Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments

[G M]

The IRS admits to ‘targeting’ conservative groups, but were they also ‘leaking’?
 
9:42 AM 05/13/2013
 

Matt K. Lewis
 
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
 
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
 
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
 
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
 
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
 
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
 
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
 
As the ProPublica story noted:
 
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
 
 
 
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
 
 
 
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-admits-to-targeting-conservative-groups-but-were-they-also-leaking/

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/13/a-few-of-the-crazy-things-the-irs-asked-conservative-groups-to-divulge/

A Few of the Crazy Things the IRS Asked Conservative Groups to Divulge Add Up to a Pattern and Purpose





by
Bryan Preston

Mary Katherine Ham rounds up 10 of the crazy things that the IRS sought from conservative and Tea Party groups during its abusive phase. I’ll focus on a few of those.
 
1. The IRS wanted every bit of information that these organizations had on their members.

 




Much of that information would allow the IRS to identify individual members of the targeted groups. Not just staff and donors, but members.
 
2. The IRS wanted information on the groups’ past and present employees and their relationships, with a special focus on familial relationships.
 



3. Just in case Point 2 wasn’t clear enough, yes, family members must be included.
 



4. Everything you turn over to the IRS will go public.
 



The information that the IRS sought went well beyond what it could reasonably have been seeking in the name of determining whether the groups qualified for the tax exemption. It was seeking enough information to build out a full network of every one of the conservative groups and be able to database them and cross-link them with each other. That the information would have been public is a tell of one place it would have ended up: In the computers of the data-driven Obama campaign and its allies. Anyone else seeking it would probably have had a tougher time getting their hands on it, but the Obama campaign, the Media Matters crew, any Democrat opposition researcher — they would have gotten it.
 
Based on the Obama campaign’s love of all things data and its behavior toward Romney donors, it’s pretty clear that gathering the information through the IRS was not the end game, it was a stop on the way to an end: Public exposure, humiliation and attack against the individuals that the IRS had scooped up on these forms — donors, staff, members, and their families. Secondarily, anyone thinking about donating to or working with any of the targeted groups would have to think twice about the consequences that might follow their exercise of their free speech rights. There are a lot of people out there with messy divorces, bankruptcies and other skeletons in their closets. Just ask Jack Ryan how sensitive Obama and company are with unflattering private information.
 
It’s clear from the questions above that while the IRS may not have had an enemies list when its intrusive questioning regime began in 2010, it was building one, and a very large and sophisticate one at that.

[Crafty_Dog]

That fleshes things out quite a bit GM.


Wonder why some of us are suspicious about Big Brother , , ,

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/most-transparent-administration-in-histo

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/05/13/meet-the-irs-team-in-charge-of-exempt-organization-reviews/?singlepage=true

Meet the IRS Team in Charge of Exempt Organization Reviews

May 13th, 2013 - 3:00 pm





Their work is in the news, so let’s meet the leadership team at the Internal Revenue Service that was in charge of reviewing those Tea Party applications for 501 (c) status.

Lois Lerner is the director of Exempt Organizations.  All of the mischief which occurred at the IRS took place under her supervision.

 
 

Prior to joining the IRS, Lerner was a bureaucrat at the Federal Election Commission.  Beginning in 1981, she served as an assistant general counsel, and was appointed in 1986 to head the Enforcement Division. Prior to joining the FEC, she was a staff attorney in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. She is a graduate of Northeastern University in Boston and received her Juris Doctor from Western New England College of Law in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Nan Downing is the director of Examinations.  She helped implement a “Fast Track Settlement” process for 501(c) applicants.



It must not apply to any conservative or Tea Party groups because they have been waiting for determinations for years after multiple intrusive questions about volunteers and donors.

David Fish is the acting director of Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements at the IRS.



Fish helped implement electronic applications for exempt status.  The electronic applications apparently didn’t speed up the process for Tea Party groups who have been waiting years for determinations.

Melany Partner is the IRS director of Customer Education and Outreach for Exempt Organizations.



Her job is (presumably) to help applicants like the many dozens of Tea Party groups understand and navigate the IRS 501(c) application process. Obviously there’s some room for improvement, to say the least.

Also read: White House Counsel Knew in April of IRS’s Targeting of Conservatives

[Crafty_Dog]

Once again GM brings his strong google fu skills to finding for us particularly pertinent information.

[DougMacG]

The Obama administration has been lying about the scope of the IRS’s harassment of conservative-leaning non-profits. The Washington Post has obtained documents that show the anti-conservative effort was directed from Washington, D.C., and was not a rogue operation out of the agency’s Cincinnati office, as the administration has claimed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/14/irs-released-confidential-info-on-conservative-groups-to-propublica/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/irs-scandal-about-to-blow-wide-open.php

Does anyone know when Eric Holder gets out of jail from his Contempt of Congress citation?  Maybe he can get to the bottom of this - like he did with Fast and Furious.

I wanted this administration to fall based on failed economic policies, but their arrogance and duplicity was bound to catch up with them too.

[Crafty_Dog]

TARGETED - President Obama said Monday that if any Internal Revenue Service staff targeted groups based on their political leanings, they would be held "fully accountable" for their actions, in remarks that came as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers continued to express anger over the revelations.
•   But President Obama also dismissed a reporter’s question about the IRS intimidating conservative groups during the election with a wave of his hand on Monday morning.
•   Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved in the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
•   The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee announced Monday that it will hold a hearing on the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups for tax exempt status. The hearing will take place Friday morning.
•   The Internal Revenue Service says acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller was first informed in May 2012 that tea party groups were inappropriately targeted for scrutiny. A month later he wrote a member of Congress to explain the process of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status without mentioning the controversy.
•   An attorney for a Tea Party group that believes the IRS targeted it for special scrutiny while applying for nonprofit status said an IRS analyst told him over a year ago that the agency had a “secret working group” devoted to investigating conservative organizations.
•   Attorney Dan Backer, whose client TheTeaParty.net has been trying to obtain tax-exempt status since 2010, said an IRS analyst mentioned the alleged working group during a phone conversation about one of Backer’s other client organizations.
•   While the Internal Revenue Service has apologized for targeting Tea Party groups, a number still have not received their tax-exempt status. Some have not even heard back from the IRS.
•   The following, based on questionnaires made public by Tea Party groups, are examples of the requests made by the IRS as part of the application for tax-exempt status.
o   Copies of current web pages, including blog posts and social networking site pages
o   Copies of all newsletters, bulletins and flyers
o   Names of donors and amounts they gave
o   Names of those who received donations and amounts received
o   Dates of community events including rallies
o   Contents of speeches delivered at sponsored events
o   Names of event organizers
o   Copies of documents that rate political candidates
o   Amount of money spent on publishing materials
o   Membership agreement and rules that govern members
o   Salary information
•   Despite the administrations’ claim to find the truth, many believe the White House was not an innocent bystander. Austan Goolsbee, who was Obama's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, entered the fray at an August 27, 2010, press briefing where he let slip that he knew that Koch Industries had paid no income taxes.
•   Koch Industries is a privately held company and therefore their tax returns and tax payments are not normally publicly available.
•   The Obama administration then switched to a second line of defense: that Mr. Goolsbee simply misspoke, that he didn’t mean to say what he said, and that it was merely a coincidence that he had just happened to guess their tax information. But it was quite a lucky guess. The IRS’s Inspector General promised to look into whether Goolsbee had illegally gotten confidential tax information, but a report was never released.
•   Democratic Montana Senator Max Baucus is leading an investigation into why the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny despite the fact that Baucus once wrote a letter urging the IRS to do exactly that.
•   According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, IRS employees donated over two-and-a-half times more to Barack Obama than to Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
•   The National Organization for Marriage is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to National Organization for Marriage.
•   U.S. Representative Mike Turner(R-OH) introduced a bill Monday that would make it a crime -- punishable by jail time -- for an IRS agent to target groups based on their political beliefs.
•   U.S. Senator Marco Rubio said Monday the head of the Internal Revenue Service should resign in the wake of reports that the agency has been targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
•   MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tore into the federal government over the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups.
•   In addition to calling the admitted actions “mind-boggling,” the personality highlighted the assertion that “this government is using the Internal Revenue Service to target people with whom they disagree.” Others, like co-host Willie Geist, jumped in say that the collective actions constitute ”tyranny.”

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/exclusive-prominent-catholic-prof-claims-irs-audited-her-after-speaking-out-against-obama-and-demanded-to-know-who-was-paying-her/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/29/confirmed-polk-county-fl-schools-conducted-iris-scans-on-students-without-permission/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/06/supreme-court-allows-police-to-take-dna-sample-without-warrant/

[Crafty_Dog]

Here is a true event that happened to a gentleman who trained
here in Weare NH for just a short time with me. He couldnt find work
here as a martial arts teacher so he moved out to Florida and this here
is from what had just happened only a few days ago. Read how stupid
_/some/_ cops really are. And this is why you all should learn your rights.
Peter

Score one for liberty!

I want to start off by saying that I have a lot of respect for police
officers and the work that they do. This entry is not intended to put
down police officers in general but rather explain a bad experience that
I had with one the day before yesterday.

I just drove to Florida from New Hampshire. I pretty much drove straight
through, stopping only occasionally for small naps. I set out to cross
the border before I took a nap and I was wrecked. Once I crossed the
border, it was like a huge wave of relief passed over my body. I had
finally made it. Even though I still have five hours of driving left, I
felt that I have met a goal. Right over the border, there was a rest
stop. It said that it was guarded, so I figured it would be safe to stop
there and sleep for a few hours before I continued on. I passed an
agricultural check point that said all commercial vehicles needed to stop.

As I pulled into the rest stop, blue lights flash behind me. I pull over
immediately (as you are supposed to do) and the police officer on a loud
speaker instructs be to pull all the way in which I did. Once I pulled
in, I did as I have always done when pulled over, I got my license and
registration ready. I turned my dome light on. I rolled down my window,
and I had my hands at ten and two. Of course, he decides to go to the
passenger side. So I crawl across the van and roll that window down.

He asks me why I did not stop at the checkpoint. I explained to him that
the sign said commercial vehicles only. He told me that vans (like mine)
are considered commercial vehicles and that it is a $151 fine for
passing it. I apologized and told him that I was quite tired and will
keep that in mind in the future. He told me to wait there while he ran
my license.

He came back asked me to step out of the car, which I did and walked
with him to the back of the van. He had called for back up. There were
three more cruisers there as well as the armed guard from the rest stop.
This is how the conversation went …

Officer: Why are you so nervous?

Me: I am not nervous, just tired.

Officer: Your eyes are red and you are shaking.

Me: Well yeah, I am really tired. I was pulling over to get some sleep
and you startled me with your lights.

Officer: No, you pulled over to get away from me.

Me: Honestly, I had no idea you were there until you turned the lights
on. I just want to rest for a bit.

Officer: You couldn't even maintain a speed.

Me: What does that mean?

Officer: You were slowing down.

Me: That is what I do when I get off an exit. What did you clock me at?

Officer: About 25 on the ramp.

Me: (I look over and gesture to the sign that says RAMP 25 MPH other
police officers chuckle). You got me officer. What is the fine in
Florida for obeying the speed limit?

Officer: You know that you illegally passed the checkpoint and that is
punishable by a $151 fine?

Me: That is what you told me and I explained to you that I did not
realize that my van that I use for personal and family use was
considered commercial.

Officer: We are going to search your van. Is that ok?

Me: Not it is not.

Officer: What do you have to hide?

Me: Nothing, which is why you are wasting your time with me and should
be out looking for criminals or doing something productive.

Officer: Let me explain something to you. I don't need a warrant or your
permission to search your van. You broke the law by passing the checkpoint …

Me: (interrupting) What is the fine for that (shoot a look at the other
officers)

Officer: $151 (other officers chuckle – initial officer getting irritated).

Me: Well if you don't need permission or a warrant then apparently you
are going going to search it anyway. I want it on the record and
documented that I protest this search and offer no consent.

Officer: Here is what I am going to do. I am going to call a judge and
get a warrant.

Me: Why would you do that? You said you don't need one.

Officer: Just to cover my butt.

Me: Why do you need to cover your butt if you can legally search my van?

Officer: This is going to go one of two ways. The easy way or the hard
way. Either you can let us search your van or I am going to wake up a
judge at 11 at night and get a warrant. Do you want me to have to wake
up a judge?

Me: Yes …

Officer: Why?

Me: Because I have rights. Basically what you are telling me is that I
have two options, you are going to search my van or you are going to
search my van. Show me a warrant. I want a copy in my hand.

Officer: If I have to get a warrant, I am going to keep you here all
night while I go through your stuff.

Me: It's not like you would search it faster if I gave permission.

Officer: If I have to get a warrant, you are going to have to unload
your van.

Me: Nope, IF you get a warrant, then you can unload my van. I am not
doing it.

Officer: Why?

Me: Because there are no cameras in my van and no way to document what
goes on in there while I am unloading. I am not going to get shot or
tazed in the back because you claim that I moved to quickly or picked up
a weapon that ended up being a dildo or something.

Officer: You have a dildo?

Me: Get a warrant and you can find out … you don't have any latex
allergies do you?

Officer: Do you have anything in the van?

Me: Yes …

Officer: No, I mean do you have anything illegal in the van?

Me: Oh … no.

Officer: No knives or firearms.

Me: Yes, both.

Officer: You said you didn't have anything in the van.

Me: I said I didn't have anything illegal in the van and they are not
illegal. The firearms are dismantled. The slides and the frames are in
different boxes and locked and the ammo is separate.

Officer: What kind of guns?

Me: Non of your business.

Officer: I need to check if they are loaded.

Me: Not without a warrant.

Officer: Carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle is against the law in
Florida.

Me: Not with a CCW which I have and will be happy to show you.

Officer: (noticing that my pocket was pulled out) What did you take out
of your pocket?

Me: My wallet.

Officer: Why would you take your wallet out of your pocket?

Me: To get to my license.

Officer: Why did you need that?

Me: To put it in your hand ...

Officer: This is your last chance before I call a judge.

Me: This is your last chance before I file harassment charges.

At this point he gets on his phone and I did what he should have been
doing the whole time – building rapport. I talked with the other
officers. I told them about my family and the job I was doing in Bonita
Springs. I asked them if they minded if I leaned up against van since I
was really tired. They said that was fine. I could hear the officer in
the background talking with someone explaining that I had boxes, bins
and sleeping bags in the van … and “a lot of weird stuff”. When he got
off the phone we continued ...

Officer: What is that inside your door? (I start to walk back to the
front of the van) What are you doing?

Me: You asked me what was inside my door and I don't know what you are
talking about so I was going to look. Do you want to walk back with me?

Officer: Yes, it looks like a leaf. (I open the driver's side door and
on the step up into the van is … a leaf …)

Me: Yup, officer, you got me. It is in fact a leaf. (He starts to look
under my seats and I shut the door. We return to the back of the van)
Did you get your warrant?

Officer: I am waiting for a call back. Where are your guns?

Me: In my guitar amp?

Officer: Your guns are in your guitar amp?

Me: Yes, after I took them apart and locked them up, I took my amp apart
and hid them inside.

Officer: Why would you do that?

Me: I did not want anybody to have access to them.

Officer: What about us?

Me: You are included in everybody.

He gets a call back and answers. I hear “Let him go” from the other side
of the phone. He excuses himself and gets in his car to argue with
whoever on the other side of the line. I continued to chat it up with
the other cops. When he returns.

Officer: My captain decided to let you off with a warning.

Me: Great, then good night. I am going to get some sleep.

Officer: So what are you on?

Me: What do you mean?

Officer: Alcohol, drugs?

Me: Nothing …

Officer: I am giving you a chance to be honest with me. I can't help you
if you don't tell me the truth.

Me: I don't need your help. (He give me an REM test)

Officer: Your eyes are all over the place and there are only two causes
for that.

Me: Do tell …

Officer: Either you are on some kind of substance or you are a diabetic
about to go into sugar shock.

Me: There is at least one other option.

Officer: What is that?

Me: That I am exhausted and highly caffeinated and need to sleep.

Officer: If you are really that tired, what are you doing on the road.

Me: I pulled in here to get off the road and you are stopping me from
sleeping. Do you realize that it is 11pm on Saturday. I left New
Hampshire at 5pm on Friday.

Officer: What does that mean?

Me: It means that unless I came from Maine, I came from as far away from
where we are now as you could possibly get and still be on the east
coast of this country. I have been driving for over 20 hours on about 4
hours of sleep.

Officer: What makes you an expert?

Me: Well, first off, I used to me a substance abuse recovery counselor.
You are welcome to call South Easter New Hampshire Services and ask
them. I know a bit about substances and how they work. Also my brother
has type 1 diabetes and I have seen him in a diabetic coma. If I were at
that point, REM would be the last of my worries.

Officer: Well there are other types of diabetes.

Me: I know, my grandfather has the other type.

Officer: Ok, well I am going to let you off with a warning but if you
are on ANYTHING at all, you need to stay here and sleep it off.

Me: First, I told you that I was going to stay here and sleep. Second,
you are just blowing smoke. If you thought I was actually on something,
then you would either not even give me the option of leaving or you are
the worst cop ever.

He then gives me my warning and thanks me for my cooperation. I was so
riled up … I couldn't sleep.

[bigdog]

2 unrelated, yet interconnected articles:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/panopticon-keep-your-eyes-on-the-word/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/verizon-providing-all-call-records-to-us-under-court-order/2013/06/05/98656606-ce47-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html... but remember, its all just speculation: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/the-verizonsection-215-order-and-the-clapper-mindset/

[ccp]

These disclosures are not speculation.  We are already under some surveillance to at least some degree.   By government and private interests.   And in my case by criminals.   Sometimes the entities above overlap and are not separate.  The real world.   If any one thinks Google, MS etc are not keeping data and don't have access to much of what we do and who we are he/she is kidding themselves.

It won't be stopped.  Cannot be.  OTOH we don't want intrusion into our private worlds.  Yet it is happening all the time.  OTOH how in the world can law enforcement have ANY hope of combating this without access to the data.   The problem is what they do with it.    Agencies who are surveillancing for terrorist activity MUST out of any conceivable realm of logical probability come across criminal activity or communications that do not have anything to do with Jihad.  So should this be ignored?  It probably is.  The answer is not simple.

*****WND Exclusive: Now FBI wants back door to all software
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER

Now FBI wants back door to all software

But leading security experts say strategy would help enemies
Published: 15 hours ago
author-imageBob Unruh   About   | Email  | Archive    

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

rss feed Subscribe to feed




Ads by Google

International Backgroundcriminal records,address verifiy, education and employment verify www.accinfosys.com


Printer Friendly
Text smaller
Text bigger


1120
 

                         
 
The FBI is unhappy that there are communications technologies that it cannot intercept and wants to require that software makers and communications companies create a back door so they can listen in when they desire.

But a team of technology experts warns the move would hand over to the nation’s enemies abilities they are not capable of developing for themselves.


 



Ads by Google

Gold Price Falls to $750Why The Gold Price Will Fall to $750. Steps You Need to Take NOW. www.Survive-Prosper.com
Best 2013 Credit CardFind The Best Credit Cards Of 2013. Expert Reviews & Info. Apply Online ConsumerCompare.NextAdvisor.com


The Washington Post reported the issue is being raised by the FBI because “there is currently no way to wiretap some of these communications methods easily, and companies effectively.”

The solution, according to the FBI, is to fine companies when they fail to comply with wiretap orders, essentially requiring all companies to build a back door for wiretap capabilities into all their communications links.

“The importance to us is pretty clear,” FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman said in the report. “We don’t have the ability to go to court and say, ‘We need a court order to effectuate the intercept.’”

But a report by the Center for Democracy & Technology warns of unintended consequences.

“Wiretap functionality allows covert access to communications that can be exploited not only by law enforcement, but by criminals, terrorists, and foreign military and intelligence agencies,” the report said. “Wiretap endpoints will be vulnerable to exploitation and difficult to secure.”

It cited a report called “CALEA II: Risks of Wiretap Modifications to Endpoints.”

The report came just as the U.S. government was caught accessing telephone records for the Associated Press and describing a prominent Fox News journalist as a potential criminal.

It was compiled by high-profile leaders in the field such as Matt Blaze from the University of Pennsylvania, Edward Felten of Princeton, Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins and J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan.

The report said there are some drawbacks to expanding wiretap design laws to Internet services.

“Mandating wiretap capabilities in endpoints poses serious security risks,” the report said. “Requiring software vendors to build intercept functionality into their products is unwise and will be ineffective, with the result being serious consequences for the economic well-being and national security of the United States.”

Just what kind of “serious consequences”?

“The FBI’s desire to expand CALEA mandates amounts to developing for our adversaries capabilities that they may not have the competence, access, or resources to develop on their own,” the report said.

CALEA is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which already requires some electronic surveillance possibilities. It’s the plan the FBI wants to expand to all digital forms of communication, including Skype and VoIP services.

The London Daily Mail recently reported that those technologies are hard to track because they convert analogue audio signals into digital data packets, which would have to be retrieved and reassembled.

The team of experts said that besides allowing criminals and terrorists into the networks, the strategy would require software companies to have employees do the wiretapping or give away their company secrets to law enforcement agencies.

“Finally, the wiretap capability that the FBI seeks will be ineffective because it is easily disabled and because knock-off products that lack the wiretap functionality can be readily downloaded from websites abroad. Because many of the tools that people use to communicate are built on open standards and open source software, it will be trivial to remove or disable wiretap functionality,” the report said.

According to the Post report, the draft proposal would let a court levy escalating fines against a company – fines that could double daily.

“This proposal is a non-starter that would drive innovators overseas and cost American jobs,” Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the Post.

“They might as well call it the Cyber Insecurity and Anti-Employment Act.”*****

[bigdog]

ccp, the "speculation" quote is from a USSC decision not to allow a case to proceed. It is signed by all the conservative justices....

Did you read the short article linked? It is pretty interesting, and links to the opinion if you want to read it.

[ccp]

***I realize that, for many, this order will seem either unsurprising, unalarming, or both. Such is the state of the world–and of the authorities under which the government operates on an increasingly routine basis. But contrast that mentality with the skepticism at the heart of Justice Alito’s opinion for the 5-4 Supreme Court majority in February’s Clapper v. Amnesty International decision, which, in rejecting standing to challenge (admittedly different) FISA-related authorities, dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations that their communications might be intercepted as purely “speculative.”

Justice Alito’s specific analysis aside, it’s the mindset that I just don’t get. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the normative desirability (and, I dare say, legality) of the degree of governmental surveillance that is now underway. But can reasonable people really continue to disagree that this is the world in which we’re living?***

Appearances can be deceiving.  One can speculate about a lot of things.  Perhaps the "mentality" of the Supremes to dismiss  *this* concern as merely speculative is telling at either their naivete or their wish to look at only hard evidence.  I don't know.

I am one of those who would find this unsurprising while many others don't care because they believe it doesn't adversely affect them.

WE now know various government agencies are collecting reams of data.   We still don't know how much or exactly what or what they are doing with it. 

We also know many upon many liberal advocates from all over are constantly visiting the WH.   We know nothing of what goes on there.  A naïve person (I was one) would have wondered how such a huge conspiracy (soft tyranny) take hold under the radar without people talking.

We have seen other examples of large conspiracies of silence.  Like  Serpico - essentially the entire NYC police force taking bribes or looking the other way.

Like performance enhancing drugs in professional and probably most big time college sports.  Lance Armstorng.  Alex Rodriguez.  Of course they are all doping.   Yet, we only get drips and drabs of the truth because those who are on the inside and know what is going on are keeping quiet.

Same in music industry.   I can way (without proof) that virtually all the lyrics and probably most of what we hear on radio, cable etc is all stolen.   Yet many many people are keeping this quiet or looking the other way.

Same in Wall street insider trading.   To think there *isn't* massive espionage going on would be crazy - not vice a versa.  Too much money involved. 

To think all these hundreds of liberal political activists who work for the government, the media, and private industries are visiting the WH and all this data is not being used against their political adversaries is naïve.  One may still call it speculative - but with much corroborative evidence can reasonable people agree something is rotten in Denmark (DC).

Like the author above I would not dismiss it.   Of course I am not a Supreme Court Justice - I am just another Joe.

 

[G M]

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

READ it all.

[Crafty_Dog]

Here's a nice little loophole that lets government look at your private
emails .... and we're not just talking "metadata".

http://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read-your-email-2013-6

[Crafty_Dog]

second entry  http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20130615/e91544a8-e9bf-4bc9-9359-cc11897f968f

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/19304-oregon-turning-traffic-cameras-into-big-brother-surveillance-system/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/police-agencies-are-assembling-records-of-dna.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130613

[G M]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/police-agencies-are-assembling-records-of-dna.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130613

Is this somehow different than fingerprint databases ?

[Crafty_Dog]

Fair enough I suppose , , , but , , ,

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/06/19/living-in-fear-welcome-to-fascist-america/?singlepage=true

[Crafty_Dog]

http://rt.com/news/search-duckduckgo-popularity-nsa-956/