Self-Righteous Spies

For John, BLUF:  Ten examples of the Intelligence Community bending (breaking) the laws of the land.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

10 times the intel community violated the trust of US citizens, lawmakers and allies

This is from The Hill and is by Ms Sharyl Attkisson, 26 December 2017.

Note that The Hill states that "The views expressed by Contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill".  Thus we have a little distance from Ms Attkisson and her charges.  Here is the lede plus four:

No matter where you stand politically, a growing body of facts raises the question:  Is there systemic corruption or misfeasance at work inside America’s intelligence agencies?

By that, I don’t mean people stealing money.  I mean officials who are stealing our privacy — using the tools of intelligence-gathering and law-enforcing, which are meant to protect Americans, to instead spy on them, to gather information that isn’t the government’s business (at least not without a court’s approval).  And, in some instances, it appears, to punish or silence those with whom they disagree — personal and political foes, in and out of government — rather than to pursue and protect Americans from the country’s real enemies.

Perhaps more alarming is the growing evidence that suggests some officials at all levels in intelligence and justice agencies are operating in a way that is clearly intended to serve their own political beliefs and interests — not the public’s interests.

And sometimes, it appears, they operate not just in direct defiance of their superiors but of the Congress, the courts and the very laws of the land as well.

(Almost as disturbing, Congress, for its part, seems all too willing to allow all of this to take place, when it becomes known, rather than using its authority to stop the misfeasance, punish the miscreants who lie or stonewall, and protect their constituents.)

This is not good.  Citizens need to have faith in their courts, their police and their intelligence agencies.  I guess they should also have faith in their Congress, but that may be asking a lot.

And Bad People need to have rights also, just in case the Government makes a mistake and thinks you are the bad guy and in fact your are totally innocent.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Government Spying on You

For John, BLUF:  Not you specifically, but fellow citizens who should be protected by the law from such things.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Declassified memos show FBI illegally shared spy data on Americans with private parties

by John Solomon and Sara Carter Here is the sum of it:

The FBI has illegally shared raw intelligence about Americans with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents that undercut the bureau’s public assurances about how carefully it handles warrantless spy data to avoid abuses or leaks.

The Link goes to this document:

United States
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Washington DC
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Filed 26 April 2017
LeeAnn Flynn Hall, Clerk of Court

At the link is also this document:

A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Activities Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008, Sept 2012

There are important Fourth Amendment issues here, but also, at a lower level of interest, there is the question of if during the Obama Administration, the Trump Campaign was being hacked by parties within the US Government.  Not the Russians, but the Democrats and the larger Foreign Policy Blob.

And why hasn't Mr Carter Page been called to testify before the House Intelligence Committee?  What are the Democrats on the Committee afraid of?  Representative Adam Schiff (D-California), a name that could go down in infamy.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Cost of Homelessness

For John, BLUF:  An ongoing problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Not a great article, but some thoughts on homelessness and its costs.

Data and Privacy are, indeed, big issues.  With better data we can do a better job.

Regards  —  Cliff

Demands for EMails—Politics in Academia

For John, BLUF:  Whatever happened to freedom of privacy?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is an item from the Blog Inside Higher Education.  The item is "Scrutiny of Scholar's Emails", and centers on a funded position at the Lawrence campus of the University of Kansas, funded by the dreaded Koch Brothers.♠  The author is Ms Kaitlin Mulhere and the dateline is 14 January of this year.

If we are going to release EMails at Universities, I think we should release ALL EMails.  Administrators and Academics alike.  Disrupt all communication.  Maybe prices will come down.  And we will have a better idea of what is going on with regard to Campus Sexual Assault.

Or, we could have some respect for the privacy of others.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Why is it that the Koch Brothers are bad guys, but George Soros isn't?  I am guessing it is because Mr Sores is seen as a progressive.

It Isn't Just NSA Listening

For John, BLUF:  Once you tell someone, it is out there.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Source is The New York Times:

U.S. Points to Russia as Diplomats’ Private Call Is Posted on Web
By PETER BAKERFEB. 6, 2014

WASHINGTON — After months of taking grief for snooping on foreign leaders, the Obama administration found itself on the other side on Thursday after a private telephone call between two American diplomats appeared on the Internet in a breach that the White House tied to Russia.

In the recording, an assistant secretary of state and the ambassador to Ukraine are heard talking about the political crisis in Kiev, their views of how it might be resolved, their assessments of the various opposition leaders and their frustrations with their European counterparts. At one point, the assistant secretary uses an expletive in a reference to the European Union.

More at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/world/europe/us-points-to-russia-as-diplomats-private-call-is-posted-on-web.html

This all started with this article from The Kyiv Post.  The headline, cleaned up for family friendly audiences was "‘F*** the EU,’ frustrated Nuland says to Pyatt, in alleged leaked phone call".  That would be Ms Victoria Nuland, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, at Foggy Bottom.  And U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.

Number one rule in DC—don't write it down or transmit it if you are not prepared to see it on the front page of The Washington Post.

Regards  —  Cliff

What is Marriage?

For John, BLUF:  What are the limits on legally recognized interpersonal relationships?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

I expect some sneering at this post.  It asks for some lateral thinking, a fresh questioning about the issue of Gay Marriage, which is going before the US Supreme Court.  In fact, Hollingsworth v Perry is to be argued before the US Supreme Court tomorrow, Tuesday, 26 March 2013.

A question has been raised about the Unitarian Church trying to suppress members who wish to expand the discussion of marriage to include polyamorous relationships.  I am not advocating legal recognition of such relationships, as I see them as being intrinsically wrong.  I realize that opens me to the charge of being prejudiced, and so I am.

Here is what Professor Althouse wrote:

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory.  That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA).  The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage.  The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

The original Washington Post article can be found here.

I would like to note that my position is that "marriage" is a religious construct and that the Government's interest is in documenting legal relationships that protect those engaged in long term relationships, to include, in particular, children who are legal dependents of adults.  You go to your local Town or City Clerk to register a relationship and you go to your Minister or your best friend to officiate at a solemnization of your relationship.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

EMail Privacy

For John, BLUF:  The people inside the DZc Bubble want to snoop not our private lives and Congress (and the Federal Courts) should be protecting us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

I was about to author a blog post condemning in the strongest possible terms the Senator Leahy associated bill on EMail security from Federal Government snooping, when a new article popped up saying that Senator Leahy, from Vermont, has abandoned his support of the Department of Justice approach, although he hasn't gone back to his original position.  The article lede:

Sen. Patrick Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power -- including warrantless access to Americans' e-mail accounts -- than they possess under current law.

Really, does the National Labor Relations Board need to be able to see my private EMails without a warrant?   I don't think so.   Are we still worried about Harry Bridges?

The Citizenry needs to keep an eye on the Administration and the US Congress, to ensure our privacy rights are not further eroded.  This erosion of our rights started before President Bush and 9/11, although it accelerated under his Adminstration and continues to go in the wrong direction under President Obama's Administration.

We have to be vigilant.

Regards  —  Cliff