something.” He became part of the loose collective in 1996, three days after moving to the UK from New Haven, Connecticut, thanks to a chance encounter with Davies at the London Economics School. For the first thirteen years he worked with PI, he says, the group’s headquarters was the school pub. They were fighting then some of the same battles that are back in the news cycle today, such as the U.S. government wanting to ban encryption, calling it a tool for criminals to hide their communications from law enforcement. “[We were] fighting against the Clinton Administration and its cryptography policy, fighting against new intersections of law, or proposals in countries X, Y and Z, and almost every day you would find something to fight around,” he says. Just as privacy issues stemming from the dot com boom were starting to stabilize, 9/11 happened. That’s when Hosein says “the shit hit the fan.” In the immediate wake of that tragedy, Washington pushed through the Patriot Act and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, setting an international precedent of invasive pat-downs and extensive monitoring in the name of anti-terrorism. Hosein, being an American, followed the laws closely, and the group started issuing criticism of what it considered unreasonable searches. In the UK, a public debate about issuing national identification cards sprung up. PI fought it vehemently. “All of a sudden we’re being called upon to respond to core policy-making in Western governments, so whereas policy and surveillance were often left to some tech expert within the Department of Justice or whatever, now it had gone to mainstream policy,” he says. “We were overwhelmed because we were still just a ragtag bunch of people trying to fight fights without funding, and we were taking on the might of the executive arm of government.” The era was marked by a collective struggle to catch up. “I don’t think anyone had any real successes in that era,” Hosein says. But around 2008, the group’s advocacy work in India, Thailand and the Philippines started to gain the attention of donors, and the team decided it was time to organize. The three staff members then started the formal process of becoming a charity, after being registered as a corporation for ten years. By the time it got its first office in 2011 (around the time its founder, Davies, walked away to pursue other ventures) the Arab Spring was dominating international headlines. “With the Arab Spring and the rise of attention to human rights and technology, that’s when PI actually started to realize our vision, and become an organization that could grow,” Hosein says. “Four years ago we had three employees, and now we have 16 people,” he says with a hint of pride. *** “This is a real vindication for [Edward] Snowden,” Eric King, PI’s deputy director says about one of the organization’s recent legal victories over the UK’s foremost digital spy agency, known as the Government Communications Headquarters or GCHQ. PI used the documents made public by Snowden to get the British court that oversees GCHQ to determine that all intelligence sharing between GCHQ and the National Security Administration (NSA) was illegal up until December 2014. Ironically, the court went on to say that the sharing was only illegal because of lack of public disclosure of the program. Now that details of the program were made public thanks to the lawsuit, the court said, the operation is now legal and GCHQ can keep doing what it was doing. “It’s like they’re creating the law on the fly,” King says. “[The UK government] is knowingly breaking the law and then retroactively justifying themselves. Even though we got the court to admit this whole program was illegal, the things they’re saying now are wholly inadequate to protect our privacy in this country.” Nevertheless, it was a “highly significant ruling,” says Elizabeth Knight, Legal Director of fellow UK-based civil liberties organization Open Rights Group. “It was the first time the [courts have] found the UK’s intelligence services to be in breach of human rights law,” she says. “The ruling is a welcome first step towards demonstrating that the UK government’s surveillance practices breach human rights law.” In an email, a GCHQ spokesperson downplayed the significance of the ruling, saying that PI only won the case in one respect: on a “transparency issue,” rather than on the substance of the data sharing program. “The rulings re-affirm that the processes and safeguards within these regimes were fully adequate at all times, so we have not therefore needed to make any changes to policy or practice as a result of the judgement,” the spokesperson says. Before coming on board four years ago, King, a 25-year old Wales native, worked at Reprieve, a non-profit that provides legal support to prisoners. Some of its clients are at Guantanamo Bay and other off-the-grid prisons, something that made him mindful of security concerns when the group was communicating with clients. King worried that every time he made a call to his clients, they were being monitored. “No one could answer those questions, and that’s what got me going on this,” says King. Right now, he tells me, most of the group’s legal actions have to do with fighting the “Five Eyes”– the nickname given to the intertwined intelligence networks of the UK, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand. One of the campaigns, stemming from the lawsuit against GCHQ that established a need for transparency, is asking GCHQ to confirm if the agency illegally collected information about the people who signed a “Did the GCHQ Illegally Spy On You?” petition. So far, 10,000 people have signed up to be told whether their communications or online activity were collected by the UK spy agency when it conducted mass surveillance of the Internet. If a court actually forces GCHQ to confirm whether those individuals were spied on, PI will then ask that all retrieved data be deleted from the database. “It’s such an important campaign not only because people have the right to know, but it’s going to bring it home to people and politicians that regular, everyday people are caught up in this international scandal,” King says. “You don’t even have to be British to be caught up in it. People all over the world are being tracked in that program.” Eerke Boiten, a senior lecturer at the interdisciplinary Cyber Security Centre at the University of Kent, says that considering recent legal victories, he can’t write off the effort, even if he would have dismissed it just a year ago. “We have now finally seen some breakthroughs in transparency in response to Snowden, and the sense that intelligence oversight needs an overhaul is increasing,” he wrote in an email to me. “So although the [British government] will do its best to shore up the GCHQ legal position to ensure it doesn’t need to respond to this, their job will be harder than before.” “Privacy International have a recent record of pushing the right legal buttons,” he says. “They may win again.” A GCHQ spokesperson says that the agency will “of course comply with any direction or order” a court might give it, stemming from the campaign. King is also the head of PI’s research arm– organizing in-depth investigations into national surveillance ecosystems, in tandem with partner groups in countries around the world. The partners hail from places as disparate as Kenya and Mexico. One recently released report features testimonials from people who reported being heavily surveilled in Morocco. Another coming out of Colombia will be more of an “exposé,” with previously unreported details on surveillance in that country, he says. And then there’s the stuff that King pioneered: the method of sneaking into industry conferences by using a shadow company. He developed the technique Omanovic is using. King can’t go to the conferences undercover anymore because his face is now too well known. When asked why he started sneaking into the shows, he says: “Law enforcement doesn’t like talking about [surveillance]. Governments don’t talk about it. And for the most part our engagement with companies is limited to when we sue them,” he laughs. When it comes to the surveillance field, you would be hard pressed to find a company that does exactly what it says it does, King tells me. So when he or someone else at PI sets up a fake company, they expect to get about as much scrutiny as the next ambiguous, potentially official organization that lines up behind them. Collectively, PI has been blacklisted and been led out of a few conferences over the past four years they have been doing this, he estimates. “If we have to navigate some spooky places to get what we need, then that’s what we’ll do,” he says. Sometimes you have to walk through a dark room to turn on a light. Privacy International sees a world with a lot of dark rooms. “Being shadowy is acceptable in this world.” http://fusion.net/story/112390/unveiling-secrets-of-the-international-surveillance-trade-one-fake-company-at-a-time/ Highlights are for me.  Link to source article for an easier read. Great article.  Not sure I'll remember all of this information. Prior advocacy work: India Thailand Philippines More investigations coming: Kenya Mexico  Colombia   Completed report:  heavily surveilled in Morocco (strong USA ally, with heavy French & Spanish trade, credit and investment). StingRays are used routinely by Chicago Police Dept: Chicago PD seized drug money = first purchases 2005 incl. StingRay surveillance' digital 'hoovers' http://inthesetimes.com/article/17808/who-do-you-protect-who-do-you-surveil  Central Asia report software companies that have not responded: NICE Systems (Israel) Verint Israel (US / Israel) Gamma (UK) Dreamlab (Switzerland) Most of Privacy International legal actions have to do with fighting the “Five Eyes” - ie.  "intertwined intelligence networks of the UK, Canada, the US, Australia & New Zealand." Six court actions in progress currently. Sales to repressive governments include: Bahrain Sudan Libya (pre-revolutionary) Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Egypt, Tunisia & Bahrain - used European surveillance technology (crackdown protesters). European Commission -  has been looking at surveillance export. Expansive surveillance set down by: Patriot Act (USA) Aviation and Transportation Security Act (USA) Intelligence sharing between USA (NSA) and UK (GCHQ) ruled illegal prior 2014 because undisclosed.  However: "Now that details of the program were made public thanks to the lawsuit, the court said, the operation is now legal and GCHQ can keep doing what it was doing." That outcome sounds rather bizarre to me.