"They who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin 
| "All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
1. Dutch intelligence
agency AIVD hacks internet forums
2. NSA 'collected details of
online sexual activity' of
3. Why the NSA has landed
us all in another nice mess
4. Poll Shows Americans Don’t
Trust Each Other Like They
5. Brits Having Sex Less -
is another crisis issue in a weekend (it's Sunday). In any case, I
did not find much, but I have again five items.
intelligence agency AIVD hacks internet forums
start with, since I have quite a few Dutch readers, a Dutch item,
although I will translate part of it into English - or no: I
can use the English version, that has been produced, it says, and I
quote, by "Steven Derix, Glenn Greenwald and Huib Modderkolk", if
you want to believe that (and I do not, until I get independent
case, here is the English version:
starts as follows:
intelligence service - AIVD - hacks internet web forums to collect the
data of all users. The majority of these people are unknown to the
intelligence services and are not specified as targets when the hacking
and data-collection process starts. A secret document of former
NSA-contractor Edward Snowden shows that the AIVD use a technology
called Computer Network Exploitation – CNE – to hack the web forums and
collect the data.
Last week NRC reported that
the NSA has infected
50,000 computer networks worldwide with malicious software.
that was the news, in which I read that "Glenn Greenwald", in this
Dutch paper, describes Edward Snowden as "former NSA-contractor".
is the Dutch version, that is considerably longer:
shows at the end one of many reasons why I stopped reading the NRC
after having read it for 40 years: The Dutch article ends with
this phrase, that only extreme lackeys and "journalists" rather than
journalists can produce:
which is to say in English
(and this Dutch article also lists "Glenn Greenwald"
as a contributor, and also, in addition to the English one, "Floor
De Amerikaanse overheid
laat in een reactie weten dat publicatie van staatsgeheimen de
nationale veiligheid schaadt. Om die reden publiceert deze krant
belangrijke technische details niet.
government lets it be known in a reaction that the publication of state
secrets damages the national security. For this reason this paper does
not publish important technical details.
other words: Because the American government - that has been
shown to consist of non-democratic liars, I'd say - lets it be known
that "the publication of
state secrets damages the national security" the Dutch paper NRC does not
publish information at all, and also does not publish were this
information can be found, on the sites of American papers.
is not a paper anymore: These are the proud lackeys of Dick Cheney, who
proudly inform their readers that they do not publish what
American papers publish, because "the American government" might be
is supposed to be "the best" paper the Dutch have!
'collected details of online sexual activity' of Islamist radicals
Next, a bit more on
the pornographic activities of the NSA, since these may in the future
effect the lives of many millions.  The article
is by Ewan MacAskill, in the Guardian:
starts as follows:
The NSA has been collecting
details about the online sexual activity of prominent Islamist radicals
in order to undermine them, according to a new Snowden document published by the Huffington Post.
The American surveillance agency
targeted six unnamed "radicalisers", none of whom is alleged to have
been involved in terror plots.
One document argues that
if the vulnerabilities they are accused of were to be exposed, this
could lead to their devotion to the jihadist cause being brought into
question, with a corresponding loss of authority.
Yes, indeed - and it would
also not be a bad idea to name and expose the pornographic and sexual
details of the heads of the NSA, were it only that these gentlemen may
only be researched by themselves.
Note that "none of whom is alleged to have been involved
in terror plots": You do get a
good idea what the future would be like in the US, if the NSA gets its
way. Total control.
Also, the article quotes:
Shawn Turner, press
spokesman for the US director of national intelligence, in an email to
the Huffington Post, said it was not surprising the US government "uses
all of the lawful tools at our disposal to impede the efforts of valid
terrorist targets who seek to harm the nation and radicalise others to
Well, yes... except that
(1) your methods are illegal (2) these are not "valid terrorists" (3)
anyway all your references to "terrorists" are misleading deceptions to
research anyone and anything and (4) you have given no evidence that
these gentlemen were busy on radicalizing "others to violence", while
(5) you do not discuss the many extremely violent and terroristic
programs of the USA.
Anyway... this seems to be
the future the NSA wants: Smear anyone whose ideas are not like theirs
with anything, for that is the only reason they have collected the
enormous haystack of information: Not to find a needle, but to
be able to smear or blackmail anyone.
Why the NSA has landed us all in another nice mess
an article by John Naughton in the Guardian:
This starts as follows:
Fans of Stan Laurel and
Oliver Hardy will fondly remember Oliver's complaint to Stanley: "Well,
here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" In a future
remake, Hardy will be played by Barack Obama, suitably enhanced with a
toothbrush moustache, while Keith
Alexander, currently head of the NSA, will star as Laurel.
The scene in which this particular bit of dialogue occurs is the Oval
Office, which for the purposes of the scene is littered with flip
charts summarising the various unintended consequences of the NSA's
recent activities, as relayed by Edward
One chart, supplied by
the Department of Commerce, lists the collateral damage inflicted by
the revelations on major US internet companies.
Until the Snowden story broke last June, it was a racing certainty that
they would dominate the world market for cloud computing services.
Maybe they still will, but the odds have lengthened.
Yes indeed, and the reason
is that the NSA has corrupted their encryption keys and forced them to
behave as the NSA wants, with the help of secret orders by secret
courts, that they cannot even publicly discuss: "Trust Obama,
John Naughton has more, and
is aided by Hillary Clinton, who in 2010 made a speech in which she
citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their
national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. Now
this is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability
to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of
dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on
the security of our information networks."
And also this, by Mrs.
"We stand for a
single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and
ideas. And we recognise that the world's information infrastructure
will become what we and others make of it."
Indeed, all of
these Clintonesque ideas are complete pipe-dreams - as I
suspect Hillary Clinton very well knew, but then there had been no
Edward Snowden yet.
Here is the end of the
article, that contains quite a bit more:
The choice is then
between sacrificing accountability or sacrificing secrecy.
What we have learned
recently is the extent to which our rulers dodged that choice: they
lifted the veil just a bit to give a semblance of accountability. What
Snowden has shown us is that it was just a semblance. We urgently need
something better and if we don't get it then we could be, as one spook
put it, "a keystroke away from totalitarianism". And that would be a
different kind of mess altogether.
Yes - except that I take it
we are "a keystroke away
from totalitarianism": I agree we aren't there yet, but as far as the
NSA and the GCHQ are concerned, it may start tomorrow (and indeed may
have started, and so far succeeded in blackmailing all judges and
politicians it gave a choice: Who knows?! Only the heads of the
NSA and the GCHQ, it seems.)
Shows Americans Don’t Trust Each Other Like They Used To
Next, a short article by
Alexander Reed Kelly on Truth Dig:
This starts as follows:
That is a near 20% fall, which
is considerable. What is the reason? Well, surely there are more than
one, but it would seem to me that the main two are (1) most have been deceived into thinking that they do not need
any support, owe nothing to no one, and may end up as millionaires,
while (2) the situation since 1972 has in fact been worsening for
Just one-third of
Americans say most of their fellow citizens can be trusted today,
compared with half of the population in 1972, the General Social Survey
Another poll conducted
last month found that Americans are suspicious of one another in
everyday interactions. Less than one-third expressed an abundance of
trust in “clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or
people they meet when traveling,” The Associated Press wrote.
And yes, I am speculating - but it is not speculation that each
and everyone who is alive needs tenthousands of others, if not
more, to just get the ordinary goods for his ordinary life - food,
energy, housing, transport, to name a few - and depends on their
existence and their work, while it also is not speculation that
the economic situation of the vast majority of the Americans has been
going down for something like forty years now: that is a fact.
Having Sex Less - Poll Results
Finally, an item from TYT
(The Young Turks) on the 20% less sex the British have:
I merely list it, and
note there are other explanations than those given, and notably that
the food has changed a lot, and also is less well controlled than it
used to be, and contains far more hormones than it used to.
And I am not saying
that's it, while it really is - as Ana Kasparian says - an interesting
research subject why there is so much less sex than there used to be,
and certainly a much more interesting one than nearly all