The Manas Question: Drugs, Revolution, and Terrorism (video)
Boiling Frogs
December 21, 2011
CONTINUE WATCHING: http://bit.ly/spXlKQ
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3542
The Manas Air Base, situated near the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, has played a key role in the increasingly important Central Asian region since its inception.
First opened in December 2001 to support the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, the Manas Air Base plays host to the US Ninth Air Force and serves primarily as a transit point for US goods and personnel coming and going from Afghanistan.
As part of the so-called Northern Distribution Network, a key supply route for NATO troops in Afghanistan that bypasses the now-blockaded Pakistani borders, Manas continues to be a strategically vital asset for the US. At the same time, the base has also been a point of contention with the locals for years, and the controversy doesn’t seem likely to die down any time soon.
Find out more about Manas and the nexus of drugs, revolution and terrorism in Kyrgyzstan in this week’s Eyeopener report.
AFRICOM and the Recolonization of Africa – Cynthia McKinney on GRTV (video)
Global Research TV
December 19, 2011
Established in 2007, the United States African Command (AFRICOM) has been at the heart of the US agenda to secure the continent and its resources America’s supposed enemies. Now, many are questioning AFRICOM’s role on the continent at all.
Find out more about the race for Africa’s riches in this week’s GRTV Feature Interview with former congresswoman and 2008 presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney.
The Establishment is Scared to Death of Ron Paul (video)
Youtube
December 20, 2011
“Maybe it’s time to take our chances with Dr. Ron Paul, because if the establishment is this deathly afraid of him, he certainly must be doing something right!” — Liberal Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks
————————————–
(hat tip: Activist Post)
Congress Declares ‘Offensive’ War on the Internet in NDAA
Dees Illustration
by Eric Blair
Activist Post
December 17, 2011
Just when you thought the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) couldn’t possibly be more dangerous than has already been exposed with its declaration of global war, Martial Law, legalized bestiality, indefinite detention of Americans, and the $662 billion more spent; it has now been revealed that it also serves as a declaration of offensive cyber war.
Buried in the recently passed NDAA is a provision, perhaps just as dangerous as its other transgressions, that permits the Pentagon to wage an offensive cyberwar “to defend our Nation, Allies and interests.”
Section 954 of the NDAA titled Military Activities in Cyberspace received no debate in Congress as well as in the media. The section states clearly:
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests.
Even though there was virtually no debate about this provision by Congress or the press, the intention of action was expected. In July of this year, the Pentagon announced their strategy to treat cyberspace as an “operational domain” in their Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.
“The United States reserves the right, under the laws of armed conflict, to respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing,” said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn at a speech announcing the new strategy.
The Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace (PDF) claims that “Hackers and foreign governments are increasingly able to launch sophisticated intrusions into the networks and systems that control critical civilian infrastructure.”
Yet, Wired correctly points out that “Despite mainstream news accounts, there’s been no documented hacking attacks on U.S. infrastructure designed to cripple it. A recent report from a post-9/11 intelligence fusion center that a water pump in Illinois had been destroyed by Russian hackers turned out to be baseless.”
Indeed, we first reported that the alleged hack attack on the Illinois water plant was propaganda from the beginning to end. Four days later the Federal government admitted it was not a cyber attack after the cyber scare was sold to the public.
If we’ve learned one thing from the recent past, the U.S. government doesn’t need real evidence or a real enemy to wage war. So what can we expect from this new authorization for the Pentagon to wage offensive war on the Internet?
Department of Defense outlines five strategic initiatives which are just organizational in nature:
1. DoD will treat cyberspace as an operational domain to organize, train, and equip so that DoD can take full advantage of cyberspace’s potential: Not only are they planning to create an army of cyber warriors, they also clam to have the authority to combat Internet threats with a traditional military response; “the United States reserves the right, under the laws of armed conflict, to respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response,” said Deputy Secretary Lynn.
2. DoD will employ new defense operating concepts to protect DoD networks and systems: “DoD will continue to operate and improve upon its advanced sensors to detect, discover, map, and mitigate malicious activity on DoD networks.” This is already being accomplished to monitor government employees through DARPA’s PRODIGAL project.
3. DoD will partner with other U.S. government departments and agencies and the private sector to enable the whole-of-government cybersecurity strategy. The Director of the National Security Agency is dual-hatted as the Commander of USCYBERCOM. The NSA connection means that Google and Facebook are already working for CYBERCOM. This coincides with Lieberman’s recent urging of Google to censor anti-West content. DoD is also announces collaboration with DHS for domestic surveillance.
4. DoD will build robust relationships with U.S. allies and international partners to strengthen collective cybersecurity: The goal is to “development of international shared situational awareness and warning capabilities will enable collective self-defense and collective deterrence.” This is also well underway with the recent London cyberspace summit which was admittedly used to work on a global Internet treaty.
5. DoD will leverage the nation’s ingenuity through an exceptional cyber workforce and rapid technological innovation: The intention is to fund and reward cyber warfare innovators. In other words, they’ll fund a new aspect of the military-industrial complex that pertains to cyber security.
Although neither the NDAA, nor the DoD road map gives many details for how exactly this offensive cyber warfare will be conducted, Wired reports that:
It’s likely to include things like unleashing a worm like the Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s nuclear centrifuges, hacking into another country’s power grid to bring it down, disabling websites via denial-of-service attacks, or as the CIA has already done with some collateral damage, hacking into a forum where would-be terrorists meet in order to permanently disable it.
Perhaps it is intended to just be a broad authorization to use force against anyone considered to be a threat on the Internet, much like the authorization to use force against Iraq in the war on terror. As the Deputy Secretary of Defense noted, the military is authorized to combat threats with a “justified military response.” Surely that sweeping authority won’t be abused, right?
RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLES:
The Cybersecurity Directive Goes Viral
Worldwide Freedom is Being Hacked
Civil Disobedience Now or Forever Hold Your Peace (video)
Youtube
December 19, 2001
——————
(hat tip: Activist Post)
The Carrier IQ Conspiracy
by Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post
December 16, 2011
Just weeks ago Trevor Eckhart, a security researcher and Android operating system developer, discovered a mysterious process running in the background of his Android-based device.
This program turned out to be Carrier IQ, or CIQ, and specifically the IQ Agent which is installed on mobile devices from all major carriers before they reach the consumer, totaling some 150 million phones, mostly in the United States.
The software is billed as a diagnostic tool which allows cellphone carriers to “better understand how mobile devices interact with and perform on their network,” according to an official Carrier IQ document that attempts to dispel what they bill as rumors and unfounded concerns of consumers and researchers.
The document is somewhat opaque and esoteric for those of us not familiar with the terminology and technology at work in these highly complex systems but some of it is quite easy to understand.
In the second paragraph of the introduction we read, “We want to thank Trevor Eckhart for sharing his findings with us through a working session that helped us to identify some of the issues highlighted in this report.”
This gives the impression that Carrier IQ was happy to see the findings of Eckhart and what he uncovered, but this is far from reality.
Eckhart discovered that the software was integrated with Android at the deepest levels and was able to monitor, record, and transmit even the most private data and interactions with the device.
He alleged that it could monitor every single individual keystroke and every interaction with the screen for that matter, along with encrypted Internet browsing sessions and searches, GPS data, network data, battery data, among other pieces of information which many people would likely like to keep private.
Instead of praising Eckhart and working closely with him as the introductory paragraph might have you believe, Carrier IQ sued Eckhart for copyright infringement because he made publicly available training materials accessible to interested parties, where otherwise they might not have been able to find them on the Carrier IQ website.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, stepped in on Eckhart’s behalf and countered their frivolous legal threat – clearly intended to silence Eckhart and stifle his research – after which Carrier IQ withdrew their threat entirely.
(Infographic credit: Eletronic Frontier Foundation)
The EFF has produced a simplified, but not dumbed-down, explanation of Carrier IQ and how exactly it operates, which you can read here.
For those who are interested in learning more about this program, which is likely active on your device if you own a smartphone, this brief article is an absolute must read.
Carrier IQ continues to maintain their innocence and claim that the software does not record keystrokes (and thus the content of every email, text message, or anything else you might type), but Eckhart’s research shows otherwise.
The second video released by Eckhart (seen here) clearly shows the software doing things that Carrier IQ claims it does not, along with others who seek to defend this technology and the erosion of privacy in the digital age.
As a result of Eckhart’s findings, lawsuits have been filed against Carrier IQ, HTC, Samsung, Apple, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Motorola, alleging that it breaches the Federal Wiretap Act, Stored Electronic Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Despite the company’s insistence to the contrary, the suit alleges that, “[i]n addition to collecting device and service-related data, Carrier IQ’s software can collect data about a user’s location, application use, Web browsing habits, videos watched, texts read and even the keys they press.”
The establishment media has come to the aid of their corporate cronies, citing so-called experts who “debunked” Eckhart’s findings.
Declan McCullagh, chief political correspondent for CNET (which is owned by CBS Interactive and is thus part of the “big six”) and Dan Rosenberg, a supposed security expert allegedly debunked Eckhart’s findings, although their evidence is hardly compelling.
“The application does not record and transmit keystroke data back to carriers,” Rosenberg said, adding that after reverse-engineering the software he found that, “there is no code in Carrier IQ that actually records keystrokes for data collection purposes.”
What is his proof? Well, nothing other than CNET’s claim that Rosenberg “analyzed the assembly language code with a debugger that allowed him to look under the hood.”
We are simply supposed to believe this because he has discovered security vulnerabilities in various systems in the past; after all, no one has ever misrepresented the truth for monetary compensation, right?
They also point to another “well-known security expert” named Rebecca Bace who claims that Carrier IQ gave her access to the company’s engineers and internal documents.
“I’m comfortable that the designers and implementers expended a great deal of discipline in focusing on the espoused goals of the software–to serve as a diagnostic aid for assuring quality of service and experience for mobile carriers,” Bace said.
That’s all well and good, but the proof is in the pudding; and here they’re just telling us that they have pudding somewhere – you just don’t get to see it or verify the veracity of the existence of the pudding.
After all, they’re the experts and we’re just supposed to take their word for it. I guess they missed the appeal to authority fallacy in their studies – or lack thereof – of logic.
Carrier IQ doesn’t even seem to be able to keep the story straight, with their Vice President Andrew Coward claiming that his statement in Wired was a misquote in which he said the software could read text messages.
However, during the interview he did clearly say that carriers are able to collect data that would be able to determine the exact person who is using the phone, what programs they are running, when they charge the battery, what calls they make and where, etc.
His statements are hardly reassuring, even if the claim that the Carrier IQ software does not function as a keylogger is true, which is hardly clear at this stage.
Coward and Carrier IQ have found themselves in a bit of an imbroglio, with Coward saying, “One of the lessons we’ve had from this … clearly we should not have done that cease and desist.”
“What may have been the right response three or four years ago may not be the right response for now and … and we apologized … we did not expect that we would need to be so open and transparent about everything… We recognized as the crisis kind of developed that that was required for us to clear our name. That was a huge learning process,” Coward told CNET.
I find it absolutely astounding that he apparently thinks they would never have to be open and transparent about what their software is collecting and for what purposes.
I guess Coward never thought that it would be discovered and exposed in the first place, so no contingency plan had been created to deal with the massive fallout which we are now witnessing.
When asked about their competitors, Coward said that they only offer over-the-air downloadable software, whereas the Carrier IQ software is embedded into the device to make it not only hard to detect, but nearly impossible for any regular user to remove or control.
It gets even more interesting when we consider the fact that Coward (who was identified by The Washington Post as the senior vice president for marketing, a different title than what was given by CNET) revealed, “This week Carrier IQ sought meetings with the FTC and FCC to educate the two agencies … and answer any and all questions,” while adding that he was “not aware of an official investigation.”
Meanwhile, anonymous FTC officials said that they were conducting an inquiry into Carrier IQ and a spokeswoman for the FTC would not confirm or deny an investigation.
However, a public relations contractor for Carrier IQ named Mira Woods told The Washington Post in an email, “We are complying with all investigations at this time as we have nothing to hide … We have been completely transparent through this process.”
Later Woods requested that “investigations” be changed to “inquiries,” likely because the statement implies that there are indeed investigations going on currently with which they are complying.
Woods said, “We sought the meetings with the FCC and FTC in the interest of transparency and full disclosure,” thereby claiming that they sought out the meetings and thus were not an investigation.
In an official statement issued later in the day, Carrier IQ said, “This week Carrier IQ sought meetings with the FTC and FCC to educate the two agencies about the functionality of its software and answer any and all questions. Although Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-Chairman of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the practices of Carrier IQ, we are not aware of an official investigation into Carrier IQ at this time.”
The situation gets even more interesting and complex when we consider the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and their involvement in this debacle.
When Michael Morisy, a reporter for MuckRock News, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for “manuals, documents or other written guidance used to access or analyze data” which was obtained through any Carrier IQ program, the FBI denied the request because it was considered “law enforcement records.”
In response to Morisy’s request, the FBI wrote, “The information you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure.”
Paul Bresson, spokesman for the FBI, would not comment – meaning he would neither confirm nor deny, which in itself is a tacit confirmation – on if an investigation into Carrier IQ was ongoing or if they were utilizing the software for surveillance purposes of their own.
For anyone remotely familiar with issues like this, the phrase “plausible deniability” leaps to mind.
In addressing the FBI’s connection to Carrier IQ, the company said that the data gathered by the software are “not designed for law enforcement agencies and to our knowledge [have] never been used by law enforcement agencies.”
However, this means little to nothing in today’s America in which the PATRIOT Act can gag anyone from speaking of the warrants or investigations conducted by the federal government.
Even if they had knowingly handed over data to the FBI or DHS, or perhaps built the software for that purpose from day one, they likely would be prevented from ever confirming that fact or even hinting at it.
In another statement Carrier IQ claimed, “Carrier IQ [has] no rights to the data gathered and [has] not passed data to third parties. Should a law enforcement agency request data from us, we would refer them to the network operators. To date and to our knowledge we have received no such requests.”
Once again, if they had received such requests, it is very likely the case that they wouldn’t be able to speak about it.
It is clear that it is not the innocent diagnostics tool they would like to make it out to be, as the official responses from some companies have shown.
In an official statement, Sprint said, “We collect enough information to understand the customer experience with devices on our network and how to address any connection problems, but we do not and cannot look at the contents of messages, photos, videos, etc. using this tool.”
The wording of this statement does, however, imply that the software is capable of doing these things, they just “do not and cannot” view it themselves.
Apple’s statement is most interesting, as they clearly indicate that the software is not only capable of recording keystrokes, but also is capable of recording messages or other personal information.
“We stopped supporting Carrier IQ with iOS 5 in most of our products and will remove it completely in a future software update. With any diagnostic data sent to Apple, customers must actively opt-in to share this information, and if they do, the data is sent in an anonymous and encrypted form and does not include any personal information. We never recorded keystrokes, messages, or any other personal information for diagnostic data and have no plans to ever do so,” the statement said.
The details surrounding Carrier IQ are still quite fuzzy at this point but it is clear that it is not just a diagnostic tool collecting anonymous information to make our user experience better.
Like so much Big Brother technology, it is billed under one purpose and yet is capable of so much more.
Another trend we see repeating here is the constant contradictions, confusion, and misinformation or even disinformation pumped out by the establishment media and their “experts.”
I will continue to follow this story and write future articles about it as more information becomes available and a clearer picture begins to emerge.
Suffice to say, I’m not ignorant or naïve enough to think that this isn’t being used to collect private, sensitive data from millions of devices across the United States which is then funneled to centralized government databases.
It would be nice to think this wasn’t the case, but I would have to throw out literally everything I have learned in my research, all of which is based on irrefutable facts which one has to either delusionally refuse to pay attention to, or accept as a reality of the global police state control grid under which we currently live.
This article first appeared at End the Lie
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
Martial Law Attempt In Louisiana Echoes Ron Paul’s Warning
by Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 21, 2011
Following the fatal shooting of a toddler in a crime ridden New Orleans housing project, a Louisiana state representative has called for what amounts to martial law.
Austin Badon contacted Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office Monday and asked that the National Guard be deployed. Jindal’s office said Badon was told that any such a request would have to come from the New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution, the National Guard – considered a state militia – is authorized to “execute the laws of the Union and suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion.” The Constitution says nothing about dispatching the military to fight domestic crime, a task usually undertaken by local law enforcement.
Since the National Defense Act (or Militia Act) of 1903, the federal government has worked to absorb the National Guard and take control of it away from the states. In 2007, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act moved to remove state governors as sole commanders in chief of their state’s National Guard during emergencies within the state.
On December 18, presidential candidate Ron Paul warned (see video below) that the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed recently by the House and now under consideration in the Senate will be used by the government to implement martial law. The bill would allow the military to detain Americans and prevent them from exercising their right to due process under the Sixth Amendment.
Deploying federally controlled troops in post-Katrina New Orleans is another attempt to circumvent Posse Comitatus and acclimate citizens to the presence of armed troops on the streets.
In August of 2005, New Orleans served as a beta test for FEMA command and control over state and local jurisdiction and autonomy. It was also used for gun confiscation. FEMA, as we have documented, is primarily concerned with “civil disturbance” and martial law, not disaster relief.
“This should be the biggest news going right now,” Ron Paul told Alex Jones as the House prepared to pass the NDAA bill. “It is literally legalizing martial law.” He pointed out that the NDAA’s violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are remarkably not even discussed in the GOP presidential “debates” conducted by the establishment media.
Rep. Austin Badon no doubt is sincere about stopping violence – most of it a product of the federally-declared war on drugs – but calling for troops on the streets is obviously not the way to go about it. Control of the National Guard has been federalized.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strictly forbids federal troops from being deployed on American soil for the purpose of law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of preventing rebellions. This is not the case in New Orleans. With the passage of the NDAA, the federal government will likely use the National Guard in any effort to round-up and intern U.S. citizens.
The federal government nullified this important firewall when it equated natural disaster – and epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident – with insurrection. It did this by modifying the Insurrection Act – not by constitutional amendment, but by passing legislation that violates the original intent of Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.
State governors were outraged and sent a letter to Congress protesting the “dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states’ ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders.”
———————-
(hat tip: Activist Post)
