Egypt: Female protesters beaten with metal poles as vicious soldiers drag girls through streets
Daily Mail
December 19, 2011
Shocking images revealing the brutality of Egypt’s armed forces in quelling protests caused outrage around the world yesterday.
In a video broadcast on the internet, security forces dressed in riot gear are seen chasing a woman and beating her to the ground with metal bars before stripping her and kicking her repeatedly. One soldier stamps his foot hard on her chest.
Other images showed women beaten unconscious.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL ARTICLE AND SEE VIDEO…
(hat tip: Pakalert Press)
Boston Dynamics Contracted To Make First ‘Terminator-like’ Hunter-Seeker (video)
Photo: Boston Dynamics
by Shepard Ambellas
The Intel Hub
November 26, 2011
The Department of Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been extremely interested in robotic and cyber technology over the past few years and has now contracted Boston Dynamics to make the first Terminator-like robot fully functional.
When will we reach a point where robots become self-aware?
The Answer is — We already have, as reported in the article “Army Achieves ‘Skynet’ —Self-Aware Decision Making Network“
Boston Dynamics (the makers of the FEMA ‘Big Dog’) are contracted to design a few items for DARPA. A robotic chetah that can outrun the fastest man, zig-zag, turn, maneuver, and stop on a dime is in the works as we speak.
Boston Dynamis said;
“It will be able to zig-zag and take tight turns in order to chase and evade…. it will also be able to make sudden stops and could end up with a tail.”
Then there is the Atlas — made by Boston Dynamics, a robot that actually looks like the terminator with no head. The robot can walk heal-to-toe “like a person” over any terrain and stay upright if pushed.
Here is a clip from CNN:
Ladies and gentlemen — once these products become militarized for the battlefield (Battlefield: Now almost defined to be right outside your window) it will be game on — we officially have entered the hunter-seeker era.
Advanced Space Based Weapons: ‘Rods from God’
Image: EndWar Wiki
by Shepard Ambellas
The Intel Hub
December 17, 2011
Steaming from the Rand Corporation (Think Tank) document published in 2002 entitled “Space Weapons, Earth Wars” the spaced based weapons platform ”Rods from God” is now one of many in operation.
The fact that this type weapon can decimate it’s target by way of stealth with kinetic force is impressive but creepy.
In principle, 20 foot long tungsten core rods 2 feet in diameter will drop out of the gravity well from space, spearing toward earth with pinpoint precision at 10,000 feet per second, hitting with the kinetic force of a nuclear weapon (with no explosion).
An excerpt from EndWar Wiki reads;
The kinetic kill vehicle launch platform consists of a satellite armed with 12 telephone pole sized Tungsten rods loaded into 12 launch tubes mounted on one end of the satellite . The satellite employs high efficiency photo-voltaic panels or “wings” to generate electricity directly from sunlight. The satellites are then placed in orbit and must be reloaded after each use, or de-orbited and a replacement launched. The current US system consists of an unknown number of such satellites, though the number is assumed to be more than one.
A POPSCI article excerpt reads;
The concept of kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on the tips of ICBMs in the 1950s; the satellite twist was popularized by sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle. Though the Pentagon won’t say how far along the research is, or even confirm that any efforts are underway, the concept persists. The “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,” published by the Air Force in November 2003, references “hypervelocity rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons, and in 2002, another report from RAND, “Space Weapons, Earth Wars,” dedicated entire sections to the technology’s usefulness.
A New York Times articles except reads;
In an age of rogue regimes and pre-emptive war, states developing clandestine nuclear programs know better than to leave them in plain sight. Anxious to ward off an American or Israeli attack, Iran, for example, appears to have buried its uranium-enrichment halls under 30 feet of earth and concrete. No doubt, canny proliferators will soon dig even deeper and better-armored holes.
As more, advanced space based weapons platforms are developed there will be new threats that the “powers that be” are now busy creating, pushing fear amongst the general populace (in a psychological warfare-style manner).
In the cold war era — kids in school were forced to participate in ’nuclear bomb drills’ and were instructed to duck and cover under their desks, traumatizing the students mentally in a PsyOp conditioning program.
This technology dovetails with the Boston Dynamics ground based FEMA/DARPA contracted “Big Dog” and a new breed of hunter seeker robots that could be used against civilians in times of disarray as 2012 (the year of truth) approaches.
Video: North Koreans Weeping Hysterically Over The Death Of Kim Jong-Il
by Hyscience
Before It’s News
December 19, 2011
The ruthless, Stalinist dictator of a starved slave state is dead, and it appears that the people are incredibly sad.
Here, a tearful TV anchor weeps as she announces the death of Kim Jong-il.
Tears over a ruthless, Stalinist, dictator that starved to death 2 million of his own people while he lived in luxury and built nuclear bombs? If all of this is genuine, North Korea is a much sicker society than it’s proven itself to be up to now and it’s clear that an entire people can be brainwashed.
[Potent News Editor’s note: According to this other article,
“Of course it must be remembered that if you do not mourn the “dear leader” properly, you and your entire family could get shipped off to a prison camp.
Seriously.
In North Korea, if authorities even suspect that you are not thinking the right thing, you and your entire extended family could be sent to a gulag for the rest of your life.”]
Crushing the Disinformation Surrounding Indefinite Detention of Americans Under the NDAA
By Madison Ruppert
The Intel Hub
December 17, 2011
Today Glenn Greenwald, writing for Salon, published a piece which is required reading for anyone who has been keeping up with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year 2012, especially those of us who have been arguing with proponents of the bill and others who do not understand the detainee provisions therein.
I will be going over Greenwald’s points in this article, as they cannot be emphasized enough and are all based in the ugly reality we see unfolding before us, unlike the claims made by those contending that the bill does not allow indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.
The indefinite detention sections, contained within the NDAA along with other strange sections like removing the ban on bestiality and sodomy for members of the armed forces, and Obama’s support for it has drawn intense criticism from some somewhat unlikely sources.
For instance, Human Rights Watch called Obama’s refusal to veto the detainee bill “a historic tragedy for rights,” and characterized the NDAA as “ill-conceived.”
Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized Obama for backing down on his veto threat, although as I have previously outlined, it wouldn’t really make a difference even if he did veto it.
If Obama actually followed through and vetoed the bill, the veto could simply be overridden by both chambers and they have far more than the 2/3majority required to override a Presidential veto.
“If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.
We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial,” said the director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, Laura Murphy.
Even the New York Times – hardly a publication known for criticizing the Obama administration and Democrats in general – published a heated editorial in which it is written that Obama’s decision to back down on the hollow veto threat “reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency.”
The editorial rightly points out, “To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.”
There are some disturbingly prevalent myths about the NDAA that I see crop up in emails and in the comment section on End the Lie and other places that post my articles, all of which Greenwald strikes down with apparent ease.
The main three falsehoods I see parroted are: “The NDAA doesn’t actually codify indefinite detention”; “The NDAA doesn’t widen the definition of what the ‘War on Terror’ is as was previously outlined in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)”; and “American citizens cannot be detained indefinitely under the NDAA.”
All of these are demonstrably untrue, as I will show in language that anyone can understand. If, after reading this, you still do not understand that we are all in danger of being locked up indefinitely without charge or trial under this bill, please do not hesitate to contact me and substantiate your position.
To first address the codification of indefinite detention, we look to the conference report which accompanied H.R. 1540, specifically the section on detainee provisions, found here.
On page three of the PDF, under Subtitle D – Counterterrorism, Section 1021, which is page 654 of the original document, we read starting on line 19, “The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
How any sane individual could read, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” and think that this does not explicitly codify indefinite detention is beyond comprehension.
I’m not sure how they could possibly put it in a more blatant fashion. There is absolutely no arguing that this allows for indefinite detention “until the end of the hostilities” which will likely never happen, as perpetual conflict is what the entire “War on Terror” is about.
“Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision,” Greenwald rightly contends.
I would love to see someone argue this and if you’re that person, please do not hesitate to email me. I very well might publish your rebuttal and my response, if you agree to it.
Greenwald aptly points out that both the Obama and Bush regimes have repeatedly argued that the 2001 AUMF tacitly gives them the power to indefinitely detain and quite unfortunately, “post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view.”
These precedents allow the language to be inserted in the NDAA that says that nothing in the NDAA will expand the 2001 AUMF, which is what proponents often point to in defense of their position that it will not be used to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.
In reality, the interpretations used by the Executive branch and the so-called justice system are “already so much broader than its language provides,” according to Greenwald.
This is exactly the same as the so-called “secret PATRIOT Act” which was exposed by Senator Ron Wyden in late May of this year.
This is not truly a secret PATRIOT Act, but instead is a classified interpretation of the law which “cannot be publicly assessed or challenged,” according to Wired.
What makes proponents of the NDAA think that the government will suddenly change course and begin to interpret the law in a straight-forward manner which we can all understand and scrutinize?
I contend that it is naïve, if not outright ignorant, to believe that the NDAA’s interpretation – specifically the detainee provisions – will be interpreted in our favor.
There is simply no indication that this is the case and it would buck the disturbing trend established by the government of the United States of establishing laws and interpreting them in ways which we are not aware of.
The important fact to take home is that this is the first time that indefinite detention has been explicitly codified in a statute since the Internal Security Act of 1950 during the McCarthy “red scare” era.
The next myth is that the NDAA does not expand the definition of the “War on Terror” as previously outlined in the 2001 AUMF and like the other fallacies surrounding this bill, it is easily proven to be false.
Under the 2001 AUMF, the scope of the so-called War on Terror was much smaller than what is outlined in the NDAA and it was much more restricted in who it authorized the use of force on.
Under Section 2 of the 2001 AUMF we read,
“(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
As you can see, the authorization is relatively quite limited compared to the new language which, on top of the guidelines in the AUMF, adds, “(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
The glaring part of this section is that it is wildly ambiguous and leaves the door open to lump a wide range of people under the label of “covered persons” which were previously not (at least explicitly) covered by the AUMF.
A major issue here is that the Pentagon actually considers protesting to be an act of “low-level terrorism,” or at least they did until they were exposed for having a question on an employee training exam for the Department of Defense which asked, “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?” the correct answer for which was, “Protests.”
Once it became public knowledge that they were demonizing people who exercise their most essential right to free speech, the Department of Defense removed the question, but it does not negate the disturbing fact that they actually included such a question on an official exam.
So, what prevents the government from saying protesters, like those involved in the Occupy movement, are terrorists who can be indefinitely detained without charge or trial?
Unfortunately, absolutely nothing is stopping them.
Another troubling aspect is the term “belligerent” which is similarly ambiguous and flexible and was likely specifically chosen for that reason.
A professor of law at Seton Hill and specialist in detainee law, Jonathan Hafetz, explained just how dangerous the ambiguity of the new language is in an interview with Glenn Greenwald earlier this month:
“One though could imagine some very frightening scenarios. Could the military arrest and detain a person arrested at his home in say Cleveland, Ohio, for writing a $20,000 check to a group that supported AQ? Or a doctor in New Jersey who sent medical supplies to an organization in Ethiopia, for example, that provided humanitarian aid to a group in that country that was deemed to be affiliated with AQ? The answer is probably yes, under the most aggressive views of the [the new bill].”
If that doesn’t upset you, I don’t know what will.
Now we come to the most important myth of all, the belief that American citizens are wholly protected from the detainee provisions of the NDAA.
Greenwald says that the bill, and specifically the detainee provisions outlined therein, is “purposely muddled” in order to leave plenty of wiggle room in how it can be used.
One of the excerpts often quoted in an attempt to debunk the fact that this can be applied to U.S. citizens is, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
As with the rest of the NDAA, we have to carefully examine the language utilized in this passage.
The section it is referring to is section 1021 which we discussed earlier, and the most important aspect of this excerpt is the stipulation, “Nothing in this section” as it clearly limits it to that section and that section alone.
As I discussed in my previous coverage, this section, part of which is also included in the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, only protects you if you’re an American citizen captured within the United States.
Anywhere else, the protection is null and void, and under the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, all that would be required to nullify that small protection would be an Act of Congress.
Given the fact that they overwhelmingly voted to betray the Constitution and our most essential rights, thus proving that every single person who voted for the NDAA is nothing short of a traitor, I do not believe it is reasonable to think that they would never remove that minuscule protection.
Robert Chesney of Lawfare argues that there is still a lingering ambiguity in the language as to whether Section 1021 (e) applies to citizens, although to me it seems relatively clear.
Now we get to the most problematic and contentious aspect of the NDAA, Section 1022.
This section deals with any individual determined by the President to be “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” that “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”
For those who fall into this category, it is required – unless the President issues a waiver – that the person be detained “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”
The problem here is that the definition of who this section covers does not in fact exclude American citizens or state any requirement that the individual be a foreigner.
This is where many people get confused or mislead by proponents of the bill: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to the citizens of the United States.”
This does not prevent American citizens being held in military custody indefinitely without charge or trial; it only says that it is not required.
There is a massive difference here which cannot be marginalized or ignored. If they meant to make it so no American citizens could be indefinitely detained by the military, they would have made it explicit.
However, they clearly did not and as Greenwald points out, “it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody.”
This cannot be explained away like many are attempting to do, as the language of legislation is very carefully chosen.
If our so-called Representatives truly sought to protect us from being held without charge or trial by the military, they would prohibit it in wholly unambiguous language.
This is clearly not the case and we simply must accept that our government is actively working against the American people and the Constitution of the United States. There is really no way to get around this fact at this point.
I think Greenwald puts it in just about the most straightforward way humanly possible in writing, “or foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”
It would be nice to think that this means that we are exempt, but it simply is untrue and one would be delusional in assuming such.
As I have done time and time again, Greenwald points to the fact that the amendment proposed by Senator Feinstein which would explicitly exempt American citizens was struck down as evidence that we are not protected by this section.
As I previously mentioned, Senator Lindsey Graham said on the floor of the Senate that this bill does nothing to change the status quo, however, this is explicitly codifying the ability of the military to indefinitely hold Americans without charge or trial – something which hasn’t been done since the heyday of McCarthyist paranoia.
Even the New York Times’ editorial has to point out that the bill includes “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
This is entrenching the American police state like never more, and as the editorial rightly point out, this is going to be here for the long run.
The questions that remain after assessing all of these disturbing facts are: what’s next? What can we do? How do we stop this and return America to the principles of justice and liberty?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any satisfactory answers to these questions up my sleeve at the moment. I would truly appreciate the input from all of my readers so please do not hesitate to email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com and if you give me permission I might utilize your ideas in an upcoming piece on solutions to this horrific crisis we have found ourselves in.
This article also appeared at End the Lie
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
PN 