The CIA Pays Telecoms Millions For Your Personal Information
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The CIA Pays Telecoms Millions For Your Personal Information

on

  • 292 views

On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the CIA is paying AT&T more than $10 million ...

On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the CIA is paying AT&T more than $10 million
a year to help the intelligence agency conduct “counterterrorism investigations” on voluntary
contract. The arrangement is a business deal that avoids the messy business of subpoenas, court
orders, the legal system and the Bill of Rights.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
292
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
292
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The CIA Pays Telecoms Millions For Your Personal Information The CIA Pays Telecoms Millions For Your Personal Information Document Transcript

    • The CIA Pays Telecoms Millions For Your Personal Information Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com November 7, 2013 On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the CIA is paying AT&T more than $10 million a year to help the intelligence agency conduct “counterterrorism investigations” on voluntary contract. The arrangement is a business deal that avoids the messy business of subpoenas, court orders, the legal system and the Bill of Rights. The CIA gives the transnational communications corporation the phone numbers of people it wants data on and AT&T searches it databases. “The program adds a new dimension to the debate over government spying and the privacy of communications records, which has been focused on National Security Agency programs in recent months,” the Times explains. “The disclosure sheds further light on the ties between intelligence officials and communications service providers.” NSA and CIA spying on the American people is nothing new. It has occurred uninterrupted since the establishment of the national security state in 1947. Illegal spying on the communications of the American people began in earnest back in 1945 with Operation Shamrock, a collaborative effort between British and U.S. intelligence to collect the telegraph messages of millions of citizens. It operated in tandem with Project Minaret, a sister project that sent the pilfered communications along to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Department of Defense, and local law enforcement. Both programs were designed to keep tabs on “unreliable” Americans like Martin Luther King and thousands of others considered dangerous to the status quo, including antiwar protesters, untrustworthy politicians, diplomats, businessmen, trade union leaders, non-government organizations, and even Catholic Church officials. Minaret was established with the specific purpose of spying on “subversive”
    • Americans, in other words those who disagreed with the establishment. Although the Church Committee uncovered a lot of information about these Fourth Amendment busting operations, the full extent of the involvement of Western Union, RCA, ITT, and other telecoms was covered up by President Gerald Ford when he extended executive privilege to the corporations on the recommendations of then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and presidential chief of staff Dick Cheney. In addition, then vice president Nelson Rockefeller worked to keep Senate Democrats from discovering just how deep the constitutional violations of the intelligence community ran. He established the bogus “Rockefeller Commission” to whitewash excesses after the New York Times published a Seymour Hersh article revealing the existence of the decades-old domestic surveillance programs. Instead, Senate Democrats sidestepped Rockefeller and established the Church Committee in 1975 (this would be the last time a relatively unencumbered congressional committee would be allowed to investigate the CIA and other intelligence agencies). Limited revelations uncovered by the Church Committee would lead to President Jimmy Carter signing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law in 1978. This would lead to the creation of a secret FISA court outside the purview of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It routinely rubber-stamped illegal surveillance of American citizens. In October, following a howl of public outrage over NSA surveillance, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the dubiously titled FISA Improvement Act. Instead of reforming FISA procedures, the measure in fact legalized bulk data collection. Congress admits that it has virtually zero oversight over the NSA (and less than zero over the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community). “I believe the NSA would answer questions if we asked them, and if we knew to ask them, but it would not routinely report these things, and in general they would not fall within the focus of the committee,” said Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein when asked about oversight. The latest news about CIA rolling around in bed with large telecoms is hardly surprising and in fact only underscores what we already know — we live in a sprawling surveillance panopticon and have since the end of the Second World War and the establishment of the national security state.
    • N.H. Man Fights Denial Of ‘COPSLIE’ Vanity Plate Lynne Tuohy usatoday.com November 7, 2013 A New Hampshire man told the state's highest court Thursday that denying him a vanity license plate that reads "COPSLIE" violates his political free speech rights. David Montenegro, of Farmington, said he wanted the plate because he feels it epitomizes government corruption. Lawyers for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, who joined the case, say the current DMV regulation is unconstitutionally vague and vests too much discretion in a person behind a counter. The policy prohibits vanity plates that "a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste." "So if a person at DMV agrees with the sentiment, he gets the plate?" Chief Justice Linda Dalianis asked during a spirited half-hour of arguments. "What is good taste?" Justice Carol Ann Conboy asked. "That seems to be the nub of the argument." Senior Assistant Attorney General Richard Head argued that state workers were right to deny Montenegro the plate in 2010, because the phrase accuses an entire class of people — police officers — of moral turpitude. "I don't deny you might get two different decisions from two different people," Head said in response to a question about whether a plate reading "COPS R GR8" would be approved. Anthony Galdieri, an attorney representing the civil liberties union, argued that an accusation is nothing more than viewpoint. Justice Gary Hicks questioned how the court could restrict someone's ability to have an opinion. Head replied that Montenegro's plate preference was an allegation, not an opinion. Gilles Bissonnette, another NHCLU attorney, said "COPSLIE" is political speech that is being regulated and suppressed by the government. "There's no way to objectively enforce this regulation," Bissonnette said. After court, Montenegro — who last year legally changed his name to "human" — said he thought police officers who might pull him over and have to type "COPSLIE" into their computers would amount to "the perfect situational irony." He said he was confident the court would invalidate the DMV provision, despite opening his argument by telling the justices that the only reason the case had reached their level was because of a corrupt judiciary. He also acknowledged that he had been arrested twice, but would not say what the charges were. The justices did not indicate when they would rule.
    • Cops Now Enforcing Anal Probing On Americans Routinely Steve Watson Infowars.com Nov 7, 2013 As second horror story emerges, doctors face being banned from practicing medicine Earlier this week we covered the story of an innocent New Mexico man who was forced to endure 14 hours of enforced anal probing at the hands of doctors, on the orders of cops looking for narcotics, and was then billed by the medical center. It has now emerged that this was not an isolated incident, and that ANOTHER person was treated the exact same way in the same medical center. In October, Timothy Young was pulled over by cops in Lordsburg, N.M for not using his blinker. According to police reports, the same drug sniffing dog that featured in David Eckert’s ordeal, described above, again reacted in Mr Young’s case. KOB Eyewitness News 4 reports that Young was immediately taken to the same hospital, the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, and just like Eckert, was subjected to anal exams and x-rays of his stomach, without giving his consent. The examinations again turned up nothing, and it again turned out that the “search warrant” obtained by the cops was issued in a different county to where the medical exams took place. KOB Eyewitness News 4 also reports that the drug sniffing dog’s certification expired in 2011 and was never renewed. The law states that drug dogs must be re-certified every year. “We have done public requests to find anything that would show this dog has been trained, we have evidence that this dog has had false alerts in the past,” David Eckert’s attorney Shannon Kennedy said. The medical center faces the possibility of hefty fines, with the doctors in question scheduled to face the state licensing board, which may revoke their licenses to practice medicine. The police officers involved in Young’s case will face a law enforcement disciplinary board, while in
    • Eckert’s case all involved are staring a weighty lawsuit in the face. This second case indicates that police are conducting this procedure as a matter of routine when a drug sniffing dog reacts to anyone they stop. Indeed, we have covered several disturbing stories of innocent people being forced to undergo cavity searches at the hands of police who have no authority, flagrantly violating the Constitutional rights of Americans. Cops Now Enforcing Anal Probing On Americans Routinely VIDEO BELOW http://www.infowars.com/cops-now-enforcing-anal-probing-on-americans-routinely/ Legal Experts: Even Totally Innocent People Should Avoid Talking To Law Enforcement Washington’s Blog November 7, 2013 A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explains why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police: Dont Talk to Police VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Other criminal defense attorneys agree: Never talk to the police - An Idaho Attorney's Perspective VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCVa-bmEHuQ As does police officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department:
    • Never Talk To Police - 4 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=5oA4hvqwi7M We’ve previously documented that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all, and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it. As such, it is best to avoid law enforcement when possible. It’s vital to note, however, that the Supreme Court ruled this year that your silence CAN be used against you (the link is to the website of one of America’s top constitutional law professors) … at least until you’re read your Miranda rights. Therefore, if you remain silent when police are questioning you, it is very important to tell the police that you are exercising your right to remain silent. As the Atlantic notes: Basically, if you’re ever in any trouble with police… and want to keep your mouth shut,you will need to announce that you’re invoking your Fifth Amendment rightinstead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. “Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer’s question,” reads the [Supreme Court] opinion…. It’s Not Andy Griffith’s America Any More This is not to say that all law enforcement personnel are bad folks. Many of them are outstanding people. But our police forces have become so insanely militarized and the fear of terror has become so wildly overblown that many law enforcement personnel have become hair-trigger tense. People have been severely harassed when they’ve asked for help from law enforcement. For example, an anti-war website was spied on for 6 years after they asked for help by the FBI. And the FBI rifled through all of a woman’s electronic communications after she told the FBI that she was being harassed. Police have recently tasered numerous deaf or retarded people for “failing to follow orders”. And they’ve shot and killed people who were just looking for help. See this and this. Again, we’re not trying to paint with a broad brush; most law enforcement personnel are good folks just trying to do their job. And police are human, too … sometimes they get scared and overreact. But it’s not the same ole Andy Griffith show type demeanor among law enforcement today. So it’s best to be careful. INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND