Sibel Edmonds destroys Glenn Greenwald

[Spiro C. Thiery]

...
I could never shake the feeling with Sibyl Edmonds that she was too good to be true.

She promised so much and never really delivered.

I'm not saying that was her fault.

But I still don't think this episode casts her in a favourable light.
...

I think the more important thing here is that these issues have been raised and that Greenwald has responded to legitimate questions about his methods and associations in a condescending dismissive manner irrespective of the tone one takes with him in raising the questions. Edmonds is certainly not alone bringing all of this up. I see little difference between those who view Greenwald as a gatekeeper and those who trust his approach. His function is the same either way.

I lost respect for him when he began at the outset to compare his approach by framing Manning's as reasonably viewable as potentially dangerous at a time when his trial was getting underway. Some might say that was legal cover, but he went above and beyond hammering that point home and reinforcing the national security narrative.

I don't need to take a wait and see approach. I know what I'm looking at already.

[Nordic]

Greenwald-Omidyar Joint Venture: The Blurring Lines Between Being A Source & Being A Journalist

SIBEL EDMONDS | DECEMBER 13, 2013 9 COMMENTS

What Do Ethic Guidelines Say about Paying Sources for Information?

I guess they are right when they say we live in an information age. Information is money. It is true. So much can be done with information that would make it worth paying for. Also, so much can be achieved by blocking and withholding information, which also would make it worth paying for. Can you imagine what a major corporation could do with information gathered on its competitor? Think about what the government could do (or, is doing) with information it gathers on its court judges, congressional representatives, and dissenters. Yes, indeed. This is an age where information rules, and having information makes rulers.
In the past, up until very recently, the field of journalism was viewed as having to remain outside and above the commoditization of high-value information and sources. Please don’t get me wrong. Journalists have been far from being independent or neutral, and their motives have always been in line and in harmony with the ruling class: government and major corporations. Whether for good or very bad, things are changing even further with the corporate media, and some unfortunately, for worse. Ethical guidelines for journalists and journalism appear to have lost all relevancy and application. Further, the lines that were once drawn separating journalists from sources-information have been blurring to a point where all you see is sand and no line. Nowhere is this more obvious than the recent business venture struck between billionaire corporate-ist mogul Pierre Omidyar and self-proclaimed journalist Glenn Greenwald.

This past summer NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden entrusted his 50,000+ documents with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. He was a source who made a decision, good or bad, to provide the obtained documents, his incriminating information, to the duo. At that point, he removed himself as the primary source. At that point, Greenwald and Poitras became the information source.
To date, more than six months since the duo obtained the 50,000+ documents, only one percent (1%) has been released to the public. By choice, the duo decided to withhold the rest of the cache-99+% of their documents.
In October 2013 the billionaire owner of e-Bay and PayPal Corporation set up a brand new news corporation, and offered Greenwald and Poitras $250 million for these documents and information. And they accepted.
Is Glenn Greenwald A Journalist or A Source in This Case?

A major conflict of interest and convoluted fact in this case stems from the presence of a blurry line between being a source (information source) and a journalist.
A broad definition of a journalist is summed up below:

A journalist is someone employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing, and disseminating (activities) news and information (output) to serve the public interest (social role).
And here is a broad definition of a source in journalism:

In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or other document that gives timely information. Examples of sources include official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by a news event or issue.

Up until this stage, Glenn Greenwald had been known and worked as a commentator and a columnist. At no point in time was he hired or represented as a journalist. That is a fact, and it is recorded as such.
He was a columnist for Guardian US from August 2012 to October 2013.[1][2][3] He was a columnist for Salon.com from 2007-2012, and an occasional contributor to The Guardian.[4][5][6] Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator. At Salon he contributed as a columnist and blogger, focusing on political and legal topics.[7]

He did a decent job as a commentator and author. However, there is no record ever identifying him as a journalist. He was a paid columnist for Salon and Guardian until he came into possession of Edward Snowden’s 50,000-page document cache. Therefore, what did he become once he received the whistleblower’s evidence (documents), and was told to become the source to provide the documents to the public?
As far as the media was concerned, Greenwald then became the source to whom they went to gather information. The newspaper went to him to inquire of documents (information obtained by Edward Snowden), not as an Intelligence expert or a reporter. The networks brought him on as a witness, and of course, as a source.

Most importantly, the corporate mogul, Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire who owns e-Bay and PayPal, set up another corporation to acquire Glenn Greenwald as an exclusive source to be owned by his $250 million corporation.
Greenwald had been around for a decade as a pundit, columnist, writer. Yet, during these years, billionaires such as PayPal’s Omidyar had never expressed any interest in him. Same went for other corporate media outlets. Sure, Greenwald was a good author and a pundit, but to them he was not worthy of hiring with millions of dollars and employing as a journalist. So what gave? What did change in Greenwald’s value as a commodity?
There is only one thing that changed: he became a source. Once Snowden gave him the entire cache, he became the primary source. He became the man who possessed documented evidence that could expose not only the monstrous government and its illegal activities, but also monstrous corporations in cahoots with the government and its criminal activities.

Now, if you add to that PayPal Corporation’s stakes in this- its cooperation and partnership with the NSA in providing millions of people’s financial information and transaction data, then you are looking at Greenwald becoming a valuable commodity, someone worth spending $250 million for, for PayPal’s owner, the billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

This makes Greenwald a source, a valuable commodity, when it comes to his position and worth to PayPal Corporation’s Omidyar. Not a journalist. Not a columnist. But a source who possesses some extremely valuable and crucial information.

Now, let’s see how the journalistic ethics guide views sources that are paid and bought out. Shall we?

When it comes to payments to information sources in journalism Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee (SPJ) states the following:

Checkbook journalism, the practice of obtaining exclusive interviews by the roundabout method of licensing photos and videos, violates the SPJ Code of Ethics, which advises journalists to “act independently.” That includes being “wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.”

The following statement puts forth the unethical practice of paying sources bluntly and appropriately:

After all, it’s one of the Commandments of Good Journalism: Thou shalt not pay for information. Only the tabloids, of both the supermarket and TV variety, regard news as a tradable commodity.
“The standard line is news organizations don’t pay for information,” says Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. “The public perceives that the information is tainted by financial motives…. They will discount the value of the information.“

SPJ’s guideline for the journalistic code of ethics makes it very clear that journalists must::

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

And why must we take checkbook journalism and its implications very seriously? Again, SPJ says it loud and clear:

The practice of checkbook journalism threatens to corrupt the newsgathering and reporting functions of the media. Because journalism — accurate and credible news — is so essential to the maintenance of a democracy, checkbook journalism is not only unethical, it threatens to undermine journalism and damage democracy.

The publication, the news company, owns the journalist’s information and writings under an employment contract between the news corporation and the journalist and or author:

Work for Hire is similar to “All Rights,” except that in this case, you have no claim to copyright at all. Most “work for hire” is done within the scope of employment, or when working for a commission. However, many publications also expect freelance writers to sign work-for-hire agreements. When you do this, you are transferring not just your rights but your actual copyright to the publication (or employer). You have no rights to the material, which can be altered, resold, published under another name, or used in any other fashion the publication desires, without additional compensation to you.

In this case it is not Greenwald’s work or writing that is of any value to Billionaire Pierre Omidyar. As we have established, billionaires like him had never spent a penny on commentators and pundits like Greenwald. Omidyar’s corporation bought out Greenwald as a source, and established ownership and directorship of Snowden’s documents entrusted with Greenwald. Now, both remain as exclusive properties of PayPal Corporation’s owner.
I started this commentary with the information age and what information can be worth and be used for. I want to finalize this commentary with a few comments on what Snowden’s information is worth to gigantic corporations such as Omidyar’s PayPal and e-Bay.

On December 11, 2013, at 4:16 pm, after the publication of our report on NSA-PayPal partnership and long-going cooperation, Glenn Greenwald responded via twitter, and here is what he said-verbatim:
“I don’t doubt PayPal cooperates with NSA – that this is in the docs that we’ve been paid to withhold are total lies.”

Even Greenwald does not deny the fact that the billionaire’s PayPal Corporation is a major stakeholder in the release of the 50,000-page NSA cache. He stands to lose billions of dollars if the details of his corporation’s partnership and cooperation with the NSA were to be made public. What is $250 million spent to buy out the source and information compared to billions of dollars? How about gaining advantageous information that could help Omidyar and his corporations blackmail or marginalize their competitors such as Amazon? How about owning information that would allow Omidyar and his corporations to blackmail and or bribe the US Congress and government regulatory agencies for favors and special treatment in return?

You see, this is what I have been trying to accomplish despite all the vicious and ugly attacks from Glenn Greenwald and his supporters: to highlight the incredible conflict of interest, unethical practices, and grave consequences to transparency, whistleblowers, and the public’s right to know. I believe you must do the same: take them on: Greenwald, Billionaire Omidyar, and all others who have been conspiring to profit from yet censoring information that was obtained for you, the public, and your right to know.

- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... v7Gim.dpuf

[Luther Blissett]

I like them both, but I wish Edmonds used an editor. That writing style of repitition, sloganeering, and hyperbole just accomplishes so little and then the homophobic content even less.

There exists essentially a one-paragraph legitimate concern wrapped up in those long passages.

[Nordic]

I like them both, but I wish Edmonds used an editor. That writing style of repitition, sloganeering, and hyperbole just accomplishes so little and then the homophobic content even less.

There exists essentially a one-paragraph legitimate concern wrapped up in those long passages.

Maybe Pierre Omidyar will buy an editor for her for Christmas.

[8bitagent]

Sibel should stick to writing about secret Turkish-Neocon yarns...Glenn Greenwald I believe is the real deal.

[Nordic]

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... t-duality/

Green-Light for Greenwald: Government Duplicity or Government Duality?

SIBEL EDMONDS | DECEMBER 14, 2013 3 COMMENTS

Patterns play a major role in identifying entities. We get to know people, organizations and governments based on their record and their pattern of behavior and actions. This is a fact. What happens when an entity identified by a consistent set of patterns suddenly deviates and engages in actions and behavior that completely differ from all its previous ones? We question the sudden deviation. We question the reasons behind the differentiation. Because we must. Because we have to-especially when the entity in question is our government and the current ruler of our lives.

Allow me to present you with a pattern that has been the consistent modus operandi of the United States government when it comes to real whistleblowers and exposure of the government’s criminal deeds through unauthorized disclosures and leaks.

The following summarizes our government’s record and pattern when it comes to dealing with its whistleblowers and those who challenge the government by making incriminating information public via disclosures and or releasing (leaking) documents:

Elimination of the Messengers’ Jobs and Income
Prevention of Objective Publicity and Media Coverage via Government Media Partners
Utilization of the Courts as Their Tentacles’ Extension to Place Official Gag Orders
Utilization of the Courts as Their Tentacles’ Extension for One-Sided Prosecutions
Utilization of the Courts as Their Tentacles’ Extension for Imprisonment of the Adversary
Utilization of Blackmail & Pressure to Prevent Publication of Books and or Articles
Consistent Slander and Successful Attempts to Marginalize and Defame

Based on firsthand experience, my intimate knowledge of hundreds of whistleblower cases through my organization and relationships, and a decade of research, study and observation, I could take up hundreds of pages to list and elaborate upon case after case that demonstrate the pattern as consistent when it comes to our government’s response and dealings with its whistleblowers and adversaries. This is meant to be a brief commentary not a novella, so I refrain. However, I will list a few examples to illustrate the pattern, and also to honor those who have suffered greatly as a result of our government’s consistency when it comes to its dealing with the incriminating exposure and the messengers of the truth.

After three years of confinement Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in Jail for leaking incriminating documents on government wrongdoings and criminal activities.

After a years-long investigation, John Kiriakou was charged with three counts of espionage, one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and one count of making false statements as a result of his 2007 ABC News interview in which he said the CIA was torturing prisoners and that this torture was official US government policy.

For acting out of conscience and refusing to stand by as the NSA disregarded Americans’ safety and privacy, Thomas Drake was criminally prosecuted. The government conducted an armed raid of Drake’s home. The DOJ indicted Drake under the Espionage Act with improper “retention” – not disclosure – of allegedly classified information, and Drake faced decades in prison.

Shami Leibowitz, a former FBI Hebrew translator, was sentenced to 20 months in prison in 2010 after pleading guilty to leaking classified information to a reporter.

Edward Snowden has been charged by the U.S. government for leaking details of the NSA’s illegal (unconstitutional) surveillance.

NSA whistleblower Russell Tice was fired and persecuted by the government for questioning and disclosing NSA’s illegal practices.

I could go on and list dozens of more known cases where those who challenged our government with disclosing illegal activities have ended up being fired, stripped of all income, persecuted, prosecuted, and or ended up in prison. This government pattern also extends to journalists- For example, in the case of James Risen.

Another commonality we see in the cases of Manning, Assange, Kiriakou … is the struggle these truth-tellers go through to secure legal representation, a defense fund, family income for basic survival, and so much more hardship inflicted by the government and its establishment tentacles- mental, psychological, financial, emotional. Remember how the public defense fund for Wikileaks was suspended. Remember how much hardship Manning’s defense fund had to go through. Recall how Russell Tice could not secure organizational support and even an attorney to represent him.

I believe based on what has been reported by the media, this brief overview, and more than a few examples, we get a good grasp of the government’s classic pattern of behavior and actions, and which is intimately paired up with its other establishment partners such as the mainstream media and publications.

Now allow me to present a case in which the government completely deviates from its well-established and well-known pattern and record.

A whistleblower, Edward Snowden, risks everything to obtain over 50,000 pages of government documents that expose many criminal deeds committed by the government. He has to leave the country since he knows what happens to those who engage in this type of disclosure. He hands over all these documents to two self-proclaimed journalists-Greenwald and Poitras, and entrusts them with its disclosure, because that was supposedly his intention in the first place: For the public to know what its government (rulers) have been doing in secrecy and behind their backs. He goes to Russia and stays there in order to escape prosecution and imprisonment.
Our government publicly declares Edward Snowden a traitor, criminal and a thief. Our government says it doesn’t matter if these documents implicate us in outrageous criminal (unconstitutional) operations and activities. What he has done is theft: These documents belong to us, that they are highly classified and sensitive, and that the whistleblower has to be prosecuted and jailed under the Espionage Act. So yes, these are the claims our government has been making regarding Snowden’s documents, and his action to obtain and release them.

Are you with me so far? Very good. Because here is what happens next:

Once Edward Snowden gives Glenn Greenwald his entire cache, Greenwald then becomes the person who possesses the documents that the U.S. government considers stolen, highly classified. And when he starts releasing a very few pages of these documents (less than 1%), he becomes the person who not only has in his possession highly classified stolen government documents, but also is the person who is engaged in selectively releasing and publicizing some of these documents. According to the government, when Snowden engaged in these exact same acts, holding and distributing the documents, he was committing an act of treason, theft, and illegal disclosures, all prosecutable under the Espionage Act.

Please let me pause here and emphasize the fact that I oppose our government’s characterization of the documents and the whistleblower, and I view the government’s actions against whistleblowers and releasing incriminating documents as completely wrong. I have always sided with real whistleblowers, and I always will.

Now, let’s move on, and observe how, suddenly, our government changes its position, completely deviates from its consistent pattern when it comes to whistleblowing and leaking, and acts totally contrary to how it always has acted in response to its adversaries who disclose and publicize incriminating information that exposes its illegal activities and operations.

Glenn Greenwald has in his possession over 50,000 pages of highly classified government documents. The government comes out publicly and sanctions his possession of the documents it previously claimed to be stolen government properties.

Holder indicated that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn Greenwald continues his ‘selective’ release of a very few documents. The government takes an entirely new position that says, it is okay, and that it is not going to investigate and prosecute the person who is disseminating ‘some’ of this highly-classified and stolen material.

After stating that the Justice Department has not given up its efforts to repatriate Edward Snowden, Holder said that the department is not, however, planning to take action against Greenwald.

…He said: Unless information that has not come to my attention is presented to me, what I have indicated in my testimony before Congress is that any journalist who’s engaged in true journalistic activities is not going to be prosecuted by this Justice Department…

Now remember, this same Justice Department, Eric Holder, has been going after New York Times journalist, James Risen on a much smaller case, and for far less significant charges.

Glenn Greenwald puts some (Less than 1%) of these documents out for auction and invites book publishers to come and bid. He promises to reserve some of these highly-classified documents for the book deal offered by the highest bidder. The mainstream publishers take his invitation and start bidding on it so that they could publish some reserved and exclusive and juicy classified documents. The highest bidder offers millions of dollars and seals the exclusive deal. The government sees nothing wrong or illegal with this, and gives its consent with its silence and ‘go ahead’ nod.

Glenn Greenwald, the investigative reporter who broke the story on NSA leaker Edward Snowden and the U.S. government’s secret surveillance programs, has inked a deal to write a book on the subject. According to the publisher, it will “contain new revelations exposing the extraordinary cooperation of private industry and the far-reaching consequences of the government’s program, both domestically and abroad.”

His new book was acquired by Bershtel from Dan Conaway at Writers House Llc. International rights have been sold in Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway and Sweden by Devon Mazzone, a director of Subsidiary Rights at Macmillan.

Glenn Greenwald puts himself as the holder of the 50,000-page cache on another auction bid. PayPal Corporation’s Billionaire Owner, Pierre Omidyar, bids high, $250 million, in return for only one thing: Getting access and ownership of ‘some’ of these stolen and highly-classified documents.

A recent Rolling Stone profile noted that “Omidyar came to Greenwald specifically because of the Snowden leaks.” Given that those leaks deal primarily with how government agencies have accessed data from technology companies in the name of law enforcement, eBay’s eagerness to cooperate with those same agencies without so much as a subpoena is troubling. It is notable, too, that aside from his continuing stockholding in eBay, Omidyar has jointly invested in at least one startup (Innocentive) with the CIA’s venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel.

The government gives its nod and consent to this deal as well: Basically, the government says, this billionaire and his news company are allowed to disseminate the documents we previously declared as stolen, very sensitive and highly-classified.

To make this most convoluted and outrageous story short: while the whistleblower who obtained and released the documents to two journalists had to escape the country, be threatened with death and prosecution and jail, the secondary owner of these same stolen and highly-classified documents was able to secure a $250 million joint venture with a government-connected American corporate mogul in the United States, strike multi-million dollar deals with American mainstream mega publishers and Movie Studios, charge mega bucks for exclusive interviews and information, show his face regularly on all American mainstream media outlets and pose for every single mainstream magazine …

Doesn’t this beg the question? Show me a single case of real whistleblowing and leaking involving thousands of pages of classified government documents implicating the U.S. government, where the whistleblower and or leaker and disseminator was not persecuted, prosecuted and or jailed. Point to one case where the leaker is officially rewarded with a $250 million business venture with a mega corporation who happens to be an intimate partner in the government’s surveillance operations, millions of dollars in book and movie deals, consistent mainstream media coverage and mega bucks for exclusive interviews and selective leaks.

You won’t be able to show a single other case where our government has deviated from its previous pattern of behavior and action when it comes to dealing with and punishing real whistleblowing and real leaking. Not one. Not a single one.

Then, what has caused this deviation? Has the United States government changed into a tolerant and open entity that encourages and rewards whistleblowing? Is this a case of duality, where the government is inflicted with multiple personality syndrome, and all of a sudden is showing its hidden personality no one had ever seen before? Or is it a case of government duplicity in a shenanigan created for reasons far more sinister and dark?
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... Vk9O9.dpuf

[Spiro C. Thiery]

http://pando.com/2013/12/14/team-omidar ... forcement/
Team Omidyar, World Police: eBay puts user data on a “silver platter” for law enforcement
By Mark Ames
On December 14, 2013

“We don’t believe the NSA has come near our data… We have a tremendous amount of thought and procedures and security around customer data.” – Devin Wenig, president, eBay Marketplace


“Unlike other e-commerce companies, eBay is one of the only ones that provides law enforcement with information on a simple request instead of requiring a subpoena. This is stated in our privacy policy.”
— Paul Jones, eBay Senior Director of Global Asset Protection



“I don’t doubt Paypal cooperates with NSA…”
— Glenn Greenwald

This past week, Wikileaks activist and close Snowden ally, Sarah Harrison, was quoted in the Guardian, asking “How can you take Pierre Omidyar seriously?”

Harrison’s outburst was prompted by the trial of the “PayPal 14,” and the company’s 2010 blockade of Wikileaks. PayPal is owned by eBay, the company that Omidyar founded and for which he still serves as chairman. Omidyar’s $250 million media startup, NewCo, recently hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the only two people with access to full cache of Edward Snowden’s NSA secrets.

Said Harrison:

”[Omidyar] is on the board of directors. He can’t shake off responsibility that easily. He didn’t even comment on it… If you set up a new media organisation which claims to do everything for press freedom, but you are part of a blockade against another media organisation, then that’s hard for us to take it seriously.”

[Disclosure: Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, is an investor in Pando Media through Founders Fund. Former eBay president Jeff Jordan and eBay board member Marc Andreessen are personal investors in Pando Media. ]




In fact, Harrison was wrong about Omidyar not commenting on the Wikileaks blockade. In December 2010, in an editorial co-written for his Civil Beat media startup, Omidyar not only commented on the controversy but explained, in stark corporatist terms, why PayPal had no choice but to cut off funding to WikiLeaks: the interests of shareholders take precedence over the interests of a “principle” like supporting free speech rights.

“[T]he executives of these businesses [PayPal et al] cannot tell their shareholders that it will hurt their company more to cave on a matter of principle than to drop a customer. It is their right and common practice to shut a customer down when they receive complaints from criminal investigators, even without a court order. This even though the existence of a criminal investigation is no indication of guilt.

“The executives have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders.”

Again, the largest shareholder in PayPal’s parent company is one Pierre Omidyar, who owns nearly 10 percent of the company. Unexpressed in that last sentence is the fact that “what’s best for their shareholders” means, in particular, “what’s best for Pierre Omidyar.”

Also missing from the op-ed was any suggestion that Omidyar had formally protested the blockade in his capacity as eBay’s chairman. It was only three years later that he insisted he had “expressed concerns” directly to company management. Concerns that, despite coming from the company’s chairman and single largest shareholder, were apparently ignored.

Until a few days ago, the world knew very little about Pierre Omidyar’s personal views on people who leak secrets, particularly secrets belonging to corporations rather than the government. (Remember that, before it started publishing government cables, Wikileaks made its name exposing corporate secrets.)

That changed last weekend when Pando investigations editor Paul Carr invited Omidyar to address remarks he made in 2009 about when editors should turn in non-violent leakers to the authorities.

Omidyar’s response must have horrified any source considering leaking to NewCo: 

”[U]nless I judge significant pub interest in those docs, I’d prob tell the cops. My jdgmt”, he wrote, adding: “Every case is different, which is why you shouldn’t make absolute statements.”

For journalists who believe that (non-violent) sources should be protected under all circumstances, this apparent breach of journalistic convention was astonishing. And made all the more so, coming from the billionaire who just promised $250 million to secure the rights to secrets leaked by America’s most wanted whistleblower.

But Omidyar’s willingness to “probably” hand over sources to law enforcement looks positively Woodwardian when contrasted with the behavior of the company he still serves as chairman. A company that, it turns out, not only complies with requests from government agencies for user data but proudly boasts of doing so proactively, often without formal warrants or subpoenas.

From its earliest days, eBay has operated a vast trans-national private police force which has overseen thousands of arrests and convictions around the globe, has trained countless thousands of law enforcement officials in the US and abroad, and cooperates with police and intelligence agencies on every inhabitable continent.

Last year, eBay’s longtime Chief Internet Security Officer, David Culliname, told an audience of top private security executives that eBay’s global security operations led to the arrests of 3,000 people around the world over a period of three years — or roughly three people arrested per day, thanks to eBay’s work.

That represents an increase over the volume of eBay-led arrests cited in 2007, when eBay executive Robert Chesnut boasted before a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism:*

“The assistance that our teams provide to law enforcement agencies around the world lead to an average of two arrests every single day.”

Chesnut also revealed the scope of eBay’s training programs, back when eBay was a much smaller outfit than it is today:

“In 2006 alone, we trained over 3000 law enforcement personnel in North America about online fraud in the eBay/PayPal context and how we can help them prosecute criminals who attempt to abuse our users.”

He revealed that there were “over 2000 eBay Inc employees around the world working to combat all forms of on-line fraud” — out of a total of some 15,000 employees that year. (Today, eBay has some 30,000 employees worldwide.)

Up through 2008, eBay publicly touted its “Fraud Investigation Team” as the centerpiece of its private global policing. Chesnut, a former US Assistant Attorney General in the eastern Virginia District, told Congress that eBay’s Fraud Investigation Team “works closely with law enforcement officials at the federal, state and local levels,” and boasted:

“[W]e have teams in San Jose and Salt Lake City to serve enforcement agencies throughout North America. Because we operate in a truly global marketplace, we also have Fraud Investigation Teams in Dublin, Ireland and Dreilinden, Germany to serve law enforcement in Europe and Asia.”

eBay works closely with a variety of federal agencies, including the FBI, Homeland Security, and the DEA. In 2007, eBay spokesperson Nichola Sharpe told the AP, “We’ve been working with the Drug Enforcement Agency as far back as 2006. People buy items that are completely harmless — law enforcement can look at that and see it’s suspicious.”

According to a DEA agent from the Rocky Mountain Field division, Mike Tuner, working with eBay offered certain legal advantages. To search a person’s home, the DEA would need a court-ordered subpoena or warrant, but to search the suspect’s business information and behavior on eBay, the DEA only required an administrative subpoena, which eBay ensured would be easy to obtain.

The company’s law enforcement-friendly privacy policy demands users agree to allow eBay to hand over private information to law enforcement upon request. Thanks to the company’s “streamlining” efforts to help law enforcement investigators access information, those requests were readily complied with.

Not that eBay’s cooperation with authorities was a one way street. The company lobbied state and federal legislators “calling for tougher penalties, mandatory sentences and higher priority prosecutions” of online retail thieves. As eBay’s Chesnut told the House Subcommittee:

“[A] legislative solution to the problem of organized retail theft is simple: increase the criminal penalties for this conduct. If these crimes are currently classified as misdemeanors, upgrade them to felonies. If the jail sentences tied to these crimes are too short, lengthen them.”

In 2008, eBay launched a new program to crack down on sales of stolen property called PROACT — Partnering with Retailers Offensively Against Crime and Theft –under which eBay assisted law enforcement in 7,400 stolen property investigations and helped in the arrests of 237 people in the US in 2008 alone.

In April 2009, eBay executives appeared at a “training day” conference with law enforcement officials in Washington, DC, which gave a further glimpse into eBay’s work with government law enforcement. At the meeting, according to Washington Internet Daily, eBay senior regulatory counsel Jack Christin boasted:

“The company referred over 500 cases ‘on a silver platter’ to law enforcement last year [2008], with full records needed to bring cases…”

Christin’s colleague, Edward Torpoco, also admitted that eBay complies with authorities in foreign jurisdictions that may be less protective of data than the US. As recently as October of this year, the UK’s Independent newspaper revealed that British authorities had bought data from eBay for use in searching for unemployment benefits cheats.

In 2003, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on a confidential talk that eBay’s director of law enforcement and compliance, Joseph Sullivan, gave to senior representatives of US law enforcement agencies, in which Sullivan boasted:

“I don’t know another Web site that has a privacy policy as flexible as eBay’s.”

Haaretz obtained a recording of Sullivan’s talk, which was closed to journalists, “and for good reason,” the Israeli newspaper reported:

“Sullivan tells the audience that eBay is willing to hand over everything it knows about visitors to its Web site that might be of interest to an investigator. All they have to do is ask. ‘There’s no need for a court order,’ Sullivan said, and related how the company has half a dozen investigators under contract, who scrutinize ‘suspicious users’ and ‘suspicious behavior.’”

Further down the article, eBay’s Sullivan is quoted telling law enforcement officials:

“‘We don’t make you show a subpoena, except in exceptional cases,” Sullivan told his listeners. ‘When someone uses our site and clicks on the I Agree button, it is as if he agrees to let us submit all of his data to the legal authorities. Which means that if you are a law-enforcement officer, all you have to do is send us a fax with a request for information, and ask about the person behind the seller’s identity number, and we will provide you with his name, address, sales history and other details — all without having to produce a court order. We want law enforcement people to spend time on our site.’ He says he receives about 200 such requests a month, most of them unofficial requests in the form of an email or fax.

“The meaning is clear. One fax to eBay from a lawman — police investigator, NSA, FBI or CIA employee, National Park ranger — and eBay sends back the user’s full name, email address, home address, mailing address, home telephone number, name of company where seller is employed and user nickname. What’s more, eBay will send the history of items he has browsed, feedbacks received, bids he has made, prices he has paid, and even messages sent in the site’s various discussion groups.”

Sullivan’s lecture came less than a year after eBay bought PayPal for $1.45 billion. Nimrod Kozlovski, who was with Yale Law School’s Internet Society Project at the time, told Haaretz that what made eBay’s policies so particularly insidious was the fact that on its platform, a range of private activities — from buying and browsing habits to financial information — that had once been atomized and harder for law enforcement to obtain was now being tracked on a grand scale under one private entity’s roof, an entity which was now essentially acting an unaccountable private-sector prosecutor, all with the users’ consent:

“‘By buying PayPal, eBay is merging the information about the goods trail with the money trail… Thus, in spite of the protective mechanisms of the law against disclosure of details on transactions, eBay is in a position to analyze the full set of data and ‘advise’ investigators when it might be ‘worthwhile’ for them to ask for a subpoena to disclose the details of a financial transaction. Essentially, this bypasses the rules on non-disclosure of details of financial transactions and the confidentiality of the banker-client relationship.’”

Others agree. In their book “Who Controls The Internet?” Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith and Columbia Law professor Tim Wu described eBay’s dystopian transformation from left coast anarcho-fantasy dream into a profit-making machine greased by big government coercion:

“Our peek below the surface of eBay’s self-governing facade revealed a far different story — a story of heavy reliance on the iron fist of coercive governmental power. Perpetually threatened by cheaters and fraudsters, eBay established an elaborate hand-in-glove relationship with the police and other governmental officials who can arrest, prosecute, incapacitate, and effectively deter these threats to its business model.”

In the years since these concerns were raised, eBay’s operations have grown by leaps and bounds. At the same time information about eBay/PayPal’s worldwide policing operations has become increasingly harder to come by, as talking up your company’s law enforcement capabilities and cooperation with the government are no longer considered good for business.

A few years ago, the 2000-plus man Fraud Investigation Team was renamed and reorganized — now it’s called the “Global Asset Protection Team.” In 2009, eBay also introduced its “Global Law Enforcement Organization” (GLEO) which hosts a police blotter page on eBay.com.

At a 2009 get-together with top law enforcement officials, eBay representatives
described the mission of its Global Law Enforcement Organization as:

“[T]o promote trust and protect our businesses by partnering with internal stakeholders and working with law enforcement and regulatory organizations proactively and reactively to support the prevention, detection and prosecution of criminal activity on the eBay and PayPal platforms.”

The Law Enforcement Program which the team operates under is now folded into the Government Relations Division. Which makes sense, when you consider that eBay’s private police force and its low-bar privacy policies are the company’s friendliest handshake it offers to the government.

Earlier this past week, Glenn Greenwald, Omidyar’s first editorial hire, responded to allegations from former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds that the unpublished Snowden documents contain information about PayPal cooperation with the NSA, saying, “She made claims about what’s in NSA docs even though she has no idea what’s in them.” He also described Sibel as “crazy” and “stupid” before clarifying, “I don’t doubt PayPal cooperates with NSA.”

Asked by Pando whether the Snowden documents contained details of government cooperation by eBay, Greenwald did not respond. At publication time, eBay had not responded to Pando’s questions about data sharing with the NSA. eBay spokesperson Kari Ramirez told Pando: “eBay Inc. responds to lawful requests from law enforcement agencies worldwide regarding specific individuals or accounts. Regarding PayPal data, we respond to these lawful requests to combat any attempted use of our services for money laundering, terrorist financing or financial fraud.”

All of which brings us back to Pierre Omidyar. A recent Rolling Stone profile noted that “Omidyar came to Greenwald specifically because of the Snowden leaks.” Given that those leaks deal primarily with how government agencies have accessed data from technology companies in the name of law enforcement, eBay’s eagerness to cooperate with those same agencies without so much as a subpoena is troubling. It is notable, too, that aside from his continuing stockholding in eBay, Omidyar has jointly invested in at least one startup (Innocentive) with the CIA’s venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel.

Omidyar’s dual role as billionaire titan of the Big Data industry and outraged champion of anti-government whistleblowers means that secrets that rightfully belong to The People are now are controlled by a man whose wealth and power are directly dependent on profitable relationships with global law enforcement. A man who boasts of circumstances in which he might personally hand over a corporate leaker to authorities, while his for-profit news organization cries outrage at government overreach.

How can we take Pierre Omidyar seriously? With stakes so high, how can we not?

…

* Source: CQ Congressional Testimony, October 25, 2007, “ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT PREVENTION,” SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, “Statement of Mr. Robert Chesnut Senior Vice President, Rules, Trust and Safety eBay Inc.,” Committee on House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

[Nordic]

She won't let go of this.

Again she makes some pretty great connections. Especially in how the msm plays along.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01 ... never-was/

Dissecting Contradictions & Sensationalism in the Establishment-Made NSA Scandal
The sensationalized and widely-publicized NSA-Snowden scandal has been filled with numerous contradictions, inconsistencies and sensationalized lies. They are so numerous that it would take a long series to specifically document and illustrate. For example, there are several dozen different claims made during various stages of the scripted scandal pertaining to the number of documents obtained by Snowden, and later by others, including Glenn Greenwald: several thousand, 8000, no, 5,000, no, 50,000, no, 58,000, no, 1.5 million, no, over 2 million. This is just to give you an idea of one such inconsistency and contradiction. This is why in the coming weeks I am going to document, analyze and illustrate one major contradiction and lie at a time.
For this first part in the coming series I want to focus on what came to be known and sensationalized as Edward Snowden’s Doomsday Cache & Life Insurance. As in many other features of this sham called the NSA-Snowden Scandal, the facts and origins of this Doomsday Cache have been changed, twisted, denied, contradicted, and yet highly publicized and utilized by the US government, US Mainstream Media, and the involved main actors who pose as journalists.
Let us begin by well-sourced documentation of the scripted and sensationalized play on Snowden’s Doomsday Cache.
On June 25, 2013, a couple of weeks after the story on Snowden broke, in an interview with Eli Lake, Greenwald was the first person to put forward the notion of stored encrypted files for life insurance. [All Emphasis Mine]:
Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who Snowden first contacted in February, told The Daily Beast on Tuesday that Snowden “has taken extreme precautions to make sure many different people around the world have these archives to insure the stories will inevitably be published.” Greenwald added that the people in possession of these files “cannot access them yet because they are highly encrypted and they do not have the passwords.” But, Greenwald said, “if anything happens at all to Edward Snowden, he told me he has arranged for them to get access to the full archives.”
…
The concept and claim of Snowden’s insurance and doomsday cache started with one man alone, Glenn Greenwald, within a week or two after the story broke. This, he, was where it all began. At this point Snowden had access and the password, but the supposed trusted individuals around the world supposedly did not have the password and access to the supposed encrypted insurance files.
Now let’s fast forward five months. In December 2013, during an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine Glenn Greenwald described the insurance measures taken by Edward Snowden to ensure the release of the documents in case something was to happen to him [All Emphasis Mine]:
“He has built these encryption cells, and made sure that he doesn’t have the passwords to them – other people have the passwords,” says Greenwald, who has also said the “insurance” archive will only be accessed if something happens to Snowden. Greenwald doesn’t say who those “other people” are. U.S. officials have ominously referred to this archive, likely stored on a data cloud, as a “doomsday” cache.
…
As you can see the main premise of the publicity junk originally created by Greenwald remains the same, however, a few important details get completely turned around. In this new version of the Greenwald claim Snowden is the one who doesn’t have the password and access to his insurance –doomsday cache, but his trusted sources around the world have the password and access.
I encourage doubters to find anything that contradicts the point of origin of this scripted publicity stunt. You will find all your channels and roads leading you to Rome-Greenwald.
Now, let’s examine another party that fortified, gave much credence, and heavily circulated and publicized this Doomsday Cache junk: The United States Government. That’s right. The United States Government immediately joined Glenn Greenwald in confirming and sensationalizing these claims, albeit anonymously. Please pay attention to how these US spies and officials are using exactly the same lines originated and publicized by Glenn Greenwald and the US mainstream media [All Emphasis Mine]:
The cache contains documents generated by the NSA and other agencies and includes names of U.S. and allied intelligence personnel, seven current and former U.S. officials and other sources briefed on the matter said.
The data is protected with sophisticated encryption, and multiple passwords are needed to open it, said two of the sources, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The passwords are in the possession of at least three different people and are valid for only a brief time window each day, they said. The identities of persons who might have the passwords are unknown…
One source described the cache of still unpublished material as Snowden’s “insurance policy” against arrest or physical harm. “The worst is yet to come,” said one former U.S. official who follows the investigation closely.
…
As you can see, these high-level US government officials and sources (all of whom remain anonymous) are echoing Greenwald’s narration to the ‘t.’ And of course, during this part of the scripted NSA scandal stage play, the Snowden doomsday cache, the US mainstream media provided around the clock coverage to both Greenwald and the US officials .
When you search for Greenwald and US government claims on Snowden’s Doomsday Cache you get thousands of search results with links to all major US media outlets, such as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, NY Times, Washington Post … And all of them with bold and sensationalized titles:
Guardian: NSA’s Edward Snowden ‘Stored Doomsday Cache’
Reuters: Spies Worry over “Doomsday” Cache Stashed by ex-NSA Contractor Snowden
NBC: Spies Fear NSA Leaker Snowden has ‘Doomsday’ Cache of Classified Data
MSNBC: Edward Snowden’s Doomsday Cache
Now it is time to see what Edward Snowden has said on the record on this matter, and when. Shall we?
In December 2013, in an 14-hour exclusive interview with the Washington Post, Snowden denied the claims made and heavily publicized by Glenn Greenwald, US Government & US Mainstream Media Outlets:
Asked about such a mechanism in the Moscow interview, Snowden made a face and declined to reply. Later, he sent an encrypted message. “That sounds more like a suicide switch,” he wrote. “It wouldn’t make sense.”
…
A day later the highly involved media outlet Guardian had the following on Snowden’s doomsday cache [All Emphasis Mine]:
There has been speculation that Snowden has rigged up a type of “dead man’s switch” so if the NSA, or a similar spy agency, hurt or kill him, then a cache of thousands of documents would be released on to the internet. Snowden denied this and likened the scenario to a “suicide switch”, alluding to people who might want the information on the internet, unchecked and unredacted, and would kill him for the sake of it.
…
No one could deny the perfect logic of Snowden likening the notion of a doomsday cache to a suicide switch. Are you kidding me? For every US government agent who would be commissioned to take him out, you would find hundreds of foreign government agents and tens of thousands of nut-cases who would want to have the supposed cache released. Don’t you think?
Then, imagine what some powerful foreign agents would do to make Snowden spill the password or the identities of those who supposedly have access. At any given time, there would be many foreign agents and non-state entities who would water-board, electrocute, and employ other excruciating torture methods to extract what is needed to access this supposedly incredible cache. How long do you think our anorexic-looking hero would withstand torture and pain before giving away all? Two minutes? Doesn’t that make you wonder how he remains so safe and untouched if he really is who he is portrayed by the US government and the corporate media to be?
Of course, neither Greenwald or the US government or the US mainstream media wanted to have anything to do with the denial and contradiction issued by Snowden. So, they never dwelled upon that part of the Washington Post interview. No one said a thing about the contradiction. As far as the public is concerned the script concocted by the establishment, delivered by US government officials and sources, and of course, Glenn Greenwald, and played sensationally by the mainstream media, remains valid and intact. And, when shown the documented evidence many remain unconvinced. They still want to believe in a purposeful junk story concocted by the very willful establishment. And with that I have to ask my God one more time: Why do you make so many suckers?
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01 ... 1e6HY.dpuf

[slimmouse]

We appear to have developed the intellectually technological capacity to enslave ourselves, without developing sufficient intellect to understand that this is what we're doing

Anon

Nuff said really

[Nordic]

Now she's going after the partner's detention in London, how that story changed over time. Dramatically. And finding gaping holes in it.

Dissecting Contradictions & Sensationalism in the NSA-Snowden Scandal

In August 2013 Glenn Greenwald’s husband, David Miranda, was detained and questioned by authorities at London’s Heathrow airport. Miranda was coming from Berlin, where he had met with Laura Poitras and was given thousands of top-secret Snowden-NSA documents. He had arrived at London’s Heathrow airport while carrying in his laptop a large cache of the highly-publicized NSA documents. He was stopped and interrogated by British authorities for nearly nine hours.

The sensational story of David Miranda’s detention became headline news for nearly two weeks. Mainstream outlets, from CNN and NBC, to the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, allocated around the clock coverage of the story. For weeks Glenn Greenwald gave numerous interviews of the story and the victimization of his innocent husband. Outside of a handful of news publications no one delved into the facts, contradictions, serious questions, and even more serious implications contained in this sensational plot. Run a search and read the extensive mainstream media coverage of the plot, and you’ll see that every single one of them follows the exact same script and narration to the T.

Researching the history of and combining related facts and statements on Greenwald’s Miranda drama results in dozens of contradictions, unanswered questions, and never-examined implications. For the purpose of this analysis I am going to present only the most significant facts, elements and questions.

Why Me?! What’s in My Laptop?

Let us begin with why and how Glenn Greenwald’s husband, David Miranda, ended up in Berlin, and then in London’s Heathrow Airport, while carrying a laptop loaded with the most secretive stolen NSA documents.

When the story first broke in the media there was a cursory explanation for Miranda’s trip: Oh, he was in Berlin for a short vacation, and while he was there he met with Laura Poitras and downloaded some of the explosive NSA documents into his laptop to take back with him to Brazil per his husband’s request.

Miranda was on his way home to Rio after a week’s vacation in Berlin, where he had visited Poitras, who’d given him some of the Snowden documents to bring back to Greenwald… Greenwald, who’d asked Miranda to bring him the materials, was outraged.
…

After that initial report went out as the main story line, and became the official narrative, a second version emerged; albeit, not the one publicized as the main narrative. According to this second version, contradicting the first one, Miranda was hired as Guardian’s employee, he was paid by Guardian to go to Berlin and get the mother-load NSA cache from Laura Poitras. Guardian nonchalantly updated its initial version [All Emphasis Mine]:

While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda’s flights.
…

Of course, later, that version became a bit more comprehensive :

First, we learned from The New York Times that The Guardian financed Miranda’s trip to Germany and back. This means Miranda was conducting some sort of official business for the publication. Around the same time, Amnesty International referred to Miranda as “a Guardian newspaper employee.”
…

No matter- the main publicized narrative remained the same: The poor innocent damsel took an innocent vacation in Berlin, made a brief stop to obtain and download a few thousand top secret stolen documents, went to London carrying this loaded laptop, and lo and behold, the poor thing was stopped and harassed by British authority.
Meanwhile, David Miranda’s version of his role and knowledge began changing and evolving as well.
During the initial stage Miranda batted his eyes filled with confusion and tears, and told Guardian how he was shocked by this unexpected detention, and that he didn’t even know what kind of documents had been downloaded to his laptop. Okay, let’s hear it from his own mouth via the culprit: Guardian [All Emphasis Mine]:

“It is clear why those took me. It’s because I’m Glenn’s partner. Because I went to Berlin. Because Laura lives there. So they think I have a big connection,” he said. “But I don’t have a role. I don’t look at documents. I don’t even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.”
…

So the outrageous story of this abused and innocent and unknowing damsel plays and plays, and plays again. For days. For weeks. On every channel and print publication.

A few months later, David Miranda’s version of his knowledge and his role in this detention episode changed dramatically. After all it is a drama. In a very lengthy interview over several days, Miranda confessed. Let’s read a few excerpts from the lengthy interview [All Emphasis Mine]:

Miranda knew very well that he was traveling from Rio to Berlin to see Greenwald’s reporting partner, documentarian Laura Poitras, and that he would be returning through the U.K., all the time carrying a heavily encrypted flash drive directly related to the trove of documents that former and now notorious CIA employee Edward Snowden had vacuumed from the National Security Agency and had given to Greenwald earlier in the year.

Miranda started making arrangements to fly to Berlin and stay with Poitras. The simplest reason, Miranda explains: “Laura doesn’t like to talk on the phone.” …

“David was going to Berlin to talk to Laura anyways,” Greenwald says, “and so he suggested that he just take the documents. Laura trusts David completely, so that became the new plan.”

Because Miranda was performing a service to support articles that were to be written for The Guardian, the newspaper paid for his trip and made his travel arrangements …
…

Now that the record establishes the real detention drama beginning as a planned and paid courier service performed knowingly by Greenwald’s husband, contrary to how the mainstream media and the couple played it out initially, we must move to the next equally important fact.

Not All Roads Go Through London

Even before the detention drama, right from the beginning, immediately after the initial Snowden-NSA story broke, Glenn Greenwald’s publicity rounds and his interviews emphasized that he and his partner had become major targets. He consistently expressed his suspicions that they were being watched and spied upon. Of course, it made sense. But here is what didn’t make any sense whatsoever: Sending your lover-husband to Germany to download thousands of top-secret stolen documents sought by all the super powers in the world, under their watchful eyes, and then carry it in a laptop around the world and international airports.

How could one claim that he is a major target, that he and his husband are being watched and spied upon, being threatened, and being robbed, yet, in the midst of all these circumstances, that same person send his lover around the globe to download the most-wanted government data and carry it through antagonistic countries’ airports?
In June 2013, Glenn Greenwald was busy giving interviews on him and his husband becoming a target, and having to take major precautions due to being watched:

Not surprisingly, since Greenwald has deepened his relationship with Snowden, he has taken extra digital security precautions, including communicating only by encrypted e-mail.
“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in [Rio de Janeiro] via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald noted. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
…
Here is an excerpt from an interview with Miranda on their laptops being stolen and becoming a target as early as June 2013, when Greenwald went to Hong Kong:

“And that’s when it all started,” Miranda says in a once-upon-a-time tone. It was with this Skype conversation, the couple believe, that Miranda became a target not only of government surveillance but intimidation to suppress Greenwald’s journalism.
…

Another important point relevant to this insane drama scenario has to do with Greenwald’s husband’s transit airport choice: London’s Heathrow. Of all the countries in the world the two main countries most affected by Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks are: The United States and the United Kingdom.

Glenn Greenwald and his husband did not only ignore the supposed threats and surveillance. David Miranda didn’t only go to Germany, download thousands of stolen NSA documents, and bring those top secret documents back to Glenn Greenwald in Brazil. He also chose the UK’s, London’s, Heathrow airport as his long-haul transit hub.

In case you are not aware, after the United States, Snowden’s leaks targeted and affected the United Kingdom the most. How could Greenwald and Miranda not register this fact? After all, their reports from June 2013 until Miranda’s drama contained many headlines involving the UK. Let me give you a few examples:

June 17, 2013
Documents uncovered by Edward Snowden show British eavesdropping agency GCHQ repeatedly hacking into diplomats’ phones, emails: report

June 22, 2013
“GCHQ is worse than US’, says whistleblower Edward Snowden as he claims British spies are collecting huge amounts of data from internet and phone calls”

June 21, 2013
GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world’s communications

July 7 2013
GCHQ Surveillance: The Power of Britain’s Data Vacuum

July 20, 203
On July 20 GCHQ ordered Guardian to destroy Snowden files because its servers weren’t secure
In a very thought-provoking article Bob Cesca also asks the same question:

Miranda was transporting volumes of stolen classified documents between two prime movers associated with one of the biggest stories of the Summer — a story that’s embarrassed both the United States and the United Kingdom. He was being paid to do it. Anyone who expected a smooth journey through an international airport without any security issues was lying to themselves.
…
So why would Greenwald and Miranda pick one of the most risky and threatening airports in the world for their mission involving transporting some of the world’s most classified official documents?
Was London the only available hub to travel from Berlin-Germany to Rio-Brazil? Of course not. Just the opposite. Just run a simple query, and you’ll see that Miranda could have chosen among dozens of flights other than London’s Heathrow. He could have gotten to Brazil via transit in Madrid-Spain, or, Lisbon-Portugal, or, Paris-France, or … But no. Greenwald and his courier husband picked a British airport: London’s Heathrow.

Why Not a New Venture: The World’s Best Encryption Services!

Immediately following his husband’s Heathrow Detention Drama Greenwald began handing out his in-advance-prepared canned answer to those who questioned the sanity of having his husband travelling around the world with a laptop filled with thousands of stolen NSA documents. He parroted the following answer: No worries, because the documents were so magnificently encrypted that no one could ever decrypt them. Neither NSA nor MI6, nor MI5, nor CIA, nor any terrorists nor anyone in the world could ever access those documents. Yeah, we are that good. Period. Let’s check out one version of this canned response:

“We both now typically and automatically encrypt all documents and work we carry – not just for the NSA stories,” Greenwald said in an email to Forbes. “So everything he had – for his personal use and everything else – was heavily encrypted, and I’m not worried at all that they can break that.”
…

Here is another one, where Greenwald claims to have mastered the world’s most amazing encryption technique unbreakable by anyone in this world:

But he told ITV News “even the most advanced intelligence services” would find it “impossible” to access information that he and Mr. Miranda carry across the world because it is too well encrypted.
…

The responses from my former NSA sources were unanimous. They basically said the following:

Wow. This is phenomenal. This dude didn’t have to sell out to PayPal billionaire Omidyar. With that kind of ability, the man can set up his own shop and make billions of dollars!
…

Here is a more eloquent and sophisticated response to Greenwald’s claim to have come up with the world’s safest encryption mastery:
Assessments within the information security industry, however, suggest Greenwald’s confidence may be misplaced. In fact, when Conrad Constantine, a research team engineer at AlienVault, was asked what information the authorities may be able to glean from Miranda’s devices, “The short answer,” he said, “is whatever they want.”
…

Let’s put this claim of being a genius aside, and let’s talk about another lie by omission that was exposed after the initial story became the official story.

Greenwald’s courier husband was not only carrying a laptop loaded with top secret stolen NSA documents that were geniusly encrypted. He was also carrying in his pocket a piece of paper that had the codes and passwords to some of these top secret NSA documents. I am not joking. If you had not heard of this before you have the mainstream media to be thankful for, since they made sure that they followed the original scripted-narrative all along.

Here is a follow up exposé on how David Miranda carried the instructions and passwords to some of the so-called encrypted top secret files in his laptop:

The government’s statement claims possession of the documents by Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald and the Guardian posed a threat to national security, particularly because Mr. Miranda was carrying a password alongside a range of electronic devices on which classified documents were stored. Keeping passwords separate from the computer files or accounts to which they relate is a basic security step.

Among the unencrypted documents … was a piece of paper that included the password for decrypting one of the encrypted files on the external hard drive recovered from the claimant… “The fact that … the claimant was carrying on his person a handwritten piece of paper containing the password for one of the encrypted files … is a sign of very poor information security practice.”
…
As always Greenwald tried to recover from the exposé with his usual fudging. According to him having the instructions, codes and passwords would not help the GCHQ in decryption of the documents. After all, didn’t we say he’d come up with the world’s greatest one and only genius encryption? However, the UK government says otherwise:

Oliver Robbins, a senior adviser for intelligence security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, said that while the memory sticks Mr. Miranda had were encrypted, the Government had been able to view 58,000 pages of highly classified documents on one of them because Mr. Miranda had passwords and basic instructions written on paper he was carrying.
…

Of course, according to Mr. Greenwald they are all lying, and no one should ever consider his own thick record when it comes to lying and fudging. The example below is a good one to illustrate one more time this consistent trait exhibited by Mr. Greenwald.

Greenwald: They “Denied” My Husband’s Request for an Attorney

We already talked about Greenwald making hundreds of publicity rounds, giving mainstream media interviews, and milking this bizarre-ly scripted detention drama. We have already covered the initial omission of his husband’s paid trip as a courier (aka mule) on the payroll of the Guardian. But that’s not all.

To make the theatrical performance more dramatic and heart-wrenching, Glenn Greenwald went on record dozens of times claiming that his mule husband was denied his right to an attorney while under interrogation. Let us quote him directly from one of his many mainstream interview records [All Emphasis Mine]:

“This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process,” Greenwald said. “To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.
…
Here is Greenwald again, even more specific in his lie:

The official – who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 – said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.
…

Then, one day later, the Guardian’s story changed. So did Greenwald’s. Only after the media reported that Miranda “refused” a lawyer because he didn’t trust the UK. Here is Guardian changing its original story line again:

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.
…

A Publicity Stunt, or, the Calico Kitten in Wag-the-Dog?

Now that we have documented the contradictions and lies pertaining to David Miranda’s paid and in-advance-calculated mission trip, Greenwald and Miranda’s never-explained bizarre choice of the London Heathrow Hub, the genius encryption claim accompanied by instructions and password codes for the treasures in Miranda’s laptop, the lies on being denied an attorney, let’s examine the possible purposes for this sensationalized Heathrow Detention Drama.

I am going to go back to the lengthy interview given by David Miranda to Natasha Vargas-Cooper. According to Miranda, his stay with Laura Poitras in Berlin had other equally important business purposes. What business matters? Well, according to Miranda, during this time period, in August 2013, Greenwald and Poitras were spending time and energy securing the best and most lucrative movie and other life-rights deals [All Emphasis Mine]:
Miranda started making arrangements to fly to Berlin and stay with Poitras. The simplest reason, Miranda explains: “Laura doesn’t like to talk on the phone.” And there was plenty to talk about — primarily movie rights. Studios started courting Miranda, Greenwald, and Poitras for rights to their story since Poitras’ first images of an unshaven Snowden began to saturate the news cycle. (All signs point to a Sony-helmed production with Ed Norton perhaps playing Greenwald; Greenwald says he doesn’t care much which actor is chosen, but half-jokingly adds that only David Miranda could play David Miranda — “Who else could be so smoldering and broody?”) He planned to go Berlin to meet with Poitras and her editors to strategize on getting the best and “most serious” version of their story made into a movie, Miranda says.
Miranda flew to Berlin on Aug. 18 and did the typical club and upscale restaurant scene with Poitras and some of her friends in and around Alexanderplatz. Poitras and Miranda hashed out some details about movie rights.
…

Now remember, this is only two months after the Snowden-NSA story became public. Yet we have Greenwald and Poitras already busily involved in securing the best and most lucrative movie and book right deals. Could this be a strategically timed marketing and publicity stunt to drive up the price of their business, movie and book deals? Was this a marketing ploy created by Poitras-Greenwald and Miranda-who is also striving for high-sums and movie deals? Before you write-off such a logical possibility, consider it based on Miranda’s talent, goals and objectives [All Emphasis Mine]:

Miranda has the day off from a cramped school week that includes a major group project on branding and marketing for a local café. Miranda is in his final year at university, where he is majoring in communications. He would ideally like to become a marketing and communications specialist for a major media company, particularly one with a thriving video game department.

Glenn and I have talked all the time about what doing these stories would do to our lives. Since we met, I’ve pushed him and supported him,” Miranda says. He starts counting on his fingers: “I’ve helped him negotiate contracts; I make sure he gets paid what he deserves — Glenn just wants to work and sometimes will do it for cheap.”
…

How much publicity would a well-plotted and well-acted detention drama at Heathrow Airport create? A lot. Didn’t it? How much value would it add to their movie and book rights? Tremendously, of course. Wouldn’t it? Thus, considering all the contradictions, omissions, lies, and exaggerations, could this be a publicity stunt? Highly possible.
There is also a logical possibility of even higher-level directorates and producers for this melodramatic detention story that never added up. Let us watch a short clip from another one of my favorite movies, Wag the Dog, in order to understand what I’m referring to:

Had the establishment and their script writers decided to insert a cat in their wag-the-dog script? If so, which character is David Miranda in this scripted drama? Is he the Albanian damsel running across Heathrow Airport? Or is he the Calico Kitten being held, shown-off and commoditized by the damsel (his wife-Glenn Greenwald)? I leave the answer up to you. Your call.

- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01 ... reZ9L.dpuf

[Searcher08]

Wow! Thanks for that, Nordic. Sibel was absolutely forensic - and the 'Wag The Dog' clip illustrated it perfectly. Calico kitten indeed

[RocketMan]

A disorganized, spiteful jumble of hand-waving, basically. And the constant referring to Miranda as a "damsel" more than smacks of homophobia.

[JackRiddler]

Sibel Edmonds destroys herself.

[Nordic]

Sibel Edmonds destroys herself.

JackRiddler destroys himself.

Seriously, lose your emotional attachments for five minutes and just look at the facts.

Granted, she should do the same while outlining them.

How do we know Greenwald isn't the Obama of Whistleblowers?

Almost everybody has a price. Perhaps they just discovered Greenwald's.

I have no emotional attachment either way. One thing I have learned over the years however:

Trust nobody.

[slimmouse]

Ive long been a aware of the idea of having popular consent for the actions of the globalists nanufactured by the self same people.

In the recent Kramer podcast I posted, he talks about how "Obamacare" is another example of this.

Thinking about it in these terms we're left with the facts on the ground as they exist.

Namely in this particular instance that were all being spied upon,

Theyre saying, heres what we have given you. Now watcha gonna do about it?