Wishing Won’t Make It So, Today at 12 p.m. PT (3 p.m. ET) | Don’t Let It Go
Category Archives: Privacy
Don’t Let it go Unheard podcast on Obama’s supposed “turning point” re: the #NSA, #Jihaddenial @ the 9/11 memorial & the “peace process” fantasy #tcot #Aynrand #Objectivist
……” Blanket orders from the secret surveillance court allow these communications to be collected without an individual warrant if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time. Targeting US citizens does require an individual warrant, but the NSA is able to collect Americans’ communications without a warrant if the target is a foreign national located
surveillance capability to deal” with the issue. “These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012.” Two months later, in February this year, Microsoft officially launched the Outlook.com portal. Another newsletter entry stated that NSA already had pre-encryption access to Outlook email. “For Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, & Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption.” Microsoft’s co-operation was not limited to Outlook.com. An entry dated 8 April 2013 describes how the company worked “for many months” with the FBI – which acts as the liaison between the intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley on Prism – to allow Prism access without separate authorization to its cloud storage service SkyDrive. The document describes how this access “means that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this – a process step that many analysts may not have known about”. The NSA explained that “this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response”. It continued: “This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking & collection solution established.” A separate entry identified another area for collaboration. “The FBI Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) team is working with Microsoft to understand an additional feature in Outlook.com which allows users to create email aliases, which may affect our tasking processes.” The NSA has devoted substantial efforts in the last two years to work with Microsoft to ensure increased access to Skype, which has an estimated 663 million global users. One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. “The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete ‘picture’,” it says. Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011. According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general. The NSA was able to start tasking Skype communications the following day, and collection began on 6 February. “Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete,” the document stated, praising the co-operation between NSA teams and the FBI. “Collaborative teamwork was the key to the successful addition of another provider to the Prism system.” ACLU technology expert Chris Soghoian said the revelations would surprise many Skype users. “In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps,” he said.”It’s hard to square Microsoft’s secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google.” The information the NSA collects from Prism is routinely shared with both the FBI and CIA. A 3 August 2012 newsletter describes how the NSA has recently expanded sharing with the other two agencies. The NSA, the entry reveals, has even automated the sharing of aspects of Prism, using software that “enables our partners to see which selectors [search terms] the National Security Agency has tasked to Prism”. The document continues: “The FBI and CIA then can request a copy of Prism collection of any selector…” As a result, the author notes: “these two activities underscore the point that Prism is a team sport!”…..
Obama Promotes Constitutional Fallacies In Gun Control Push http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/17/obama-promotes-constitutional-fallacies-in-gun-control-push/ RRD: Openmarket quotes the Washington Post before rebutting Obama’s argument,the whole piece is worth reading but I wish to add my own comments. ….”
In making his case Wednesday for tighter controls on gun ownership, President Obama turned to the document most often cited by firearms advocates in defense of gun rights — the Constitution. By doing so, Obama sought to turn a perceived political weakness — his image as an aloof intellectual — into a strength, and, at the same time, to turn a perceived strength of gun advocates — the constitutional right to bear arms — into a potential weakness. Citing a series of mass shootings, Obama listed several amendments, as well as the defining phrase of the Declaration of Independence, to argue that the right to bear arms should not compromise other rights. “We have the right to worship freely and safely — that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin,” Obama said at a midday event. “The right to assemble peacefully — that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.” Obama added that “that most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were “denied to college students at Virginia Techand high school students at Columbine and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate.” “All the families who never imagined they’d lose a loved one to a bullet, those rights are at stake,” he said. “We’re responsible.
” …… ……”
The Court noted in its Morrison decision that Constitutional rights only apply against the government, not other private individuals, so the federal government cannot rely on constitutional rights as a basis for regulating private — as opposed to governmental — conduct. It has to rely on a federal power specifically listed in the Constitution instead.
”……. RRD: According to at least two of his teachers Obama is a very bright man, but one unwilling to apply himself to the task of actually…well …learning. ( fn1 ) Increasingly though, I wonder if even that is true,as he keeps making arguments that aren’t particularly clever,even for a ignorant demagogue. For example it does not take a genius to note that if one were to apply this ”right to life” standard mentioned above ,in general ( rather than simply to the Second Amendment) that it would disembowel the Fourth & Fifth Amendments (& incidentally it is the same argument Bush used to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policies) . Of course Obama doesn’t apply it to those other Amendments because to do so would incur the wrath of his base. Further evidence of Obama’s hypocrisy on this issue may be seen in the fact that the right to life standard does not apply to keeping our soldiers in Afghanistan to prevent a terrorist attack. ”
During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger
”….. Obama overrode Generals on Afghanistan so that America could “absorb” a terrorist attack. #tcot #gwot #jcot – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/obama-overrode-generals-on-afghanistan-so-tha RRD: So the ”right to life” standard does not apply to the victims of Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks ( unless those attacks are carried out with guns of course,then they would provide us with a crisis too good to let waste). Given that Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan thinks that terrorism must not be allowed to ”define” or ”distort” our foreign policy this is hardly surprising. (fn2) Nor did this standard apply to the ”workplace violence” of Ft.Hood (fn3),which as horrific as it was must not be allowed to compromise our ”diversity ” (fn4) Nor of course did it apply to the victims of Fast And Furious.(fn5) Nor did it apply to Jane Sturm’s mother since she should take a pill & die (fn6). Nor did it apply to those who need Avastin (fn7). It applies only to disarming the innocent,(which of course would also cause deaths,but as Obama cares only about power, that does not concern him) Again I remain convinced that we are losing due to a inability to get our message out,not due to the invincibility of our enemies. Footnotes: See Mendell Obama from Promise to Power pages 46 & 60 Obama – David Mendell – Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=rtBru4Nrpj8C&lpg=PP1&dq=david%20mendell&pg=PA61#v=snippet&q=teacher%20apply&f=false fn2 White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/6/white-house-war-terrorism-over/print/ fn3 Video: Fort Hood massacre not considered a terrorist attack? « Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/19/video-fort-hood-massacre-not-considered-a-terrorist-attack/ fn4 General Casey: diversity shouldn’t be casualty of Fort Hood | Tales from the Trail http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/ ”
Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse
” fn5. Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up: Katie Pavlich: 9781596983212: Amazon.com: Books http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Furious-Bloodiest-Shameless-Cover-Up/dp/1596983213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358184634&sr=8-1&keywords=katie+pavlich Katie Pavlich – Obama Smirks, Laughs Off Fast and Furious During Debate http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/16/obama_smirks_laughs_off_fast_and_furious_during_debate fn6 Obama:Take a pill instead of pacemaker /RE: Obama’s ”letters praising #Obamacare” #tcot #teaparty #tlot – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/obamatake-a-pill-instead-of-pacemaker-re-obam fn7. FDA’s #Avastin decision is a #breastcancer patient’s worst nightmare Washington Examiner #obamacare #repealit #tcot #tlot – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/fdas-avastin-decision-is-a-breastcancer-patie
Crovitz: “Would be Internet regulators (the UN’s ITU) need deleting” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578167242735088684.html …”
In a referendum among the world’s two billion Internet users, how many would vote to transfer control of the Internet to the United Nations? Perhaps 100,000, an estimate based on the number of top officials ruling the most authoritarian countries, whose power is threatened by the open Web. Under the one country, one vote rule of the U.N., these 100,000 people trump the rest of the two billion. It only takes a majority of the 193 countries in the U.N. to hijack the Internet. The International Telecommunications Union is hosting a conference in Dubai, where many countries are eager to extend the agency’s role beyond telecommunications to regulate the Internet. The two -week conference is half over, with meddlesome proposals from China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes dominating the discussion. A U.S. -Canadian proposal would have limited topics to telecommunications, excluding the Internet. Top U.S. negotiator Terry Kramer said in a call with the media last week that the State Department believes that “fundamentally, the conference should not be dealing with the Internet” and that the U.S. team was working “day and night” to find allies. But State didn’t respond to my follow-up question asking for an estimate of how many countries have pledged to keep hands off the Internet. This is likely a low percentage of the 193. Instead, authoritarian governments want to legitimize government censorship, tax Internet traffic that crosses national boundaries and mandate that ITU bureaucrats replace the nongovernmental engineering groups now smoothly running the Internet.
Don’t Let It Go Unheard #Objectivist ( #aynrand ) Topics: Obama’s ”doing fine” remark,Obama #2012 data mining,How NOT to help gays & minorities #tlot #teaparty
”PLANNED TOPICS: The right way, and the wrong way, to promote the interests of gays and other minorities. Can Obama win the election this fall by collecting more data on us than Romney does ? Also, what in the world made him say this week that “the private sector is doing fine” ? And more if there’s time.”
RRD:Previously I posted on the ”morality pill” concept.
I aim to misbehave :Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour The Guardian – fightingstatism
Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behaviour
”Those who ignore the warnings of science fiction are doomed to live in dystopia.”
Now it seems that there is a ”cure” for Racism.Or at least for ”unconscious racism”.
And who could be opposed to such mind altering drugs?
So long as they’re voluntary,of course.
They would be voluntary,wouldn’t they?
I mean you can’t imagine a society compelling people to take such drugs,by arguing that hate crimes are a ”public health risk”,& after all, hate crimes start with hateful thoughts.
Surely you’re not defending racism,are you Robert?
One wonders how many films must be made on the dangers of mind control:Serenity,28 days later,A Clockwork Orange?
No I don’t think such efforts will succeed.
They have already been tried to no avail.
But I do think that such efforts will lead to the violation of individual rights.
PICKET: Anti-racism pill on the way? – Washington Times
Quotes: Serenity (2005)
……”Dr. Caron: These are just a few of the images we’ve recorded. And you can see, it wasn’t what we thought. There’s been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It’s the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There’s 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die”….
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: [RE: What they found on Miranda] This record here’s about twelve years old. Parliament buried it and it stayed buried until River here dug it up. This is what they were afraid she knew. And they were right to fear. There’s a universe of folk who’re gonna know it, too. Someone *has to* speak for these people. [pause] Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.”
Quotes: A Clockwork Orange (1971)
”Prison Chaplain: Choice! The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.
Minister: Padre, there are subtleties! We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.”…
RRD:This time I will let Romney speak for himself.I have quoted the whole thing in context.
2012 ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate (Transcript) – Election 2012 – The Washington Post
”STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled —
ROMNEY: … or a — or a legislature of a state — I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sure Congressman Paul…
ROMNEY: OK, come on — come on back…
STEPHANOPOULOS: … asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?
ROMNEY: George, I — I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no — no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on…
ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court — has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.
ROMNEY: The — I believe in the — that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court — and occasionally I do — then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it’s — it’s known as the amendment process.
And — and where we have — for instance, right now we’re having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My view is, we should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of — of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.
ROMNEY: I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.
And by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it’s not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the Constitution. But this idea that justice…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But should that be done in this case?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Should that be done in this case?
ROMNEY: Should this be done in the case — this case to allow states to ban contraception?No. States don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?
With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.
(APPLAUSE) STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn…
(SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE YELLING)
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.”
Topics for Don’t Let it Unheard:If not #Cain,who for #2012 ? #SCOTUS & Privacy,FTC/Facebook Bosch Fawstin’s latest piece.
BTR – Don’t Let It Go Unheard – politics, Ayn Rand, Objectivism, culture, philosophy
“Topics planned: FTC’s settlement with Facebook and privacy cases pending in the Supreme Court. Is Herman Cain out? If so, what are we left with? Bosch Fawstin talks about his recent Front Page Magazine article, “Non-Mulsim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West.” And more if there’s time.”
RRD:Standard disclaimer,(particularly since the show has not yet aired),posting does not imply endorsement or agreement(or lack thereof) with the particular views expressed on a given topic.It simply means that I find the show worth listening to.