TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:
VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be
MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861.
---------------------
COMMENT
*Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me. It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think. But the sentence seems confusing (to me).
*I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force. We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do. Look what happens to protesters. When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.
|
TOKYO MASTER BANNER
MINISTRY OF TOKYO
|
August 03, 2015
TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy
August 02, 2015
National Endowment for Democracy ('NED') A CIA Trojan Horse / NED & WaPO Propaganda
SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts July 30, 2015 Exclusive: The neocon-flagship Washington Post fired a propaganda broadside at President Putin for shutting down the Russian activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, but left out key facts like NED’s U.S. government funding, its quasi-CIA role, and its plans for regime change in Moscow, writes Robert Parry.
The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.”
If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty.
Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED.
The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’
But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.”
The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.
But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”
NED Is Born
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand.
The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president.
Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.”
Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects.
A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin.
“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government.
A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a US law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison.
If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.”
Gershman’s Op-Ed
But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate.
“Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding:
The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed.
So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ --------------------- COMMENT
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Trojan Horse:The National Endowment for Democracyexcerpted from the bookRogue StateA Guide to the World's Only Superpowerby William Blumhttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^NED (National Endowment Democracy)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And here's China on Washington Post: Chinese embassy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
August 01, 2015
TPP - Raw Deal - "ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc"
Public Media and Utilities Could be Crushed by TPP: Wikileaks Published 30 July 2015
Wikileaks has dropped another TPP bombshell with a leaked letter suggesting the deal could force mass privatizations of state-owned enterprises
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could force state enterprises such as public utilities to put profits before public welfare and lead to mass privatizations, according to documents published by Wikileaks Wednesday.
Under the TPP, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) would be forced to act “on the basis of commercial considerations,” according to the leak.
The document also suggests multinational corporations could be empowered to sue SOEs for supposedly uncompetitive actions like favoring local businesses.
The bombshell leak centers around a classified letter from the TPP's December 2013 ministerial meeting. SOEs themselves are common in most TPP countries, and advocates say they perform crucial services aimed at supporting public needs rather than turn a profit. Some examples include Canada's main postal operator, Canada Post, and Australia's public broadcaster ABC. The latter is consistently rated by viewers as one of Australia's most trusted sources of news.
“SOEs are almost always state owned because they have functions other than those that are merely commercial, such as guaranteed access to important services, or because social, cultural, development and commercial functions are inextricably intertwined,” said Professor Jane Kelsey, from New Zealand's University of Auckland.
In an analysis of Wednesday's leak commissioned by Wikileaks, Kelsey concluded the TPP could carve out a “backdoor to privatization” of state enterprises.
She argued seemingly proposed regulations outlined in the leaked document ignore “the reality that SOEs and private firms are driven by different imperatives and obligations.”
Kelsey's main complaint was with the document's demand that SOEs prioritize “commercial considerations,” pointing out many state enterprises intentionally run at losses for the public good.
“Even where SOEs are profit-oriented, a government may elect not to extract full commercial profits, and choose to reinvest in the enterprise to strengthen the asset base or the quality of the services in ways that private investors would rarely do,” she explained.
For example, Australia Post is restricted to using its profits to reinvest in improving services, or handing dividends back to Australia's federal government.
Australian Greens trade spokesperson Peter Whish-Wilson told The Saturday Paper that the TPP's chapter on SOEs “directly challenges a government's right to own and operate any enterprise such as Australia Post, the ABC or power utilities that compete with corporate entities, but ultimately also the provision of public good services including healthcare, education.
“(It's) a direct assault by corporations trying to limit the role of government,” he said.
In a statement, Wikileaks said the leaked document proved the TPP will force member states to swallow “a wide-ranging privatization and globalization strategy.”
“In this leak we see the radical effects the TPP will have, not only on developing countries, but on states very close to the center of the Western system,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
Under negotiation for more than seven years, supporters say the TPP will streamline global trade and promote economic growth.
Once the TPP is completed, its provisions will override national laws of its 12 member states, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States. The deal is already being hailed as the largest trade agreement in world history, and will encompass over 40 percent of global GDP.
However, the deal's provisions have been almost entirely withheld from the public, prompting critics to argue the agreement is subject to undue secrecy. The few glimpses the public has had into the closed door talks have been leaked drafts of the TPP published by Wikileaks. Independent analysts say the trade deal is a “bonanza” for big business, and a raw deal for consumers. U.S. trade officials have responded by urging the public not to read the leaks, arguing the draft documents may not accurately represent the final document. The controversial deal has already sparked international protests, with activists demanding negotiators open talks to public scrutiny.
Warning that the TPP will erect a “'one size fits all' economic system,” Assange said public debate on the trade deal is urgently needed.
“If we are to restructure our societies into an ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc that will last for the next 50 years then this should be said openly and debated,” he said.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Public-Media-and-Utilities-Could-be-Crushed-by-TPP-Wikileaks-20150730-0014.html --------------------- COMMENT
SEE ALSO: TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy |
July 31, 2015
PILIGER article: ASSANGE - Epic Struggle For Justice
--------------------- COMMENT Another great article, and an excellent overview of what's going on. |
Business Insider - "British spies are officially setting the standard for fighting hackers"
British spies are officially setting the standard for fighting hackers UK big ben union flag jack umbrellaREUTERS/Luke MacGregorBritish spy standards have gone international. BUSINESS INSIDER - VIA--------------------- COMMENT Thought this was interesting, but now I'm not that sure. LOL IA = information assurance APM Group Ltd (APMG) = global accreditation body, UK based (offices all over) More: CCP - 'CESG Certified Professional' http://apmg-cyber.com/products/ccp-cesg-certified-professional |
Google Compute Engine - Cloud Computing & Customer Held Encryption Keys / Red Herrings
Google has just done something that’s going to annoy the US and UK governments Business Insider Alastair Stevenson, Business Insider Jul. 29, 2015, 11:15 AM 2
UK Prime Minister David Cameron is not going to like this.
Google has rolled out a security service for its business customers that could put a serious downer on the UK government’s plans to increase law enforcement’s surveillance powers.
The service was revealed by Google product manager Leonard Law in a blog post and is currently in beta form.
It will let businesses running the company's Google Compute Engine create their own encryption keys.
Encryption is a security technology that scrambles digital information using specialist mathematics.
It makes it so only people in possession of a specific unlock key or password can read the encrypted information.
Google’s move may not sound like a big deal to people outside the technology community, but the implications for the move are pretty massive.
What the Google Compute Engine is
Google’s Compute Engine is the basis of the company's cloud computing platform.
Cloud computing is a special type of technology that uses a network of remote servers hosted on the internet to run computer processes traditionally done on a device’s internal hardware.
In theory, this means cloud computing customers can get high-powered computer performance, or run complex tasks beyond normal hardware’s capabilities without having to buy lots of equipment.
As well as Google, which uses the tech to power many of its own services, such as YouTube, numerous big-name companies including Coca Cola, Best Buy, Rovio, Avaya and Ocado also use the Compute Engine.
How it links to government surveillance
The widespread use of Google’s cloud tech means it handles vast amounts of user data. Data running through the platform can include things like customer records, account information and, at times, the user's geographic location.
PRISM documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and GCHQ, have been siphoning vast amounts of web user information from Google's cloud platform – as well as many other cloud service providers.
The move makes sense, as the Compute Engine’s large customer base lets the agencies collect data from multiple companies and services from one central source.
A game of cat and mouse
Google already encrypts services running through its Compute Engine by default. This partially protects customers as it means agencies like the NSA or GCHQ cannot read the data without knowing which encryption key was used.
However, the tactic is not foolproof, as the NSA and GCHQ can use legal requests, such as letters sent under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to force Google to unlock or hand over unencrypted copies of the data.
This issue was set to get even worse in the UK and US as both governments have hinted at plans to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Law enforcement agencies within the US have been lobbying for the US government to control business use of encryption since the PRISM leaks emerged. FBI director of counter-terrorism Michael Steinbach warned lawmakers that strong encryption technology allows terrorists "a free zone by which to recruit, radicalize, plot and plan," in June.
UK prime minister David Cameron has hinted at plans to hamper the use of encryption. Cameron told Parliament he wants to "ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate," on June 6.
How companies having their own keys will hamper surveillance
Experts within the security community have argued that Google’s move will cause problems for the UK government’s plans.
FireEye global technical lead Simon Mullis explained to Business Insider this is because it will make it so Google won’t be able to decrypt the data, even if ordered to.
“Essentially the access to, ownership and management of the keys used to encrypt all data within Google Cloud is now handled by the end-customer," he said.
"[This will] make it harder for any external agencies such as law enforcement or intelligence services to gain access to the decrypted data as there are fewer parties [people able to unlock the data] involved.”
As a result, if law enforcement wanted access to the encrypted Compute Engine data, they would have to mount individual requests to each customer, a practice that would slow their surveillance operations.
Business Insider has reached out to the UK Prime Minister's press team for comment on how custom encryption keys will impact Cameron's plans.
Google is one of many technology companies working to fight the UK and US government’s surveillance plans. A group of 140 companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook, sent an open letter to President Obama in May urging him to reject the encryption proposals, fearing they would damage the US economy. Apple CEO Tim Cook claimed law enforcement’s hostility towards encryption is dangerous in June.
SOURCE http://www.techinsider.io/google-has-offered-compute-engine-customers-advanced-encryption-powers-2015-7 --------------------- COMMENT
'Terrorists' is the big stick / leverage go-to for governments to demand access.
If I were a company, I would prefer complete control of my own data. Relying on cloud computing doesn't appeal, even though it may be cheaper. And why would you trust any company that can unencrypt your data? But I guess the advantage might be in passing the buck. As in, if data is compromised, you can maybe blame it on the third party cloud host & they get lumped with compensation payouts?
This is a good companion article regarding encryption offerings:
The Red Herring of Digital Backdoors and Key Escrow EncryptionBill Blunden EXTRACTS By concentrating on key escrow the CEOs of Silicon Valley are able to conjure up the perception of an adversarial relationship with federal agencies. This is absolutely crucial because tech companies need to face the public wearing a white hat. In the aftermath of the PRISM scandal, where C-suite types were caught colluding with the government on a first-name basis, American executives are frantically trying to convince people on behalf of quarterly revenue that they’re siding with consumers against spying. An interesting but fundamentally flawed narrative, given how much economic espionage the government conducts and how much spying corporate America does. Who do you think benefits from this sort of mass surveillance? I really like this guy's articles. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)