Snowden & Greenwald Reveal PM John Key Lied About Kiwi Mass Surveillance; Key Hits Back By Calling Greenwald 'A Loser'

from the not-very-convincing dept

Over the weekend, Glenn Greenwald made it clear that he was going to reveal evidence of domestic mass surveillance on New Zealanders by the GCSB (the Kiwi version of the NSA). The plan was to reveal it at a political event organized by Kim Dotcom. Before Greenwald even had the chance, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key tried to preempt the story by claiming that the country had considered such options, but never actually went through with it. He also used the opportunity to toss out random ad hominem insults at Greenwald, because that's always convincing.

"Dotcom's little henchman is wrong," says Mr Key..... "I'm probably not going to jump in front of what information he's got," says Mr Key. "It's up to the henchman to go and deliver that information I suppose, but mark my words, he's wrong. I'm right and I'll prove I'm right."

Except he did try to "jump in front" by revealing that there were plans in place for such a system and in promising to "declassify and release top secret documents" that would prove his side of the story.

This morning, Greenwald delivered on his half of the bargain with a detailed look at how the NSA was relying on New Zealand to change its laws to further legalize GCSB domestic surveillance. Greenwald got a further assist from Ed Snowden himself who wrote about how he regularly had access to New Zealanders' metadata, collected by the GCSB. Snowden's really damning point is that there was a simple "checkbox" if he wanted to turn off such searches:

If you have doubts, which would be quite reasonable, given what the last year showed us about the dangers of taking government officials at their word, I invite you to confirm this for yourself. Actual pictures and classified documentation of XKEYSCORE are available online now, and their authenticity is not contested by any government. Within them you’ll find that the XKEYSCORE system offers, but does not require for use, something called a “Five Eyes Defeat,” the Five Eyes being the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and yes, New Zealand.

This might seem like a small detail, but it’s very important. The Five Eyes Defeat is an optional filter,  a single checkbox. It allows me, the analyst, to prevent search results from being returned on those countries from a particular search. Ask yourself: why do analysts have a checkbox on a top secret system that hides the results of mass surveillance in New Zealand if there is no mass surveillance in New Zealand?

Greenwald's piece further details how the NSA was pushing New Zealand to pass a new law last year to finalize the full legalization of this kind of surveillance, noting that the legal change was considered the final blockade on such a program. As we noted last year, while most of the world was passing laws to cut back on domestic surveillance, New Zealand was actually passing a law to expand those powers. While that bill was being debated, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key insisted that it was not enabling broad new domestic surveillance options, even though it was pretty clear from the text of the law.

At the time Key vehemently denied that it was legalizing domestic mass surveillance, responding to such claims by arguing "none of that is true." And yet, Greenwald highlights documents that show that the domestic surveillance program was entirely in place, just waiting for that last legal hurdle to be knocked down:

But in high-level discussions between the Key government and the NSA, the new law was clearly viewed as the crucial means to empower the GCSB to engage in metadata surveillance. On more than one occasion, the NSA noted internally that Project Speargun, in the process of being implemented, could not and would not be completed until the new law was enacted. The NSA apparently viewed that new law as providing exactly the powers that Key repeatedly and publicly denied it would vest.

And, of course, Key did this with pure and blatant FUD. At the time, he went on and on about immediate threats to the nation:

The Prime Minister says the country faces genuine security threats, while his opponents reckon he's being manipulative.

[....] John Key says he has received some briefings from intelligence agencies that have deeply concerned him. "I think it would cut dead some of the most fancible claims I've heard lately from those who oppose this Bill."

Except there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that. Just evidence that the NSA really, really wanted this bill to pass. As Greenwald highlights with newly revealed Snowden documents:

Critically, the NSA documents note in more than one place that completion of Speargun was impeded by one obstacle: The need to enact a new spying law that would allow the GCSB, for the first time, to spy on its own citizens as well as legal residents of the country. As one NSA planning document put it, completion of Speargun was “awaiting new GCSB Act expected July 2013.”

So far, Key's response is to ratchet up the insults. Beyond calling Pulitzer Prize-winning Greenwald a "henchman" a bunch of times, Key also called Greenwald "a loser," and tried to spin it all as a plot by Kim Dotcom:

"People got really wound up about me calling him Dotcom's little henchman. I would have a modicum of respect for the guy if he had the guts to turn up here six months before the election, or six months after. If this loser is going to come to town and try and tell me, five days before an election, staying at the Dotcom mansion with all the Dotcom people and being paid by Dotcom, that he's doing anything other than Dotcom's bidding - please don't insult me with that."

Except, of course, Greenwald has long explained that Dotcom agreed to pay Greenwald's usual speaking fee to charity (though, he did pay for Greenwald's flight to New Zealand). But, honestly, anyone following Glenn Greenwald for more than about five minutes would know that the guy is not exactly the kind of person who takes orders from anyone, no matter who's paying for what.

Filed Under: ed snowden, gcsb, glenn greenwald, insults, john key, kim dotcom, metadata, surveillance, truth

University of Oregon Slaps Student With Five Conduct Charges Over Four Words

from the UO:-because-the-world-needs-a-higher-grade-of-whiner dept

Ah, college. The embodiment of the open exchange of opinions and ideas, where today's youth go expand not only their horizons but their worldview. In this hopelessly idealistic portrayal, today's teens would grow into adults ready to face a world that isn't nearly as pleasant as previously indicated.

In reality, many colleges are helicopter parents who believe the right to never be offended is guaranteed by the Constitution or, failing that, by a set of restrictive policies paired with disproportionate penalties.

In reality, four words can get you five conduct charges.

Here are the four words:

On June 9, 2014, the female student in question was visiting with friends in UO’s Carson Hall dormitory. According to the student, looking out of the dormitory window, she spotted a male and female student walking together (she did not know either of them) and shouted “I hit it first” at them in jest. The female of the couple responded with two profanities…

That's the free exchange of ideas and opinions on display there. One student jokingly suggesting she had sexual relations with a member of the couple (male/female not specified by "it") and one student responding with profanities. Case should have been closed right there, what with each party getting their verbal jabs in. But note the ellipsis above…

… and the couple reported the student’s comment to the Resident Assistant of the dorm.

So, at this point a third party has been dragged in because apparently the couple didn't feel the shouted profanities properly redressed their (minor, fleeting) grievance. So, the Resident Assistant did some assisting.

The Resident Assistant located the student and insisted that she apologize to the couple for her remark. The student readily obliged.

Case closed.

No, wait. Five conduct charges. FIVE CONDUCT CHARGES. The aggrieved couple, having shouted out profanities and having acquired an apology still felt this student's offhand remark hadn't been properly addressed. So, up the ladder they went. Thanks to the school's inability to laugh the angry couple of the office, the joking student was hit with five conduct charges:

Unreasonable noise/community disruption
Violation of the university housing contract
Harassment
Disrupting university [sic]
Disorderly conduct

The student was given two options: face an "administrative panel" whose decision would be final and unable to be appealed (but suspension or expulsion not an option) or face a Student Conduct Panel, which would leave room for appeal but put suspension/expulsion back on the table.

The administration's "bright line" for determining guilt is (I AM NOT KIDDING) whether the incident "more likely than not" occurred. Any discussion about whether the shouted joke "more likely than not" should have resulted in having the book thrown at the student apparently isn't up for discussion.

If either panel finds the student "more likely than not" guilty of making an offensive, one-line joke, she pays the administrative fees and deals with whatever punishment is decided. If declared "more likely than not" not guilty, no one pays anything, not even the couple whose existence was rendered ghastly and nightmarish by a couple of seconds of careless window shouting nearly three months ago.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has responded to this overblown reaction.

FIRE wrote to UO President Michael Gottfredson on August 1, demanding that the charges against the student be dropped. FIRE also called on UO to revise its unconstitutional speech codes—in particular, the harassment policy under which it charged the student. That policy contains unconstitutionally broad and vague prohibitions on “[u]nreasonable insults,” “gestures,” and “abusive words” that may cause “emotional distress” to others, subjecting UO students to punishment for any expression deemed subjectively distressing.

The college has responded with: When colleges allow their speech policies to expand past the point of common sense, that's when free speech gets crushed. Ideally, universities would never have to deal with anyone ever being offended, but it's far from an ideal world. Throwing the book at a student just because someone complained is ridiculous. All it does is make it easier and easier for a small minority of easily offended people to strip away the rights of the rest of the student body. An institute of higher learning should be working harder to ensure the rights of every student, not teaching them how to most effectively deploy a heckler's veto.

Filed Under: conduct charges, free speech, insults, jokes
Companies: university of oregon

Conflict-Ridden CBS 60 Minutes 'Journalist' Defends NSA Propaganda Piece By Insulting All His Critics

from the how-convincing dept

We recently wrote about 60 Minutes' laughably bad propaganda piece for the NSA, done by "reporter" John Miller, who has spent much of his time working in various high level positions in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. That he's expected to be rejoining law enforcement in an intelligence role shortly and that reports suggest the deal was negotiated long before his NSA report was completed only add to the questionable nature of allowing someone with such an obvious conflict of interest to handle that report. And, given that Miller appeared to only toss ridiculous softballs, failed to challenge any of Keith Alexander's highly questionable statements, and that the entire 60 Minutes team (in a "behind the scenes" clip posted to the web) seemed in awe of the NSA from the word go, the idea that this was nothing more than a infomercial for the NSA has plenty of credence.

After a week or so of silence, Miller finally decided to respond to his critics, by insulting them all and claiming that only the great and mighty John Miller does real reporting. Everyone who criticized the report is nothing more than angry bloggers in pajamas. David Carr, at the NY Times spoke to Miller:

Mr. Miller was more than happy to explain his N.S.A. segment, which he said he would not change if he had the chance.... He is nothing if not confident, dismissing his critics as ankle-biting, agenda-ridden bloggers who could not be compelled to get out of their pajamas and do actual reporting.

“I fully reject the criticism from you and others,” he told me. “The N.S.A. story has been a fairly one-way dialogue. There has been no conversation and when you do hear from the N.S.A., it is in a terse, highly vetted statement.”

“We went there, we asked every question we wanted to, listened to the answers, followed up as we wished, and our audience can decide what and who they believe. As we constructed it, the N.S.A. was a story about a debate, not a villain, and we added to that debate with important information. I fail to understand how a shrill argument for the sake of creating televised drama would have accomplished anything.”

Nearly everything said above is wrong or misleading -- like the comments he got from his buddies at the NSA. Many of the people who criticized Miller's infomercial are well-known and successful reporters with long histories of investigative reporting. For example, New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza absolutely trashed Miller's report, and Lizza recently wrote what I think is one of the absolutely most comprehensive and well-researched pieces on the NSA stuff. Other critics included Glenn Greenwald, who, it's difficult to argue, hasn't done some rather impressive reporting recently on these subjects. Then there's Spencer Ackerman, who has done amazing investigative work concerning the intelligence community and law enforcement for years. And he did a wonderful piece totally debunking the lies the NSA told in the 60 Minutes piece -- that is, the stuff John Miller let go through without questioning any of it. To argue that real investigative reporters weren't criticizing his piece is just wrong. Sure, some of us may be bloggers in our pajamas (guilty!), but to pretend that's where all the criticism came from isn't just lame, it's wrong. Besides, I really thought we were past the age where complaining about "bloggers in pajamas" was considered a thing to do.

As for the idea that the NSA story had been a "one-way dialogue," that's also just ridiculously false. I mean, when a large part of the federal government is on your side, the idea that the NSA's side of the story wasn't being told is laughable. Each week on the usual Sunday talk programs, NSA defenders seem to dominate the airwaves. While it might not be Keith Alexander or James Clapper directly, plenty of surrogates are out there listing out the talking points.

But it's that final paragraph that's really the most maddening -- this idea that "well, we asked questions and now it's up to the audience to decide who to believe." That's bullshit. That's not reporting. Reporting is about uncovering the truth. Bad reporting is, as journalism professor Jay Rosen (who also criticized Miller's reporting) calls it: "he said, she said" journalism where you write down what everyone says and then let the public sort it out for themselves who's full of shit. In this case, it was even worse, because Miller didn't even do the "she said" side. He provided the "he said" without any pushback to clearly bogus statements, and now wants to claim it's okay because the public can figure it out? Really?

Furthermore, what "important information" did they add to the debate? There was nothing in the report that revealed anything new or valuable at all. There was a scare-mongering story about a "BIOS" attack that was quickly shown to have been reported incorrectly (one security expert noted that it was gibberish, rather than anything real). That was about it.

I can understand Miller's desire to hit back at his critics, but name calling and refusing to respond to the direct claims of things that were clearly misleading or erroneous in his report, doesn't help his credibility. Oh, wait, I mean his credibility with the public who get news from him. I'm sure it helps his credibility quite a lot with his former and future bosses within the law enforcement community. And that's why 60 Minutes is a laughingstock for allowing someone so conflicted to put on such a bogus infomercial love letter to the NSA.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, bloggers, cbs news, infomercial, insults, john miller, keith alexander, nsa, propaganda
Companies: cbs

Good News: You Can Now Call France's President A Jerk

from the what-year-is-this? dept

When it comes to the kind of speech that some people don't like, our wine-drinking friends in Europe haven't always done so well. You may recall the battle between the French and Twitter over some dumb, bigoted tweets and the identities behind them. Or perhaps you'll recall the French government working with Twitter to suspend several accounts that were parodies of then-President and Anthony Wiener look-a-like Nicolas Sarkozy. While free speech in Europe isn't always so fleshed out as it is here in the colonies, France in particular appears to have some severely antiquated laws on the books. One of the more egregious is that it was apparently illegal to "offend the head of state", i.e. the President, a law dating back to 1881.

Well, heads up all you French Presidents out there, because that law has officially been amended after just barely over a century, according to the news sent in by reader RyanNerd.

Whereas before any rude remark risked an automatic fine for “offending the head of state”, the president is now reduced to the same category as ministers and parliamentarians and would need to have a judge prove there had been slander or defamation.

The change came after the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March that France violated a demonstrator’s right to freedom of expression when it fined him for holding a banner up to former President Nicolas Sarkozy reading: “Get lost, jerk.”

On the off chance any of you don't keep up with your Google alerts for news relating to French Presidents and their ironic double-standards, "Get lost, jerk" was a statement Sarkozy made to someone who once refused to shake his hand in 2008. Whereas before you couldn't call Sarkozy a thin-skinned walking phalus for his actions, hey, now you can. No more $50k fine!

Of course, Sarkozy is no longer President and Francois Hollande is, so let's see what you've got, French citizens!

President Francois Hollande has so far shown a thick skin, however, as critics have given him a string of unkind nicknames like “Flanby”, a brand of wobbly caramel pudding or “Mr. Little Jokes”.

Oh, okay. Well, look, you can't really blame the French for crappy insults. They've been out of practice for over a hundred years. I would suggest, however, that congratulating a man for being thick-skinned when he comes from the stock that brought us skin-growing breakfasts like eggs benedict might be unnecessary.

Filed Under: france, free speech, french presidents, insults

'Cocky' Defendant Gets A Web Redemption

from the video-solves-all dept

A few weeks ago, a young woman named Penelope Soto became an internet legend after she was caught on camera flipping a Florida judge the bird and telling him to go f**k himself during a court proceeding. Soto’s behavior earned her a 30-day stint in jail for contempt of court, but she apparently changed her ways at a later hearing and convinced the judge to vacate the month-long sentence.

But not all mouthy defendants are so lucky. Some of them do go to jail. Take, for example, the case of Brian Noval, a Florida man who in 2009 called a judge a c*ck — twice. Why do all of these things happen in Florida? Anyway, Noval’s antics were captured on film, and he earned himself 120 days in the pokey for his indiscretions. Noval only served four days of that sentence before the judge decided that this cocky defendant had learned his lesson.

As we all know, the internet is for porn, but it’s also for wonderful videos like these. And thanks to Daniel Tosh of Comedy Central’s Tosh.0, sometimes the stars of embarrassing viral videos are given the chance to redeem themselves on cable television. Ms. Soto hasn’t been given the opportunity to participate in one of these yet, but Noval was featured on the show last night.

For reasons that escape me, we never covered Noval’s incident in 2009, but now that he’s been brought back into the pop culture limelight, we’ve got some funny videos to entertain you with….

We’ll give you some info on the judge who heard Brian Noval’s case before you watch the video. Apparently Judge John Hurley of the Broward County Court presides over its first appearance division, and is known for his “spunk, one-liners and, on Fridays, bow ties.” To put it differently, this man is not to be f**ked with.

But Noval didn’t know that, so he called Judge Hurley a c*ck, like any man with common decency and respect for the judicial system would. And plus, it’s Florida — of course someone would think it’s acceptable to call a judge a c*ck in Florida. And without further ado, here’s the entertaining segment from Tosh.0:

Well, you don’t have to be wearing a seersucker suit to acknowledge that Daniel Tosh is correct when he says that “judges are basically parents for people who have sh*tty ones.” And we now know that Andrew Dice Clay could have a promising career ahead of himself as a criminal defense attorney. Because with a closing like, “Hickory dickory dock, my client has the right to call that judge a c*ck,” how can you possibly go wrong?

Broward judge sets high bar [Sun Sentinel]
Web Redemption – Courtroom C*ck Guy [Tosh.0]

More stories from Above The Law:

• Is Yahoo Serious?
• I Need A Contract Attorney: An ‘Ivy League’ Contract Attorney
• Avast Ye Maties! Kozinski Benchslap Ho!

Filed Under: brian noval, courtroom, insults, web

Mr. Bean: We Must Be Allowed To Insult Each Other

from the yes,-that dept

We've been documenting a rather troubling trend in the UK of criminalizing comments that are insulting or in bad taste. Thankfully, some people are speaking out against such things, including comedian Rowan Atkinson -- best-known internationally as Mr. Bean, but famous in the UK for characters (especially Edmund Blackadder) built on caustic wit and elaborate insults. Atkinson has stepped up and argued for the freedom to insult each other in the UK.

He criticised the "new intolerance" as he called for part of it the Public Order Act to be repealed, saying it was having a "chilling effect on free expression and free protest".

Mr Atkinson said: "The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult."

These statements came as part of a campaign to roll back laws that have allowed this to happen, with a former government official, David Davis, pointing out the key thing -- you have no right not to be offended:

"The simple truth is that in a free society, there is no right not to be offended. For centuries, freedom of speech has been a vital part of British life, and repealing this law will reinstate that right."

Filed Under: free speech, insults, rowan atkinson, uk

State Government In Australia Seeks To Issue $12k Fines If You Insult Its Gaming Minister Michael O'Brien

from the please-don't-be-insulted-by-this-article dept

Pickle Monger alerts us to an effort in Victoria, Australia, by the current government to pass a law that could lead to fines up to $11,945 if you dare to insult gaming minister Michael O'Brien. The law claims that it is "reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of the minister and authorised persons" which includes a ban on any attempt to "assault, obstruct, hinder, threaten, abuse, insult or intimidate" gaming minister Michael O'Brien. His political opponents are using the opportunity (before the bill passes, only, of course!) to mock O'Brien and the bill. But, his office is actually trying to defend the bill:

Asked why the new "offence" law was necessary and what its intention was, a spokeswoman for Mr O'Brien, Emily Broadbent, tried to deflect attention away from the minister, despite his title being clearly attached to the legislation.

"This provision protects officers of the gambling regulator from bullying or intimidation when exercising powers at the direction of the Minister for Gaming," she said.

"The minister can look after himself, but does not believe that those working on his behalf should have to put up with harassment."

Filed Under: australia, free speech, insults, michael o'brien

How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?

from the help-me-out-here dept

It's interesting to see the logical pretzels that certain business execs will twist themselves into to defend a poor business model against one that customers enjoy much more. Take for example, the claim from cable firm Rainbow Media's CEO, Josh Sapan, that free video online somehow "insults" people who pay for cable:

"I do think it's important to be technologically progressive and responsive to what consumers want. But that's a different thing, in my mind, from creating bad habits," Sapan said in an interview. "To offer these shows for free ... It's almost insulting to the consumer who's paying money for it, because it says to that consumer, 'What are you doing?'"

Of course you could make the identical argument for any obsolete product. The telephone apparently "insulted" telegraphy purchasers. The airplane apparently "insulted" those who traveled by boat across the ocean. The printing press? Man, did that ever insult those monks who wrote out bibles by hand.

Honestly, it's yet another sign of the entitlement culture, where some seem to assume they're entitled to keep their business model, and it's somehow "insulting" to show their customers that there are better/cheaper/more efficient ways to get what they need.

Filed Under: business models, free content, insults
Companies: rainbow media

Bank Changes Man's Password After They Realize It Insults Them

from the encrypted-passwords? dept

Usually, when you're dealing with a bank, they encrypt your passwords so that no one else can read them. However, apparently that isn't always the case -- and this allowed an employee at Lloyds TSB to change the password of one member from "Lloyds is pants" to "no it's not". The customer actually found the story to be amusing -- but it does seem slightly troubling that the bank, for whatever reason, was reviewing and changing a customer's password. They also forbade him from switching the password to "Barclays is better" and "censorship." Lloyds has apologized, and said the employee in question no longer works for the firm. It also explains why the guy was able to see the password in the first place by noting that on certain business accounts with multiple users, account reps can read the password. This seems pretty weak, though. If it's a business account with multiple users, why not let each user set up their own username and encrypted password? Also, it's still not explained why the guy was looking at users' passwords in the first place.

Filed Under: changing, cleartext, insults, password
Companies: lloyds tsb