Category Archives: Whistleblower

What About Those Stingrays? You Cool With This?

Posted on by

Surveillance Nation is here today and are you good with this?

Is Microsoft reading YOUR emails? Windows 10 may threaten your privacy, watchdogs warn

Windows 10:  DailyMailUK

Within 45 pages of terms and conditions, the privacy information suggests Microsoft begins watching from when an account is created, saving customer’s basic information, passwords and credit card details, Newsweek reported.

The tech giant is also said to save Bing search queries and conversations with Cortana, as well as lists of which websites and apps users visit and the contents of private emails and files, as well as their handwriting.   The privacy statement says: ‘your typed and handwritten words are collected.’

The policy adds that Microsoft collects information about a user’s speech and handwriting to ‘help improve and personalise our ability to correctly recognise your input,’ while information from their contacts book is used, such as names and calendar events ‘to better recognise people and events when you dictate messages or documents’.

Cortana, for example, makes use of information about who a user calls on their phone, plus data from their emails and texts, calendar and contacts, as well as their web history and location.  Microsoft says that data is collected to provide users with a more personalised service and better character recognition, for example, but may also be used for targeted adverting, meaning it may share information with third parties.

The company assigns each of its users a unique advertising ID so it does not reveal what they ‘say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you.’

But it has still come under fire from privacy campaigners.

Online privacy pressure group, European Digital Rights (EDRi) told The Times that Microsoft’s policy was ‘not only bad news for privacy. Your free speech rights can also be violated on an ad hoc basis.’

Microsoft ‘basically grants itself very broad rights to collect everything you do, say and write with on your devices in order to sell more targeted advertising or to sell your data to third parties.’

Kirsten Fiedler, EDRi’s Managing Director told MailOnline: ‘Unlike Microsoft’s promise, the company’s new 45 page-long terms of service are not straightforward at all.

‘Online companies should finally start explaining their terms in an understandable manner so that we can make informed choices about the services we want to use.

 

Stingray surveillance sparks privacy concerns in Congress

USAToday: WASHINGTON — Members of Congress are increasingly trying to rein in a secretive federal law enforcement program that uses devices known as Stingrays to capture cellphone data from unsuspecting Americans.

“They are spying on law-abiding citizens as we speak,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who recently won House approval of a measure to end the program.

The box-shaped Stingray devices are the size of small suitcases, cost about $400,000 to buy and operate, and are usually attached to the cars of federal, state or local law enforcement agents. They mimic cellphone towers, tricking phones within a certain radius to connect to and feed data to police about users’ locations, text messages, calls and emails.

At least a half-dozen federal agencies — including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement — use the technology, which can penetrate the walls of a home, apartment complex or office.

Police say the technology — which can also be attached to planes — helps them catch criminals by tracking their movements and actions. But critics complain that it violates the constitutional rights of innocent citizens whose cellphone data is also seized, often without a warrant.

At least 53 law enforcement agencies in 21 states also use Stingrays or similar devices, according to research by the American Civil Liberties Union. Local police typically buy the devices with grants from the federal government and sign agreements with the FBI not to disclose their use, said ACLU attorney Nathan Wessler.

A June 2014 investigation by USA TODAY and Gannett newspapers found that an increasing number of local and state police agencies were deploying Stingrays and other technology to secretly collect cellphone data from suspected criminals and law-abiding Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing.

“It’s become clear how staggeringly widespread the use of this technology is,” Wessler said. “We’ve been heartened to see that some members of Congress are taking the privacy concerns quite seriously.”

The House this summer passed, by voice vote, a Justice Department spending bill that included Issa’s amendment to bar funding for the use of Stingrays without a warrant. Issa said he won’t stop there, in part because the Senate is unlikely to pass that measure .

“I will use additional opportunities to get it done,” Issa told USA TODAY. “Right now, law enforcement won’t even tell us how many Stingrays they have. The only way to protect the American people is to change the law.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, also are targeting the Stingray program in a broader bill called the GPS Act. The legislation would require law enforcement agents to obtain warrants before tracking Americans’ locations by using Stingray-type devices or tapping into cellphones, laptops, or GPS navigation systems.

“I don’t see how you can use a Stingray without it raising very substantial privacy issues,” Wyden told USA TODAY. “I want police to be able to track dangerous individuals and their locations, but it ought to be done with court oversight under the Fourth Amendment.”

The FBI has said it has a policy of obtaining warrants before using Stingray devices, although it has broad exceptions, including one that allows the technology to be used in public places where the agency believes people shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy.

“It’s how we find killers, it’s how we find kidnappers, it’s how we find drug dealers, it’s how we find missing children, it’s how we find pedophiles,” FBI Director James Comey told reporters in Charlotte. last fall. “It’s work you want us to be able to do.”

Chaffetz is also using his position as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to gather information as part of an investigation into the use of stingrays, said his spokesman, M.J. Henshaw.

At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the panel, have been pressing the Department of Justice for answers about Stingray practices and policies. Sen. Bill Nelson, R-Fla., has also called on the Federal Communications Commission to review how the devices are used.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said the agency is reviewing its policies for the use of Stingray devices. He said he didn’t know when the review would be done.

“With regards to this technology, the Department of Justice is in the process of examining its policies to ensure they reflect our continued commitment to conducting our vital missions while according appropriate respect for privacy and civil liberties,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush.

While the Justice Department reviews its policies, states have begun passing their own laws to ban state and local police from using Stingrays without a warrant.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a ban in May after legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the state Legislature. In addition to requiring police to obtain a warrant before using Stingray devices, the law says police must quickly delete any data collected on people who were not targets of a criminal investigation.

Similar laws have been passed in Virginia and Utah and are being considered in California, New York and Texas.

“The American people are looking for a balance between security and liberty,” Issa said. “After 9/11, we moved too far towards security. We need to move back toward liberty.”

Details on Obama Closing Gitmo

Posted on by

In the matter of closing Guantanamo and normalizing relations, 18 months of covert meetings and confabs took place and the White House even included the Vatican.

FSM: There are currently 116 detainees at the facility, and under the new plan some of them would be moved to the U.S.

Monaco said the plan was to transport the 52 detainees deemed eligible for transfer to countries with appropriate security arrangements.

According to Monaco, those who are deemed “too dangerous to release” would be subject to periodic review boards for transfer eligibility. In 10 instances, 13 review boards have already resulted in individuals being moved to the so-called “transfer bucket.”

“So we are going to whittle down this group to what I refer to as the ‘irreducible minimum’ who would have to be brought here,” Monaco said.

“That group, who either can’t be prosecuted, or are too dangerous to release, we are going to continue to evaluate their status.”

Under the law of war, Monaco said, those remaining after review would be transferred to U.S. military prisons or supermax security prisons, and be subjected either to prosecution in military commissions or Article III courts.

Given that Obama and the Department of Justice can exploit law and influence judges, the White House has discretion on who gets released…..

In part from DefenseOne: Standing before a Cuban flag newly returned to official Washington, Rodriguez thanked the Obama administration but repeated the Cuban government’s list of unresolved grievances. “The lifting of the blockade, return of the illegally occupied territory of Guantanamo, full respect for Cuban sovereignty and compensation of our people … are crucial to being able to move forward,” he said.

But Kerry said later, “At this time there is no discussion and intention on our part at this moment to alter the existing lease treaty or other arrangements with respect to the naval station in Cuba.”

“We understand Cuba has strong feelings about it,” he said, continuing, “I can’t tell you what the future will bring.”

Cuban President Raul Castro has demanded the U.S. return Guantanamo Naval Station, a sparse strip of land that the U.S. has held since 1903. Since 2002, the base has also housed prisoners seized during American global counterterrorism operations. In January, a few weeks after Castro and President Obama announced that they’d work to restore ties, the Cuban leader argued that relations cannot be normalized until U.S. officials “give back the territory illegally occupied by the Guantanamo naval base…If these problems aren’t resolved, this diplomatic rapprochement wouldn’t make any sense.”

What Obama doesn’t want us to know on Gitmo closure

By J.D. Gordon
The Hill:

President Obama’s top counter-terrorism aide, Deputy National Security Advisor Lisa Monaca, said this past weekend at the Aspen Security Conference that the White House is preparing for another push to close Guantanamo, including a plan to move detainees into the U.S. mainland.

While she cited grossly exaggerated costs per detainee, here’s an actual fact that Team Obama isn’t telling us, far more important than just dollars and cents:

If and when the detainees are stateside, judges could release them onto Main Street, USA.

Our courts will have the final say on whether they remain locked up, not the administration.  And if other countries won’t take them, they could just walk out of jail.  Detainees don’t have to escape from Supermax if judges let them out.

And since nearly half of the current 116 detainees have been held under indefinite detention status, activist judges would line up for jurisdiction.

“Try them or release them,” has been the rallying cry for Al Qaeda’s defense lawyers for over a dozen years.  Makes sense, right?  Maybe so during peacetime, before mass casualty terrorist attacks like those on 9/11.

But America remains at war.  Since there weren’t battlefield detectives collecting evidence from global jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, military or civilian trials might not obtain convictions.  Which doesn’t make those men any less dangerous, just less prosecutable.

Obama and his legal advisers know the courts routinely pummeled the Bush administration on detainee cases, including multiple losses at the Supreme Court.  They ought to know, since 9 lawyers who represented Al Qaeda were rewarded with senior political posts in the Obama administration.

When I served as a Pentagon spokesman from 2005-2009, our DoD General Counsel’s office, working in tandem with the Justice Department, reminded me of a piñata.  But instead of kids bashing away to free candy, it was judges hammering to free detainees.

One case that has direct applications to today’s prospect of Gitmo closure is Al Marri v. Bush.

Ali Al Marri was a Qatari national with a U.S. green card, believed to be an Al Qaeda sleeper cell agent, trained in advanced poisons for use against water reservoirs.  Captured in Peoria, Illinois, and then held indefinitely at the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina, Al Marri assembled a team of lawyers who argued that President Bush didn’t have the authority to hold him without trial.

Well, Al Marri won.  While terrorism charges didn’t stand up in court, he was convicted of credit card fraud and served a short sentence in a civilian prison.  It was like busting Al Capone for tax evasion.  Al Marri is now a free man in Qatar.

If Al Marri could beat the federal government in court, dozens of Gitmo terrorists with less evidence against them will too.  But what if other countries won’t take them?  Then what?

The White House is also misleading about Gitmo’s cost, claiming $3 million per detainee, per year.  Yet they don’t mention the primary expense is 2,000 troops guarding them, providing legal services and medical care.  That’s the same number deployed to handle the total of 780 detainees, so it’s deliberate overkill.  Taken together with 4 catered halal meals a day, Ramadan feasts with roasted meats and imported dates, expensive exercise equipment, Wii-fits, satellite TV, etc. Obama deliberately keeps that cost high to score political talking points.

Shouldn’t Americans ask Obama why he would risk freeing them into our country, when nearly 1/3 are already confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorism?

In my view, he sees Guantanamo as a symbol of the America he’s determined to transform.  To him, Gitmo equals U.S. overreach, the “empire” acting through brute force.  Above the law, as they say. And that’s not just holding radical Islam-inspired terrorists.  That also extends to “occupying” 45-square miles of Cuba against the will of Havana’s leaders.

Obama is desperate to empty Gitmo, let the chips fall where they may, because he wants to return the Naval Base to Cuba.  Even though it’s been a strategically important military base for Americans, leased since 1903, complete with a deep water port and airfield, he views it as the left in Latin America does – a sign of Yankee imperialism.

Though the White House says they won’t cave to Raul Castro’s demands for the base, they have zero credibility on the issue.  That’s because Ben Rhodes of the National Security Council went behind the backs of Congress and the American people to conduct the normalization of relations agreement last year in secret, in Canada.  Rhodes and this same NSC also blamed the Benghazi terrorist attack on a video.  Can we trust anything they say?

Bottom line, closing Gitmo and giving it back to Cuba is all part of Obama’s legacy.  He extends olive branches to terrorists and appeases dictators for little to nothing in return, designed to usher in a new, post-U.S. superpower status era.  As America gets weaker with $1 trillion in defense cuts, our enemies get stronger.  Is that what he meant by hope and change?

Gordon is a retired Navy commander and former Pentagon spokesman who served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-2009, during which time he visited Guantanamo Bay Naval Base over 30 times.

UK Feeling Same U.S. Pain on Immigration

Posted on by

LONDON (AFP) – 

The disruption to freight between Britain and mainland Europe caused by strikes and illegal immigration is starting to hurt British businesses, from luxury English car manufacturers to Scottish seafood exporters.

Industrial action and delays caused by migrants massed at the French port of Calais are taking a toll on the other side of the Channel, with thousands of trucks queueing up at England’s southeastern tip for ferry and freight shuttle rail services.

“While clearly hampering holidaymakers, the disruption at Calais also has an economic impact as exporters are being delayed getting their goods to market,” said Katja Hall, deputy director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, the nation’s biggest employers’ body.

The disruption is costing the British economy £250 million ($390 million, 355 million euros) a day in lost trade, according to the Freight Transport Association trade body.

UK funds 100 extra Channel tunnel guards as migrant standoff continues

Philip Hammond claims government has ‘got a grip’ on the Calais migrant crisis, with UK Border Force officials now stationed in Eurotunnel control room

Britain is to fund an extra 100 border guards at the Channel tunnel terminal on the French side, the foreign secretary Philip Hammond has announced, as he said the government has “got a grip” on the Calais migrant crisis.

As Eurotunnel reported that there were a further 700 attempts on Sunday night to board Channel tunnel trains, Hammond said that officials from the UK Border Force would start working inside the Eurotunnel control room in Coquelles.

Hammond made the announcement after chairing a 90-minute meeting of the government’s emergency Cobra committee in Whitehall.

David Cameron was absent from the meeting, after embarking on the first stage of his summer holiday in the UK. The prime minister will return to London later this week before resuming his holiday.

Hammond said: “I think we have got a grip on the crisis. We saw a peak last week, since when the number of illegal migrants has tailed off. We have taken a number of measures in collaboration with the French authorities and Eurotunnel which are already having an effect and over the next day or two I would expect to have an even greater effect.”

The foreign secretary said that ministers and officials had agreed at the Cobra meeting that Britain would fund an extra 100 guards, taking the total number to 300, at the terminal at Coquelles. The guards will be recruited by the French authorities but will be funded by the UK.

Hammond said: “I’m pleased to say we have seen a much improved level of cooperation and collaboration with Eurotunnel over the past 48 hours, with trains being cancelled where appropriate and in some cases trains being reversed back into Coquelles where there is a danger of illegal migrants being on board.

“From this evening, UK Border Force and French police will have a presence in the Eurotunnel control room at Coquelles and that will greatly enhance the practical collaborative working at the site. I also understand this evening the company has accepted our offer of additional guards and we expect up to 100 additional guards to be deployed into the terminal area.”

Hammond announced that the strengthening of the perimeter fence around the entrance to the Channel tunnel in France will be completed by Friday. Ministers hope that the pressure on hauliers will be relieved by opening up military bases to take lorries delayed by the disruption in the tunnel.

He said: “On this side of the Channel we are in the final stages of procuring some additional facilities to support the (Operation) Stack lorry-holding operations so that when it is switched on again later this week the disruption on the motorways will be less.”

Hammond also announced that Britain and France would redouble their efforts for a “more robust approach” by the European Union to return migrants to their countries of origin. The two countries will also attempt to discourage migrants from travelling to Europe in the first place, by making clear that neither has “streets paved with gold” – reiterating the claim made by home secretary Theresa May over the weekend.

On Monday ministers announced that the requirement for landlords to check on the immigration status of potential tenants is to be toughened and rolled out across the country – even before an official evaluation of the West Midlands pilot scheme has been completed.

It has emerged that the pilot scheme, which started in December, has already led to British citizens without passports being turned away as tenants.

James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, told landlords on 7 July that the six-month pilot had raised concerns about some British citizens with limited documentation who appeared to find it harder to get access to rented accommodation.

Microsoft and Their $100 BILLION Offshore

Posted on by

While some domestic corporations do maintain headquarter offices in the United States, their money is often elsewhere to avoid the destructive tax code. But does Microsoft get an official pass or waiver from the Obama administration?

In September of 2014, Obama and Jack Lew at Treasury took decisive action.

Washington Post: The Obama administration took action Monday to discourage corporations from moving their headquarters abroad to avoid U.S. taxes, announcing new rules designed to make such transactions significantly less profitable.

The rules, which take effect immediately, will not block the practice, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms. But in the meantime, he said, federal officials “cannot wait to address this problem,” which threatens to rob the U.S. Treasury of tens of billions of dollars.

“This action will significantly diminish the ability of inverted companies to escape U.S. taxation,” Lew told reporters. “For some companies considering deals, today’s action will mean that inversions no longer make economic sense.

“These transactions may be legal, but they’re wrong,” he added. “And the law should change.”

Tax analysts praised the new regulations, saying they will make it much harder for U.S. firms to bring cash earned abroad back to the United States tax-free — a major incentive in the relocations known as tax “inversions.” It was not immediately clear, however, whether the new rules would be sufficient to head off a wave of inversions expected to cascade over the American landscape in the weeks before the Nov. 4 midterm congressional elections.

Microsoft’s Offshore Profit Pile Surges Past $100 Billion Mark

Microsoft Corp.’s stockpile of offshore profits rose to $108 billion, with a 17 percent increase over the past year as the company continues reaping profits in low-tax foreign jurisdictions.

The company crossed the $100 billion mark, making it just the second U.S. corporation — after General Electric Co. — to do so, according to a securities filing July 31. Apple Inc. has more cash abroad than Microsoft, but it already has assumed for accounting purposes that it will pay tax on some of the stockpile and thus has less than $70 billion offshore that would affect earnings directly if repatriated.

What’s keeping Microsoft’s cash abroad is the U.S. tax code. The company would be required to pay the difference between its foreign taxes and the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate if it brought the money home.

To get its $108.3 billion back, Microsoft would have to pay the U.S. $34.5 billion in taxes. That equals a 31.9 percent rate, which suggests that the company has paid as little as 3.1 percent in taxes on its foreign income, because of operations in low-tax Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico.

The Internal Revenue Service and Microsoft are in the midst of an intense legal battle over the company’s transfer pricing, or intracompany transactions. The federal government is auditing the company’s returns as far back as 2004, and Microsoft has challenged the government’s hiring of outside lawyers.

Peter Wootton, a spokesman for Microsoft, declined to comment.

Repatriating Profits

Under current law, U.S. companies owe the full 35 percent rate on profits they earn around the world, but they don’t have to pay the U.S. until they repatriate the profits. That gives companies an incentive to book profits overseas and leave them there, and that’s just what they’ve done.

U.S. companies have more than $2 trillion amassed outside the U.S., according to a Bloomberg News review earlier this year of the securities filings of 304 companies.

Apple has more than $200 billion in cash stockpiled, with almost 90 percent of it overseas. As of its most recent annual report, Apple had $69.7 billion in profits on which it hasn’t assumed taxes.

U.S. lawmakers are looking for ways to get some of that cash back in the U.S. President Barack Obama supports a one-time 14 percent tax on stockpiled profits, with the proceeds going to highways and other infrastructure programs. Some Republicans favor a similar approach and are working on a detailed plan.

Obama and DoJ to Interfere on Jury’s Decision on PLO

Posted on by

In February of 2015, a Federal jury found the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization liable for supporting 6 terror attacks in Israel that affected American families at the time.

The lawsuit was filed in 2004 under the U.S. Anti-terrorism Act. The two terror groups above have been ordered to pay $218 million to the families. Federal law also has a major section that applies in this case where the damages are actually tripled.

If you wonder why Obama may order the DoJ to intervene, just refer to my previous article on why Obama holds first loyalty to the Palestinians.

Just one of the articles of evidence is found here.

White House mulling intervention in massive judgment against Palestinians in terror case

FNC: The Obama administration has signaled it may intervene next week in a civil lawsuit in which 11 American families won a potential billion-dollar judgment from the Palestinian leadership over a series of bombings and shootings that killed or wounded dozens of U.S. citizens, a move that critics say would find the government siding with terrorists over its own citizens.

The families won a $218.5 million judgment in February after a seven-week trial in Manhattan Federal Court in which a jury found the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority were responsible for a string of attacks from 2001 to 2004 that killed 33 and injured hundreds. A 1992 law that requires damages in such cases to be tripled, as well as interest on the award, would push it to as much as $1.1 billion. The judgment, which the Palestinians are appealing, would equal nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual operating budget.

 

Late last month, the Department of Justice, which had previously not been involved in the 11-year-old case, informed the court it was considering filing a “statement of interest” in the case by Aug. 10, but officials would not elaborate. A source said the Department of Justice was working with the State Department on the matter.

“As the filing states, the United States is considering whether to submit a Statement of Interest in the [Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization] matter,” a DOJ spokeswoman told FoxNews.com. “Any filing would be made on behalf of the United States, not on behalf of any other party.”

“An administration which claims to be fighting terror is planning to weigh in favor of the terrorists.”

– Kent Yalowitz, atttorney for families who sued Palestinian leadership

The Palestinian leadership would not have to pay the award unless it is upheld on appeal, but U.S. District Judge George Daniels said he may require the Palestinians to post bond while the case works its way through the process to show “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”

The plaintiffs included the estates of four U.S. citizens who were killed and several dozen Americans who were physically or psychologically injured in the attacks as well as their families. Kent Yalowitz, the families’ attorney, has requested that the Palestinian leadership be required to place $30 million per month in escrow while the case is appealed. Yalowitz suspects the U.S. government is considering intervening to help the cash-strapped Palestinian leadership avoid the bond.

“An administration which claims to be fighting terror is planning to weigh in favor of the terrorists,” Yalowitz told FoxNews.com. “If our government actually came in favor of convicted terrorists, it would be a really sorry statement about the way our government treats terror.”

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and a Fox News contributor, said the administration would be wrong to assert a diplomatic role in the case.

“Palestine is not a state, and is therefore, not entitled to be treated like a state,” Bolton told Fox News. “It does not enjoy sovereign immunity and it would be wrong for the United States government to argue otherwise in federal court.”

The complicated damage formula includes tripling the award to $655.5 million under a 1992 U.S. anti-terrorism law, as well as interest, which lawyers for the families place at $165 million, and which would also be tripled. Although Daniels has indicated he is unlikely to impose interest, the total sought by the families’ attorneys is $1.15 billion.

“This could be the end of the Palestinian Authority,” Palestinian Authority attorney Mitchell Berger said in court. “And that’s why we’re here to argue over the judgment.”

Families of the victims say the jury has spoken, and note the PLO and Palestinian Authority pays stipends to the very terrorists and their families who carried out the attacks.

“The U.S. government and the DOJ should be ashamed that they are even considering telling an American court that the PLO and the PA can afford to pay convicted terrorists, but cannot afford to pay the victims of those very same terrorists,” Alan Bauer, a family member, told Fox News.

The federal jury in February found the PLO and Palestinian Authority liable over six shootings and bombings between 2002 and 2004 in the Jerusalem area, which have been attributed to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas.

In two cases, the attackers were Palestinian Authority police officers; in another, a suicide bomber was shown to have worked closely with the PA’s military intelligence office in planning the attack; and in a 2004 suicide bombing of a bus, in which 11 were killed and 50 wounded, PA police and security officials admitted to participating in the plot and making the bomb.

In each case, the Palestinian Authority paid the families of suicide bombers and those later jailed for their participation in the attack.