Video - Assange - Security or Surveillance: Privacy vs Anti-Terror Security in Digital Age - RT10

ꕤ Security or Surveillance: Privacy vs anti-terror security in digital age (#RT10 Panel Discussion) Published 10 Dec 2015 RT News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rFNQ8ytnE&feature=youtu.be ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Security or Surveillance: Privacy vs anti-terror security in digital age (#RT10 Panel Discussion  /  Celebrating RT's 10-Year Anniversary) Moderator, Raymond Snoddy introduces: Philip Giraldi -- former CIA counter-terrorism specialist -- former military intelligence officer -- served 19 years abroad:  Turkey, Italy, Germany, Spain -- CIA chief of base, Barcelona Olympics, 1992 -- one of first Americans to enter Afghanistan, 2001 -- Exec. Dir. Council for National Interests (CNI) -- CNI - WA-based - to promote US foreign policy in Middle East -- based on 'American values & interests' Ray McGovern -- former US army intelligence officer -- joined Analysis Division of CIA & served -- from Kennedy Admin to G.W. Bush Admin. -- chief of CIA's Soviet foreign policy branch, 1970s -- chaired national intelligence estimates -- prepared Presidential daily briefing -- for Reagan senior national security advisers -- 2003 - co-est. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) -- to expose: intelligence fraud to justify 2003 US invasion of Iraq -- protested CIA involvement in torture activities -- publicly questioned Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- re misleading American public in run-up to war (Invasion of Iraq, 2003) Gregory R. Copley -- Australian-born -- President of Strategic International Studies Association, WA-DC -- serves as adviser on strategic studies to a number of govts & leaders [40 years] -- authored / co-authored 32 books on strategic & geopolitical issues, -- history, energy, aviation & defence, incl:     -- 'Un-Civilization: Urban Geopolitics in a Time of Chaos (2013)'     -- 'The Art of Victory (2006)'     [ Yikes!  see:   http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/5132  ] ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Issue: Security or Surveillance Can right to privacy & effective anti-terror security co-exist in the digital age? ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Julian Assange -- arguably one of the most influential people in world -- on bringing forward these specific issues Moderator -- seeks Assange thoughts on right of privacy -- how that is defined around world -- anti-terror security definition -- what the relationship of these two factors are to each other -- and the relationship to this new digital world in which we live Assange:  mass-surveillance is here to stay & privacy is gone for normal population (not for experts, incl. terrorists (who are experts))  underlying costs of surveillance - rapidly decreasing Five-Eyes (FVEY) - surveillance pervasive ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT About to watch --  or listen to -- this ... (depending on whether I also plan to get around to doing anything practical as I listen ... like maybe the dishes or some grooming or something practical (for a change) ... lol) ꕤ

Cybersecurity, Techie & Other

CYBERSECURITY, TECHIE & Other US 'SECRET STATE' #US national security state w/in a state = 6 million classified persons (larger than Norway, NZ or Scotland pop)! >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aMYqzGwwoF8 … -----------------------------------------------------  CYBERSECURITY #cybersecurity - Dropbox, Google & Open Technology World - lending support 2 Simply Secure 2 devel. easy-use sec. http://goo.gl/09sw4B -----------------------------------------------------  DIGITAL CURRENCY / BITCOIN Have notes & coins have had their day? Kenneth Rogoff, of Harvard University, reckons they have. http://goo.gl/4y6Ewo  / #Bitcoin ? -----------------------------------------------------  WHISTLEBLOWERS http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/144776/switzerland-prepares-to-tighten-screws-on-whistleblowers #Switzerland's parliament proposed bill Monday - weakening protection 4 whistleblowers - http://goo.gl/JcBXM9  Julius Baer / #WikiLeaks / The Swiss law is another bit of gagging legislation going around various govts. What's with that lately? It's 4 cover-ups #Switzerland clamping down on whistleblowers but offers #Snowden asylum. If I were Snowden, I'd politely decline ... LOL -----------------------------------------------------  COMMENT Loads of interesting information here.  The bit about the US 'state within a state' is rather spooky.   Might have to cross-reference that one with the other US info.

AUSTRALIAN 'SUPER-INJUNCTION'

WikiLeaks and the courts: keep the debate open By Carla Silbert Posted about 7 hours ago The ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is scandalous, and WikiLeaks' latest exposé adds a new and disturbing dimension to this issue, writes Carla Silbert. Australians have found themselves the beneficiaries of WikiLeaks' latest exposé - the publication of a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order so broad in scope that even the order itself is suppressed. ... It comes as little surprise that this "super-injunction" - an order that suppresses not just information such as the identity of a witness from publication, but the contents of the order itself - has come from Victoria, the state notorious as the "gag order capital" of Australia. ... When the reasons behind a court's actions remain secret, there can't be any scrutiny of those actions. That can never be in the public interest. In an era when the privacy of Australians is being increasingly compromised by the introduction of powers such as those currently being considered by Parliament to enable ASIO and ASIS to spy on private citizens in the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill, the ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is all the more scandalous. The WikiLeaks release has added a new, and troubling, dimension to this. Not only does the court have the power to keep us both ignorant and unaware of information of national concern, but if the cat gets let out of the bag and the documents are leaked as they have been here, we immediately find our freedom of speech restricted by threats of prosecution if we dare discuss it. Such discussions are vital to our ability to challenge the reasons why this information was withheld from us in the first place. Without these discussions, those doing the withholding can't be held to account. Extracts SOURCE - ABC - here.

So you elect a government and then the government (along with unelected intelligence agencies who presumably work for the public) do whatever they like; and then they go running to court to use the excuse of 'national security' to erode civil liberties and to fetter freedom of press, while they're scrambling to cover up some international scandal that involves government.

Having shut down scrutiny and debate by way of secret court order, the government's deftly sidestepped transparency and accountability and has, ultimately, undermined notions of democratic government.

How can this possibly be right?

USA - National Security - Intelligence Agencies - Carte Blanche

CIA spying on its own “internal channels” for whistleblowers Posted on July 28, 2014 McClatchy reports that the Central Intelligence Agency may be “intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s classified 6,000-page report into the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation programme is still yet to be published and the Committee has already accused the agency of illegally spying on that probe. Now it has emerged that the CIA retaliated against an official who cooperated with the Senate investigation, and Senate members emailed one another to accuse the agency’s inspector general of failing to investigate that retaliation – and the CIA has obtained at least one of those emails. As McClatchy writes, “The email controversy points to holes in the intelligence community’s whistleblower protection systems and raises fresh questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies can elude congressional oversight.” If the Senate cannot investigate the CIA independently and free of retaliation fears, who can? How can intelligence agencies be held accountable if they even intercept communications into their own operations? ... Thomas Drake’s criticisms of US warrantless wiretapping Drake subsequently blew the whistle to the media, and before the government’s case collapsed just days ahead of trial, he was facing an Espionage Act charge that could have imprisoned him for decades. Similarly, Edward Snowden made enquiries within the NSA about the legality and morality of that agency’s mass, unchecked surveillance. He spoke up at least ten separate times — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has in fact released one of Snowden’s emails. When he was ignored, Snowden was compelled to give documents detailing the NSA’s spying programs to investigative journalists. Insufficient security or insufficient democracy? The Insider Threat programme and the stated attitudes of the very officials responsible for facilitating internal channels draw a picture of a US administration that is deeply hostile, not only to disclosure of government information, but to internal criticism of its activities from those charged to carry them out. Famously, President Obama has overseen the prosecution of more Espionage Act cases than all previous presidents combined. The majority of those cases concern individuals trying to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Within their number include cases, like that of Thomas Drake, where employees have tried to make their case within the ‘official channels’ ostensibly created to facilitate internal whistleblowing. It is ironic that the United States has responded to disclosures of illegality and abuse, not by subjecting its programmes to democratic input or ensuring that future whistleblowers have better options, but by cracking down on those who speak up and the journalism they enable. The US administration has treated whistleblowers as an issue of insufficient security rather than insufficient democracy. ...EXTRACTS ONLY...full article @... https://couragefound.org/2014/07/cia-spying-on-its-own-internal-channels/

Doesn't sound too good when agencies under the US government appear to be able to do whatever they want.

AUSTRALIA - PRESS GAGGED - SUPPRESSION ORDER 'SUPER-INJUNCTION' - WIKILEAKS - CORRUPTION SCANDAL COVER UP

Social media users could be charged for sharing Wikileaks story Date July 30, 2014 - 12:55PM Julian Assange, Wikileaks publisher, described the Victorian Supreme Court suppression order as 'unprecedented'. Social media users could land themselves in legal hot water if they share Wikileaks' reporting of a secret suppression order made by the Victorian Supreme Court. The wide-ranging suppression order was published on the group's website on Wednesday and was quickly shared on websites including Twitter and Google+. Fairfax Media's report of Wikileaks' action created a strong response on social media, and was shared thousands of times within minutes of the exclusive report's publication. It is against the law for Australian media organisations to publish the contents of the suppression order. Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, from Minter Ellison, said anyone who tweets a link to the Wikileaks report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in any way online could also face charges. Using a hashtag such as "Wikileaks" is not in breach of the order but any mention on social media of the information detailed in it, such as people's names, is banned. Mr Bartlett said it would be difficult to prosecute Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange, given they are outside Victoria. Mr Assange remains at the Ecuador embassy in London where he has been given political asylum to avoid being extradited to the United States in relation to the leaking of secret US documents. However, any Victorian social media users, or the person who gave the documents to Wikileaks, may be easier to find and prosecute. "Unless someone within Australia somehow authorised or was deemed to have published that suppression order on Wikileaks it would be difficult to find someone to prosecute," Mr Bartlett said. "The person within the state of Victoria who has sent the suppression order to Wikileaks themselves has breached the suppression order so if police could find that person they could prosecute them." Mr Bartlett said he did not know of any person being prosecuted for sharing a court order on social media. A case involving former Manchester United player Ryan Giggs sparked debate in England about the effectiveness of court orders given the prevalence of social media. Giggs went to court to try to stop The Sun newspaper from publishing details of his extra-marital affair. The court initially banned the publication of his identity but the court's order was then widely disseminated through social media and tweeted by about 500,000 people. Giggs' case against the newspaper was eventually thrown out of court and no one was charged in relation to the tweets. The Victorian Supreme Court has been contacted for comment. SOURCE - BRISBANE TIMES - HERE.

First of all, the government uses 'national security' grounds to obtain a court 'super-injunction' suppression order to gag media coverage on some kind of international corruption scandal involving the Australian government, and THEN the press is gagged AND every Australian is threatened with imprisonment -- for the sake of this government cover up -- according to WikiLeaks.

Bloody, hell.   It would help knowing in advance which information can get you in strife.  Not clear to some (namely blogger) ... Doh!  

Will let you know how gaol was, if I've breached anything.  LOL. 

Anyway, this is democracy, freedom of press and freedom of speech at work in Australia.

----------------------------------------------------
P.S. 

What is the point of these gag orders when overseas press is reporting pretty much on the contents, the issue and on prior arrests of overseas people?

AUSTRALIA - Abbott government assault on press freedom

The Guardian Article Tony Abbott: media should not publish stories that 'endanger national security' Prime minister warns journalists to show 'sense of responsibility' as Coalition tries to push through tougher security laws Daniel Hurst and Paul Farrell theguardian.com, Thursday 17 July 2014 16.50 AEST ... lawyers warned that planned legislation means journalists could face jail for reporting disclosures about certain spy operations. ...National security legislation presented to the Senate on Thursday would expand the powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) and create a new offence punishable by five years in jail for “any person” who disclosed information relating to “special intelligence operations”. The person would be liable for a 10-year term if the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation”. Special intelligence operations are a new type of covert operation in which intelligence officers receive immunity from liability or prosecution where they may need to engage in conduct that would be otherwise unlawful. Such operations would be approved by the Asio director general or deputy director general.  [So these are infiltration operations?] ...Barns, who is also spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance and has worked for WikiLeaks, said it was “an unprecedented clause which would capture the likes of Wikileaks, the Guardian, the New York Times, and any other media organisation that reports on such material”. [Or any other individual.] The attorney general, George Brandis, rejected suggestions the government was targeting journalists and told Sky News it was not the purpose of the bill to place constraints on freedom of discussion. [SURE] Abbott, when asked about the possibility of journalists facing prosecution, said: “I think it's important that we get the balance right. “News that endangers the security of our country frankly shouldn't be fit to print and I'd ask for a sense of responsibility, a sense of national interest as well as simply of commercial interest, a sense of the long-term best interests of the country as well as the short-term best interests of creating sensation to be present right across our country including in the media.” [WTF is a 'sensation'?] The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, reacted cautiously to the reports about the potential reach of the laws. “There are suggestions that the attorney general’s amendments to national security legislation could criminalise some reporting by journalists,” Dreyfus said in a statement. “Senator Brandis has indicated that criminalising reporting of leaked national security information is not his intention. If Senator Brandis's amendments would criminalise reporting by journalists who receive intelligence information, the government will need to make changes to remove that consequence.” [Doesn't sound like Abbott will.] The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi told the National Press Club the security reforms were a “work in progress” and he believed Brandis was “very receptive to concerns of those who are libertarians, or conservative libertarians, and that don't want to see an all-pervasive government”. [SURE] “Let's go back to first principles. One, I think the Australian public and right around the world are right to be suspicious of government and their snooping ability, if I can put it like that,” Bernardi said. “Look at what's happened in Germany, with the NSA in America, across Europe there's been a lot of discussion in this area.  [What, Germany got spied on by the US?  And embarrassed getting caught out?  Oh, wait a minute:  Germany had a double-agent answering to the US and NSA had the Snowden leak.  But why put that on the press.  It's their internal problems and the press should have every right to disclose if the government and its agencies get caught with their pants down.] “Secondly, I think we're right to advocate for freedom of the press. We need to make sure the press are free to report within the constraints of what is in, I'd say, the national interest. [With constraints is not free to report.  One could argue it is not within the scope of  national interests of a democracy to have a gagged press.] “We all know that there are things the press don't report because of security concerns. We have to be reliant on that. People have gone to jail to protect their sources before in the press.” [Oh, really?  Then why not maintain the status quo?] Bernardi said national security was a critical issue and people had the right to go about their business feeling safe from clear threats, but we “just have to make sure we don't overstep the mark”.  [What business is this - covert unlawful business in aid of 'national security' and commerce, by the look of the above?  What is this, a criminal totalitarian regime?] ... ... set to face parliamentary debate after the winter recess. ... offences applied to “disclosures by any person, including participants in an SIO [special intelligence operation], other persons to whom information about an SIO has been communicated in an official capacity, and persons who are the recipients of an unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure”. ...offences would not prevent a person from disclosing information to the inspector general of intelligence and security, an oversight agency. [LOL] ...The Greens senator Scott Ludlam, who raised concerns about the potential prosecution of journalists, criticised Labor for not supporting his motions to send the bill to the legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee and seek advice from the independent national security legislation monitor. [Labor are the Liberal's 'yes' men these days.] Ludlam said the government's referral to the joint committee on intelligence and security was inadequate scrutiny because the bill would be “assessed by the very same joint committee that wrote the report in the first place”. The Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm said he would oppose most of the proposals outlined in the security bill because the case for additional powers had not been made. “We do not support increasing intrusion by security agencies and other government bodies,” Leyonhjelm said. “Asio already has enough powers to do its job properly. If it feels it needs additional powers, we believe it reflects poorly on it.” Brandis told parliament the government's priority was to keep Australia safe but it was proceeding in a “measured and considered way”. [No, it's proceeding in a sneaky & autocratic way.] In a broader commentary about his philosophical approach, he told the ABC he had a “very strong predisposition against big government” and would ensure adequate safeguards as the government pursued national security laws.  [SAY 'NO' to totalitarian Liberal government.] The Guardian - here.

 ------------------------------------------
COMMENT

So the Abbott government is planning on violating the freedom of the press (which underpins the democratic system) -- in the guise of 'national security' -- but will not submit the Liberals proposed legislation to be assessed by the legal and constitutional affairs committee?  Why?  What are they hiding?

Get this, Abbott states:

as well as simply of commercial interest

So is he saying his laws -- his breach of civil liberties and press freedoms -- are about COMMERCIAL INTERESTS?

It appears that the Liberal government wants to legislate to allow government to do whatever it wants to do without being held accountable in any way. And the Labor party is standing by allowing this to happen, because they are Liberal party 'yes' men.

US PRESS - gagged by Obama administration's 'de facto' Official Secrets Act

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation

5:12 PM 03/24/2014 

 

New York Times reporter James Risen

FULL article - Daily Caller - here.

----------------------------------

COMMENT


Reporter James Risen (New York Times) is:

 "currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source" [and has] "warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America."

As for reporting on 'national security intelligence',  by virtue of the Obama administration 'punishing' those that go against 'good' reporting form (as determined by the Whitehouse), and selecting reporters that play the game, the government interferes with the role of the press in a democratic society.

As a result, the government calls the shots and the complaint is that, there's a de facto Official Secrets Act.

Jeffrey Toobin (writer, The New Yorker):

 “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

The government "lawyer for the national intelligence community" doesn't come off as pleasant sounding.

Lawyer's comparing drunk driving to national security reporting:

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

Right, and Big Brother's going to make that decision?

The government is supposed to serve the people; not rule the people.

Someone needs to work on an accepted model of 'national security' versus government accountability.

For some weird reason, the 'risk of accidents' and reporting association made me think of Michael Hastings.
Anyway, you can read the full article on the link supplied.