USA - LAPD & Chicago PD - Militarised Police - Dirtbox (Fake Cell Phone Tower) Decade-long Dragnet Surveillance - Challenged by Civil Liberties Groups

LAPD Has Had “Stingray on Steroids” Surveillance Equipment for a Decade Back to News submit to reddit Wednesday, August 12, 2015 An older version of seldom-seen "dirtbox" Secret Stingray cellphone surveillance technology, deployed by police departments without warrants across the country, gets all the publicity. But the real deal is “Stingray on steroids” technology called “dirtbox” and The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) says cops in Los Angeles and Chicago have had it for a decade. Like Stingray, the device mimics cellphone towers to connect and monitor mobile devices. But dirtbox can monitor multiple signals at a time, breaking encryption as it goes, sweeping up data in a dragnet whose scale is unknown beyond its users. Devices like dirtbox were first developed for the military and intelligence agencies. Digital Research Technology, Inc. (DRT), purchased by giant defense contractor Boeing in 2008, started as Utica Systems in 1980, manufacturing devices for the “communications surveillance community.” Dirtboxes are popular among the U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. And documents obtained by Edward Snowden indicate they are used extensively by U.S. spy agencies. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) purchased the equipment in 2005 with a $260,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to CIR. Chicago purchased theirs with money gleaned from asset forfeiture cases. Both cities also deploy Stingrays. The accelerated militarization of local police since 9/11 has contributed to the widespread use of cell-site stimulator technology by local cops. An estimated 40 or 50 agencies use Stingrays, but there is no way to get an accurate count. Law enforcement agencies sign nondisclosure agreements with the manufacturer, Harris Corporation, which they are loathe to talk about, making court oversight problematic. It also doesn't help that the Obama administration has been advising local authorities to obscure use of the surveillance, which they have done. Prosecutors have dropped cases before releasing Stingray information. Dirtboxes have flown even more under the radar than Stingrays. CIR said its report on Chicago and Los Angeles was the first to reveal use of the technology by domestic law enforcement. LAPD refused to produce documents requested in February through the California Public Records Act. The Wall Street Journal wrote last December about the U.S. Marshals Service regularly flying dirtboxes around in Cessnas in at least five metropolitan areas. That kind of mass surveillance, with little discussion of warrants, raises Constitutional questions the courts are just beginning to address. The small boxes seem ideal for drone deployment. The Journal could only guess at what the Marshals are looking for—they do track fugitives—but said they also take target requests from the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). Civil libertarians have been making noise in court over cell-site simulators. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed lawsuits seeking Stingray information in Anaheim and Sacramento, and the First Amendment Coalition filed a lawsuit in San Diego. SOURCE http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/top-stories/lapd-has-had-stingray-on-steroids-surveillance-equipment-for-a-decade-150812?news=857184 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I've come across this before. Chicago Police sound really full-on from what little I've read. How deceitful, hypocritical and totalitarian is this? US claims to be the land of the 'free' and 'democratic', and look what's going on there.  Never mind 'Stingray on Steroids'; this is state surveillance / state control on steroids.  Totalitarian USA. No end to violations of civil liberties. I don't know if 'dirtboxes' are the same as fake phone towers. Looks like it's the same deal: A dirtbox (or DRT box) is a cell site simulator; a phone device mimicking a cell phone tower. The device is designed to create a signal strong enough within a short range so as to force dormant mobile phones to automatically switch over to it. [wikipedia] I've not read the rest of the Wikipedia entry; I've just captured that off the search summary. At least the civil liberties people are trying to challenge the practices (which have gone on for a decade). What's really shocking is the absence of disclosure and lack of court oversight, even though the US constitution is supposed to guarantee various civil liberties. ꕤ

First NSA Mass Surveillance Legal Challenge - Portland, USA

Mohamed Mohamud appeal is first to challenge NSA surveillance in terrorism conviction 1 / 42 Mohamed Mohamud, after being sentenced to 30 years in prison on Oct. 1, 2014. Courtroom sketch by Abigail Marble. Mike Zacchino | The Oregonian/OregonLive Print Email Bryan Denson | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Bryan Denson | The Oregonian/OregonLive Email the author | Follow on Twitter on August 12, 2015 at 5:00 AM, updated August 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM The U.S. spy operations that once put Portland terrorist Mohamed Mohamud under FBI surveillance violated his constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure, two civil liberties groups contend in a federal appeals court filing. Lawyers for the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Mohamud, who has appealed his 30-year-sentence for trying to detonate a bomb in downtown Portland four years ago. They have joined Mohamud's legal team in denouncing a law that has allowed the National Security Agency to collect troves of overseas communications by Americans through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided the legal justification for the massive NSA surveillance programs exposed two years ago by Edward Snowden. To identify foreign terrorists, the U.S. has secretly collected records of communications between untold numbers of Americans and tens of thousands of people overseas. While the targets of those queries are foreign agents, the civil liberties groups wrote that the government has sometimes performed "backdoor searches," poring through electronic repositories of phone calls, emails and texts for information about U.S. citizens such as Mohamud. That violated Mohamud's Fourth Amendment rights, they argue. His lawyers filed an opening brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this spring, opening the door for what is expected to be the nation's first appellate review of a criminal conviction resulting from the law. Their brief totaled 256 pages, and the court's commissioner ordered them to produce a slimmer version – no more than 180 pages – by this Friday. Government lawyers have until Dec. 7 to file their reply. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan D. Knight, lead prosecutor in Mohamud's criminal case, declined to comment on the appeal because it is pending. Lawyers have been arguing about Mohamud's case since the last Monday in November 2010, three days after he tried to detonate what he thought was a massive fertilizer bomb supplied by al-Qaida terrorists. The explosive was packed in a van near Pioneer Courthouse Square, where thousands of people gathered for Portland's holiday tree-lighting ceremony. The latest brief filed by Mohamud's lawyers describes his actions that night: "He pushed the buttons of a cellphone, twice, believing they would cause the explosion of a massive, nail-filled bomb capable of eliminating at least two city blocks. ... The bomb was a fake, created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the culmination of a sting operation they had started over a year earlier. "The defense at trial was entrapment: that the government had induced this teenager to attempt a crime he was not predisposed to commit." Mohamud was 19 at the time. On Jan. 31, 2013, a jury before Senior U.S. District Judge Garr M. King found Mohamud guilty of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, a charge that carried a potential life sentence. King sentenced him last October to 30 years in prison, and his lawyers filed a notice of appeal eight days later. Ten months later, the Department of Justice filed a court notice saying that the government had obtained permission – under the FISA Amendments Act – to eavesdrop and collect evidence on Mohamud. The 7-year-old law has allowed the NSA to vacuum up millions of ordinary Americans' telephone records. But it also has played a significant role in identifying and disrupting foreign spies and terrorists, national security experts say. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which signed orders that allowed the U.S. to eavesdrop on Mohamud, is the most secretive court in the land. Its written orders, unlike standard wiretap warrants, are classified and not disclosed to the defense. So Mohamud's lawyers never fully understood how the FBI came to investigate their client as a potential terrorist. As Mohamud sits in a federal prison in Victorville, California, his lawyers hope to persuade the appeals court to reverse his conviction and send the case back to Portland for dismissal or a new trial. As an alternative, they are asking the appeals court to vacate their client's sentence and send it back to U.S. District Court for evidentiary hearings or resentencing. Mohamud's lawyers raise 11 key issues in their appeal, pointing out that King had repeatedly turned down their requests for classified evidence. For instance, they wrote that the judge allowed the FBI's two key witnesses – undercover agents – to use their pseudonyms and wear light disguises as they testified before the jury. But their main point, the one that will keep national security scholars buzzing until the 9th Circuit rules in the Mohamud case, is the assertion that the FISA Amendments Act is illegal. One of those watching most closely is Tung Yin, a Lewis & Clark Law School professor who specializes in national security matters. "We shouldn't be putting someone in prison for 30 years if that conviction resulted in significant part from evidence that the government should not have had, which is what this case would determine," said Yin. Retired Federal Public Defender Steven T. Wax, who served on Mohamud's defense team and now works on his appellate team, said the government's use of the FISA Amendments Act should lead to reversal of his client's conviction. He remains troubled that the government might still possess classified evidence that could have helped Mohamud's case. "The way our system should work, the government is obligated by law to provide notice," he said. "They did not. That's a fundamental failing that should lead to throwing out the conviction." -- Bryan Denson bdenson@oregonian.com SOURCE http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/08/mohamed_mohamud_appeal_is_firs.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What I got out of this (if I understand correctly): The following enabled the NSA to bulk collect data, in what amounts to the violation of the US  constitution: FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court NSA conducted an illegal program that bulk collected the records of Americans, in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights enshrined in the US constitution. NSA conducted an illegal program that bulk collected the records of "tens of thousands" of non US citizens abroad (more like entire countries). FBI secures convictions on the basis of entrapment:  inducing targets to commit crime. Following civil liberties groups are mounting a legal challenge in respect of this conviction: ACLU Electronic Frontier Foundation  Law professor, Tung Yin:  "... if that conviction resulted in significant part from evidence that the government should not have had" - 30 year conviction a no go. The brief in defence was knocked back, with instructions to compile something scant (WTF?  A defence is a defence.  It's as long as it takes.) The secrecy surrounding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is troublesome, because it prevents the defendant mounting a proper defence:   vital information is withheld, on basis of "classified" information justification, interfering with ability to defend. secret, disguised, key FBI witnesses testify. Under these circumstances, anybody could probably be convicted of anything.  No transparency and no accountability.  The accused is induced to commit crime and then denied information on 'classified' grounds and therefore denied the opportunity to properly defend. I don't understand the principles associated with evidence one is not supposed to have.  But I guess it has something to do with fair trials. As for FBI informants, they're not necessarily reliable.  Usually, these types are being blackmailed by the authorities into informing on others, so they're motivated by the opportunity to save their skin. ꕤ

Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists

https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canada-illegally-spied-on-environmental-activists There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists By Rachel Browne August 12, 2015 | 8:35 pm A federal watchdog committee is set to begin a round of secret hearings to probe complaints that Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has been illegally snooping on environmental activists working against oil pipeline projects. In 2014 the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints against CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accusing both agencies of spying on environmental and First Nations groups who were organizing against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry crude west from Alberta to BC. The groups allegedly subjected to surveillance include the Sierra Club of BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and ForestEthics Advocacy. "This kind of activity, what's being alleged, has no place in democracy. The government and its spy agencies should not be busy surveilling and gathering intelligences on citizenships who are simply living their lives and participating in their communities," Josh Paterson, BCCLA's executive director, told VICE News. "There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people they don't agree with. And Canada should not be one of them." The BCCLA's complaints, based on government documents obtained under access to information requests, further allege the spy agency also shared their intelligence about "radicalized environmentalist" groups with the National Energy Board. CSIS has long denied the BCCLA's allegations. "CSIS investigates — and advises government on — threats to national security, and that does not include peaceful protest and dissent," a CSIS spokesperson told the CBC last year. New federal anti-terror legislation, known as Bill C-51, that recently came into force gives CSIS more powers to probe and disrupt extremist activities and has raised further worries that environmental and aboriginal groups in Canada could be subjected to more surveillance than ever before. This week, the Guardian reported on the great lengths the Conservative government has undertaken to protect two major pipeline projects — Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan — from environmental and First Nations groups. According to documents obtained under access to information by Greenpeace, the government is spending $30 million over two years on domestic and international "outreach activities" to promote the oil sands industry in Alberta. That's on top of the $22 million the government spent in 2014 on a similar ad campaign in the US. The three-day hearings held by the committee that oversees CSIS start today in Vancouver and are shrouded in secrecy — media and members of the public are barred from attending. This afternoon, Paterson will testify for the complainants. And tomorrow, witnesses from groups allegedly spied on will testify about their experiences. But it's unclear when CSIS will argue its side. As part of its disclosure ahead of the hearings, Paterson says CSIS has provided only printouts from its website and has said that a senior spy service manager, known only as "Robert," will testify at some point. CSIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from VICE News. "It's so secretive that we likely won't know until after it has taken place and it makes this whole hearing super bizarre as an accountability mechanism. We have no ability to know what CSIS' argument is, what their evidence is, we can't respond to their arguments, our lawyers are not able to interact with what CSIS is saying," said Paterson. He added that the BCCLA is not suggesting that a hearing about spying should never be held in secret, especially if there are legitimate concerns about national security or if it would put people in danger. "But here, the government's documents have made clear that there was no threat, that there was no question that these groups were engaged in anything other than peaceful activities. And so we really question why more information can't be disclosed by CSIS about what they were doing." Last week, Alexandra Swann, a volunteer with the Dogwood Initiative, opened up about how the purported spying revelations have impacted her activism. "Finding out had a chilling effect for me. Suddenly, I was very concerned how far it had extended," she wrote on the BCCLA's website. "Was I personally named somewhere? Had they investigated my online activities? Read my emails? I realized the right to privacy was a myth in this country, and that being a decent person was no barrier to illegal scrutiny by people far more powerful than me." Paterson said that witnesses will testify that the allegations about widespread CSIS surveillance has turned many people off from community activism. "We're going to be hearing evidence from witnesses who say people are refusing to sign petitions because they don't want their names out there because they're worried about what security agencies might do," he said. "We're also going to hear evidence from a new Canadian hoping to have Canadian citizenship who also didn't want to sign a petition because she was afraid of upsetting the government. And others who were fearful of volunteering with community organizations because it might draw unwanted attention from community organizations. The BCCLA says it will consider asking the oversight committee to issue summonses to the CSIS employees listed on the documents. The committee's probe is expected to take more than a year. Follow Rachel Browne on Twitter: @rp_browne https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canadas-spy-agency-snooped-on-environmental-activists ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------- ---------------------- COMMENT This is huge. Look at all the public funds that are being spent on *corporations*. Capitalists are anti communism and anti welfare, but they're happy with 'corporate socialism' - ie receiving public funds, bail-outs etc & 'austerity' is never a problem for corporations:  they get rewarded for being crooks. The Canadian government sounds like a corporate 'fascist' / totalitarian nightmare that's developing all over. It's just more and more of the same that's going on everywhere. Governments in bed with corporate interests, at the expense of the public, and governments / government agencies abusing their power. ꕤ

Canada - CSIS Illegal Spying on Enrironmental Activists - Lawsuit | Bill C-51 Gives CSIS Power to Break Law & Violate Constitution

CSIS spy exposé triggers federal hearings By Linda Solomon Wood & Jenny Uechi in News | August 12th 2015 A Vancouver Observer investigation has prompted hearings about whether the RCMP and CSIS broke the law by spying on environmental groups. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) began hearing arguments today in Vancouver by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) regarding the Harper government's extensive spying on groups critical of the tar sands. The spying was revealed in documents obtained by National Observer's sister publication, Vancouver Observer, in 2013. "We wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t been for the Vancouver Observer," said BCCLA executive director Josh Paterson. The Observer investigation showed the National Energy Board (NEB) coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor groups opposing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline: The federal government has been vigorously spying on anti-oil sands activists and organizations in BC and across Canada since last December, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show. Not only is the federal government subsidizing the energy industry in underwriting their costs, but deploying public-safety resources as a de facto "insurance policy" to ensure that federal strategies on proposed pipeline projects are achieved, these documents indicate. The federal government spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association, BCCLA will argue, Paterson said. The hearings opened in a cloak of secrecy. The government barred reporters from photographing people going in or out of the court to prevent them from capturing the image of a secret agent. No media were allowed to observe or report on the hearings and the public is not allowed to attend. But Paterson spoke this morning about what he expected to happen behind closed doors. "Clearly, if there were issues of national security at stake — if there were information that would compromise the safety of agents in the field — you could see why a hearing might take place in secret," he said. "What we know from government documents makes clear that there was no threat to national security, that these groups were operating peacefully. So we don’t understand why at the very least CSIS can’t make more documents public about its activities," he added. "We’re arguing that CSIS broke the law by gathering intelligence about the democratic activities of Canadians in relation to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. We'll see through these hearings that spies and police though surveillance intimidate people until they feel like they don’t want to participate in the democratic process." CSIS spying exposed through FOIs In November 2013, Matt Millar, then a reporter for Vancouver Observer, obtained Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that showed the NEB coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor several groups, including Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, Leadnow, Dogwood Initiative and the Council of Canadians. The FOI material revealed that the NEB was arranging police protection for Enbridge and TransCanada staff, while keeping a close eye on their critics. Vancouver Observer subsequently reported that Canada's chief spy watchdog, Chuck Strahl, then head of SIRC, had registered as a lobbyist for Enbridge. Further investigations revealed that Strahl, a former Conservative cabinet minister, had been contracted by Enbridge since 2011. The stories prompted the BCCLA to file a complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists, Paterson said. They also led to Strahl's resignation due to perceived conflict of interest. "This stems from documents that were released to the Vancouver Observer that suggested that the RCMP and CSIS had gathered intelligence and shared intelligence on citizens group," said Paterson. "These were groups that were either assisting people to participate in the process, or organizing people to protest against the proposed pipeline. That is part of the life of a democracy and that should be welcomed." "Instead, we see that the government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. This is highly problematic, and potentially a violation of people’s charter rights," Paterson said. national energy board, CSIS, spying on environmentalists, government spying, RCMP Screenshot of email in which Rick Garber, NEB's "Group Leader of Security," discussing monitoring of First Nations pipeline critics in Prince Rupert. Hearings taking place in atmosphere of secrecy CSIS has disclosed very little information heading into the three-day hearings, BCCLA lawyer Paul Champ told the Canadian Press. Paterson said he hopes for a fair ruling by SIRC, but is disturbed by aspects of secrecy that might thwart a just process. "There’s a whole extra-secret part of the hearings that we’re not allowed to attend. Just CSIS and their lawyers will be there, and they’ll make their case in secret. They won’t even tell us when it’s going to happen. We’ll receive a redacted transcript." Yves Fortier, a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee who was revealed to be a former TransCanada board member who still held shares in the company, will be part of the committee reviewing this case, he said. "[Fortier] himself is by all accounts an upstanding individual of impeccable reputation," Paterson said. "However, he did used to be on a board of a pipeline company whose name is mentioned in these documents. We had asked for him to step aside based on the appearance of bias." In November of 2013, Vancouver Observer broke the news that Harper government officials and spies met with industry officials in Ottawa. In the shadow of Bill C-51 In February 2014 the BCCLA filed a complaint with the review committee after media reports suggested that CSIS and other government agencies considered opposition to the petroleum industry a threat to national security. The complaint cited reports the spy service had shared information with the National Energy Board about "radicalized environmentalist" groups seeking to participate in the board’s hearings on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, which would see Alberta crude flow westward to the B.C. coast. The passage of government security legislation that gives CSIS new powers to disrupt extremist activity has only heightened concerns about government monitoring of environmental and aboriginal protesters who oppose oil pipelines. Paterson is adamant that Bill C-51 has given CSIS far greater powers to break the law and even to violate the constitution. "They have to get a warrant from a judge but that gives us no comfort at all. It’s not the job of judges to break the law but to protect the constitution," he said. "This motivates CSIS to go to judges and say, 'Here’s what we’re planning,' but CSIS has a long history of breaching its duty of candor." "The only thing they’re not allowed to do is violate someone’s sexual integrity, to kill someone or to subvert justice," Paterson adderd. "Short of that, they’re being given the power to break the law and violate the constitution." CSIS did not immediately respond to questions about the process. SIRC has been reached for comment, but did not respond before publication time. — with files from the Canadian Press http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/12/news/csis-spy-expos%C3%A9-triggers-federal-hearings CSIS = Canadian Security Intelligence Service Main national security agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service SIRC = Security Intelligence Review Committee supposedly independent agency to oversee CSIS inefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists ACTIVIST'S PERSPECTIVE Hey CSIS. If you're listening, we're going to hold your spying to account. By Kai Nagata     August 13, 2015 http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dogwood-initiative/2015/08/hey-csis-if-youre-listening-were-going-to-hold-your-spying ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- --------------------- COMMENT Wealth of reasons not to give intelligence agencies greater powers. Canada's is shocking & the 'watchdog' (from other articles I've read), is completely toothless. More spying on those engaged in democratic activities  - ie those protesting environmental issues, in this case. Tons of information here.  And what applies in Canada, applies elsewhere.  As in, this is what happens when you give intelligence agencies unchecked power.  It's not used for the benefit of the community; it's used against the community, to further corporate interests (by look of this). Canada sounds bent. ꕤ

ANDREA VANCE - 'NZ spies want greater powers'

NZ spies want greater powers ANDREA VANCE Last updated 12:18, August 13 2015 Grapes grow in a vineyard around the GSCB monitoring station in the Waihopai Valley near Blenheim. STEPHEN RUSSELL/FAIRFAX MEDIA Grapes grow in a vineyard around the GSCB monitoring station in the Waihopai Valley near Blenheim. The release of a "hit list" by Islamic State with a Kiwi's name on it comes as New Zealand's spy agencies demand greater surveillance powers. Emergency anti-terror laws passed last year were promoted as measures to stop foreign fighters leaving for conflicts in Syria and Iraq. However, they also allowed the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) to monitor any terrorist suspects for 24 hours without a warrant. Additionally the reforms permitted the spy agency to conduct video surveillance on private property in cases of suspected terrorism. The new laws came on the back of expanded powers handed to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in 2013. Caught out illegally spying on Kiwis, the foreign agency was now sanctioned to use its technology and agents to carry out surveillance on behalf of the police, SIS and Defence Force. Terrorism suppression legislation, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, designated terrorist groups and created offences around financing and allowed for the freezing of assets. It also incorporated international obligations, establishing offences relating to recruiting, bombing and handling explosives. It also meant planning a terrorist act, or making a "credible" threat, was illegal even if it was not carried out. Five years later, the law was amended and now allowed for the Prime Minister to designate which groups were considered terrorists, where previously it was the role of the high court. A review of that legislation was abandoned by the Government in 2012. Interception warrants - for monitoring communications - could be done under a range of laws such as the SIS and GCSB Acts and the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987. But security services were pushing for more, arguing current laws were outdated and did not keep pace with technology. Canada, Australia and the UK are in the process of pushing through tough anti-terror laws which they said were needed to counter jihadis. British Prime Minister David Cameron last month outlined a five-year plan to counter extremism, focused on how ideology was communicated - but critics fear it would curb freedom of speech. The GCSB legislation established a review of the security services, which was currently being carried out by former deputy prime minister Sir Michael Cullen and lawyer Dame Patsy Reddy. On Tuesday, SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge said the legislation governing her agency needed to change. SIS and GCSB minister Chris Finlayson refused to rule out expanded surveillance powers when questioned in Parliament this week. SOURCE http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/71090362/nz-spies-want-greater-powers ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------    Foreign intel - GCSB - here Internal intel - NZSIS - here Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney-General- here ---------------------- COMMENT Wow, that was some interesting NZ information in the look ups. Both agencies have a record of spectacularly overstepping their bounds and unlawfully violating civil liberties, yet more power is sought. Some confusion on my part as to who is responsible.  If I understand correctly, it's John 'Teflon' Key, according to convention (Wikipedia). But it looks like responsibility for intel has maybe been hand-balled. Assume from the article that the minister responsible for both agencies is the attorney-general, Christopher Finlayson.  Did Key handball it to the attorney-general, or is Key ultimately responsible and overseeing the attorney-general? Alternatively, is this really attorney-general territory in practice? It looks like Finlayson's minister in charge of SIS (Security Intelligence Services), going by his profile.  Don't see anything re the foreign intel agency, GCSB. Freedom of speech Civil liberties are definitely on the line, if this lot's going to have a crack at controlling how ideology is communicated' expanding their already considerable powers. Everybody's freedom of speech is civil liberties are at risk - not just a select group, because anybody can become be designated a 'threat' - eg.  NZSIS designated 20 apartheid protesters of the 1980s as 'subversives' and put them on what is presumably a secret surveillance list. Edit:  GCSB - also caught spying illegally / see Kitteridge Report. For government agencies known to spy on activists, animal activists and, by implication, NZ political parties (see Gillchrist 10 years paid NZ govt spy & the NZSIS), these organisations (and the govt that controls them) ought to be kept in check, rather than awarded further powers.   They've already have proven they don't abide by existing laws.  'More' power isn't what they need. NZSIS spying on students and university staff, under the pretext of protecting New Zealanders from 'weapons of mass destruction' is hilarious.  Don't know whether the humour's in the Wikipedia entry, or if they really did use that insane excuse.  Didn't look further than the Wikipedia entry. If it's left to John Key and his government to designate 'terrorist' targets for surveillance by these agencies, the danger is that Teflon will chose on the basis of political considerations - like preservation of power.  lol Note also:  anyone who is deemed a political or like threat (as in threat to maintenance of power, cover-ups etc), is likely labelled 'terrorist'. For example, Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) was labelled 'terrorist' by the Americans ... for exposing US war crimes!   People, this is comedy gold. Instead of writing that propaganda show for the BBC, mocking the serious danger Assange is in, had those entertainment writers given even a cursory look at intelligence agencies, they'd have found themselves comedy gold.    Never going to happen.  Just as mainstream journalism seldom challenges those in power in any meaningful way, entertainment writers apparently also dare not challenge the powerful.  Like hyenas, they despicably attack the target of the powerful. --- Hey, New Zealand This Is What Happens When Intel Agencies Have Unchecked Power spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. MORE - here + MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists PS This post is a mess, but I'll let it stand as testimony to my stupidity.  lol Don't know what I was thinking.  Must have got confused by the mention of the UK implementations.   Same deal, whether it's speech or privacy issue, so it all stands. PPS If they're using the argument that "current laws were outdated and did not keep pace with technology," they're probably wanting to amp up digital surveillance in NZ, I'm guessing. ꕤ

AUSTRALIA - Great Barrier Reef - UN Reclassification Dodge & Civil Liberties (Anti-Terror Laws)

AUSTRALIA Environment #Auspol >>To pre-empt UN from reclassifying GBR as “in danger”, Australia announced a 35-year plan 2 manage Great Barrier Reef >>Economist Civil Liberties #auspol >> there go civil liberties >> RT " #Australia to tighten anti-terror laws http://shar.es/1aswLs  " [Press TV News] Wednesday:  proposed legislation to go before Parliament. -----------------------------------------------------  COMMENT The Great Barrier Reef move is a sneaky move (is this the Slippery Government?). Appears the government may be aiming to serve the needs of corporations instead of protection of the environment. Anti-terror legislation interests me in terms of the threat to overall civil liberties.  Not big on any legislation that widens the powers of government or government agencies.

USA: It's On Us | VAWA (1994) + MVRA

U.S.A. USA - VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT – MANDATORY VICTIMS RESTITUTION ACT – FEDERAL SEXUAL VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN It's On Us So much comedic material in the US - Celebrities urge young men to protect female friends by making sure they get home safely. >> Now women in US are 'crippled' second-class citizens who are appointed a patriarchal figure to spirit them home? Advert: "It's on us to stop sexual assault" ... "To get in the way before it happens."/Joe Biden + ors feature in WH campaign The Coalface Clemson University #USA Clemson Uni suspended mandatory online course that asked students & faculty about their sex lives & drinking habits following backlash! >> US is INSANE: "Q. supposed to serve the purpose of educating students on gender equality to prevent sexual violence" !! >Q's such as: "How many times have you had sex?" & "With how many different people have you had sex?" raised privacy concerns. - schools across country R experimenting w/ new approaches 2 sexual harass/prevent/ & ed Federal law. VAWA (1994) + MVRA VAWA (1994) encouraged states to adopt mandatory arrest policies that allowed DV cases to move forward without the cooperation of victims. A lucrative DV industry in US - $1.6 billion>> "One of greatest successes of VAWA is emphasis on a coordinated comm/response" >Involves mandatory 'restitution' > this is fine? .. assume it is to State (?) - 2007 $50 billion outstanding Fed. crim debt! >> Nope. It's money to 'make victims whole' .. US is warped. >> Looks like fair few civil liberties issues assoc. w/ the Act. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act … > Reauthorisation of Act signed by Obama March 2013: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text … >> 2009 Review ... but info prob. still good >> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=californialawreview  Out of $50 bill uncollected restitution - $10 bill is govt $$ MVRA /Mand.Vict.Rest.Act - mandate that judges order FULL restitution irrespective of MEANS ...[blood out of stone?] COMMENT This struck me as some very interesting information.

OBAMA - Where's the TRANSPARENCY?

Rift grows between Obama, media as press groups blast administration ‘spin’ Published August 13, 2014 July 16, 2014: President Obama talks in the press briefing room at the White House.Reuters While Congress is on recess and President Obama vacations in Martha's Vineyard, a coalition of free press groups is escalating an already-aggressive campaign against the Obama administration for allegedly freezing out the press and cracking down on reporters. The flood of critical letters and petitions and statements from First Amendment groups marks a new level of tension in a relationship that for years has been deteriorating. Though Obama, as a candidate in 2008, was widely seen to enjoy favorable media treatment, his administration now is fielding accusations that it's one of the least transparent in history. Society of Professional Journalists President David Cuillier, in a statement earlier this week, blasted the administration for what he called "excessive message management and preventing journalists from getting information on behalf of citizens." SPJ is among the groups that's been leading the charge on the issue. Last month, more than three dozen groups, including SPJ, wrote to the White House about what they described as growing censorship throughout federal agencies. [...] ... vowed greater transparency going forward and pointed to several steps the administration has taken: like processing more "freedom of information" requests, declassifying records and releasing information on White House visitors. "Typical spin and response through non-response," Cuillier shot back. He said he hopes the administration is "sincere" about being more open, "but we want action. We are tired of words and evasion." Media groups are gearing up for another confrontation on Thursday, when they plan to present a petition with 100,000 signatures -- backed by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and others -- to the Justice Department. It calls for the administration to halt legal action against New York Times reporter James Risen, who detailed a botched CIA effort during the Clinton administration to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Risen's reporting is at the center of criminal charges against former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling. Federal prosecutors want to force Risen to testify about his sources at Sterling's trial, and the Supreme Court recently refused to get involved in the case. Risen argued he has a right to protect his sources' identity, either under the Constitution or rules governing criminal trials. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., earlier rejected Risen's bid to avoid being forced to testify. At the same time federal prosecutors have fought Risen in court, Attorney General Eric Holder has suggested that the government would not seek to put Risen in jail should he refuse to testify as ordered. But journalist groups want assurances. Risen also is expected to speak during a press conference at the National Press Club on Thursday afternoon. The case follows tension last year surrounding the Justice Department's snooping on Fox News' reporter James Rosen's phone records and emails, and its seizure of AP phone records in the course of leak investigations. The controversy over those actions led to some reforms at the Justice Department. [...] EXTRACT ONLY  - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/13/rift-grows-between-obama-media-as-press-groups-blast-administration-spin/

Hard to believe there's any tension b/w press and government when the mainstream press seems to always carry whatever the official government/corporate line may be (eg Ukraine reporting).

GAZA - Israel Cracks Down on People Speaking Against Gaza Offensive

HEY, WHERE'S THAT 'WESTERN' DEMOCRACY?

US PASSING SNEAKY CYBER SECURITY LAWS TO GIVE NSA MORE POWER ... & NSA STAFF GO PRIVATE

Ex-NSA chief defends his profitable cyber-security business Published time: August 06, 2014 10:05 Edited time: August 06, 2014 12:43 As the marriage between surveillance and non-governmental cyber-security firms comes under the spotlight, former NSA chief Keith Alexander fends off criticism of his new lucrative business, which he claims will revolutionize cyber-security. Alexander, who recently announced work on a number of “game-changing” patents to propel cyber security forward, sees nothing improper in the practice, as he revealed in a Tuesday interview with the AP. The former NSA head also stands to answer why he failed to share some of his groundbreaking ideas in his time as a government employee. But for Alexander, this seems to be a straightforward pursuit of doing business and making a living. ... The business was rumored to be bringing him a cool $1 million a month, but Alexander has brushed off the figure as inflated. Explaining further why IronNet Cybersecurity is different to how the government uses information, Alexander said that the NSA only had authority to defend secret government networks, whereas his work will be focused on the private sector. The tools and technical reach are at this point unknown, but "If it actually works, this will be worth a lot," he said of his new “behavioral model,” which purports to use sophisticated techniques to catch unconventional hackers. Critics see a number of issues with Alexander’s new venture, IronNet Cybersecurity. Apart from the generally disliked idea of government officials cashing in on sensitive information learned and tools retained from public service, people worry that any type of access to sensitive information by private firms using high-tech tools is not good. Only recently there was a private sector initiative to pool top officials from eight US government agencies to create a council that would defend the banking industry from cyber-attacks. Indeed, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIMFA), the Wall Street group that proposed the council, has retained Alexander’s services. That agreement and others have raised concerns among those who’ve said Alexander may be in the business of disclosing state secrets for any company with a budget big enough to afford his services.  [Conflict of interests? - May have moved on from public service, but does it form a 'conflict of interest' type of problem from mixing it up in the private sector?] Last month, The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted overwhelmingly to approve the new controversial cyber security bill – the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which SIMFA endorses. Privacy advocates are naturally opposed to the legislation, which lawmakers have been trying to push through for years. They believe that codifying a program to share digital data between the government and private sector would open the private sector up to sensitive information pertaining to millions of Americans. One scornful comment illustrating this came from the World Socialist Website’s Thomas Gaist, who says that “CISA clears the way for virtually unrestrained information sharing between the US government and corporations.” The criticism is not unique to rights groups – government officials occasionally also voice concern. ... Although Alexander’s move into private business has caused concern in some circles, he is traveling an already paved road, being the latest in a line of government, intelligence and security officials who go on to private sector work after an illustrious government career. Some examples include the first secretary for homeland security, Tom Ridge – he now has his own firm; the second homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, also has one; just as the NSA’s previous director, Michael Hayden, who now works with Chertoff. ... http://rt.com/usa/178328-nsa-alexander-cyber-security/

The thing that struck me most in this article is the cyber security bill was voted for approval by the 'Senate Select Committee on Intelligence'.

As Thomas Gaist says, the Cyber Security Information Sharing Act (CSIS) exposes the public to 'unrestrained informatin sharing between the US government and corporations'.  That's creepy.

New to looking at politics and unfamiliar with US politics, but I believe the next step is back to the House of Representatives and to Senate, before a finally rubber stamping by Obama and bringing the proposed legislation into being as law.

...........................................................................

Discussion Draft of CSIS proposed Bill - here.

Wikipedia - CSIS proposed Bill - here.

The Guardian - says Senate giving more powers to NSA in secret - here.

Wikipedia on, former NSA head, Keith Alexander - here.  Military background (now retired).  Introduced the 'collect it all' approach:

believed by Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian to be the model for the comprehensive world-wide mass archiving of communications which NSA had become engaged in by 2013.

Note also:  'stockpiling of zero-days'. Not really sure what this means specifically, but it relates to exploiting unpatched (and unknown) software vulnerabilities ... for spying.

Wired reported:

“In almost all instances, for widely used code, it is in the national interest to eliminate software vulnerabilities rather than to use them for US intelligence collection,” the report reads. “Eliminating the vulnerabilities–’patching’ them–strengthens the security of U.S. Government, critical infrastructure, and other computer systems.”

Obama’s response to his advisers’ review, however, added a major loophole, allowing any zero-day vulnerabilities to be exploited if they have a “clear national security or law enforcement” application.

.. read the article - here - if interested.

Hey, following the Wired link, found this:

This, of course, gives the government wide latitude to remain silent on critical flaws like the recent Heartbleed vulnerability if the NSA, FBI, or other government agencies can justify their exploitation.

A so-called zero-day vulnerability is one that’s unknown to the software vendor and for which no patch therefore exists. The U.S. has long wielded zero-day exploits for espionage and sabotage purposes, but has never publicly stated its policy on their use. Stuxnet, a digital weapon used by the U.S. and Israel to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment program, used five zero-day exploits to spread.

The stuff about US and Israel hacking(?) Iran is pretty interesting.  Why doesn't Iran hack right back?

Anyway, I'm not sure what the fuss is about because it stands to reason that they'd use ANYTHING they can to their advantage.  Why is this surprising?