Kategori arşivi: Güvenlik

Self Assembling Blocks, Stepping Stone to “Terminator Army” (Video)


VİDEO LİNK :

http://youtu.be/1Bj-nlF4R-U

Reklamlar

CIA Secretly Recording Global Money Transfers


The Central Intelligence Agency is secretly collecting bulk records of international money transfers handled by companies like Western Union — including transactions into and out of the United States — under the same law that the National Security Agency uses for its huge database of Americans’ phone records, according to current and former government officials.

The C.I.A. financial records program, which the officials said was authorized by provisions in the Patriot Act and overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, offers evidence that the extent of government data collection programs is not fully known and that the national debate over privacy and security may be incomplete.

Somedetails of the C.I.A. program were not clear. But it was confirmed by several current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is classified.

The data does not include purely domestic transfers or bank-to-bank transactions, several officials said. Another, while not acknowledging the program, suggested that the surveillance court had imposed rules withholding the identities of any Americans from the data the C.I.A. sees, requiring a tie to a terrorist organization before a search may be run, and mandating that the data be discarded after a certain number of years. The court has imposed several similar rules on the N.S.A. call logs program.

Several officials also said more than one other bulk collection program has yet to come to light.

“The intelligence community collects bulk data in a number of different ways under multiple authorities,” one intelligence official said.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the C.I.A., declined to confirm whether such a program exists, but said that the agency conducts lawful intelligence collection aimed at foreign — not domestic — activities and that it is subject to extensive oversight.

“The C.I.A. protects the nation and upholds the privacy rights of Americans by ensuring that its intelligence collection activities are focused on acquiring foreign intelligence and counterintelligence in accordance with U.S. laws,” he said.

Juan Zarate, a White House and Treasury official under President George W. Bush, said that unlike telecommunications information, there has generally been less sensitivity about the collection of financial data, in part because the government already collects information on large transactions under the Bank Secrecy Act.

“There is a longstanding legal baseline for the U.S. government to collect financial information,” said Mr. Zarate, who is also the author of “Treasury’s War,” about the crackdown on terrorist financing. He did not acknowledge the C.I.A. program.

Orders for business records from the surveillance court generally prohibit recipients from talking about them. A spokeswoman for one large company that handles money transfers abroad, Western Union, did not directly address a question about whether it had been ordered to turn over records in bulk, but said that the company complies with legal requirements to provide information.

“We collect consumer information to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and other laws,” said the spokeswoman, Luella Chavez D’Angelo. “In doing so, we also protect our consumers’ privacy.”

In recent months, there have been hints in congressional testimony, declassified documents and litigation that the N.S.A. program — which was disclosed by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor — is not unique in collecting records involving Americans.

For example, the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for documents related to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision that allows the government to compel companies to turn over business records for counterterrorism purposes. After the government declassified the N.S.A. phone records program, it has released many documents about it in response to the suit.

But the government has notified the A.C.L.U. that it is withholding two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rulings invoking Section 215 — one dated Aug. 20, 2008, and the other Nov. 23, 2010 — because they discuss matters that remain classified, according to Alexander Abdo, an A.C.L.U. lawyer. “It suggests very strongly that there are other programs of surveillance that the public has a right to know about,” Mr. Abdo said.

In addition, a Justice Department “white paper” on the N.S.A.’s call records program, released in August, said that communications logs are “a context” in which the “collection of a large volume of data” is necessary for investigators to be able to analyze links between terrorism suspects and their associates. It did not say that call records are the only context that meets the criteria for bulk gathering.

In hearings on Capitol Hill, government officials have repeatedly avoided saying that phone logs — which include date, duration and numbers of phone calls, but not their content — are the only type of data that would qualify for bulk collection under the Patriot Act provision. In a little-noticed exchange late in an Oct. 3 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the N.S.A. director, appeared to go further.

At the hearing, Senator Mazie K. Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, asked General Alexander and James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, a sweeping question: “So what are all of the programs run by the N.S.A. or other federal agencies” that used either Section 215 of the Patriot Act or another surveillance law that allows warrantless wiretapping of phone and emails?

General Alexander responded by describing, once again, the N.S.A.’s call records program, adding, “None of that is hid from you.” Mr. Clapper said nothing.

Then, moments later, General Alexander interjected that he was talking only about what the N.S.A. is doing under the Patriot Act provision and appearing to let slip that other agencies are operating their own programs.

“You know, that’s of course a global thing that others use as well, but for ours, it’s just that way,” General Alexander said.

In September, the Obama administration declassified and released a lengthy opinion by Judge Claire Eagan of the surveillance court, written a month earlier and explaining why the panel had given legal blessing to the call log program. A largely overlooked passage of her ruling suggested that the court has also issued orders for at least two other types of bulk data collection.

Specifically, Judge Eagan noted that the court had previously examined the issue of what records are relevant to an investigation for the purpose of “bulk collections,” plural. There followed more than six lines that were censored in the publicly released version of her opinion.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been trying to gain more information about other bulk collection programs.

In September, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin and an author of the original Patriot Act, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asking if the administration was collecting bulk records aside from the phone data. An aide said he had yet to get a response. Even lawmakers on the Intelligence Committees have indicated that they are not sure they understand the entire landscape of what the government is doing in terms of bulk collection.

Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, recently sent a classified letter to Mr. Clapper asking for a full accounting of every other national security program that involves bulk collection of data at home or abroad, according to government officials.

Via:nyt

Teacher with Violent Past Allegedly Assaults Student


Christina Dabbs is upset about allegations her son’s science teacher assaulted him, but she’s even more concerned about Rayburn McGuire’s arrest record.

“He is accused of shooting his cousin over music after a funeral. This is someone who is violent. This is my son’s teacher,” said Dabbs.

Dabbs’ son Gavyn is in the fifth grade at Seaborn Lee Elementary in Fulton County. Gavyn said McGuire assaulted him in class last week.

“He punched me in my chest. He said ‘Come on, get up’ and then I walked outside. He grabbed me by my collar and yanked me outside,” said Gavyn.

Gavyn said McGuire didn’t stop there.

“He asked, ‘Why did you do that?’ I said ‘I don’t know’. He said, ‘Are you going to do it again?’ I said ‘no’. Then I walked back in the classroom. I was about to sit back down in my chair and he pushed my head down. I hit the floor and then I got up and laughed so I wouldn’t cry,” said Gavyn.

While a CBS Atlanta news crew was talking to Gavyn’s mother, she decided to look online for a picture of McGuire – what she found disturbed her.

“I just Googled his name and an article on the AJC (Atlanta Journal Constitution) popped up. Is stated bond was denied for post-funeral shooter. Oh my goodness!” Dabbs said.

In February McGuire was arrested and charged with shooting his cousin. Fulton County Schools hired him in October.

“It’s shocking that he is allowed to be teaching in an elementary school – teaching, period,” said Dabbs.

Fulton County Schools spokeswoman Susan Hale emailed this statement:

“This is a serious allegation and one that our school district does not take lightly. The employee has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.”

Hale said the district placed McGuire on administrative leave Wednesday after inquires were made about his arrest record.

Hale said that arrest didn’t show up on McGuire’s background check, which he passed, because the charges against him were dropped.

McGuire’s attorney said the charges were dropped because he shot his cousin in self-defense.

Via:cbsatlanta

Life for a Marijuana Charge


Do you read blogs? I generally don’t, but somebody sent me a copy of a recent blog in the Daily RFT. It was written by Ray Downs. He’s got a good reputation. The blog was about Jeffrey Mizanskey, who is doing life without parole on a marijuana charge.

Recent Photo of Jeff Mizansky

According to the blog, Mizanskey got busted in 1993 in Sedalia, Mo., with another guy. They had gone to a motel to buy a brick of weed. About five pounds, the blog said.

I don’t get that part. I don’t want to sound like an authority on this stuff, but I’d figure a brick to be a kilo. You know, a little more than two pounds. But it doesn’t matter. Two pounds, five pounds, 10 pounds. They bring this stuff in by the ton. So we’re not talking about Pablo Escobar. We’re talking about a low-level pot dealer.

According to the blog, Mizanskey was just along for the ride, anyway. It was his buddy who was interested in buying the weed. Supposedly, the video backs it up. Video? It turns out the sellers had already been busted and were participating in a sting.

But who cares if Mizanskey was the real buyer? Let’s say he was. He gets life for buying a few pounds of pot?

By the way, his buddy got 10 years. It turns out this was Mizanksey’s third bust. None of them big. The first two didn’t even rate prison time. I checked with the Department of Corrections. First and only time they got him was for this third bust.

I’ve written about the criminal justice system for a long time, and I understand inequities abound. There are all sorts of variables. The quality of the defense lawyer, the jurisdiction in which one gets arrested, the sentencing judge, and so on. No two cases are identical. But still, life without parole for a pot charge? Are you kidding me?

I recently flew to San Francisco, rented a car and drove to visit a pal who lives near Seattle. I drove through the California town of Weed. The gas stations were selling T-shirts that read, “I love Weed.”

By the way, I was driving to Seattle. Guess what’s legal there.

You see where I’m going with this, Jay? This is 2014. Reefer Madness is passé. Society no longer equates pot with heroin. Nobody is selling “I love Heroin” T-shirts.

Not long ago, I wrote about the days when pot was everywhere. I mentioned that I could once roll a pretty good joint, but I remembered guys who could roll a joint with one hand. I envied them. They were rock stars. How cheated they must have felt when weed went underground. Maybe they’ll move to Colorado or Washington where they can once again show off, I wrote.

I got a lot of response to that column. Mostly from baby boomers who fondly remembered those days. Some of them boasted that they could still roll a joint with one hand. Arthritis be damned!

These are old people. Sixty-year-olds. Pot is the one of the few issues they have in common with the kids.

Last week, I got an email from a fellow with Show-Me Cannabis. That’s the group working to legalize pot in Missouri. One of their lobbyists is a sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department. Makes me think of Bob Dylan. The times they are a-changing.

I asked the fellow from Show-Me Cannabis if he knew about Mizanskey. Sure, I know about him, the guy said. We’re planning an advocacy campaign to get him clemency, he said.

This story isn’t going to stay a blog for long. Trust me on that, Jay. I know some of the people at the Riverfront Times. They’ve got themselves a story, and they know it. Life without parole for pot.

This thing is going to take off.

When the clamor for clemency starts, you’ll have three options. You can pretend not to hear the shouting. You can say you don’t see an injustice in the sentence. You can grant clemency.

Option three is clearly the best — the first two are untenable — but why look like you have to be forced into doing the right thing?

Let me suggest a fourth option. You can be proactive. You can move before the clamor starts. You can say you read the blog in the RFT — that will make you seem hip — and after looking into the matter, you have decided to grant Jeff Mizanskey clemency. Immediately! Twenty years on a pot charge is long enough, you say.

Aside from the injustice, it’s a complete waste of money to keep this guy in prison, you say.

In so doing you appeal to everybody — the young, the old, the liberals, the fiscal conservatives. Plus, you’d be doing the right thing.

Best move on this quickly, Jay. It’s a rare opportunity.

TOP SECRET : Oakland Domain Awareness Center Purchasing Invoices March-July 2013


DÖKÜMANLARI BURADAN İNDİREBİLİRSİNİZ.

***

The following files contain scans of all invoices related to the City of Oakland’s contract with Science Applications International Corporation for the construction of the City/Port of Oakland Joint Domain Awareness Center. The documents were collected in a binder held by the City of Oakland and obtained via a public records request made by members of Occupy Oakland. The invoices are organized by month and range in date from March to July 2013.

Domain Awareness Center Invoices March 2013 26 pages (3.9 MB)
Domain Awareness Center Invoices April 2013 62 pages (8.5 MB)
Domain Awareness Center Invoices May 2013 76 pages (10.2 MB)
Domain Awareness Center Invoices June 2013 208 pages (38.3 MB)
Domain Awareness Center Invoices July 2013 25 pages (4.5 MB)

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-1.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-2.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-3.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-4.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-5.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-6.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-7-1024x787.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-8-1024x787.png

Oakland-DAC-Invoices-9-1024x786.png

TOP SECRET /// Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction : No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology


Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction … No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology.pdf

TOP SECRET : Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction Modifies Language on Collateral Damage Estimates for Drone Strikes


3160_01.jpg

A chart from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3160.01A depicts collateral damage estimation levels and their representative risk to overall operations.

Public Intelligence

An updated instruction issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 2012 incorporates significantly modified language in numerous sections of the document that describe the process for estimating collateral damage prior to conducting drone strikes and other military actions. These subtle, but important changes in wording provide insight into the military’s attempts to limit expectations in regards to minimizing collateral damage and predicting the lethal effects of military operations.

The update to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3160.01A “No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology” incorporates technical updates to the process for estimating collateral damage as well as lessons learned from the conflicts in Libya and Afghanistan. Despite its release restrictions, a previous version of the instruction was provided in full to the ACLU in 2011 after the group filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the military’s use of armed drones. The version of the instruction obtained by the ACLU, which is dated February 2009, contains significantly different language in numerous key sections of the document that describe the accuracy and processes for predicting collateral damage.

While much of the actual technical methodology for predicting collateral damage remains unchanged, language throughout the document is modified in a way that minimizes expectations about the ability of U.S. forces to accurately predict collateral damage and includes qualifying statements regarding the compliance of U.S. military operations with international law. In a section of the document detailing procedures related to no-strike entities (NSEs), which have “protected status” and cannot be targeted in military operations, the new version of the instruction no longer describes the U.S. as “adhering to” international law, but instead states that the U.S. is “bound by” international law which “regulates”, rather than “requires” certain conduct during military operations. A few paragraphs later, a sentence warning against the “infliction of unnecessary suffering or damage to civilian persons or property that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” is removed from the document, as is the statement that the conduct is “inconsistent with international law.” A section requiring “all military personnel to take reasonable precautions to ensure that only military objectives are targeted” and ensure that civilians are not made the object of attack is changed to require only that military personnel “avoid targeting (i.e., attacking) civilian or noncombatant persons or objects.”

The new version of the instruction also modifies a requirement that commanders limit “unnecessary suffering and disproportionate damage.” Instead, commanders are now only required to mitigate “human suffering and property damage.” The overall process for estimating collateral damage is described as “a conservative characterization” of the risks involved rather than the previous “best judgment of potential damage to collateral concerns.” Several additions are also made in the new version of the instruction including an allowance for “weapon delivery uncertainties” and a statement indicating that U.S. forces are not responsible for “secondary explosions” from fuel or other supplies on the ground.

A small selection of some of the differences between the two versions of the instruction is included in the table below. Blue indicates text modified from the previous version of the instruction. Red indicates text that was inserted into the new version of the instruction.

Old Version
February 13, 2009
New Version
October 12, 2012
Changes
The source and method for defining a person, place, or thing as a No-Strike entity is derived primarily from the body of international law collectively known as LOW. The LOW incorporates international treaties and agreements adhered to by the U.S. government, as well as customary international law, into a comprehensive set of guidance and requirements governing the conduct of modern warfare. The basis for defining a person, place, or thing as a No-Strike entity is derived primarily from the body of international law collectively known as LOW. LOW comprises the international law related to the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties to which the United States is a party and applicable customary international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. Law of war is now the “basis” for defining no-strike entities rather than the source. The law of war is defined as international law “binding” rather than “adhered to” by the U.S. This includes treaties and “customary international law” that “regulates” rather than “requires” certain actions when conducting military activity.
No-Strike entities are those designated by the appropriate authority upon which kinetic or non-kinetic operations are prohibited to avoid violating international law, conventions, or agreements, or damaging relations with coalition partners and indigenous populations. The infliction of unnecessary suffering or damage to civilian persons or property that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is inconsistent with international law and is contrary to DOD policy outlined in this document and in references a and b. No-Strike entities are those designated by the appropriate authority upon which kinetic or non-kinetic operations are prohibited to avoid violating international law, or agreements, or damaging relations with coalition partners and indigenous populations. The new version removes “conventions” from a list of things to avoid violating. An entire sentence prohibiting the infliction of “unnecessary suffering or damage to civilian persons or property” is removed, as well as the statement that this is “inconsistent with international law” and “contrary to DOD policy.”
The LOW requires all military personnel to take reasonable precautions to ensure that only military objectives are targeted and to ensure that civilian or noncombatant objects are not made the object of attack. The LOW requires all military personnel to take reasonable precautions to ensure that only military objectives are targeted and to avoid targeting (i.e., attacking) civilian or noncombatant persons or objects. A requirement to “ensure” that civilians are not the subject of attacks is changed to an admonishment to “avoid targeting” civilians.
However, in these circumstances the commander must weigh the anticipated loss of life, damage to property, or other negative effects incidental to the attack versus the military advantage expected to be gained by the attack. In making the decision, commanders must consider the military necessity for attacking the target, proportionality of the means planned for target engagement, and reasonableness within the framework of operational objectives. However, in these circumstances the commander must weigh the anticipated loss of life, damage to property, or other negative effects incidental to the attack versus the military advantage expected to be gained by the attack. The anticipated injury or loss of civilian or noncombatant life, damage to civilian or noncombatant property, or any combination thereof, incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. When making the decision to attack a location where collateral damage is likely, the commander is no longer told to consider “proportionality” and “reasonableness within the framework of objectives”, but is instead required to ensure that loss of civilian or noncombatant life or property is “not excessive” in relation to the “concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained” by the attack.
By limiting unnecessary suffering and disproportionate damage, the No-Strike process will accelerate recovery in post-conflict operations and minimize operational limitations routinely imposed as a result of international sensitivities over the humanitarian impacts of military operations. By mitigating human suffering and property damage, the No-Strike process will accelerate recovery in post-conflict operations and minimize operational limitations routinely imposed as a result of international sensitivities over the humanitarian impacts of military operations. A commander’s “limiting” of “unnecessary” suffering is now only a requirement to “mitigate human suffering” and property damage.
Failure to observe these obligations could result in disproportionate negative effects on civilians and noncombatants and be considered a LOW violation. Furthermore, U.S. leadership and military could be subject to global criticism, which could adversely impact military objectives, alliances, partnerships, or national goals. Failure to observe these obligations would be considered a LOW violation. Furthermore, the United States could be subject to global criticism, which could adversely impact military objectives, alliances, partnerships, or national goals. A statement that collateral damage could “result in disproportionate negative effects on civilians and noncombatants” is now no longer included. Global criticism in such a circumstance would also be leveled at the U.S. generally rather than the “U.S. leadership and military.”
The CDM is a balance of science and art that produces the best judgment of potential damage to collateral concerns. The CDM is a balance of science and art that produces a conservative characterization of the risk of collateral damage for commanders and decision makers. The collateral damage estimation (CDE) methodology (CDM) has changed from a “best judgment of potential damage” to a “conservative characterization of the risk of collateral damage”.
However, the science is inherently limited by the quantity and reliability of collected and analyzed weapons effects data and target information. However, the science is inherently limited by the quantity and reliability of collected and analyzed weapons effects data, weapon delivery uncertainties, and target information. The new version inserts “weapon delivery uncertainties” into a list of factors affecting collateral damage estimation.
All of these sources contain some degree of inherent error and uncertainty. All of these sources contain some degree of inherent variability. Sources of information that feed into the collateral damage estimation process are no longer subject to some degree of “error and uncertainty”, but are instead subject to “variability.”
CDM is merely an estimate to assist a commander in the decision making process relying on informed data and sound judgment. Ultimately CDE is an estimative process to help inform a commander’s decision making. An entire sentence is changed to reflect that attempting to predict collateral damage is an “estimative process” rather than an “estimate” to “help inform the commander’s decision making.” A description of this process as “relying on informed data and sound judgment” is also removed.
The CDM does not account for secondary explosions. Collateral damage due to secondary explosions (i.e., weapons cache or fuel tanks for military equipment) cannot be consistently measured or predicted. Commanders should remain cognizant of any additional risk due to secondary explosions. A passage is inserted indicating the collateral damage estimation methodology (CDM) does not apply to secondary explosions from gas and fuel tanks on the ground.
İSTİHBARAT ALANI

Sınırsız, Seçkin, Sansürsüz, Kemalist Haber Blogu

Derin İstihbarat

strateji, güvenlik, araştırma, istihbarat, komplo teorileri, mizah, teknoloji, mk ultra, nwo

İran Analiz

İran-Şii Jeostratejisi ve Dünya Genelinde İran Destekli Şii Örgütler, İran-Şii Lobisine Dair Bilgiler

İç Savaş

Strateji - Taktik - Savunma

İSTİHBARAT

Şifresiz Yayın!

%d blogcu bunu beğendi: