Internet Wiretapping Coming to a Server Near You

Federals want to spy on internet communications “to keep you safe”.  Internet Wiretapping to become common trend as military industrial complex expands power grab.  Not that they don’t do it already!

Charlie Savage

Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations of the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct “peer-to-peer” messaging such as Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The legislation, which the Obama administration plans to submit to Congress next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design.

“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

“We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” said Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI. “We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.”

Keeping up with technology

Investigators have been concerned for years that changing communications technology could damage their ability to conduct surveillance. In recent months, officials from the FBI, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the White House and other agencies have been meeting to develop a proposed solution.

There is not yet agreement on important elements, such as how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations.

But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, such as Research In Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service.

In the United States, phone and broadband networks are already required to have interception capabilities, under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. It aimed to ensure that government surveillance abilities would remain intact during the evolution from a copper-wire phone system to digital networks and cell phones.

Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes — like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers — they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.

Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. While some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them. That can cause big delays, which the new regulations would seek to forestall.

Is Brazil ready for more Socialism?

Note: Former Guerrilla Leader and street fighter Dilma Rousseff is ready to become Brazil’s next president in an election to be held October 3rd. Rousseff, a former head of a revolutionary group during the military coup in the mis 1960’s is back. This time, she sided with the PT political party, the same socialist movement that took current president Luis Inacio Da Silva to power.

The New Independent

The world’s most powerful woman will start coming into her own next weekend. Stocky and forceful at 63, this former leader of the resistance to a Western-backed military dictatorship (which tortured her) is preparing to take her place as President of Brazil.

Brazil's president Da Silva campaigns with Dilma Rousseff.

As head of state, president Dilma Rousseff would outrank Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State: her enormous country of 200 million people is revelling in its new oil wealth. Brazil’s growth rate, rivalling China’s, is one that Europe and Washington can only envy.

Her widely predicted victory in next Sunday’s presidential poll will be greeted with delight by millions. It marks the final demolition of the “national security state”, an arrangement that conservative governments in the US and Europe once regarded as their best artifice for limiting democracy and reform. It maintained a rotten status quo that kept a vast majority in poverty in Latin America while favouring their rich friends.

Ms Rousseff, the daughter of a Bulgarian immigrant to Brazil and his schoolteacher wife, has benefited from being, in effect, the prime minister of the immensely popular President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the former union leader. But, with a record of determination and success (which includes appearing to have conquered lymphatic cancer), this wife, mother and grandmother will be her own woman. The polls say she has built up an unassailable lead – of more than 50 per cent compared with less than 30 per cent – over her nearest rival, an uninspiring man of the centre called Jose Serra. Few doubt that she will be installed in the Alvorada presidential palace in Brasilia in January.

Like President Jose Mujica of Uruguay, Brazil’s neighbour, Ms Rousseff is unashamed of a past as an urban guerrilla which included battling the generals and spending time in jail as a political prisoner. As a little girl growing up in the provincial city of Belo Horizonte, she says she dreamed successively of becoming a ballerina, a firefighter and a trapeze artist. The nuns at her school took her class to the city’s poor area to show them the vast gaps between the middle-class minority and the vast majority of the poor. She remembers that when a young beggar with sad eyes came to her family’s door she tore a currency note in half to share with him, not knowing that half a banknote had no value.

Her father, Pedro, died when she was 14, but by then he had introduced her to the novels of Zola and Dostoevski. After that, she and her siblings had to work hard with their mother to make ends meet. By 16 she was in POLOP (Workers’ Politics), a group outside the traditional Brazilian Communist Party that sought to bring socialism to those who knew little about it.

The generals seized power in 1964 and decreed a reign of terror to defend what they called “national security”. She joined secretive radical groups that saw nothing wrong with taking up arms against an illegitimate military regime. Besides cosseting the rich and crushing trade unions and the underclass, the generals censored the press, forbidding editors from leaving gaps in newspapers to show where news had been suppressed.

Ms Rousseff ended up in the clandestine VAR-Palmares (Palmares Armed Revolutionary Vanguard). In the 1960s and 1970s, members of such organisations seized foreign diplomats for ransom: a US ambassador was swapped for a dozen political prisoners; a German ambassador was exchanged for 40 militants; a Swiss envoy swapped for 70. They also shot foreign torture experts sent to train the generals’ death squads. Though she says she never used weapons, she was eventually rounded up and tortured by the secret police in Brazil’s equivalent to Abu Ghraib, the Tiradentes prison in Sao Paulo. She was given a 25-month sentence for “subversion” and freed after three years. Today she openly confesses to having “wanted to change the world”.

In 1973 she moved to the prosperous southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, where her second husband, Carlos Araujo, a lawyer, was finishing a four-year term as a political prisoner (her first marriage with a young left-winger, Claudio Galeno, had not survived the strains of two people being on the run in different cities). She went back to university, started working for the state government in 1975, and had a daughter, Paula.

In 1986, she was named finance chief of Porto Alegre, the state capital, where her political talents began to blossom. Yet the 1990s were bitter-sweet years for her. In 1993 she was named secretary of energy for the state, and pulled off the coup of vastly increasing power production, ensuring the state was spared the power cuts that plagued the rest of the country.

She had 1,000km of new electric power lines, new dams and thermal power stations built while persuading citizens to switch off the lights whenever they could. Her political star started shining brightly. But in 1994, after 24 years together, she separated from Mr Araujo, though apparently on good terms. At the same time she was torn between academic life and politics, but her attempt to gain a doctorate in social sciences failed in 1998.

In 2000 she threw her lot in with Lula and his Partido dos Trabalhadores, or Workers’ Party which set its sights successfully on combining economic growth with an attack on poverty. The two immediately hit it off and she became his first energy minister in 2003. Two years later he made her his chief of staff and has since backed her as his successor. She has been by his side as Brazil has found vast new offshore oil deposits, aiding a leader whom many in the European and US media were denouncing a decade ago as a extreme left-wing wrecker to pull 24 million Brazilians out of poverty. Lula stood by her in April last year as she was diagnosed with lymphatic cancer, a condition that was declared under control a year ago. Recent reports of financial irregularities among her staff do not seem to have damaged her popularity.

Ms Rousseff is likely to invite President Mujica of Uruguay to her inauguration in the New Year. President Evo Morales of Bolivia, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay – other successful South American leaders who have, like her, weathered merciless campaigns of denigration in the Western media – are also sure to be there. It will be a celebration of political decency – and feminism.

U.S. Government Persecuting Journalists

Russia Today

In its battle against government leaks, the administration of President Obama has launched what many say is a campaign against

Both Bush and Obama pro-secrecy policies could not keep some journalists from obtaining information that incriminates them.

press freedom.

One journalist, who reported things the US government wanted to keep secret, has been given an ultimatum: give up your sources or go to jail.

James Risen is a Pulitzer Prize-winning national security correspondent for the New York Times. In his 2006 book, he wrote about the botched US intelligence operations to halt Iran’s nuclear program. As he is still under prosecutors’ scrutiny, Risen is now advised to avoid interviews on the subject.

“The issue has been litigated before, it went through the courts two years ago,” Eric Lichtblau, New York Times Justice Department correspondent, told RT. “And now the Justice Department, under a new administration, ironically seems to be going the same path.”

Eric Lichtblau, together with his colleague James Risen, has made a number of groundbreaking revelations, including the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants.

He says confidentiality is vital to their work, as people often put their lives at risk to tell what is really going on behind the scenes.

“If, in fact, we have a system where journalists cover only what the government says are not secrets, well journalists lose their independence,” Lichtblau said.

There would probably be no discussions on Guantanamo abuses or the CIA’s secret prisons if not for the leaks, but the clampdown is on.

Of course, there is a line between giving up national security secrets and telling the public what they need to know about their governments’ work. But one or two other cases like Risen’s, and free American investigative journalism may face a real drought in sources.

Obama’s leak plugging has been welcomed most among advocates of secrecy in government affairs, but even they are surprised.

“It came to me as a surprise. The Obama administration came into office pledging maximum openness in the government. While they have take certain steps in that direction, they’ve also done some unexpected decisions regarding leaks,” Gabriel Schoenfeld, author of “Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law”, said.

While some journalists have to fight for their sources, others demand transparency at the White House.

“[There is] too much secrecy in the White house and government and I think the people have the right to know almost everything,” Helen Thomas, a White House correspondent with 50 years’ experience, said.

Meanwhile Obama, with a new law tucked under his arm, positions the US as the watchdog for the freedom of press in the world.

“What this Act does is it sends a strong message from the Unites States government and from the State Department that we are paying attention to how other governments operate when it comes to the press,” President Obama said back in May.

One thing is not clear – will the State Department pay attention to its own backyard as American journalists are being forced to break their word?

North American Union 101

Call it What You Want. If Everything Goes Business as Usual, Mexico, Canada and the United States Will Become One

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

Rome was not built in one day. In order to become the Empire it was, Rome went through years and years of progress until it becamNAUe the structure we know today. Democracy did not appear one morning with the rise of the sun.  The United States was not founded over a summer to become what it is today; it took a civil war to produce independence from Britain, an anti-slavery movement, a period of reconstruction and industrialization and two world wars. Local, National and Global structures of power are created one block at the time. The latest example of a superstructure in its works is the North American Union.

Known also by its NAU abbreviation, this new power structure emulates in many regards the European Union, EU, which came about as an economical organization, which sought to facilitate the trade between countries in the old continent. One thing the two structures have in common is its supranational nature, that is, its authority goes beyond the power of any of its member-partner governments. Just as its European equal, the North American Union and its roots were planted by non-governmental institutions, mainly the Council in Foreign Relations or CFR a branch of a globalist movement that seeks to unify the world under a one-world government. In Europe, the main contributors to the creation of the EU were the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament, all of which represented no government in particular, but which represented the interests of national and regional corporations.
The European Union is today one single market with a common trade and political policy. It introduced a single currency, the euro, adopted by 13 member states. The EU initiated a limited Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters. Another feature the EU and the NAU have in common is that those who are put in power are not elected by the people in every nation member, precisely because when a country is admitted into the EU, that nation ceases to exist. Everything from the security to the economy, to the politics, to the management of welfare and the military is then directed by unelected persons who raise to power once a country’s president or prime minister signs what in North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP. Once the SPP is signed, most laws that previously governed such a country go into retirement, and the newly unelected parliament begins their never-ending governance.

Another similarity between the EU and NAU, is the authorization to let in millions of foreigners who are free to move within the borders of the union to live and work with zero restrictions. The newest push by the United States president and most congressmen to allow between 12 and 30 million illegal immigrants to remain in the United States soil regardless of their violations of immigration laws, is a clear sign, critics say, that there is a path being paved to lure people into coming to North America. The newest bill, which apparently counts with the blessing of George W. Bush, includes a renewable Z VISA, which will permit illegals to remain in the country for 4 years in a row. During that period, illegals will pay around $5,000 in fees and penalties, which will enable them to apply for a Green Card. At some point in the process, the head of the household, the bill says, will have to leave the United States to his country of origin in order to obtain a legal admittance into the US. Although most parts of the bill are kept secret by its writers and most congressmen, it’s been reported that the bill will allow illegals to bring into the US up to eleven relatives after the former obtain their green cards. This will not only make the immigration problem more serious, but also will turn the immigration debate more sour, because the bill does not account for how the country or the work market will cope with the increase in the population this measure will spur.

“The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambitions to the European Union.” So, whom are the ones pushing for the North American Union in the United States? Well, for starters Mr. Robert Pastor, from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who said in the journal of the CFR: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” Then, there is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor who in 1995 said, “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…the precondition for eventual globalization is progressive regionalization.” Last but not least, Mr. David Rockefeller, who said in his memoirs, “…Some believe we are part of a global cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure- one world. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

In March, 2005, president Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Martin and former Mexican president Vicente Fox signed the SPP, which again was written by Robert Pastor and other members of the CFR, who met with its Mexican and Canadian colleagues before the trilateral meeting featuring the three heads of state. The goal in that meeting was to create and establish a North American Community by 2010. Although Robert Pastor maintains the intention of the CFR is not to create anything like to European Union, the truth is that in its early stages the SPP look just like the plan the EU had when it was in its beginnings. First, it was shown as an economical alliance, to facilitate the circulation of goods from country to country and to find common ground on economic and trade policies. But the EU soon turned into a continental body that evolved into political unions. In 2005, after Bush signed the SPP, a proto-parliament called the North American Competitiveness Council was created, a prototype for what in Europe is today the European Parliament. The highlight of this section is that in the event a severe state of emergency hits the region, the SPP has plans for a continuity of government, which many call a shadow government.

The NAFTA Highways
But in order for a North American block to prosper, there is more that needs to happen. In order to open the borders, immigration laws need to change. A new transportation system needs to be constructed. Once trade limits are set aside, the path seems to point to a free circulation of products from Mexico into the US and to Canada. The North American Free Trade Agreement signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, opened the door for massive exchange of goods across the borders of Mexico, the United States and Canada. In order to have that massive movement of people and products a new highway system which will connect the three countries. The NAFTA highways will begin down on the border between Mexico and the US and spread to Florida, New York, Toronto, Oklahoma, Calgary and Vancouver. All in all, there will be four sections: an Atlantic, Pacific, Central Eastern and Central Western corridors. All this is possible due to the massive sell of local and regional highway systems to international corporations such as Spain’s Cintra and Zachry Construction. The lobbying of banks like Goldman Sachs and other companies like Merryl Lynch in Washington and the poor management of resources at the state level have sparked the sell of Parkways, Turnpikes and other highway systems which were built with taxpayers’ money and that now, opposing groups say, it being handed to foreigners for periods as long as 99 years.

The Amero
So, once there is a common government, a common trade policy and a common transportation system, there are two more things needed to complete the picture, one is a common currency and another is a regional database. According to Professor and Journalist, Jerome Corsi, one of the key issues is the use of a regional currency. “Robert Pastor has also called for the creation of the “Amero” that would replace the US Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso”, says Corsi. “This follows in virtual lock step with what the European Union has accomplished for the once-totally independent nations across the Atlantic. Most of them have discarded their own currencies in favor of the Euro.” Either due to currency devaluation or the push of the CFR for the Amero, it is clear that the fact the United States is part of this regional body and that the government borrows 3 billion dollars a day to maintain its operations, will eventually erode the dollar as a currency. Another thing that would precipitate the fall of the dollar and the rise of the Amero is the fact that China holds most of the US debt, which puts in their hands the future of the dollar as a currency. If China decides to dump the dollar as their trade currency and go for the Euro or the Pound, the United States will suffer an economic catastrophe much worse than that suffered during the depression of 1929. A devalued currency and a week economy, says Corsi, would open the doors for a new currency, the Amero.

The RFID
So where does the Radio Frequency Identification system fall into place? Questioned by pro-privacy groups as the greatest violation yet to the citizens private lives, the RFID appears as the best instrument to control the influx of dangerous individuals and to know everything about who enters the country, their origin and destination. In a world tainted by terrorism, it seems like a good idea to know who is here and why, the problem is that it will not only affect immigrants or tourists who come to the US or the North American Union for that matter. Every American citizen will be mandated to carry one of these ID’s as well. Although it was first promoted as a way to prevent the spread of animal disease from getting into the food chain, it soon turned into a tool to control the free movement of individuals across the region. The National Security theme doesn’t seem to be flying well among the population. Several states around the country have formally filed requests to reject the National ID Act, while some states have already totally rejected it. According to critics, the National RFID is an ineffective solution to a problem that can be addressed in less intrusive ways. In practice, it has been demonstrated that hackers can drain information from an RFID card from 160 feet away. Because the information on the ID is biometric the information could be stolen or changed. The ID system would track the card, not the person. What the ID will do it seems, is to create barriers as to where people can go. Those who do not hold an RFID will not be permitted to board planes, enter public buildings or banks, or to collect social security benefits. Organizations like the Liberty Coalition make clear that the RFID is the precursor for what is to come; the implantation of a chip under people’s skins as a way to avoid and end the tampering the RFID will be subject to. The implanted chip says the Liberty Coalition in a recent newsletter is what they are really after. In fact, hospitals and clinics around the country already use chips to store medical information, which is then retrieved with a scanner. Institutions like the Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack New Jersey, already offers this possibility to its clients.

The United Nations
In its official charter, the United Nations makes it clear, that its main function is to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification. It also says in article 28 that the Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. In article 29, itsays the Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs, as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. In article 30, it says the Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President. Probably the most controversial of the articles is where it establishes that, permanent members form the Security Council with the right to vote and veto. The members of that Council are The Communist Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The rest of the members are non-permanent and are elected to sit for periods of two years. Note that two of the permanent members are the USSR, which hasn’t been changed to Russia, and China, communism’s last standing. This fact is of great concern for those who see the United Nations as the precursor for a one-world government due what they call dictatorial rules and regulations. The link between the UN and the EU and the NAU is that these blocks are also previews of what will become a global regulator organ. It seems the North American Union is another step towards formalizing this initiative. In fact the very United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its article 28 says: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” Do critics have a point? Later, on Article 29 section 3, it says: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Article 30 and last says: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. So in other words, taking into consideration the last three articles of the Declaration of Human Rights, anyone has the right to a social and international order. No one can use the rights given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if they are considered to be exercised against the UN and no one can act in orderto overcome the UN as a governing body. Since this is a news piece, I let you draw your own conclusions.

Reference Material:

United Nations Reference Manuals.

United Nations Charter.

The New American Magazine.

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

www.JonesReport.com

Lou Dobbs Tonight Transcripts

www.spp.gov