Thread: Privacy Alert! Big Brother is watching and listening, UPDATED

NSA Even Spied on Google Maps Searches, Documents Suggest

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/11/xkeyscore_program_may_have_allowed_nsa_to_spy_on_g oogle_maps_searches.html

By Ryan Gallagher
|
Posted Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 3:46 PM








9

Even Google Maps searches might not be safe from the NSA.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

With its PRISM Internet surveillance program, the National Security Agency can reportedly monitor targets’ emails and do live surveillance of Google searches and other data. Now, the latest batch of revealed secret documents suggests the agency may have the ability to spy on Google Maps use, too.

In recent days, Brazilian newspaper O Globo has been publishing details about the NSA’s monitoring of email and phone call metadata across Latin America. O Globo, working in partnership with the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, has been revealing information gleaned from secret NSA documents disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The same trove of documents has been the source of a series of explosive scoops that have put the spotlight on the extent of the NSA’s ability to monitor Internet and phone communications in the United States and internationally.

Over the weekend, O Globo published a handful of new top-secret NSA PowerPoint slides. One of the slides disclosed the existence of an NSA program called “XKEYSCORE,” which appears to involve the mass storage of international Internet metadata—including information about emails, phone calls, log-ins, and other user activity—that can later be mined, or “queried,” by an NSA analyst from a computer.

One of the PowerPoint slides published by O Globo
Screengrab via O Globo.

Notably, another of the XKEYSCORE slides suggests that the NSA can monitor a person’s Google Maps activity—and use this as a basis to follow up any activity deemed suspicious with further investigation. The slide notes: “My target uses Google maps to scope target locations—can I use this information to determine his email address? What about the Web searches—do any look suspicious?” It adds: “XKEYSCORE extracts and databases these events, including all web-based searches, which can be retrospectively queried.”

It’s unclear how up to date the XKEYSCORE PowerPoints are and whether this program is still active. Either way, the slides are highly revealing. It is possible that they date from pre-2011, before Google made the decision to give all users the ability to encrypt Google Maps sessions using the SSL protocol. Without SSL encryption turned on, which shows in Internet browsers as HTTPS unlike unencrypted HTTP, the information you are sending over the Internet can be intercepted easily by anyone who has access to the data as it is being communicated over a network.

It seems likely that prior to Google adopting SSL for its maps sessions, the NSA was taking advantage of this by mining data about users’ Google activity directly from U.S. and international networks. Information published by the Guardianlast month showed that the NSA appears to be collecting billions of what it calls “digital network intelligence” records from Internet infrastructure across the world. Separately, the Associated Press recently reported that the agency is operating a large surveillance program that “snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet’s backbone.”

Although Google Maps sessions are now automatically encrypted, which may have stifled the NSA’s snooping somewhat, it is also possible that the agency can still get access to Google Maps data by demanding that the company turn it over as part of orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act. In addition, not all Google searches are encrypted—unless you are logged in to a Google account or direct your browser to https://encrypted.google.com—meaning that the NSA is still likely collecting huge troves of users’ searches by siphoning data off of networks it is tapping in to.

I asked Google whether it was able to hand over Google Maps sessions in real-time under a FISA order, but the company said it could not comment. "At some point we may expand our transparency report to cover this topic in more depth, but until then I'm not able to provide additional information for you," spokesman Chris Gaither told me. I also asked Gaither why the Google does not automatically encrypt all of its searches in order to thwart spies mining the data directly off of networks. He said that Google had “worked hard over the past few years to increase our services’ use of SSL encryption” and was “committed to adding more support for SSL.”

But you don’t have to wait on Google to take action. If you are concerned about the NSA snooping on searches and maps sessions, there are a range of tools available to browse the Internet more securely. You can use Tor browser or a Virtual Private Network to conceal your IP address, both of which can help anonymize your Internet sessions. Alternatively, you can switch to using privacy friendly search engines like Ixquick and DuckDuckGo, which are committed to not storing data about users’ searches and have enjoyed a boom in popularity in recent weeks following the revelations about the scope of the NSA’s surveillance programs.

Even FISA Court Judge Says It’s a Kangaroo Court

Posted on July 9, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
A Real Court Needs to Hear Both Sides

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...roo-court.html


We’ve noted that there is no real oversight by the courts or Congress on the NSA’s spying programs.
The New York Times reports that the court overseeing the government’s spying programs only hears one side of the case:

Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case — the government — and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals, but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court’s history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA court.

This is not what real courts do.
As the Times reports:

Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said he was troubled by the idea that the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government, forgoing the adversarial system that is a staple of the American justice system. “That whole notion is missing in this process,” he said.

A retired Federal judge – now a professor at Harvard Law School – has slammed the FISA court:

As a former [federal] judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced.
Two reasons: One … The Fourth Amendment frameworks have been substantially diluted in the ordinary police case. One can only imagine what the dilution is in a national security setting. Two, the people who make it on the FISA court, who are appointed to the FISA court, are not judges like me. Enough said.
***
It’s an anointment process. It’s not a selection process. But you know, it’s not boat rockers. So you have a [federal] bench which is way more conservative than before. This is a subset of that. And it’s a subset of that who are operating under privacy, confidentiality, and national security. To suggest that there is meaningful review it seems to me is an illusion.
***
I’m very troubled by that [secret court, especially given that national security protections exist within the civilian court system]. When you get cases in court, in regular civilian court that have national security issues that have classified information, we developed a process whereby the parties would develop security clearances and it could be presented to the court without it being disclosed to anyone else. It is not entirely clear to me why a civilian court with those protections that is otherwise transparent couldn’t do the job. That’s the way we did it before. Then we moved to this national security court. The notion that we have to have a conversation about major incursions on civil liberties and that we have step back and say we don’t really know, we haven’t seen the standards, we haven’t seen the opinions is extraordinary troubling in a democracy.

[Indeed, it is well-documented that our traditional federal courts can meet the challenges posed by highly-sensitive and classified national security issues.]
TechNewsWorld reports:

“I would not go so far as to say that the FISA court is acting unconstitutionally, but the absence of any review by the Supreme Court, combined with the secrecy and non-adversary process, pushes it into a constitutional gray area,” Evan Lee, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law [an expert on federal courts], told TechNewsWorld.
***
The court’s issuing of rulings in secret “does not in and of itself violate the Constitution,” remarked Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel for The Constitution Project. “However, the practice of having secret interpretations of the law — especially if these interpretations are as extensive as reported — undermines the principles of checks and balances upon which our constitutional government is founded.”
Although the court’s opinions can be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — and technically, to the Supreme Court — “in general, it is unclear who would ever have the knowledge of the opinions and the legal standing to appeal,” Franklin said. “Thus, there are not adequate checks and balances.”

And a 3-year FISA judge himself said today that the court doesn’t work:

A former federal judge who served on a secret court overseeing the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programs said Tuesday that the panel is independent but its oversight is flawed because of the lack of legal adversaries inside the system able to confront the government’s actions.
“Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case,” said James Robertson, a former federal district judge based in Washington who served on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for 3 years between 2002 and 2005.
***
Robertson questioned whether the secret FISA court should provide legal approval for the surveillance programs, saying the court “has turned into something like an administrative agency.”
***
Robertson … warned that Congress’ 2008 reform of the FISA system expanded the government’s authority by forcing the court to approve entire surveillance systems, not just surveillance warrants, as it previously handled. Robertson said the system needed the presence of a legal adversary to act as a check on the government’s programs.
“This process needs an adversary,” Robertson said…

We asked Hofstra constitutional law professor Eric Freedman for his opinion on the FISA court, and he told us:

The only news here is that this monstrosity is finally getting the public attention it deserves.

uly 9, 2013 | By Nico Perrino and Will Creeley Whether High School or College, Students’ Speech Rights Are Being Threatened Online

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/0...atened-onlin-0



The following is a guest post by Will Creeley and Nico Perrino of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Creeley is FIRE's Director of Legal and Public Advocacy and Perrino is the Communications & Media Relations Coordinator.
Attention, high school and college students: Your online speech is not nearly as private as you think. And no, we're not talking about the National Security Agency. The threat to student speech comes from a far more local and immediate source: the prying eyes of school administrators apparently unaware of their students' rights. All too often, students face unwarranted punishment for online communications.
Examples abound.
Just this past May at Cicero-North Syracuse High School in upstate New York, senior Pat Brown was suspended for three days for creating a Twitter hashtag about a school budget controversy. Brown created the "#shitCNSshouldcut" hashtag to suggest ways his school could save money after voters rejected a $144.7 million budget plan, joking that laying off the school's principal or getting rid of the "anime club" might help alleviate budget strains. Unfortunately, the principal wasn't amused; CNN and The Huffington Post reported that Brown was accused of "harassing the principal" and "inciting a social media riot that disrupted the learning environment."
Also this past May, Heights High School (Wichita, Kansas) senior class president Wesley Teague was suspended and barred from attending graduation after posting a tweet that the school deemed offensive to HSS's student athletes. Teague wrote that "‘Heights U' is equivalent to WSU's football team," referring to the school's athletic program and nearby Wichita State University, which eliminated its football program in 1986. Teague was scheduled to give the commencement speech at graduation, but the school sent Teague and his parents a letter stating that Teague's initial tweet and a few subsequent tweets "acted to incite a disturbance" within school and "aggressively [disrespected] many athletes."
Depressingly, colleges aren't much better at respecting student speech rights online.
Last December, a student at Central Lakes College in Brainerd, Minnesota was expelled a semester before his graduation for comments he posted on his private Facebook page. Craig Keefe, who was studying to become a registered nurse, said he wasn't told what was wrong with his Facebook posts or how they violated the college's policies. In a meeting with school officials, Keefe was asked about one of his "disturbing" Facebook posts that used the phrase "stupid bitch" and another that complained about there "not being enough whiskey for anger management." A few days later he received a letter informing him of his expulsion for "behavior unbecoming of the profession and transgression of professional boundaries." Keefe has since filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his due process and free speech rights.
And last October, Montclair State University in New Jersey issued a no-contact order to graduate student Joseph Aziz in response to unflattering comments about another student he posted to a YouTube video that September. The no-contact order included a gag prohibiting him from posting "any social media regarding" the other student. After Aziz later posted comments about the matter to a private Facebook group, he was charged with harassment and disruptive conduct and suspended for the spring semester. Happily, the sanctions were rescinded after our organization, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), wrote to the university pointing out that the gag order and punishment violated Aziz's First Amendment rights.
These examples make all too clear that administrators think that student expression loses First Amendment protections once it's available online. Thankfully, that's not the case; speech doesn't lose protection just because it's posted on the Internet.
Of course, the First Amendment only applies to government actors—in this context, public high schools and universities. (Private institutions aren't covered by the First Amendment, but some courts have found them to be contractually bound by the promises made to students in handbooks, codes of conduct, and other materials. Often, those promises include free speech.)
There's a difference between the speech rights afforded to public high school and public college students, too. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that public college students enjoy full First Amendment rights. In contrast, the Court has held that public high school administrators may regulate student speech that substantially disrupts school activities; that is "offensively lewd and indecent"; that the public would think bears the school's imprimatur; and that arguably promotes illegal drug use.
So the bottom line is that public college students are just as free as the rest of us to exercise their First Amendment right to express themselves, whether online or off. And even given the more limited speech rights possessed by public high school students, high school administrators can't punish student speech simply because it's posted on Twitter or Facebook. Indeed, recent federal court decisions have suggested sharp limits on administrators' ability to punish high school and grade school students for online speech posted by students outside of school grounds
It's important for students, administrators, and courts alike to recognize that technological advances need not come at the expense of expressive rights. Just because student speech is newly visible and accessible when posted online doesn't mean that administrators have increased power to police and punish it.

Defiant Yahoo clashes with FISA court, demands government unseals secret records

http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-fisa-classified-ruling-962/

Get short URL
Published time: July 11, 2013 17:17





Trends
NSA leaks Tags
Court, Intelligence, Internet, Security, Social networks, USA

A request made by Internet giant Yahoo to a secretive federal court could allow the Silicon Valley company to finally detail a past attempt to fend off a surveillance program it insisted was unconstitutional.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court told Yahoo in 2007 that it had to provide the government with data on the Internet activity of users without waiting for a signed warrant, a request that the company ignored and then unsuccessfully tried to refute. Despite claims that providing the court with that data would violate the constitutionally-protected privacy of its users, though, a panel of judges assigned under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, told Yahoo they would be required to comply or else they would be in violation of the law.
Only this year, however, was Yahoo allowed to acknowledge the government’s request, and even still they are barred from discussing details of their argument, which under FISA rules are treated as highly confidential. That could all change, however, if a FISA court panel agrees with Yahoo’s request to go public with their legal filings five years after the fact.
News of Yahoo’s renewed request comes courtesy of the San Jose Mercury News, who broke the story early Thursday. Mercury reporter Brandon Bailey called Yahoo’s request “a rare legal move” and said, if revealed, the public will once and for all see what efforts the Internet giant took to unsuccessfully fight back the court’s attempt to persuade tech companies into cooperating with a government data-gathering effort that is all the more controversial five years later.
Although its long been known that at least one major Internet company fought against the FISA ruling, Yahoo was only allowed to acknowledge their role last month, an action that came just days after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden allowed The Guardian newspaper to publish documents exposing the government’s vast surveillance efforts. One of those files, a NSA-authorized slideshow, showed how Yahoo, Google, AOL and other Internet giants were compelled under federal law to let the government go through user records without a warrant being signed using a program called PRISM.
That disclosure attributed to Snowden and others have sparked international outrage directed at Uncle Sam and the NSA, and has also rekindled discussions about not just government surveillance but also the privacy of millions of Americans. Yahoo thinks that by being able to publish its own arguments in the little-discussed FISA battle that they’d be able to show they "objected strenuously" to the government’s demands, Bailey wrote.
“If Yahoo succeeds in unsealing some of the court files, legal experts say, it would be a historic development and an important step toward illuminating the arguments behind the controversial Internet surveillance program known as PRISM,” wrote Bailey.
Indeed, attorneys with both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are already lauding Yahoo’s request.
"This is the first time we've seen one of these companies making this broad an argument in favor of transparency in the FISA court," ACLU attorney Alex Abdo told Mercury News.
Mark Rumold, an attorney who has worked on surveillance court issues for the EFF, added that Yahoo’s arguments, while currently under seal, couldn’t have found a more powerful opponent in the FISA court.
"When you get presented with an order you don't think is constitutional and the government says, 'We have this secret court opinion that it is constitutional,' then you are pretty much stuck," Rumold said.
Also last month Yahoo announced that the federal government made upwards of 13,000 requests for user data during the last six months, although FISA rules prohibit them from detailing those demands any further, much to the chagrin of Yahoo.

“Like all companies, Yahoo! cannot lawfully break out FISA request numbers at this time because those numbers are classified; however, we strongly urge the federal government to reconsider its stance on this issue,” the company said in a statement at the time.
Since Snowden began disclosing documents to the media, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft have all asked the FISA court to reexamine their opinion. According to the Washington Post, Google argued in their latest FISA paperwork that “the company has a constitutional right to speak about information it’s forced to give the government.”
Snowden is currently believed to be in stuck in a Moscow airport hoping to eventually get asylum from one of the 20-plus countries he’s requested assistance from. He is facing charges in the United States under the Espionage Act.

McAfee anti-virus company caught in malicious defamation of innocent websites; will McAfee also promote racism against Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela? Friday, July 12, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...) Tags: McAfee, Site Advisor, false information

(NaturalNews) The McAfee anti-virus and security company is currently engaged in a malicious, slanderous defamation campaign against Natural News. Although the Natural News website contains no malicious code whatsoever (and has passed numerous security scans with a clean bill of health), it is being flagged by McAfee as a "malicious" website that "poses especially hazardous risks to a user's computer security." (See screen shots below.)

The McAfee Site Advisor website claims, about NaturalNews.com, "We tested it and found security risks. Beware."

These claims by McAfee are utterly false and highly defamatory. By spreading this information through its downloadable browser tools, McAfee is severely harming the reputation and web traffic of Natural News while misleading potentially millions of users about a website that they find to be highly informative, reputable and completely free of security risks.

We have already begun to consult with our attorneys concerning possible legal against McAfee for this vicious and harmful defamation of one of the internet's most highly-trafficked websites (Natural News). In the mean time, we need your help to help restore the Natural News reputation. (It's simple, see below...)

Here's a screen shot of the false, defamatory warning that McAfee displays to users who attempt to visit NaturalNews.com:



How the McAfee slander machine works

McAfee's "web reputation" technology is based on a user rating system called "Site Advisor." You can see the NaturalNews.com false red flag rating at:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/naturalnews.com

Site Advisor's scores are derived from users who sign up to be "site reviewers." The ratings from these "site reviewers" are then TRUSTED by McAfee to be accurate, regardless of whether they are accurate or not.

This faulty reputation structure allows gangs of online paid trolls (so-called "anti-P.R. companies") to game the system and coordinate a campaign of submitting negative ratings for any targeted website (such as Natural News).

McAfee then multiplies the effects of this trolling campaign by claiming such troll ratings to be accurate and true, thereby flagging completely innocent sites as being "malicious" or containing "security risks" when, in reality, it has been nothing more than the subject of a carefully planned and orchestrated troll assault that uses the McAfee Site Advisor system.

McAfee, in other words, willfully allows its technology to be used by oppressive hate speech groups to censor quality website content by falsely flagging it as "malicious."

Notice in the screen shot below how NaturalNews.com is flagged with a "High Risk" (RED) on its "web reputation" score (upper left) as well as a "Threat Detail" on the upper right, which falsely describes NaturalNews.com as a "malicious site."



Such spreading of false and defamatory information by McAfee is unacceptable and highly unethical. Because of its structure, McAfee's technology is essentially a "slander engine" that spreads false and defamatory information about innocent websites. Natural News is already engaged in a conversation with our legal team concerning possible legal action we may choose to take against McAfee for falsely spreading defamatory information about Natural News through its Site Advisor tool.

Our website traffic and reputation have both been significantly harmed by McAfee's highly irresponsible actions. We intend to pursue this matter through multiple channels, including legal channels with McAfee's legal team in Plano, Texas.

TAKE ACTION: What you can do to help

In the mean time, you can help restore the reputation of Natural News by becoming a "site reviewer" and posting a positive rating for Natural News.com.

With your help, your positive postings will out-weight the negative troll "hate speech" postings which are designed to censor NaturalNews.com.

Here's how to post a positive rating for NaturalNews.com:

Step 1) Register to be a McAfee Site Advisor
Simply sign up at:

http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/r...gister&agree=1

Step 2) Post a "safe" rating for NaturalNews.com

After you complete your Site Advisor sign-up, simply visit:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/analysis/recommendchanges/?url=naturalnews...

Then CLICK "Request A Review" button.

Select "SAFE" as the rating.

Select "HEALTH" as the category.

Write any comments you wish.

Click SUBMIT.

Thank you for your help in fighting against corporate censorship of quality websites. You may also want to re-think your use of McAfee software products, as they are faulty and engaged in spreading false and defamatory information about quality websites.

Would McAfee also have banned Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other civil rights leaders?

How can McAfee's software be trusted when it is, itself, engaged in spreading false and defamatory lies about websites that certain groups target with smear campaigns?

If McAfee (and the internet) had existed in the 1960's, it would have placed "malicious" warnings on websites like MartinLutherKing.com, or the website of Rosa Parks. Anyone who stood up against a system of injustice and spoke an unpopular truth would have been flagged by McAfee's "Site Advisor" technology.

And this brings up an important question: Does McAfee support racism as long as it's popular? Does the company endorse hate speech against blacks, or black-run websites, if enough racist KKK members flag those sites as "malicious?"

Because that's how McAfee's engine works right now. It is a multiplier of hate speech, censorship and intimidation. It is a scourge on the internet and demands to be radically re-tooled or eliminated altogether.

I will keep you posted on what happens with McAfee and whether they choose to take action to stop their technology from being a "slander engine" that maligns innocent websites like Natural News.

Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more...

Obama Tries To Sweet Talk Russian President Vladimir Putin On Returning Edward Snowden To The U.S

Posted on 12 July, 2013 by Amy



via Hill

President Obama plans to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin to return Edward Snowden to the U.S. during a phone conversation Friday afternoon, amid news that the intelligence leaker was requesting temporary asylum in the country.”I’m sure that will be discussed,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.”I’m sure President Putin is aware of our views about Mr. Snowden,” he added. “And I know that issue has been discussed at a variety of levels between our two governments.”

Carney also blasted Russian authorities for “providing a propaganda platform” after Snowden was allowed to consult with representatives from human rights organizations in a highly publicized meeting at the Moscow airport on Friday.

“Providing a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden runs counter to the Russian government’s previous declarations of Russia’s neutrality and … that they have no control over his presence in the airport,” Carney said. “It’s also incompatible with Russian assurances that they do not want Mr. Snowden to further damage U.S. interests.”

The press secretary added that the participation of groups like Human Rights Watch should not cloud the fact that Snowden had been charged with multiple felonies.

“Those groups do important work, but Mr. Snowden is not a human rights activist or dissident,” Carney said.

“On the issue of human rights organizations in Russia meeting with Mr. Snowden, I think we would urge the Russian government to afford human rights organizations the ability to do their work in Russia, throughout Russia. Not just at the Moscow transit lounge,” Carney added, in a swipe at Russian human rights protections.

In a statement Friday afternoon, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Human Rights Program Director Jamil Dakwar accused the administration of having “improperly interfered” with Snowden’s asylum rights.

The former defense contractor has been stranded for three weeks at the Moscow airport, unable to proceed either to Russia or another destination after the United States revoked his passport. He arrived after fleeing Hong Kong when the United States filed an extradition request to bring him back to face charges surrounding his admitted leak of details of top-secret National Security Agency surveillance programs.

“Snowden’s claims for asylum deserve fair consideration, and U.S. actions to secure his extradition must take place within an acceptable legal framework protecting his right to seek asylum,” Dakwar said. “The ACLU has long taken the position that people who provide information to the press in the public interest should not be prosecutable under espionage laws.”

In a statement released Friday by WikiLeaks, Snowden said he was requesting the temporary asylum so he could leave the airport, and that he planned to proceed on to the Latin American countries that had offered him permanent asylum.

“I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted,” Snowden said. “I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.”

Putin has said Snowden could only remain in the country if he stopped the release of further revelations that could harm the United States.

“If he wants to stay, one condition: He must cease his work aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners,” Putin said on July 1.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Interfax news that the Russian government did not yet have official confirmation of Snowden’s appeal for asylum, but that the previous conditions articulated by the Russian president would apply.

Carney said that the “issue should not do harm to the relations between the Russians and the United States.”

“There is absolute legal justification for him to be expelled, for him to returned to the United States,” the White House spokesman said.

Carney also reiterated that American officials had reached out to their counterparts in Russia and the Latin American countries where Snowden has been offered asylum, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador.

“We have communicated with nations around the world that Mr. Snowden should be returned to the United States,” Carney said.

Carney added that Obama and administration officials had stressed their frustration to Chinese leaders during trade talks this week over Hong Kong officials allowing Snowden to leave for Moscow.

“We’ve been very clear about our disappointment with the way that was handled,” he said.

Read more: thehill


http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/07/1...en-to-the-u-s/

James Clapper Lies to Congress; Congress Says ‘That’s Cool’

July 12, 2013 by Ben Bullard

Back in March, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied when asked by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) whether the National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting “any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans” by saying, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not willingly.”
That was before the NSA PRISM scandal broke and exposed the obvious lie.
Clapper spent the next couple of months getting beat up by mostly-conservative online media before issuing a ridiculous apology last week in which he claimed, when answering Wyden, he “simply didn’t think of” the Patriot Act and its broad authorizations (and expansions upon its original powers) that either permit or forgive almost any warrantless spying the Federal government undertakes.
But as the scandal has turned into a circus, it appears the threat of perjury some GOP Congressmen had rhetorically threatened has fallen by the wayside. Wyden and other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee appear to have taken the side of Big Brother in vilifying leaker Edward Snowden, while closing ranks in giving both Clapper and the NSA a pass.
Ben Shapiro of Breitbart wrote Friday:

Both parties in Congress have declined to do anything about Clapper’s possible perjury. Sen. Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) did not call for his removal; Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) have all declined to comment. “This administration views [NSA leaker Edward] Snowden as the problem, not Gen. Clapper,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Spying on millions of Americans and lying about it to Congressional overseers? Hey, we’re all friends. Go home; relax.
Allegedly lying to Congress about getting an extra spring in your step while you played a silly children’s game with a bat and ball? Indictment.


http://personalliberty.com/2013/07/1...ys-thats-cool/

Obama’s image crumbles in Europe as truth about NSA spying comes to light

NaturalNews Network
NaturalNews.com
July 11th, 2013
Reader Views: 379
Comments (30)

By J. D. Heyes

When elected to his first term, President Obama was as popular in Europe as he was in the United States – a popularity that stretched into the 2012 election cycle. European leaders extended their good will after Obama won reelection:
“Your re-election is a clear choice in favor of an America that is open, unified, completely engaged in the international scene and conscious of the challenges facing our planet: peace, the economy and the environment.” – French President Francois Hollande
“One of the first things I want to talk to Barack about is how we must do more to try and solve this crisis (in Syria). Above all, congratulations to Barack. I’ve enjoyed working with him, I think he’s a very successful U.S. president and I look forward to working with him in the future.” — British Prime Minister David Cameron
“The bond between Europe and North America, based upon the shared values on which our alliance was founded over 60 years ago, remains as strong, and as important to the preservation of Euro-Atlantic peace and security, as ever. President Obama has demonstrated outstanding leadership in maintaining this vital bond.” — NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
“The trust that the American people wanted to renew in you will allow the international community, Europe and Italy to benefit from your leadership without interruptions. … With your confirmation at the White House, Italy knows it can count on a strong and united America.” — Italian Premier Mario Monti
‘The world’s fantasies about Barack Obama are crumbling’
That was then. Now, in the wake of revelations that the National Security Agency, under Obama’s guidance, has been conducting massive electronic surveillance of all of Europe – nations which are supposed to be America’s allies – the sentiment has changed dramatically.
Now, Obama is not seen as someone who can build bridges and lead the free world. He is seen as a liar, a charlatan and a power-mad tyrant who abuses his own citizens and treats allies like enemies.
“It has taken a long time, but the world’s fantasies about Barack Obama are finally crumbling. In Europe, once the headquarters of the global cult of Obama, the disillusionment is particularly bitter. Monday’s newspapers were full of savage quotes about the perfidy of the Obama-led U.S.,” writes Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times.
Hollande, who sang Obama’s praises following the November election, has now angrily denounced the U.S. spying and has demanded it come to an end. “Le Monde, Mr. Hollande’s home-town newspaper, has even suggested that the EU should consider giving political asylum to Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower,” Rachmann noted.
German magazine Der Speigel incorrectly blamed the agency itself, writing that “the NSA’s totalitarian ambition … affects us all … A constitutional state cannot allow it. None of us can allow it.” I get why the magazine is angry with the NSA, but the NSA does not operate in a vacuum; the spying conducted by the agency was permitted by congressional oversight committees in the House and Senate and, more importantly, ordered and approved by Obama, all under our “constitutional” system. So the spying buck stops with him.
‘It was bound to happen’
Others are simply disillusioned. “Obama talks like the president of the American Civil Liberties Union but he acts like Dick Cheney,” Hakan Altinay, a Turkish academic, told Rachmann recently.
But really, the disillusionment was bound to happen. Obama – especially in Europe – was elevated to the status of a demigod when he was first elected in 2008. Some 200,000 Berliners turned out to hear him speak shortly before he won his first term. Obama-mania blossomed into full-blown hero worship. It was historic.
And unrealistic.
But then, as in 2012, nobody wanted to listen to anyone who tried to bring the world’s expectations back down to a manageable level. No one wanted to believe that a man who spoke of such lofty goals as unity, brotherhood and “change” with such conviction could, in fact, ever reveal himself to be just another U.S. politician.
They see now, through the actions of the NSA, that Barack Obama is no demigod. He is no hero. He is no savior. And the only “change” he has brought about for Europeans is a shift in their attitudes about him.
It was bound to happen.

Sources:
http://www.ft.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by NaturalNews Network of NaturalNews.com.

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.

Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/obama...o-light_072013

Panicked Obama Dials Putin After Snowden Appearance

Sarah Lazare
Common Dreams
July 12th, 2013
Reader Views: 741
Comments (16)

The White House spiraled into panic mode late Friday after Edward Snowden’s earlier appearance in Russia, with President Obama moving forward with plans to personally call Vladimir Putin to urge the Russian president to deny Snowden asylum.

Snowden went public earlier Friday to announce his intention to apply for temporary stay in Russia until he is able to arrange safe travel to Latin America. The whistleblower forcefully defended his moral choice to expose the vast US spying dragnet, declaring “I did the right thing.”

He was flanked by international human rights and civil liberties campaigners, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others.

Yet, White House press secretary Jay Carney termed the meeting with renowned human rights groups a “propaganda platform” for Snowden and denounced the Russian government for allowing it to take place, declaring it a move against ‘US interests.’

Furthermore, Matt Williams of the Guardian reports that the US ambassador to Russia even tried to use Human Rights Watch as a tool to send the threatening message to Snowden that, in the eyes of the US government, he is no whistleblower.

The threats and public statements coming from the White House insinuate that those who cross US power should not have access to human rights campaigners.

Yet, human rights groups declare Snowden has every right to human rights protections. Sergei Nikitin, head of Amnesty International’s Moscow office, declared at the Friday meeting with Snowden:

We will continue to pressure governments to ensure his rights are respected – this includes the unassailable right to claim asylum wherever he may choose. What he has disclosed is patently in the public interest and as a whistleblower his actions were justified. He has exposed unlawful sweeping surveillance programmes that unquestionably interfere with an individual’s right to privacy.

Human Rights Watch insisted Friday that Snowden has a legitimate claim to asylum that deserves fair treatment:

“Edward Snowden has a serious asylum claim that should be considered fairly by Russia or any other country where he may apply,” said Dinah PoKempner, general counsel at Human Rights Watch. “He should be allowed at least to make that claim and have it heard.”

The efforts to lobby Putin come after the Obama administration made several personal phone calls to Latin American leaders urging them to reject Snowden’s bids for asylum.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

---

Contributed by Sarah Lazare of Common Dreams.


Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/panic...earance_072013