Obama is checking your phone records.

[Karl]

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell just spoke on China objecting

to the contents of a letter John McCain wrote to Taiwan which McCain had on his computer and had not yet sent to Taiwan.

Mitchell's question: How did that happen?

The response: There is a downside to using 'global connectivity'.

Reality check: Jus suh dis-yah real worl/"New World" stay/run/flash hit!!!!

[Don1]

Hmmmm...... So because other nations have some ability in electronic surveillance the US govt is thereby authorized to ignore the constitution and conduct nationwide, real-time monitoring of ALL communications of ALL citizens. The govt now asserts the right to monitor, control, approve or disapprove citizen's thoughts as expressed on Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media... we can only guess what's next

Again....you have a right to unquestioningly support that type of pervasive police state activity if you choose....

[Willi]

Europe is very worried by this intrusion!

[Karl]

The govt now asserts the right to monitor, control, approve or disapprove citizen's thoughts as expressed on Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media...

You have gone totally overboard.

There is one thing I do know: Whether or not acts are deemed outrageous or outside good governance the people always apply appropriate response. This specific matter of looking at phone and other communication records is a storm in a tea cup. These acts are sensible ones that are carried out for the good of the citizens.

Remember there can only be good government based on fair commonsense applications of laws and the regulations that support same.

As it is with the Bible it is the heart of man that determines application of just laws and regulations - The devil himself can quote the Bible. Only those who wish us harm need fear. There are checks and balances in place to deal with those who unjustly over-reach or abuse authority.

[Karl]

...and in JA - Gov't working with hackers...

Gov't working with hackers; moves to boost cyber security

BY ALICIA DUNKLEY-WILLIS Senior staff reporter dunkleys@jamaicaobserver.com
Tuesday, June 11, 2013


Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz2Vx05Wyhw
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz2VwzXO5Ti

GOVERNMENT has formed an alliance with a group of 'ethical hackers' as part of efforts to beef up the country's resistance to cybercrimes.


An ethical hacker is a computer and network wizard who attacks a security system on behalf of its owners with the aim of finding weaknesses a malicious hacker could abuse. In testing a security system, ethical hackers use the same techniques as their ill-intentioned counterparts, but report problems instead of taking advantage of them.

Julian Robinson, minister of state in the Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining, gestures while addressing yesterday’s Jamaica Observer Monday Exchange. Flanking him are (from left) Tracey-Ann Johnson, acting head of the Cybercrimes Unit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Inspector Warren Williams, head of the police Cybercrimes Unit; and Wahkeen Murray, chief technical director in the Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining. (PHOTO: NAPHTALI JUNIOR)



Julian Robinson, minister of state in the Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining, gestures while addressing yesterday’s Jamaica Observer Monday Exchange. Flanking him are (from left) Tracey-Ann Johnson, acting head of the Cybercrimes Unit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Inspector Warren Williams, head of the police Cybercrimes Unit; and Wahkeen Murray, chief technical director in the Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining. (PHOTO: NAPHTALI JUNIOR)

According to minister of state in the Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining Julian Robinson, the renegade step is beneficial.

"It's quite legitimate to get somebody and say go and test what I have put together (website) and see where the loopholes are so I can build a defence against it. That is commonplace in the private sector and that's not an issue, you just have to hope that the ethical hackers remain ethical," he noted.

"There are some that we are in touch with, a group of youngsters who have done some good work in identifying Government agencies that have been the subject of attack and have actually come to us and said "this has been done" even before some of the agencies know," Robinson told reporters and editors at the weekly Jamaica Observer Monday Exchange at the newspaper's Beechwood Avenue head office in St Andrew yesterday.

He, however, noted that not all hackers who regarded themselves as "ethical" have pure motives.

"We know those who are genuinely trying to assist and we are working with those, but you have another category who do it for financial gain," Robinson said.

In the meantime, he said the Government has taken other specific steps to ensure that Jamaica can adequately respond to cybercrimes and deal with what is now becoming a major threat.

"There are a number of activities we have done on the legislative side, the Cybercrimes Act 2010, which is to be reviewed every two years. We have established a Joint Select Committee, we have considered all the recommendations from the submissions that have been made and we intend to table a report to both Houses of Parliament by July," Robinson outlined.
He said while Jamaica might be seen as "a soft target" in the sense that it is not at loggerheads with any global figures, its systems still needed protection.

Furthermore, Robinson said the country has already had "serious examples where the systems of the Attorney General's Department, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Ministry of Justice were hacked into".

"Given the critical nature of the data they have, that can prove a threat to national security. We also have institutions like the Electoral Office of Jamaica which have data on every single elector, not just names and address but fingerprints and other bio-data. You have assets which, if they are derailed, can disrupt national life in a significant way," Robinson noted.

"You have people who will do it for money, you have people who will do it to prove a point, but we in Jamaica can't be (careless) so we have taken it seriously," he added.

According to data from the Communication Forensics and Cybercrime Unit, some 229 websites belonging to Government entities, tertiary institutions, and the private sector were hacked last year while just over 140 Government websites were defaced by the hackers.



Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz2VwzIx0w4

[Don1]

Frankly speaking Karl and with the utmost respect....that is rubbish.

A few decades ago when the government was experimenting with the Black community by seeing how venereal diseases they introduced would spread through that group...it was for the "public good". When they were introducing radioactive agents in the air around cities ...it was also "for the public good"

Those actions were never exposed when they were being conducted...so they were not curtailed. Governments thrive on secrecy....and that gives them license to commit atrocities.

The massive, unwarranted surveillance of the general public's ordinary communications represents government overreach. When they are sufficiently sued to comply with the Constitution and suitably exposed to public outrage...then we may see some safeguards put in place.

We will not see any safeguards in place if we have your position of obsequious genuflection to Babylon

[Karl]

Frankly speaking Karl and with the utmost respect....that is rubbish.

A few decades ago when the government was experimenting with the Black community by seeing how venereal diseases they introduced would spread through that group...it was for the "public good". When they were introducing radioactive agents in the air around cities ...it was also "for the public good"

Those actions were never exposed when they were being conducted...so they were not curtailed. Governments thrive on secrecy....and that gives them license to commit atrocities.

The massive, unwarranted surveillance of the general public's ordinary communications represents government overreach. When they are sufficiently sued to comply with the Constitution and suitably exposed to public outrage...then we may see some safeguards put in place.

We will not see any safeguards in place if we have your position of obsequious genuflection to Babylon

Don1: We live with the hope our elected officials are benevolent leaders. If you can guarantee that those in office shall always comport selves as you wish...let me know.

'Bad actors' are 'back actors'. It does not take shouting from the rooftops or hiding in the shadows to make them 'bad actors'. That is their nature.

Similarly 'good guys' are 'good guys'. It does not take shouting from the rooftops or hiding in the shadows to make them 'good guys'. That is their nature.

It is all about a mindset.

If you can find it within you to entertain the thought that there are persons and governments with evil intentions towards us, then surely commonsense will tell there are certain activities that our 'good guys' cannot shout from the rafters. I leave you to advance the 'thought process' expressed and to accept or continue to reject.

Here is where we differ: I believe there are actions our leaders must take that are in our best interest and it is in our best interest not to know of them...however if our leaders act in any manner that puts them in the 'bad actors' category then checks and balances in our laws come into play.

We wish our leaders will never act against our interests. We go to the polls to elect those good leaders and we put laws and regulations in place to deter 'bad' behavior(s).

....but it is impossible to stop the determined 'bad actor' from committing a bad act...and that is why we have laws and regulations to apply sanctions - sanctions of various magnitude to stop any such bad act being repeated by that 'bad actor'.

Yes, we must trust our leaders but still provide parameters within which they must operate on our behalf. ...and as in the context of the World within which we live there shall be decisions taken in secret and acts done in secret.
It just cannot be any other way.

[Muadib]

Could be worse.. suppose dem did pull ah Petah ?!

Reading the responses from certain posters with great interest...

lol ! woiee !

[Don1]

yuh mad yute...Babylon scoop uo evvybady chat...all fi yuh

Petah deal wid Tivarli Crime Central yappin

Chalk n Cheese

[Don1]

Here is where we differ: I believe there are actions our leaders must take that are in our best interest and it is in our best interest not to know of them...however if our leaders act in any manner that puts them in the 'bad actors' category then checks and balances in our laws come into play.

Ok...but the key element to this "accountability problem" is information and an orientation towards skepticism and questioning by the public....not automatically assuming that government is righteous.

It is the duty of the Third Estate and especially the press to ensure those "checks and balances" ...that accountability process starts with information and critical thinking.....not cheerleading or assumptions of government fidelity.

History has consistently demonstrated that governments acting in secrecy with a befuddled and disinterested citizenry enabling them....consistently commit abuses and sometimes atrocities.

That's the nature of The Beast called Government. Eternal vigilance is paramount.....Yuhzimi??

[Willi]

See another take on it here:

Did the CIA give the NSA documents to Ed Snowden?

Did the CIA give the NSA documents to Ed Snowden?

by Jon Rappoport
June 13, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com

Current press reports focus on PRISM, the NSA's relationships with the biggest tech companies in the world, and the spilled leaks of Ed Snowden.

I've already laid out serious questions about Snowden's work history and whether he's told the truth about it.

Is it likely he could have accessed and snatched thousands of highly classified NSA documents?

"Let's see. Who's coming to work for us here at NSA today? Oh, new whiz kid. Ed Snowden. Outside contractor. He's not really a full-time employee of the NSA. Twenty-nine years old. No high school diploma. Has a GED. He worked for the CIA and quit. Hmm. Why did he quit? Oh, never mind, who cares? No problem.

"Tell you what. Let's give this kid access to our most sensitive data. Sure. Why not? Everything. That stuff we keep behind 986 walls? Where you have to pledge the life of your first-born against the possibility you'll go rogue? Let Snowden see it all. Sure. What the hell. I'm feeling charitable. He seems like a nice kid."

Here is a more likely scenario.

Snowden never saw any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened.

Instead, he was either used or volunteered as a CIA operative to carry the endless turf war between CIA and NSA a new step forward. People at the CIA WERE able to access those NSA documents and they gave the documents to Snowden and he ran with them.

This was a covert op launched by the CIA against a chief rival, the NSA. NSA, the agency that's far bigger than the CIA. NSA, the agency that's been taking over intelligence gathering, that considers itself superior to everybody else in the intelligence field.

The CIA, of course, couldn't be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy. They needed a guy who could appear to be FROM the NSA, to make things look worse for the NSA and shield the CIA.

They had Ed Snowden. He had worked for the CIA in Geneva, in a high-level position, overseeing computer-systems security. People would later assume he had the wherewithal to get into NSA files and steal documents all by himself.

Somewhere in his CIA past, Ed meets a fellow CIA guy who sits down with him and says, "You know, Ed, things have gone too damn far. The NSA is spying on everybody all the time. I can show you proof. They've gone beyond the point of trying to catch terrorists. They're doing something else. They're expanding a Surveillance State, which can only lead to one thing: the destruction of America, what America stands for, what you and I know America is supposed to be. The NSA isn't like us, Ed. We go after terrorists for real. That's it. Whereas NSA goes after everybody. We have to stop it. We need a guy...and there are those of us who think you might be that guy..."

During the course of this one disingenuous conversation, the CIA is killing 37 innocent civilians all over the world with drones, but that's beside the point. Ahem.

Ed says, "Tell me more. I'm intrigued."

He buys in.

And what his CIA handler said, in his completely cynical self-serving way, is true. The Surveillance State isn't about catching terrorists.

At a quite insane level, it's about a partial science trying to become a complete science. It's about the vision of systems engineers:

To be able to predict and control the actions of any and every human.

Can enough useful information on Human Being X be compiled, collated, and analyzed, quickly, that would enable overseers to know what Human X is going to do---and to redirect his next action?

His next action and future actions?

To put it another way, minds who are enraptured by the Matrix want to make that Matrix even tighter and more nearly perfect.

They want to play 100-dimensional chess with most difficult piece on the board as the main target: the human. They want to see whether they can operate that piece and work it and predict it and control it and win the game.

Winning the game means reducing 100-dimensional chess to a closed system.

This is what the engineers of the Surveillance State are trying to do with the global population.

Why?

Because they think they can.

Because they work for men who want to own all life.

Because they view individual freedom as a highly convincing illusion they want to invalidate and smash.

I'm reminded of a 1982 story I did for LA Weekly. I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just quit his job as head of PR for Lawrence Livermore Labs, where they do research on building better nuclear weapons.

Bill cited, as one of his defining moments, a conversations he had with a physicist there who was complaining that the Lab needed more funding.

Bill said, "Look, we can already blow up the world a dozen times. What else do you need?"

The physicist looked up from his desk and said, "You don't understand. This is a math problem, a physics problem."

That's the mindset. It's all about making a better system. Who cares about collateral human damage?

When these scientists see freedom, they shrink away from it. It disturbs them. It reminds them they aren't free. It reminds them they don't know what freedom is.

You can even see this in some of more astounding press comments about Ed Snowden. Yes, it was all right that he exposed NSA but...he should have stayed in America and faced the music.

What?!?

A mind-boggling assessment to say the least.

However, it's really based on a perception, true or false, that Snowden is currently running around free, uncontrolled.

And that he has no right to be, because nobody does, outside the range and reach of government.

Freedom is the wild card. "Order must take its place." That's what the Surveillance State is all about.

"We've got these biological machines called humans running around out there and it's crazy. They're possibly in possession of something called FREEDOM which is too horrible to contemplate, because I, an obsessive problem solver, long ago sacrificed MY OWN FREEDOM on the altar of...I've forgotten. Anyway, wait a minute, these biological machines don't really have freedom, they're running on faulty programs....YES, THAT'S IT, and the programs have to be changed, ONCE AND FOR ALL!! Yes, that feels better. There is no such thing as freedom."

"Yes, that's it. No one is free, it's all a delusion. There are only good and bad programs, and these billions of human machines are running on bad programs...so we need one central program, one CENTRAL PROGRAM for everybody, and then order will prevail and coordination will prevail, and peace will prevail."

"In order to develop such a program, we need Total Surveillance. We need to observe all these biological machines in their crazy lives, 24/7, wherever they go, whatever they do....and then we can collate that information and analyze it and come up with a solution. Algorithms. A better program. An all-encompassing program. Then we can insert it into the behavior of every human."

The Surveillance State is based on a psychology and a philosophy that has this view of life and human beings.

That's what we're dealing with. Nothing less.

Mass mind control. Operant conditioning. Coercion.

In Orwell's 1984, that's what "Big Brother is watching you" was all about. The Surveillance State wasn't merely curious. It wasn't merely trying to stamp out terrorists. It was part and parcel of control.

[Karl]

I like the thought process...inter-resting!!!
...very inter-resting!
...but that would only be plausible if the info Ed Sowden has is, 'for real', essentially worthless! is it?

[Don1]

Extremely insightful analysis of Babylon's Surveillance State aiming at total control of Mankind....except that crapola about Snowden being part of CIA/NSA turf wars. That element is absolutely ludicrous

Babylon is the living Matrix fi reel...where good is bad, the wicked are righteous and manipulation is seen protection

.... Incidentally what is being revealed now demonstrates why the idea behind the Matrix movie and its brilliant execution.... is the most important modern day pop artwork imho...even with that kung fool stuff