Sydney

One Question on the Sydney Siege: Why didn’t the Snipers Shoot Earlier?

I’m troubled by the Sydney siege at the Lindt Chocolate Café in Martin Place that has just concluded with 3 fatalities and 3 injured.

For starters, here’s one easy question: What’s wrong with these pictures (above from 7 News and the 2 below) and the video below (watch from 2:06 onwards)?

Sydney siege gunman-PIC
Photo credit: 7 News

Sydney-LindtCafeSeige-PIC
Picture: Ross Schultz Source: News Corp Australia

Now, the real question is: Where were the snipers? And why didn’t they shoot when they had the chance?

(Snipers reportedly manned nearby rooftops and shouted “Hostage down, window two” only when tactical police stormed the café at the end of the siege.)

If the media had these clear shots of the gunman Man Haron Monis, why didn’t the authorities have the snipers to take him down within the 16 hours window? If the snipers were not in a better position than the media, surely they have enough time to move for better views, rooftop or on the ground? The snipers of course need clearance from their commanders who should be on site with their squads. So does that mean the authorities did not want to kill him for whatever reasons?

Certainly many complicated questions but in any case, there were 17 hostages at stake and the police did not move in for the kill until (negotiations apparently failed and) there were gunshots within the café?

I have only one potential explanation: the authorities were concerned with the hostage taker’s claims that there were other explosive devices planted around the city – and the police have intelligence that he has comrades who would trigger those devices if he’s dead (I know it’s easier said than done but with good use of negotiators and intelligence, and a good 16-hour timeframe, the police and intelligence agencies could have established if he has other accomplices to detonate those devices, if any – plus it’s not that Man Haron Monis was any stranger to the Australian authorities. They should have a huge file on him all along).

Anything short (and as it turned out, his former lawyer, Manny Conditsis, reportedly told the media that Monis was an isolated figure who had acted alone), it’s sad to see yet another case whereby the authorities have not followed protocol in hostage situations: Take the man down (at the very opportunity).

It’s reminiscent of the Manila hostage event of 23 August 2010, when the hostage taker, former Philippines police officer Rolando Mendoza, hijacked a tourist bus with 25 hostages onboard. He was in plain sight (see picture below) several times, more than sufficient for the snipers to decide where to aim. But the Philippines authorities missed the opportunities, resulting in 9 deaths (including the perpetrator).

Manila-BusHostage-PIC

A longer version of this column appears in AsiaSentinel.com

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
MichaelHayden

Shhh… Michael Hayden on the Senate’s CIA Interrogation Report

Photo (above) credit: CIA

I like to share this POLITICO MAGAZINE exclusive interview with former CIA Director (May 30, 2006 – February 12, 2009) Michael Hayden on the release of the US Senate’s report.

Michael Hayden Is Not Sorry
The Senate report rakes Bush’s former CIA director over the coals. He fires back in an exclusive interview.

By MICHAEL HIRSH
December 09, 2014

Though the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program long predated his takeover of the agency in 2006, former Director Michael Hayden has found himself at the center of the explosive controversy surrounding the Senate Intelligence Committee’s executive summary of its still-classified report on torture. In a long, impassioned speech on the floor Tuesday, Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein cited Hayden’s testimony repeatedly as evidence that the CIA had not been forthright about a program that the committee majority report called brutal, ineffective, often unauthorized “and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.” She publicly accused Hayden of falsely describing the CIA’s interrogation techniques “as minimally harmful and applied in a highly clinical and professional manner.” In an interview with Politico Magazine National Editor Michael Hirsh, Hayden angrily rebuts many of the report’s findings.

Michael Hirsh: The report concludes, rather shockingly, that Pres. George W. Bush and other senior officials—including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a time and Secretary of State Colin Powell—were not aware of many details of the interrogation programs for a long period. According to CIA records, it concludes, no CIA officer including Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss briefed the president on the specific enhanced interrogation techniques before April 2006. Is that true?

Michael Hayden: It is not. The president personally approved the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah [in 2002]. It’s in his book! What happened here is that the White House refused to give them [the Senate Intelligence Committee] White House documents based upon the separation of powers and executive privilege. That’s not in their report, but all of that proves that there was dialogue was going on with the White House. What I can say is that the president never knew where the [black] sites were. That’s the only fact I’m aware that he didn’t know.

Hirsh: The report directly challenges your truthfulness, repeatedly stating that your testimony on the details of the programs –for example on whether the interrogations could be stopped at any time by any CIA participant who wanted them halted— is “not congruent with CIA records.” Does that mean you weren’t telling the truth?

Hayden: I would never lie to the committee. I did not lie.

Hirsh: Does it mean that you, along with others at senior levels, were misled about what was actually going on in the program?

Hayden: My testimony is consistent with what I was told and what I had read in CIA records. I said what the agency told me, but I didn’t just accept it at face value. I did what research I could on my own, but I had a 10-day window in which to look at this thing [the committee’s request for information]. I was actually in Virginia for about 30 hours and studied the program for about three before I went up to testify. I was trying to describe a program I didn’t run. The points being made against my testimony in many instances appear to be selective reading of isolated incidents designed to prove a point where I was trying to describe the overall tenor of the program. I think the conclusions they drew were analytically offensive and almost street-like in their simplistic language and conclusions. The agency has pushed back rather robustly in its own response.

Hirsh: You seem upset.

Hayden: Yeah, I’m emotional about it. Everything here happened before I got there [to the CIA], and I’m the one she [Sen. Feinstein] condemns on the floor of the Senate? Gee, how’d that happen? I’m the dumb son of a bitch who went down and tried to lay out this program in great detail to them. I’m mentioned twice as much in there as George Tenet—but George and Porter Goss had 97 detainees during their tenure, while I had two.

Hirsh: Is there anything you think the report gets right?

Hayden: All of us are really upset because we could have used a fair and balanced review of what we did. … The agency clearly admits it was fly-by-wire in the beginning. They were making it up as they went along and it should have been more well-prepared. They’ve freely admitted that. They said that early on they lacked the core competencies required to undertake an unprecedented program of detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists around the world. But then what the committee does is to take what I said out of context. They take statements I made about the later days of the program, for example when I said it was well-regulated and there were medical personnel available, etc., and then apply it to the early days of the program, when there were not. It misrepresents what I said.

Hirsh: One of the most stunning and cited conclusions of the report is that interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.

Hayden: That is untrue. And let me give you a data point. John Durham, a special independent prosecutor, over a three-year period investigated every known CIA interaction with every CIA detainee. At the end of that the Obama administration declined any prosecution. [In 2012, the Justice Department announced that its investigation into two interrogation deaths that Durham concluded were suspicious out of the 101 he examined—those of Afghan detainee Gul Rahman and Iraqi detainee Manadel al-Jamadi—would be closed with no charges.] So if A is true how does B get to be true? If the CIA routinely did things they weren’t authorized to do, then why is there no follow-up? I have copies of the DOJ reports they’re using today. The question is, is the DoJ going to open any investigation and the DoJ answer is no. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have all this supposed documentary evidence saying the agency mistreated these prisoners and then Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice saying no, you’ve got bupkis here.

Hirsh: What about the report’s overarching conclusion that these enhanced techniques simply were not effective at getting intelligence?

Hayden: My very best argument is that I went to [then-Deputy CIA Director] Mike Morell and I said, ‘Don’t fuck with me. If this story [about the usefulness of intelligence gained from enhanced techniques] isn’t airtight then I’m not saying it to Congress.’ They came back and said our version of the story is correct. Because of this program Zubaydah begat [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed], who begat [others]. We learned a great deal from the detainees.

Hirsh: The report says that even the CIA’s inspector general was not fully informed about the programs—that in fact the CIA impeded oversight by the IG.

Hayden: The IG never told me that. The IG never reported that to Congress. Look, I’m relying on people below me. If they tell you an untruth, you get rid of them. But I never felt I was being misled, certainly not on the important contours of this program. What they [the committee] are doing is grabbing emails out of the ether in a massive fishing expedition. This is a partisan report, as you can see from the minority report out of the committee.

Hirsh: Can you sort out the discrepancy between your testimony that there were only 97 detainees in the history of the program when the report says there 119?

Hayden: We knew there were more. The high-value-target program—they don’t show up on my list if they’re at the [black] sites. And committee knew all about that. They have chapter and verse from [former CIA IG John] Helgerson about it. It’s a question of what criteria you use. When I met with my team about these discrepancies, I said, ‘You tell [incoming CIA director] Leon Panetta he’s got to change the numbers that have been briefed to Congress.’

Hirsh: The report suggests that you misrepresented what you told Congress in the briefings, telling a meeting of foreign ambassadors to the United States in 2006 that every committee member was “fully briefed.”

Hayden: I mean what are they doing—trying to score my public speeches? What’s that about? You want me to go out and score Ron Wyden’s speeches?

Hirsh: You don’t believe you’re in legal jeopardy?

Hayden: No, not at all. I didn’t do anything wrong. How could I be in legal jeopardy?

Michael Hirsh is national editor for Politico Magazine.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
Bullet-water

Life-Saving Gadgets like Bulletproof Bags and Shields for Schools & the Workplace

Photo (above) credit: Alexander Augusteijn

With the recent headlines on fatal shootings by the police, and school massacres in the US earlier, the demand for bulletproof gears may well be on the rise again. And with Christmas round the corner, there’s no better time to show your loved ones you really care about their safety, at school and the workplace.

Perhaps you’re not alien to these products but I thought of sharing anyway, especially my findings on price effective solutions.

But first, here’s the link to a video introduction on one such product. And here’s a demonstration of the gear at work – blocking the bullet.

If it’s convincing, there’s still one operational issue. It takes a good few seconds to convert those ordinary-looking computer bags into a bulletproof shield covering the upper body. And that’s why I thought the next product (picture below) is more practical: it takes just a second to transform the briefcase into a bulletproof wall to shield the entire body when one found himself/herself in a suddenly hostile cross-fire situation.

BulletproofBriefcase-BodyShield

I found online retail stores selling these briefcases at around US$800 apiece.

Subsequently, I also found the China-based OEM manufacturers for these same briefcases. The minimum order quantity (MOQ) is usually quoted at 50, ie. a minimum of 50 pieces per order.

Now for all I know, some manufacturers entertain orders for “one sample” but at a premium, which in this case was US$400 at best.

One manufacturer then offered a “much better price” if I ordered 10 samples instead, at US$250 apiece. And I also asked about the best price for the stated MOQ of 50: US$235 apiece.

Not bad but if only I can convince some buddies to pool in for at least 10 such briefcases.

So I thought the best solution both for the price and practical reasons are the bulletproof panels (picture below).

Bulletblocker-StrikeFace

Besides inserting these panels into the children’s backpacks, one can also insert them into computer bags and briefcases for working adults. The flexibility in use is a big plus. And they cost less than US$100 apiece.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
iPhone-Encryption

Shhh… DOJ Uses 18th Century Law to Make Apple Unlock Encrypted iPhones

It’s time to raise the antenna again on smartphone encryption matters.

Law enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI, have been desperately pressurizing the Congress to force Apple and Google to do away with their new default smartphone encryption. And authorities are apparently giving in.

According to an exclusive report by Ars Technica (below) earlier this week, court documents from 2 federal criminal cases in New York and California show the US Department of Justice on October 31 this year went as far as exercising a 18th century law – the All Writs Act – to compel Apple and at least one other company to cooperate with law enforcement officials in investigations dealing with locked and encrypted smartphones.

The 225-year-old law gives the courts the right to issue whatever writs or orders in order to compel someone to do something.

To the extent that Apple has recently beefed up encryption in its latest iOS 8, the fact that the DOJ would go to such absurd lengths might set worrying precedence – recall a recent ludicrous DOJ assertion that the new encryption standards would kill a child.

A more disturbing question: What would you do if you were FBI director James Comey making his rounds to denounce smartphone encryption?

Make the DOJ use the All Writs Act to force manufacturers to install convenient backdoors. Why not?

—————————————-

Feds want Apple’s help to defeat encrypted phones, new legal case shows

Prosecutors invoke 18th-century All Writs Act to get around thorny problem.
by Cyrus Farivar – Dec 1 2014, 10:00pm CST

OAKLAND, CA—Newly discovered court documents from two federal criminal cases in New York and California that remain otherwise sealed suggest that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is pursuing an unusual legal strategy to compel cellphone makers to assist investigations.

In both cases, the seized phones—one of which is an iPhone 5S—are encrypted and cannot be cracked by federal authorities. Prosecutors have now invoked the All Writs Act, an 18th-century federal law that simply allows courts to issue a writ, or order, which compels a person or company to do something.

Some legal experts are concerned that these rarely made public examples of the lengths the government is willing to go in defeating encrypted phones raise new questions as to how far the government can compel a private company to aid a criminal investigation.

Two federal judges agree that the phone manufacturer in each case—one of which remains sealed, one of which is definitively Apple—should provide aid to the government.

Ars is publishing the documents in the California case for the first time in which a federal judge in Oakland specifically notes that “Apple is not required to attempt to decrypt, or otherwise enable law enforcement’s attempts to access any encrypted data.”

The two orders were both handed down on October 31, 2014, about six weeks after Apple announced that it would be expanding encryption under iOS 8, which aims to render such a data handover to law enforcement useless. Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that DOJ officials told Apple that it was “marketing to criminals” and that “a child will die” because of Apple’s security design choices.

Apple did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Meet the “All Writs Act”

Alex Abdo, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, wondered if the government could invoke the All Writs Act to “compel Master Lock to come to your house and break [a physical lock] open.”

“That’s kind of like the question of could the government compel your laptop maker to unlock your disk encryption?” he said. “And I think those are very complicated questions, and if so, then that’s complicated constitutional questions whether the government can conscript them to be their agents. Then there’s one further question: can the government use the All Writs Act to compel the installation of backdoors?”

But, if Apple really can’t decrypt the phone as it claims, the point is moot.

“Then that’s pretty much the end of it,” Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars. “The writ doesn’t require Apple to do something that is impossible for it to do.”

Andrew Crocker, a legal fellow also at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, pointed out on Twitter on Tuesday that back in 2005, a different New York magistrate refused to accept the government’s invocation of the All Writs Act to obtain real-time cell site data.

As Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote at the time:

Thus, as far as I can tell, the government proposes that I use the All Writs Act in an entirely unprecedented way. To appreciate just how unprecedented the argument is, it is necessary to recognize that the government need only run this Hail Mary play if its arguments under the electronic surveillance and disclosure statutes fail.

The government thus asks me to read into the All Writs Act an empowerment of the judiciary to grant the executive branch authority to use investigative techniques either explicitly denied it by the legislative branch, or at a minimum omitted from a far-reaching and detailed statutory scheme that has received the legislature’s intensive and repeated consideration. Such a broad reading of the statute invites an exercise of judicial activism that is breathtaking in its scope and fundamentally inconsistent with my understanding of the extent of my authority.

“Any capabilities [Apple] may have to unlock the iPhone”

One of the new phone search cases was filed in federal court in Oakland, just across the bay from San Francisco, while another was filed in federal court in Manhattan.

In the Oakland case, prosecutors asked a federal judge in to “assist in the execution of a federal search warrant by facilitating the un-locking of an iPhone.”

Ars went in person to the Oakland courthouse on Wednesday to obtain the documents and is publishing both the government’s application and the judge’s order for the first time here. The All Writs Act application and order are not available via PACER, the online database for federal court records.

“This Court has the authority to order Apple, Inc., to use any capabilities it may have to unlock the iPhone,” Garth Hire, an assistant US attorney, wrote to the court and cited the All Writs Act.

“The government is aware, and can represent, that in other cases, courts have ordered the unlocking of an iPhone under this authority,” he wrote. “Additionally, Apple has routinely complied with such orders.”

“This court should issue the order because doing so would enable agents to comply with this Court’s warrant commanding that the iPhone be examined for evidence identified by the warrant,” he continued. “Examination of the iPhone without Apple’s assistance, if it is possible at all, would require significant resources and may harm the iPhone. Moreover, the order is not likely to place any unreasonable burden on Apple.”

In response, Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore ordered that Apple “provide reasonable technical assistance to enable law enforcement agents to obtain access to unencrypted data.” She did not specifically mention the All Writs Act.

But she added:


It is further ordered that, to the extent that data on the iOS device is encrypted, Apple may provide a copy of the encrypted data to law enforcement but Apple is not required to attempt to decrypt, or otherwise enable law enforcement’s attempts to access any encrypted data.

Westmore’s language is a near-duplicate of a June 6, 2014 order issued by a different judge from the Northern California district, San Jose division, which is about 40 miles south of Oakland. There, Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd ordered Apple to assist in the search of an iPad Mini, months before the release of iOS 8.

New spying tools afoot

On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported on an order issued by a federal magistrate in New York in a case involving alleged credit card fraud.

In that Manhattan case, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein granted the government’s proposed order on the same day as Westmore (October 31, 2014), also citing the All Writs Act, which compels the unnamed phone manufacturer to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the device.

The mystery company could challenge the judge’s order, according to Brian Owsley, a former federal magistrate judge who now is a law professor at Indiana Tech.

“Unfortunately, we will probably not know because the issue will likely be sealed even though there should be more transparency in these issues,” he told Ars by e-mail, noting that during his tenure on the bench he could not remember a time when the government invoked the All Writs Act.

“It is only through greater transparency will we start to get the answers. If the provider simply complies we will know nothing. Here, Judge Gorenstein’s approach strikes me as very even-handed, but the inherent problem is that those who are concerned about privacy issues in general simply have to hope that the provider will speak up for us.”

But Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former federal prosecutor, does not believe that the seized phone in the New York case was an iOS 8 device.

“The government obtained a warrant on October 10 for a phone already in its possession,” he told Ars by e-mail. “Apple’s announcement was something like September 18. If it was an iPhone, it was probably an iPhone running [on] an earlier operating system.”

Still, Alex Abdo, the ACLU attorney, after reading a copy of the Oakland documents, concluded that the “government’s application raises troubling questions about the extent to which it can force companies to break the products they sell.”

“We are heartened, however, that the court recognized that possibility and stopped short of ordering Apple to come up with a way to decrypt its customers’ data,” he added.

“More broadly, it is disconcerting that the government is relying on a catch-all law to seek surveillance powers that it should be seeking from Congress and the public,” said Abdo. “If the government wants new spying tools, it should allow our democratic process to debate them openly first.”

UPDATE 1:50pm CT: Jonathan Mayer, a lecturer at Stanford Law, said that use of the All Writs Act is not as novel as it may seem. (He recommended his recent lecture on the subject!)

“The TL;DR is that there is nothing new about using the All Writs Act to compel assistance,” Mayer told Ars by e-mail. “And there is also nothing new about using it to compel assistance with unlocking a phone. That repeated language you saw? It’s provided by Apple itself!”

“As for the opinion discounting the All Writs Act, that had to do with surveillance under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Where ECPA applies, the All Writs Act doesn’t. (It’s just a default, as the court rightly noted.) Phone unlocking isn’t covered by ECPA, so the All Writs Act remains in play.”

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
USBdrive-Dropped

Shhh… USB Thumb Drives Everywhere

Here’s one topic I have long wanted to post and I found this one below serves a nice reminder: Just be careful with any USB thumb drives lying around. In fact, you should ignore them altogether because chances are good that they were there for a reason.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
JamesRisen

Shhh… Glenn Greenwald with James Risen on “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War”

Photo (above) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ68ZQhzwPs

I like to share with you this interview on the new book by James Risen, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigative reporter at the center of one of the most significant press freedom cases in decades who exposed the warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the National Security Agency as early as 2005, 8 years before the Snowden revelations. Risen also hit headlines after being on Obama’s blacklist after he was threatened with prison terms by the Justice Department for refusing to reveal the source of one of his stories.

And here is the transcript from The Intercept.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
WhatApp-Read

Shhh… How to Prevent Someone from Knowing When You’ve Seen Apps Messages

Here’s a recent LifeHacker article that may be well received: a manual on how to turn off the “read receipt” feature in some of the most popular apps, including What’s App. And yes, that’s another one up for privacy.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
BBC-MikeHarris

Shhh… Views on the “Don’t Spy On US” Campaign

I saw this Sky News clip earlier this week and thought I should share it. The 2 opposing views illustrate how these arguments could go on forever. But which side are you on?

Above from Sky News: The Campaign Director of the Don’t Spy On Us campaign, Mike Harris and the Director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, Professor Anthony Glees discuss whether the UK needs more anti-terror laws.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
Assange-EcuadorEmb

Shhh… Assange to Appeal Swedish Court Decision After Ecuador Guarantees Indefinite Asylum

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said he will appeal, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, after a Swedish appeals court upheld last Thursday an arrest warrant issued 4 years ago – for accusations of sexual assault and rape allegations that Assange said are false and politically motivated.

Meanwhile, Ecuador has voiced its continued support and guaranteed him political asylum for “as long as necessary”. So it looks like poor Assange will continue to live in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has stayed for more than 2 years to avoid extradition to Sweden, which he feared would then hand him over to the United States where a death penalty possibly awaits if he is convicted of uploading troves of US government secrets through WikiLeaks.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
LondonPolice

Shhh… Lawsuit After Proof of British Police Spying on Reporters for Years

A media friend once revealed how a stranger called him to offer some leaks, tried to force him to disclose his sources (which he declined) when they met and eventually coerced him to cooperate or “bear the consequences”.

He sought my advice after running away from the stranger – that he assumed to be a Chinese spy – as he reckoned all his communication channels have been snooped. It was a fear he lives to this day.

I suppose he is not as “lucky” as these British journalists (see story below), who filed a lawsuit against the London’s Metropolitan Police and Britain’s Home Office after they discovered evidence of how the British police have spent years stalking and detailing their movements.

UK Police Spied on Reporters for Years, Docs Show

LONDON — Nov 21, 2014, 12:28 PM ET
By RAPHAEL SATTER Associated Press

Freelance video journalist Jason Parkinson returned home from vacation this year to find a brown paper envelope in his mailbox. He opened it to find nine years of his life laid out in shocking detail.

Twelve pages of police intelligence logs noted which protests he
covered, who he spoke to and what he wore all the way down to the color of his boots. It was, he said, proof of something he’d long suspected: The police were watching him.

“Finally,” he thought as he leafed through documents over a strong black coffee, “we’ve got them.”

Parkinson’s documents, obtained through a public records request, are the basis of a lawsuit being filed by the National Union of Journalists against London’s Metropolitan Police and Britain’s Home Office. The lawsuit, announced late Thursday, along with recent revelations about the seizure of reporters’ phone records, is pulling back the curtain on how British police have spent years tracking the movements of the country’s news media.

“This is another extremely worrying example of the police monitoring journalists who are undertaking their proper duties,” said Paul Lashmar, who heads the journalism department at Britain’s Brunel University.

The Metropolitan Police and the Home Office both declined to comment.

Parkinson, three photographers, an investigative journalist and a newspaper reporter are filing the lawsuit after obtaining their surveillance records. Parkinson, a 44-year-old freelancer who has covered hundreds of protests some of them for The Associated Press said he and his colleagues had long suspected that the police were monitoring them.

“Police officers we’d never even met before knew our names and seemed to know a hell of a lot about us,” he said.

Several journalists told AP the records police kept on them were sometimes startling, sometimes funny and occasionally wrong.

One intelligence report showed that police spotted Parkinson cycling near his then-home in northwest London and carried detailed information about him and his partner at the time.

Jules Mattsson, a 21-year-old journalist with the Times of London, says another record carried a mention of a family member’s medical history, something he says made him so upset he called the police to demand an explanation.

“No one could possibly defend this,” he said.

Jess Hurd, a 41-year-old freelance photographer and Parkinson’s partner, said she was worried the intelligence logs were being shared internationally.

“I go to a lot of countries on assignment,” she said. “Where are these database logs being shared? Who with, for what purpose?”

The revelations add to public disclosures about British police secretly seizing journalists’ telephone records in leak investigations. Several senior officers have recently acknowledged using anti-terrorism powers to uncover journalists’ sources by combing through the records.

Some police argue they’re hunting for corrupt officers, a particularly salient issue in the wake of Britain’s phone hacking scandal, which exposed how British tabloid journalists routinely paid officers in exchange for scoops.

It isn’t yet clear how often the practice takes place, but the admission drew concern in Parliament and outrage from media groups.
Lashmar, a member of the National Union of Journalists who is not involved in the lawsuit, said the specter of terrorism was pushing police to be bolder and bolder about how closely they watch the nation’s press.

“Police seem to have got the message that journalists are now fair game and you can surveil and watch them,” he said.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
Spies-Russia

Shhh… The Puppet Master Putin & Russia’s Escalating Spy Operations

The decision by Russian President Vladimir Putin to leave the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia prematurely earlier this week, following a cold reception by other world leaders for his incursion into Ukraine, hit the global headlines but Putin, who bailed himself out on sleep deprivation grounds, might actually be laughing on his flight back to Moscow: his recognition of the rapidly deteriorating relations with the West and fear of being surrounded by enemies have probably justified his decision to beef up Russia’s espionage operations.

But it was probably for the same reason – the increased efforts in intelligence gathering – and its consequences that also prompted Putin to rush back to the Krelim.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry earlier this week, Poland “made such an unfriendly and incomprehensible step” to expel some of its diplomats and subsequently:

Russia undertook adequate response measures. Several Polish diplomats have left the territory of our country for the activities not compatible with their status.

The Russian media reported last weekend that Moscow has deported former Latvian parliamentarian Aleksejs Holostovs after its intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB), alleged Holostovs of spying for both Latvia and America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine also reported last weekend that a female diplomat at the German embassy in Moscow was expelled after a Russian diplomat working in Bonn was forced to leave amid media reports the latter was a spy.

There could be more to come following these sudden frenzies on the deportations of suspected Russian spies, and Russia’s (usual) tit-for-tat response, much reminiscent of the Cold War era.

And speaking of the Cold War, here’s a nice wrap up (below) from The Moscow Times about 6 spies who have defined that era.

One lasting impression I had on Robert Hanssen (below) – a former US Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States for 22 years from 1979 to 2001 – was the book Spy: The Inside Story of How FBI’s Robert Hanssen Betrayed America which described Hanssen’s initial reaction when he was eventually caught:

“What took you so long?!”

Six Spies Who Defined the Cold War Era
The Moscow Times Nov. 17 2014 21:54

AldrichAmes

1. Aldrich Ames

Plagued by drinking problems and a propensity toward extramarital affairs, Ames was lured into spying for the Soviet Union by the promise of money. Over the course of nine years, he received $4.6 million for revealing at least eight CIA sources. He was arrested in 1994 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

RobertHanssen

2. Robert Hanssen

Also motivated by the siren’s song of money, Hanssen worked for both the Soviet Union and Russia. He was suspected of acting as a double agent on a number of occasions, but was only arrested in 2001 while dropping off a garbage bag full of information in a park near Washington D.C. The failure to identify him for several decades was described by the U.S. Justice Department as “possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history.” Hanssen was sentenced to life imprisonment.

DmitriPolyakov

3. Dmitri Polyakov

Both Hanssen and Ames reportedly exposed Polyakov’s work as a CIA agent. A Soviet major general and a high-ranking GRU military intelligence officer, Polyakov served as a CIA informant for 25 years, ultimately becoming one of the best sources for the agency, providing information on the growing rift between the Soviet Union and China. He was arrested by the KGB in 1986, sentenced to death and executed in 1988. According to CIA officers who worked with him, he provided the information out of principle, not for money.

KimPhilby

4. Kim Philby

Philby was the most successful member of the Cambridge Five, a group of British spies who — driven by their socialist beliefs — defected to the Soviet Union. Philby was MI-6′s director for counter-espionage operations. In particular, he was responsible for fighting Soviet subversion activities in Western Europe. After arousing suspicion that he might be a defector, Philby was dismissed from his post and from MI-6 overall in 1956. He fled to the Soviet Union in 1963, where he lived until his death from heart failure in Moscow in 1988.

OlegGordievsky

5. Oleg Gordievsky

After growing disenchanted with the KGB and the Soviet Union, Gordievsky, a KGB colonel, became a longtime high-ranking spy for MI-6. In 1982, he was promoted to manage Soviet espionage in Britain as a resident in the London Embassy. He was called back to Moscow on suspicion of working for a foreign power, but the British managed to smuggle him out of the country. He has lived in England ever since.

ArkadyShevchenko

6. Arkady Shevchenko

Shevchenko was one of the highest-ranking Soviet officials to defect to the West. Working as undersecretary general of the United Nations, he became a CIA informant in 1975. Shevchenko was often referred to as a triple agent: While working as a Soviet diplomat at the UN, he was allegedly passing secrets to the U.S. In 1978 he fled to the U.S., dying of cirrhosis of the liver there in 1998.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
USsenate2

Shhh… US Senate Vote Falls Short of Curbing NSA Surveillance

It’s a fitting scene from the classic movie Gone with the Wind with the famous closing quote “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.

The US Senate vote on the USA Freedom Act Tuesday night to rein in the NSA spying power came shy of just 2 votes of the 60 needed to take up the legislation, which would have otherwise stopped the controversial phone record metadata collection by the NSA

Any hope will now hinge on June next year as the legal grounds for the NSA phone snooping, as revealed by the Snowden revelations, under the Patriot Act will then expire – which means the NSA would require then new legislation to justify their access to these mass data.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
Wifi-Hear&See

Shhh… We Can Now Hear & See Wi-fi?

A new software called Phantom Terrains, developed by London-based science writer Frank Swain, can now help the deaf listen to the sounds of wi-fi signals.

The software would utilize the wi-fi sensors of an iPhone to pick up, analyze and transform the invisible data around us – in the form of wi-fi networks and radio waves – into audible sound which are then sent wirelessly to a customized Bluetooth-enabled hearing aid – see video below.

But it turned out that we can also see wi-fi signals – see pictures above and below.

Wifi-Signals

Wifi-Signals2

In a project called “A creative exploration of wireless spectres”, artist Luis Hernan used a “Kirilian device” to capture the images of invisible wireless networks that levitate around us at all times every day – the resulting eerie and ghost-like images are no surprise because Kirilian photography is often associated with paranormal activity.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
AfriLeaks

Shhh… WikiLeaks’ Cousin AfriLeaks – A New Anonymous Whistleblowing & Open Data Platform for Africa

AfriLeaks, a brand new anonymous whistleblowing platform, will be launched end November but unlike the renowned and established WikiLeaks, this African cousin will not be releasing secret information directly to the public.

“[AfriLeaks will] provide a secure tool for connectivity between the whistleblowers and the media who then investigate the substance and character of the leak,” according to Khadija Sharife of the African Network of Centers for Investigative Reporting (ANCIR) – the organization that will host the platform – in a Deutsche Welle report earlier this week

According to Deustche Welle, unlike WikiLeaks’ aim to publish and disclose information, “AfriLeaks will be there to provide leads for stories to media and research organizations. The new platform will allow whistleblowers to choose the media or research organization to which they want to send the information”.

Assange-Bio

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may be smiling. According to a biography (above), Assange described “going to Africa and testing my ground” in the early days of WikiLeaks where one of the very first story his whistleblowing platform broke was on Kenya – which was then fed to The Guardian who ran “The Looting of Kenya” as a front-page story. The article was subsequently picked up by the Kenyan media.

“From our point of view, the leak supported the idea that oppressed media organizations could suddenly be freed when a story that mattered to them – and which they couldn’t reveal on their own – was given legitimacy and the oxygen of international exposure first,” according to the book.

“We kept at it, kept publishing stuff that the African papers were too frightened to publish…”

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
DroneCamera

Shhh… A Personal Gadget to Block Wireless Surveillance Devices Like Drones & Google Glass

Are you concerned that someone might be spying on you using drones, Google Glass or hidden cameras and microphones – and streaming the recording online? Fancy owning a gadget that can detect and disconnect these intrusive surveillance devices?

A new German product called Cyborg Unplug, now available for online order (at 52 Euros), is designed to block wireless surveillance where you are most vulnerable – in public spaces where the devices can be easily prying, and streaming online, without your knowledge.

It sniffs the air for wireless signatures from devices you don’t want around, sending an alert to your phone when detected. Should the target device connect to a network you’ve chosen to defend, Cyborg Unplug will immediately disconnect them, stopping them from streaming video, audio and data to the Internet.”

But do note that whilst this Cyborg Unplug can disconnect the spying devices, it cannot prevent them from saving the video and audio recording locally. It’s only half the problem solved…

And equipments like the Cyborg Unplug are considered illegal in some countries, including the US.

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page
QuietZone-US

Shhh… “Quiet Zone” for the perfect holiday?

Are you in trouble – still without any Christmas holiday plan? If that’s the case, maybe it’s a blessing in disguise.

Have you ever (even secretly) fancy a holiday with absolute peace, ie. where no one can reach or find you AT ALL? Or is that even remotely possible? Seriously, in this post-Snowden era?

Now, there’s actually a place where you’ll find no modern conveniences at all – no cell phones, no wi-fi and not even digital cameras? And it’s in the US: Pocahontas County in West Virginia.

Now where are my tents and books…??

Let's Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on RedditBuffer this pageFlattr the authorPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page

Columnist, Writer, Sleuth – Vanson Soo

%d bloggers like this: