by Scott Creighton
We’re getting close.
Yes folks, the Snowden Psyop is producing a lot of “crisis” these days, mostly because it turns out the U.S. spies on foreign heads of state in order to blackmail them into doing what our owners (Big Business, Big Banking, Big Wall Street) want them to do. What a shock that is.
Suddenly, everyone in congress is up in arms about how to “fix” our spying programs so the elites don’t get caught up in the same nasty business we’re caught up in right now. Of course, that’s just the marketing pitch. Our congress critters want other leaders to be blackmailed and railroaded into the Business Party just like they’ve been. Misery loves company.
An article published yesterday at Foreign Policy magazine (propaganda rag for the CFR) talks about how the spooks are all scared because Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein has finally jumped ship and is calling for “serious reform”
“”We’re really screwed now,” one NSA official told The Cable. “You know things are bad when the few friends you’ve got disappear without a trace in the dead of night and leave no forwarding address..
… Perhaps most significant is her announcement that the intelligence committee “will initiate a review into all intelligence collection programs.” Feinstein did not say the review would be limited only to the NSA. If the review also touched on other intelligence agencies under the committee’s jurisdiction, it could be one of the most far-reaching reviews in recent memory, encompassing secret programs of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, agencies that run imagery and spy satellites, as well as components of the FBI.” Foreign Policy
That’s just cheap theatrics. The “good senator” has been pushing for reform via CISPA II since the beginning of all of this Snowden crisis theater crap.
” Last year, the Senate had approved a very different cybersecurity bill, and had expressed very little interest in taking up that fight again this year. Except now, in an unexpected move, Senate Intelligence Committee boss, and chief NSA defender because of reasons that are top secret, has now announced that she’s been writing a Senate counterpart to CISPA and is prepared to “move it forward.” tech Dirt Sept. 25th 2013
CISPA was handily defeated last year by a combination of bad press and good activism, the latter led mainly by a guy named Aaron Swartz, who “took his own life” rather than risk 30 days in lock-up. He was suicided on Jan. 11th 2013, just before all of this Snowden Crisis Theater kicked off.
It’s interesting, if you go to his Wikipedia page, the government has edited his story to suggest he killed himself after the courts refused a plea deal offered by Swartz’ legal team. Truth is, the government knew they were going to lose their case against him and so the prosecution offered him a deal for 60 days in jail plus time served, which would have ended up putting him behind bars for a total of 30 days or so. He refused that deal because he knew he was going to beat them in court. With the new CISPA plan being rolled out, the last thing they wanted was Aaron Swartz fresh of beating them in court, taking up the new fight… so, he was removed from the equation.
Now CISPA is back. And this time, it has an entire media/news production to go with it. Everyone is ready for “reform” of one sort or another.
And when I say “everyone” what I mean is 800 major U.S. and foreign corporations who are backing CISPA these days with their time and cash (to the tune of $65 million in campaign contributions last year alone). That’s “everyone”… or “everyone” that matters to politicians these days.
CISPA, or whatever they chose to call it these days, is not so much about creating real oversight of domestic and international spying as it is about removing existing shackles and turning it into not only a for-profit industry, but also into a tangible market for Wall Street to buy and sell your data. Imagine the derivatives and Credit Default Swaps they could create on the backs of all your calls and Tweets and texts.
Here’s a good write-up on the original CISPA:
What sparked significant privacy worries is the section of CISPA that says “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” companies may share information “with any other entity, including the federal government.” It doesn’t, however, require them to do so.
By including the word “notwithstanding,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) intended to make CISPA trump all existing federal and state civil and criminal laws. (It’s so broad that the non-partisan Congressional Research Service once warned (PDF) that using the term in legislation may “have unforeseen consequences for both existing and future laws.”)
“Notwithstanding” would trump wiretap laws, Web companies’ privacy policies, gun laws, educational record laws, census data, medical records, and other statutes that protect information, warns the ACLU’s Richardson: “For cybersecurity purposes, all of those entities can turn over that information to the federal government.”
If CISPA were enacted, “part of the problem is we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen,” says Lee Tien, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which sued AT&T over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. “I worry that you can get a version of cybersecurity warrantless wiretapping out of this.” CNET April 2012
You see how one single word in the right place changes everything? CISPA was originally billed as the way to fix the troubled spying game back in late 2011 but they didn’t have the right Crisis Theater production to go along with it. So, instead of simply taking them at their word, people like Aaron Swartz actually read the bill… and the rest is history. And so is he by the way.
Without rehashing the old CISPA debate, suffice to say, it is supported by a vast number of corporate entities out there for a reason. It gives them complete and total control over your personal data to do with as they see fit, regardless of existing law. And it will be the “solution” to this “crisis”, one way or another.
There’s another band of brothers in the halls of congress who are pushing something called the “USA Freedom Act” (PDF). yes… the “Freedom” act… like the “Patriot” act… maybe they should just call these things the Joseph Goebbels Act I and the Joseph Goebbels Act II and be done with it.
The Freedom Act is supposed to tweak the FISA amendments they made back in 2008 which gave Big Telecom immunity for illegally spying on us and giving our data to Big Brother.
That tasty bit of legislation was one of the most universally disliked in our nation’s history, just short of Obamacare and TARP.
When’s the last time a piece of legislation was actually roundly approved of by the general population? Can you remember one?
The Freedom Act is a 119 pages of legal banter, switching one word for another, one line for another, one phrase for another. It’s backed by a bunch of supposedly “on our side” congress folk, but if you know anything about how congress “fixes” various problems over the past decade or so (take the banking reform act for an example) you quickly come to understand that their “fix” usually tilts the table to the advantage of the house.
Striking first blood, opponents of expansive NSA surveillance are expected to introduce the “USA Freedom Act” on Tuesday, which would limit the bulk data collection of records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, install an “office of the special advocate” to appeal FISA court decisions, and give subpoena powers on privacy matters to the Privacy and Civil LIberties Oversight Board. Sponsored by Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers (D-MI), the bill is backed by a strong bipartisan bench of some 60 lawmakers, including Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Justin Amash (R-MI) and Sheila Jackson (D-TX).
A draft of the bill was provided to The Cable by a congressional aide and can be viewed in full here.
Unlike many House bills, Freedom Act has some bipartisan support in the Senate in the form of Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who will be introducing a similar bill at the same time. ” Foreign Policy
Notice it says it would “limit” bulk data collection, not forbid it altogether. What kind of “limit” would they put on the collection of such data? Who would collect it? What could they do with their “limited” collection of your personal business?
All good questions, right?
“Privacy and Civil LIberties Oversight Board” ….. hmmmm where have I heard that before in relation to the Snowden Psyop?
Oh yeah…
The Curious Timing of the Snowden “Leak” and Obama’s Formation of the PCLOB – Laying the Groundwork for CISPA
“The problem was Edward Snowden, the reaction is the PCLOB and the solution is CISPA.”
What is significant about the timing of the CISPA promoting army of corporate suits hitting D.C. right before the president and congress finally get the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) up and running (Obama never put this board into play even though they were supposed to be the agency reporting to congress about our civil liberties and mass spying by agencies like the NSA) and around the same time Edward Snowden is talking to Glenn Greenwald setting the stage for his big “groundbreaking” leak?
Why does Obama keep talking about “having the discussion” about the “right balance” between privacy and security while repeating the notion that the way to fix the current manufactured crisis has to include the private sector? Isn’t that “Big Brother’s Friend” CISPA?
Why is it OK to call Snowden a traitor (which could get him and other whistleblowers killed) but down right unacceptable to say it’s a psyop?
Why are people being dragged out of public forums for simply saying we don’t need to “have the discussion”?
What is the role of the PCLOB in CISPA? Are they connected?
Why are so many of the newly reconstituted PCLOB members aligned with big business, the Chamber of Commerce and a single law-firm who contracts with major corporations, helping them get their legislation passed in congress (A law-firm with connections to Robert Mueller by the way)? How many of that law-firm’s corporate clients are backing CISPA?” Scott Creighton June 2013
