Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog


  December
1, 2013
Crisis: AIVD+NRC, NSA's sex research, NSA's mess, less trust, less sex
  "They who can give up essential 
   liberty to obtain a little temporary
   safety, deserve neither liberty
   nor safety."
   -- Benjamin Franklin [1]
   "All governments lie and nothing
   they say should be believed.
"
   -- I.F. Stone.











Sections
Introduction
  1. Dutch intelligence agency AIVD hacks internet forums
  2. NSA 'collected details of online sexual activity' of
       Islamist radicals

  3. Why the NSA has landed us all in another nice mess
  4. Poll Shows Americans Don’t Trust Each Other Like They
       Used To

  5. Brits Having Sex Less - Poll Results
About ME/CFS

Introduction

This is another crisis issue in a weekend (it's Sunday). In any case, I did not find much, but I have again five items.

1.  Dutch intelligence agency AIVD hacks internet forums

To 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 confirmation).

In any case, here is the English version:

This starts as follows:

The Dutch 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.

OK... that was the news, in which I read that "Glenn Greenwald", in this Dutch paper, describes Edward Snowden as "former NSA-contractor".

Here is the Dutch version, that is considerably longer:

This 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:

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.

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 Boon"):
The American 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.

In 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.

This 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 displeased.

And this is supposed to be "the best" paper the Dutch have!

2. NSA '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. [2] The article is by Ewan MacAskill, in the Guardian:

This 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 violence".

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.

3.  Why the NSA has landed us all in another nice mess

Next, 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 Snowden.

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, or else!"

John Naughton has more, and is aided by Hillary Clinton, who in 2010 made a speech in which she said:

"Governments and 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. Clinton's speech-writers:
"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.)

4. Poll 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:

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 found.

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.

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 nearly all.

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.

5. Brits 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 psychiatric "research".

---------------------------------
Note

[1] Here it is necessary to insist, with Aristotle, thay the governors do not rule, or at least, should not rule: The laws rule, and the government, if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn Greenwald:
It is more proper that law should govern than any of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servant of laws.
(And I note the whole file I quote from is quite pertinent.)

[2] I am quite serious about "many millions", for probably billions have surfed to porn sites, since porn is still the most frequented subject on the internet, but I should say that in this respect I am one of the few who did not surf for porn. (Then again, the NSA might say so anyway, and that is one of the many troubles/strengths this agency has, due to its being totally beyond control of any citizen.)

About ME/CFS (that I prefer to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to
facilitate search machine) which is a disease that I have since 1.1. 1979:

1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)



       home - index - summaries - mail