Yhdysvallat

SJ kirjoitti:
Vahingoniloa. Rosmoilta meni tulonlähde. Jos siinä samalla DEA tulee nolattua, niin ei kai siitä haittaa siitäkään ole.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Ei haittaa. Mulla on oma lehmä ojassa, sillä toivon, että Britti hallitus vapauttaa lääkekannabiksen, jotta voisimme kokeilla sitä korvaamaan kaikki ne opiaatit mitä kroonisesta kivusta kärsivä vaimoni vetää napaansa päivittäin. Toisaalta meidän onnella Britit on se vihon viimeinen linnake tässä asiassa.
 
ctg kirjoitti:
Ei haittaa. Mulla on oma lehmä ojassa, sillä toivon, että Britti hallitus vapauttaa lääkekannabiksen, jotta voisimme kokeilla sitä korvaamaan kaikki ne opiaatit mitä kroonisesta kivusta kärsivä vaimoni vetää napaansa päivittäin. Toisaalta meidän onnella Britit on se vihon viimeinen linnake tässä asiassa.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...


Kuulostaa huonolta päivältä olla salakuljettaja siellä päin. Itse näen tämän laillistamisen siten, että sitä ei saa toteuttaa minään armahduksena. Jos tuohon bisnekseen on sekaantunut, niin laillistamisen mukana vanhoihin juttuihin tulisi tulla lisäksi vielä veronkierto kaiken muun lisäksi, koska huumeista ei ole maksettu veroa. Ja muutenkin huumekauppiaita pitää edelleenkin kohdella rikollisina, ja niitä ei pidä päästää laillistamaan toimintaansa. Sen verran vahinkoa nuo rosmot ovat tehneet ajanmittaan.
 
Lääkepuoli on eri asia kuin laillistaminen, mutta täälläkin poliisipomot ovat sanoneet olevansa laillistamisen puolella, koska a) heidän ei tarvitse välittää niin paljon ruohosta, b) rahavirrat saadaan tyrehdettyä rikollisilta ja c) verotuloilla voidaan paikata muita ongelmia.
 
Orwelmainen 1984 nostaa jälleen päätään kun jenkkien tiedustelupomo myöntää, että he tappavat pelkän NSA:n kaappaaman metadata johdosta.

Supporters of the National Security Agency inevitably defend its sweeping collection of phone and Internet records on the ground that it is only collecting so-called “metadata”—who you call, when you call, how long you talk. Since this does not include the actual content of the communications, the threat to privacy is said to be negligible. That argument is profoundly misleading.

Of course knowing the content of a call can be crucial to establishing a particular threat. But metadata alone can provide an extremely detailed picture of a person’s most intimate associations and interests, and it’s actually much easier as a technological matter to search huge amounts of metadata than to listen to millions of phone calls. As NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker has said, “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” When I quoted Baker at a recent debate at Johns Hopkins University, my opponent, General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, called Baker’s comment “absolutely correct,” and raised him one, asserting, “We kill people based on metadata.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/
 
Mielenkiintoisia faktoja yli kymmenen vuotta kestäneeseen sotaan terrorismia vastaan ja homman nimi on että ihmisellä on mahdollisuus kuolla sydänkohtaukseen yli 35 000 kertaa enemmän kuin esim. terojen ansaan.

McClatchy reported in 2010:

There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don’t have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.

The March, 2011, Harper‘s Index noted:

Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.

Indeed, the leading cause of deaths for Americans traveling abroad is not terrorism, or murder … or even crime of any type.

It’s car crashes.

In fact:

With the exception of the Philippines, more Americans died from road crashes in all of the 160 countries surveyed than from homicides.

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.

...​
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/31747.html
 
Mikähän siellä Bahamalla on niin kiinnostavaa, että kaikki data pitää ottaa talteen?

The National Security Agency is secretly intercepting, recording, and archiving the audio of virtually every cell phone conversation on the island nation of the Bahamas.


According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the surveillance is part of a top-secret system – code-named SOMALGET – that was implemented without the knowledge or consent of the Bahamian government. Instead, the agency appears to have used access legally obtained in cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to open a backdoor to the country’s cellular telephone network, enabling it to covertly record and store the “full-take audio” of every mobile call made to, from and within the Bahamas – and to replay those calls for up to a month.

SOMALGET is part of a broader NSA program called MYSTIC, which The Intercept has learned is being used to secretly monitor the telecommunications systems of the Bahamas and several other countries, including Mexico, the Philippines, and Kenya. But while MYSTIC scrapes mobile networks for so-called “metadata” – information that reveals the time, source, and destination of calls – SOMALGET is a cutting-edge tool that enables the NSA to vacuum up and store the actual content of every conversation in an entire country.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...-nsa-recording-every-cell-phone-call-bahamas/
 
Sardaukar kirjoitti:
Veroparatiisi, hämärien pankkien pesä jne. Pitäisin itsekin jo huume- ja terrorirahoituksen takia silmällä.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Miten sitä NSA dataa voi käyttää hyväkseen, jos sitä ei edes olla tiedostettu muiden viranomaisten puolesta pitkään aikaan. Tai on tiedostettu mutta ei olla voitu hyväksi käyttää, kuten esim. huume- ja verorahoissa.
 
Tahtovat nuo huume- ja terrorirahat pyöriä samaan tyyliin, rahoitus kun on monesti huumekaupalla. Veronkierto sitten erikseen.
 
Ei vastaa kysymykseen, mutta ymmärrän yskän, sillä jo niistä ajoista lähtien kun kaverit rupesivat supattamaan Non Such Agencysta, niin ilmi myös tuli heidän "salaiset" kuunteluohjelmansa. Kaikki tiesi, että he kuuntelivat kaikkia, sekä sen, että he pystyivät tekemään niitä asioista, joissa tavalliset lafkat kuten FBI ja CIA jäivät nuolemaan näppejään. Mutta tuon kakun päällä oli, että jos noita tietoja saatiin omaan käyttöön, niin ei niitä ei pystytty suoraan käyttämään esim. huumebisneksen kartoituksessa, ei sen puoleen, että CIA olisi NSAta halunnut apajille. Mutta ei IRSkaan ollut yhtään sen parempi, koska he eivät pystyneet käyttämään NSAn vakoilulla hankkimia tietoja hyväkseen oikeusistumisessa ilman, että he olisivat antaneet kansalla mahdollisuuden nostaa kissa pöydälle, ja tehdä Snowdenit. Ei sen puoleen, että he sitä haluaisivat nyttenkään.
 
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would end the NSA’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records. Unfortunately, it may not end the NSA’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records.

The House voted 303 to 121 Thursday in favor of the USA Freedom Act, broad legislation aimed at reforming the NSA’s surveillance powers exposed by Edward Snowden. The central provision of the bill, which now moves on to debate in the Senate, is intended to limit what the intelligence community calls “bulk” collection–the indiscriminate vacuuming up of citizen’s phone and internet records. But privacy advocates and civil libertarians say last-minute changes to the legislation supported by the White House added ambiguous language that could essentially give the NSA a generous loophole through which it can continue its massive domestic data collection.

In the House’s final version of the bill, the NSA would be stripped of the power to collect all Americans’ phone records for metadata analysis, a practice revealed in the first Guardian story about Snowden’s leaks published last year. It instead would be required to limit its collection to specific terms. The problem is that those terms may not be nearly specific enough, and could still include massive lists of target phone numbers or entire ranges of IP addresses.

“The core problem is that this only ends ‘bulk’ collection in the sense the intelligence community uses that term,” says Julian Sanchez, a researcher at the Cato Institute. “As long as there’s some kind of target, they don’t call that bulk collection, even if you’re still collecting millions of records…If they say ‘give us the record of everyone who visited these thousand websites,’ that’s not bulk collection, because they have a list of targets.”

“To any normal person,” he adds, “that’s still pretty bulky.”

Specifically, the House changed the definition of a search term from “a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account” to “a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device.” That shift, particularly the removal of the word “unique” and addition of “such as,” might be enough to enable nearly the same sort of mass surveillance the NSA now conducts, according to a statement from the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.

“Taken together,” the Institute wrote, “the changes to this definition may still allow for massive collection of millions of Americans’ private information based on very broad selection terms such as a zip code, an area code, the physical address of a particular email provider or financial institution, or the IP address of a web hosting service that hosts thousands of web sites.”

Of course, how those “specific terms” are defined in practice will be decided by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which must approve NSA requests for data collection under the 214 and 215 provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But after a year of revelations that have showed how the NSA uses word games to expand its legal powers, Kevin Bankston of the the Open Technology Institute says the court can’t be fully trusted to interpret the law strictly. “The danger is that it’s ambiguous, and if the FISA court and the NSA has showed us anything, it’s that any ambiguity in these laws is dangerous,” Bankston says.

In fact, the watered-down version of the Freedom Act passed by the House also weakens early provisions that would have provided more resistance against the NSA in its FISA arguments, Sanchez says. The earlier version of the bill would have established a “public advocate” to argue against the NSA in FISA proceedings; the current bill has only a weaker “amicus” option, something closer to an outside adviser to the court.

The bulk surveillance element of the bill is but one point its critics are disappointed to see pass the House. The Open Technology Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the anti-surveillance group Access Now all published statements enumerating the bill’s flaws. Other problems they cite include the removal of provisions giving companies more freedom to report the intelligence community’s demands for users’ data, and a provision that still allows the NSA to collect information “about” a target; Rather than limiting data collection to communications sent to or from that target, the measure that would allow mass data collection that sweeps in any communications that are reference the target but may not involve that person.

Despite all those problems, some policy-watchers still see the passage of the Freedom Act in the House as a step towards real reform. They’re also holding out hope that the bill could be amended–and its teeth reinserted–in the Senate. “While far from perfect, this bill is an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA,” reads a statement from Laura Murphy, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative director. “While we share the concerns of many–including members of both parties who rightly believe the bill does not go far enough–without it we would be left with no reform at all, or worse, a House Intelligence Committee bill that would have cemented bulk collection of Americans’ communications into law. We will fight to secure additional improvements in the Senate.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/usa-freedom-act-2/
 
The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.


The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.

The disclosure marked a rare instance in which a CIA officer working overseas had his cover — the secrecy meant to protect his actual identity — pierced by his own government. The only other recent case came under significantly different circumstances, when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq.

The Post is withholding the name of the CIA officer at the request of Obama administration officials who warned that the officer and his family could be at risk if the name were published. The CIA and the White House declined to comment.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

Tämä on muutamaa päivä vanha uutinen, mutta se ei ota kuollakseen, joten pistetään se tänne ja muistutettaan ihmisiä Valerie Plamen tapauksesta.

The Plame affair (also known as the CIA leak scandal and Plamegate) was a political scandal that revolved around journalist Robert Novak's public identification of Valerie Plame as a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer in 2003.

In 2002, Plame recommended her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, to the CIA for a mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country. Wilson initially bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts, but after President George W. Bush made the same claim during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson denied his initial pre-war assessment.

In response, Wilson published a July 2003 op-ed in The New York Times detailing the negative results of his investigation. A week later, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage.[Many alleged that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.

The scandal led to a criminal investigation; although no one was charged for the leak itself, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
 
Se siitä puhevapaudesta. Milloinkohan Suomen valtio tekee vastaavan tempun?

It took nearly 10 years, including three presidential elections, for the court to write the final chapter in a saga that began outside President George W. Bush's Oregon hotel in the waning days of his 2004 re-election campaign.

The justices ruled unanimously that the Secret Service acted appropriately when it moved anti-Bush protesters several blocks further away from the president's dinner table, even while allowing a friendly crowd of demonstrators to hold their ground.

"People are not at liberty to speak whenever, however, and wherever they please," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled for the court. "In that regard, we have recognized that securing the safety of the president is a vital concern."
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supreme-court-bush-protest-speech/9172707/
 
SJ kirjoitti:
Käsittääkseni poliisi siirtelee jatkuvasti noita rent-a-mob:eja. Siis poliisi saa määrätä mielenosoitukselle uuden pitopaikan tai marssireitin, jos julkisen järjestyksenpidon katsotaan vaativan sitä.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Et ymmärtänyt pointtia. "People are not at liberty to speak whenever, however, and wherever they please."
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top