US and Britain refine their ability to tap into airline passenger’s mobile phones while they are in the air
LE MONDE | 07.12.2016 à 12h07 • Mis à jour le 08.12.2016 à 09h52
Par Jacques Follorou
https://t.co/YwNxWbnTXF
Extrait d'une présentation du GCHQ montrant comment le service britannique intercepte les communications au sein des avions Air France. | Document Snowden
This is a real treasure; it was found in the huge stock of archives extracted by the former NSA (National Security Agency) consultant, Edward Snowden and begins with a riddle: ‘What do the President of Pakistan, a trafficker in firearms or cigars, a target of counter-terrorism or the member of a network for nuclear proliferation all have in common? They all use their mobile phone when they are in an aircraft.’
Related : Read about the new Snowden revelations, in French
This riddle appeared in 2010 in the internal information newsletter, ‘SID today’ of one of the main departments in the NSA (the Signal Intelligence Directorate) and classified as ‘top secret’; it announced the emergence of a new field of espionage which had not yet been explored: the intercept of the data from telephone calls made on board civil aircrafts. In 2009, in an internal document, the NSA emphasizes that in December 2008, 50,000 people had already used their mobile phones in flight, a figure which rose to 100,000 in February 2009. For an explanation of this passion, the NSA listed: ‘An increasing number of aircraft are equipped, the fear of seeing the aircraft crash is declining. It is not as expensive as was thought (…). The sky seemed to belong to the NSA.’
Un contenu de cette page n'est pas adapté au format mobile, vous pouvez le consulter sur le site complet.
At the end of 2012, in a presentation, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent of the NSA, in turn disclosed a ‘top secret strap’, the term used for the highest level of classification, the content of the Southwinds programme, set up to gather all the activity, voices and data, metadata and content of the calls on board aircraft. The zone was still restricted to the regions covered by the Inmarsat satellites: Europe, the Middle-East and Africa.
The data collection was done ‘practically in real time’ and an aircraft could be followed every two minutes. To spy on a telephone, all that was required was that the aircraft be cruising at an altitude of 10,000 feet. As the signal transited through the satellite, the intercept technique was done by secret aerial stations on the ground. The simple fact that the telephone was switched on was enough to give its position, the intercept could then be crossed with the list of passengers registered and the number of the aircraft to assign a name to the user of the smartphone. The GCHQ could even, remotely, interfere with the working of the phone; as a result the user was forced to redial using his or her access codes. The British Intelligence services intercepted the identification codes (login and password) at the same time.
“MAGPIE” AND “CARRIER PIGEON”
The GCHQ and the NSA gave their surveillance of in-flight telephone calls names of birds, like ‘Magpie’ and ‘Carrier pigeon’ as we learn from Glenn Greenwald, in his book ‘No Place to Hide’ (Metropolitan Books, 2014). A careful reading of their presentation, along with that of other unpublished information from the Snowden archives given to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, consulted by Le Monde in collaboration with The Intercept, on surveillance activities of aircrafts and their passengers all over the world, between 2005 and 2013, demonstrates that Air France was, at an early date, a focus of attention by these two friendly countries, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Air France was targeted as from 2005; this appears in an NSA document setting out the broad lines for the project ‘The tracking of civil aircraft throughout the world’. Dated 5 July and signed by the second in command of one of the main departments, the Signal Intelligence Directorate (SID), the 13 page memo lists chronologically and in detail the main stages of this programme which was intended to avoid ‘a new September 11’. We can read that, as from the end of 2003, ‘the CIA considered that Air France and Air Mexico flights were potential targets for terrorists’. The legal department of the NSA stated at this point ‘there is absolutely no legal problem in targeting aircraft from these two companies abroad’ and ‘they should be kept under strict surveillance from the point at which they enter American air space’. As from February 2005, these same lawyers insisted on the legal procedure to be adopted ‘in particular for the collection of calls made on board the aircraft’.
The naming of Air France as a major risk for American interests and American territory is not just a simple hypothesis by a few technicians spying for the USA. An impressive circle of authorities responsible for security were informed of the ‘danger’ represented by the French company. The NSA memo was sent to roughly twenty recipients, including the North American Air Defence Command, the CIA, the Homeland Security Department (internal security), the Agency for Space Intelligence (NRO – National Reconnaissance Office), the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) or the Air Force Chief of Staff. This fixation on Air France was continuous throughout the following years and is not due to chance alone.
The first test of the use of a smartphone in full flight was made on board a Paris-Warsaw flight, AF1046, on 17 December 2007. As the Air France management confirmed to Le Monde, ‘We began early, but since then, we have carried out tests continuously and today, like other companies, we are getting ready to move directly to Wi-Fi on board’. Questioned by Le Monde about the British and American surveillance activities, their response was measured: ‘We are visibly not the only ones to have been targeted and we know absolutely nothing about these practices.’
In 2012, the British GCHQ observed that 27 companies had already enabled passengers to use mobile phones, or were about to do so, particularly in First and Business Class on long-haul flights. These included British Airways (only data and SMS), Hongkong Airways, Aeroflot, Etihad, Emirates, Singapore Airways, Turkish Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Lufthansa. Air France however is synonymous with the surveillance of in-flight calls to the extent that the British Intelligence Services use a full-page sketch of one of its planes to illustrate the working of in-flight intercept.
Un contenu de cette page n'est pas adapté au format mobile, vous pouvez le consulter sur le site complet.
DATA FROM AEROFLOT, QATAR AIRWAYS, SAUDI AIRLINES...
As a example of their know-how, the British GCHQ and the NSA provide numerous examples of calls intercepted on board commercial flights in other companies. Data recorded on March 23rd 2012 at 1.56pm on the Etihad ETD8271 flight from the United Arab Emirates between JFK and Denver. Data from the Nice-Moscow on May 20th 2011 (Aeroflot), or again in the same year, from the Milan-Doha (Qatar Airways), from Athens to Doha (once again Qatar Airways), from Jeddah to Cairo (Saudi Airlines) or from Paris to Muscat (Oman Air).
The data collection is also made on Blackberries. The PIN codes and the e-mail addresses were identified in an aircraft, on January 2nd 2012 at 10h23, but there is no information on the destination or the company of the aircraft. The spoils of war are proudly listed : voices, data, SMS, Webmail, Webchat, social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), travel apps, Google Maps, Currency Converters, Media, VOIP, BitTorrent or Skype. In the course of their intrusion exercises the British Intelligence Services discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that they are not alone in their interest for these in-flight communications. They note that the Russian company, Aeroflot has set up a system of specific connections for the GSM on their aircraft ‘doubtless to enable intercept …’ as they remark in a technical memo.
Today, approximately one hundred companies permit in-flight use of telephone. ‘Customers now consider it normal, even necessary, to remain connected in flight’ stated the Air France management. The aviation security authorities have all approved the use of GSMs on board aircraft and the experts estimate that the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 will go down in history as the years of the in-flight mobile phone, in particular with the long-term installation of in-flight Wi-Fi.
This will further extend the scope of espionage by aiming at ‘several hundreds of thousands of people’ to be closely monitored, according to the NSA projections. This implies a population which goes far beyond the targets involving terrorism alone. The political or economic surveillance of passengers in Business or in First Class on long-haul flights is of interest to many more services.
There is no limit to surveillance activities and each novelty is a technical challenge to be met. The intelligence services even seem to be slightly jaded. The NSA technician-spies, in a 2010 internal memo, were already thinking further afield. ‘What will be the next area for experimentation? Perhaps trains? We will have to think about that...’
We are publishing four documents with this story : “Thieving Magpie”, “Homing Pigeon”, “In-Flight GSM is no joke” et “In-Flight GSM”.
Par Jacques Follorou _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
A 36-year veteran of America’s Intelligence Community, William Binney resigned from his position as Director for Global Communications Intelligence (COMINT) at the National Security Agency (NSA) and blew the whistle, after discovering that his efforts to protect the privacy and security of Americans were being undermined by those above him in the chain of command.
The NSA data-monitoring program which Binney and his team had developed -- codenamed ThinThread -- was being aimed not at foreign targets as intended, but at Americans (codenamed as Stellar Wind); destroying privacy here and around the world. Binney voices his call to action for the billions of individuals whose rights are currently being violated.
William Binney speaks out in this feature-length interview with Tragedy and Hope's Richard Grove, focused on the topic of the ever-growing Surveillance State in America.
On January 22, 2015: (Berlin, Germany) – The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is proud to announce that retired NSA Technical Director and GAP client, William "Bill" Binney, will accept the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award today in Berlin, Germany. The award is presented annually by the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) to a professional who has taken a strong stand for ethics and integrity.
http://whistleblower.org/press/nsa-whistleblower-bill-binney-wins-pres tigious-sam-adams-award
_________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
EUROPEAN COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER U.K. MASS SURVEILLANCE REVEALED BY SNOWDEN VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS
Ryan Gallagher
November 7 2017, 7:42 p.m.
Photo: Jason Alden/Bloomberg News/Getty Images
BRITISH SPY AGENCIES are under scrutiny in a landmark court case challenging the legality of top-secret mass surveillance programs revealed in documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
A panel of 10 judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, held a hearing Tuesday to examine the U.K. government’s large-scale electronic spying operations, following three separate challenges brought by a dozen human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Privacy International, the American Civil Liberties Union, Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.
The case is the first of its kind to be heard by the court, which handles complaints related to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty by which the U.K. is still bound despite its vote last year to leave the European Union. The court’s judgments could have ramifications for future U.K. surveillance operations.
The human rights groups are arguing that British spy programs violate four key rights protected under the convention: the right to privacy; the right to a fair trial; the right to freedom of expression; and the right not to be discriminated against. They cite a 2015 ruling by a U.K. tribunal, which found that British eavesdropping agency Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, had unlawfully spied on the communications of Amnesty International and the South Africa-based Legal Resources Centre.
Dinah Rose, a lawyer representing the human rights groups, acknowledged in court Tuesday that some serious security threats require the use of covert government surveillance. But, she added, “excessive and unaccountable state surveillance puts at risk the very core values of the free and democratic societies that terrorism seeks to undermine.”
The British government has insisted that it does not carry out “mass surveillance,” preferring instead to use the term “bulk surveillance,” which it says is necessary to discover previously unknown threats. Documents leaked by Snowden describe how GCHQ planned to carry out “population scale” surveillance; boasted that it had “massive access” to internet communications; and monitored more than 50 billion “events” about communications each day.
Government lawyer James Eadie told the court that using surveillance systems to collect and store communications is not itself a violation of privacy. Instead, he said, privacy is only violated when there is “sentient examination” of communications – in other words, when a human analyst reads or listens to individual messages or calls. This will be a key point of contention for the Strasbourg judges to consider.
Last year, a complaint filed in the case by 10 of the human rights groups named more than a dozen surveillance programs that allegedly violate rights and do not have adequate safeguards against abuse. Among them are GCHQ programs, such as KARMA POLICE, which was first exposed by The Intercept. KARMA POLICE was designed to allow the GCHQ to build “a web-browsing profile for every visible user on the internet.” The complaint also focuses on NSA-operated programs that have been shared with British spies, such as XKEYSCORE, a tool that can be used to sift through masses of emails, online chats, and virtually every other kind of internet data.
Nick Williams, Amnesty International’s senior legal counsel, said in an email that the case represented a “watershed moment for people’s privacy and freedom of expression” across the world. “The case concerns the U.K., but its significance is global. By bringing together human rights defenders and journalists from four different continents, it serves to highlight the dangers mass surveillance poses to the vital work of countless organisations and to individuals who expose human rights abuses and defend those at risk.”
Scarlet Kim, a legal officer with Privacy International, said in a statement: “For years, the U.K. Government has been intercepting the private communications and data of millions of people around the world. At the same time, it can access similarly enormous troves of information intercepted by the U.S. Government. These practices are unlawful and violate the fundamental rights of individuals across the world, assailing privacy and chilling thought and speech.”
A spokesperson for the U.K. government’s Home Office declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but said in a statement that British intelligence agencies “conduct their vital work within a strict legal and policy framework that applies rigorous safeguards and oversight mechanisms to ensure respect for human rights. We will vigorously defend the powers our agencies need to keep us all safe and secure.”
Top photo: City workers use smartphones inside in London on Oct. 30, 2017.
We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.
The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:
Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:
Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.
Documents referenced in this article:
The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations
Featured photo - How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to MA page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.
Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”
By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:
[]
[]
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
[]
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
[]
[]
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”
[]
[]
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.
The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:
[]
[]
No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardianin the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.
The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”
Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).
But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?
Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:
[]
[]
Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:
[]
[]
[]
[]
The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:
[]
[]
[]
We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?
As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”
These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.
Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.
(TMU) — In addition to quarantines and lockdowns, some governments like those in China, Taiwan, and South Korea have been using a surveillance strategy called “contact tracing” to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus.
While each country’s contact tracing program has slight variations, all of them are essentially cell phone apps that keep a running record of the user’s heath and the health records of all the people they come into contact with.
If a cell phone comes in close contact with someone who might have the virus, the user receives a text message informing them and then instructing them to self-quarantine for 14 days.
However, the quarantine is not necessarily voluntary, depending on where you live. In some countries, phones have been used as a sort of house arrest ankle-bracelet that will notify authorities if the person being monitored leaves the house for any reason.
These apps are being touted as the way to end the shut down in both Italy and the UK and it appears that officials are going to be taking things in that direction.
At face value, it may appear that this could be a useful strategy in preventing the spread of disease, but privacy advocates and tech experts are concerned that this information could be misused and that the unprecedented surveillance capabilities could be kept and held by corrupt governments long after the pandemic is over.
In a recent interview with Vice, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expressed his concerns about the coming surveillance program, calling it the “architecture of oppression.”
“Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what’ is being built is the architecture of oppression,” Snowden said.
Snowden recognized that the virus was a serious threat and said that the intelligence community was well aware that it was only a matter of time before a massive pandemic crippled the country, even back when he was working in the NSA.
“There is nothing more foreseeable as a public health crisis in a world where we are just living on top of each other in crowded and polluted cities, than a pandemic. And every academic, every researcher who’s looked at this knew this was coming. And in fact, even intelligence agencies, I can tell you firsthand, because they used to read the reports had been planning for pandemics,” he said.
Snowden questioned the positive numbers that have come out of China in recent weeks and pointed out that the Chinese government has been credited with reducing the spread of the illness because they took such draconian measures during the lockdown.
Perhaps their extreme strategy is not working as well as they say it is, but since the government maintained tight control of any information coming out of the country, it is impossible to say for sure.
“If you’re looking at countries like China, where cases seem to have leveled off, how much can we trust that those numbers are actually true? I don’t think we can. Particularly, we see the Chinese government recently working to expel Western journalists at precisely this moment where we need credible independent warnings in this region,” Snowden said.
In a statement published on Friday, Apple and Google announced that they were teaming up in a rare partnership to develop compatible contact tracing apps, which they claim will work on an “opt-in” basis.
However, according toBloomberg, the companies are planning to eventually build the contact tracing into the device’s updates.
Apple and Google insist that you will still be able to opt-out of the program if you don’t want to participate, but it is possible that rankings on these apps could be used to gain entry into grocery stores or larger businesses and events once the economy opens up again.
“As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world,” Snowden warned.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
https://themindunleashed.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/snowden- pandemic-300x166.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 639px) 98vw, (max-width: 1199px) 64vw, 740px" />