Top Rep For Immigration Law Enforcement Officers: Senate Immigration Bill Threatens Public Safety
–Testimony from Chris Crane, ICE Officer and President of the National ICE Council representing our nation’s ICE officers, agents and staff. Crane is also a former marine.
Today’s hearing was on the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal, which the Majority hopes to rush to a vote before the American people know what’s in it.”
Chris Crane Testimony At Senate Immigration Hearing
Sessions To Senate: Can Anyone Explain How This Immigration Bill Will Help Struggling Americans?
Schumer, Gang of Eight Refuse To Say How Many Will Be Admitted Under Their Plan
Law Enforcement Groups Detail How Immigration Bill Guts Future Enforcement
Dramatic Guest Worker Provisions In Immigration Bill Designed To Suppress Wages
Sessions Warns Washington Elites Against Rush To Amnesty
Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks on the Senate Floor in Opposition to the Gang of Eight’s Immigration Bill
Congressman Steve King Spoke on the House Floor — Immigration and Securing the Border
Congressman Steve King leads House opposition to Senate’s Gang of Eight immigration bill
Immigration Reform in Limbo: House ‘Teabaggers’ Bent on Torpedoing Bill
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Glenn Beck: Interview with House Republicans Planning Revolt On Immigration Bill
Glenn Beck to Release Name of 70 House Republicans for Showdown w John Boehner on Amnesty Bill
Laura Ingraham Confronts Marco Rubio Over Immigration Reform: ‘Stop Dividing The Republican Party’
Rand Paul: Immigration Reform Can’t Pass Without Conservative Votes – Laura Ingraham 4/24/2013
“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”
~Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, D-Mass, regarding an amnesty bill passed in 1986
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
1984 – Ronald Reagan on Amnesty
In this brief video-clip from the 1984 presidential debates Ronald Reagan discusses immigration, amnesty and the failure of the first attempt to pass the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act. [When the act finally passed (1986) did we get reform? Did we get control?]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Illegal Alien
A foreigner who has either entered a country illegally (e.g. without inspection or proper documents) or who has violated the terms of legal admission to the country (e.g. by overstaying the duration of a tourist or student visa).
8 USC § 1101 – Definitions
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
US immigration system moves towards reform
Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks on the Senate Floor in Opposition to the Gang of Eight’s Immigration Bill
Glenn Beck to Release Name of 70 House Republicans for Showdown w John Boehner on Amnesty Bill
Glenn Beck: Interview with House Republicans Planning Revolt On Immigration Bill
Glenn Beck Program Immigration and Equal Opportunity 06132013
US Senate Votes to Consider Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants
News Wrap: Senate Votes to Begin Immigration Reform Debate
Border Insecurity Citizens Track Surge Of Illegal Immigration! – Wake Up America!!
Chris Pyle, Whistleblower on CIA Domestic Spying in 70s, Says Be Wary of Attacks on NSA’s Critics
NSA Chief Grilled at Senate Hearing on Surveillance Programs
He told you so: Bill Binney talks NSA leaks
“In the wake of multiple leaks regarding the data mining programs PRISM and Boundless Informant, whistleblowers are coming out in droves to talk about the unprecedented government surveillance on the American public. RT Correspondent Meghan Lopez had a chance to sit down with NSA whistleblower William Binney to talk about the latest developments coming out of the NSA case. Binney is a 32 year veteran of the NSA, where he helped design a top secret program he says helps collect data on foreign enemies. He is regarded as one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in NSA history. He became an NSA whistleblower in 2002 when he realized the program he helped create to spy no foreign enemies was being used on Americans.”
A Massive Surveillance State Glenn Greenwald Exposes Covert NSA Program Collecting Calls, Emails
What You Should Know About The New NSA Utah Data Center
Glenn Greenwald Vs Bush Press Sec. Ari Fleischer Over NSA’s PRISM
NSA Whistleblowers: “All U.S.Citizens” Targeted By Surveillance Program, Not Just Verizon Customers
Experts Say NSA Leak Damage Could be Significant
“SPY AND DENY” IS THE NEW NORMAL IN USA!
Era of Online Sharing Offers ‘Big Data,’ Privacy Trade-Offs
Rep King Drops Bombshell; Sen Lee To Talk Claim Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed
How PRISM Easily Gives Your Private Data Over to Big Brother
“The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.”*
We’ve been assured by the president that the NSA’s PRISM program won’t affect “ordinary” U.S. citizens, but what is the criteria for deciding who gets their data mined and monitored? Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz, and John Iadarola (Host, TYT University) discuss the egregious reach of the Obama administration’s secret mass surveillance program.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’
Microtargeting
RNC/DNC Collecting Your Info En Masse
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA
The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
THEY COME TO AMERICA II. The Cost of Amnesty
They Come to America (Trailer 2)
2012: They Come to America. The Cost of Illegal Immigration.
Schumer Refuses To Estimate Future Immigration Flow Under Gang Of Eight Proposal
Obama To Stop Deporting Young Illegal Immigrants
“The Obama administration will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and who do not pose a security threat, senior administration officials said this morning, a move that could prove important in a presidential campaign that will turn in part on who wins over Latino voters.
Effective immediately, young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before they turned 16 will be allowed to apply for work permits as long as they have no criminal history and meet other criteria, officials said.
Reality Check: President Obama’s Immigration Reform Rings Hollow
(Part I) A Day in the Life of an Arizona Rancher: Fences, Illegal Aliens, and One Man’s Watchtower
(Part II) A Day in the Life of an Arizona Rancher: Fences, Illegal Aliens, and One Man’s Watchtower
Background Articles and Videos
Ap’s “Illegal Immigrant” Stand – Leno: Illegal Immigrants That is Out, Now “Undocumented Democrats”
Illegal immigration to the United States – Wiki Article
Illegal immigration to the United States is the act of foreign nationals entering the United States, without government permission and in violation of United States nationality law, or staying beyond the termination date of a visa, also in violation of the law.
The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007. Other estimates range from 7 to 20 million. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 56% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 22% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 13% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.
Profile and demographics
Illegal immigrants continue to outpace the number of legal immigrants —a trend that’s held steady since the 1990s. While the majority of illegal immigrants continue to concentrate in places with existing large Hispanic communities, increasingly illegals are settling throughout the rest of the country.
An estimated 14 million people live in families in which the head of household or the spouse is in the United States illegaly . The number of illegal immigrants arriving in recent years tend to be better educated than those who have been in the country a decade or more. A quarter of all immigrants who have arrived in recent years have at least some college education. Nonetheless, illegal immigrants as a group tend to be less educated than other sections of the U.S. population: 49 percent haven’t completed high school, compared with 9 percent of native-born Americans and 25 percent of legal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (17 percent). According to USA Today in 2006, about 4 percent work in farming; 21 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (19 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (15 percent), with 12% in sales, 10% in management, and 8% in transportation. Illegal immigrants have lower incomes than both legal immigrants and native-born Americans, but earnings do increase somewhat the longer an individual is in the country.
A percentage of illegal immigrants do not remain indefinitely but do return to their country of origin; they are often referred to as “sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home country.”
Breakdown by state
As of 2006, the following data table shows a spread of distribution of locations where illegal immigrants reside by state.
Number of illegal immigrants
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), different estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants vary depending on how the term is defined. There are also questions about data reliability.
The GAO has stated that “it seems clear that the population of undocumented foreign-born persons is large and has increased rapidly.” On April 26, 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals. This number was derived by a statistical method known as the “residual method.” According to the General Accounting office the residual estimation (1) starts with a census count or survey estimate of the number of foreign-born residents who have not become U.S. citizens and (2) subtracts out estimated numbers of legally present individuals in various categories, based on administrative data and assumptions (because censuses and surveys do not ask about legal status). The remainder, or residual, represents an indirect estimate of
Senate Dismisses Any Pretense of Enforcement in the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill
Rubio Reneges on Promise to Fix Flaws in the Bill
(Washington, D.C. June 13, 2013) In the first important vote on amendments to the Gang of Eight immigration bill, S.744, the United States Senate quickly dismissed any pretense that they intend to deliver on promises of future immigration enforcement, declared the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). By a 57-43 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would have required that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) demonstrate effective control of U.S. borders for six months before illegal aliens could gain amnesty.
“Today’s vote makes it clear that a majority of senators place a higher priority on granting amnesty to illegal aliens than they do on fulfilling their promises to the American people that our borders will be secured and that our immigration laws will be enforced,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “Tellingly, Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who has repeatedly vowed to oppose the bill if border enforcement provisions are not strengthened, was among the majority of senators who voted to kill the Grassley amendment.”
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) described the amendment as a “poison pill” and used a parliamentary procedure to shut off debate on it. “In the Alice in Wonderland world of the United States Senate, securing our borders and fulfilling promises to the American people, before rewarding illegal aliens, is considered a ‘poison pill,’” observed Stein.
“The vote also undermines whatever credibility Sen. Rubio had left as an honest broker on behalf of the interests of the American people. The fix is in and Rubio is off the fence. The Gang of Eight and the Senate leadership will employ any tactic to prevent amendments that might upset special interest constituencies from supporting the bill,” Stein continued.
“Under this bill there will be no border security. There will be no immigration enforcement. The Gang of Eight bill is about delivering amnesty to illegal aliens and cheap labor to business interests, and nothing else,” Stein concluded.
China says US surveillance has ‘stained’ Washington’s image
Snowden still in hiding after new claims US ‘hacked’ China
Edward Snowden Claims US Hacked China Targets
Snowden: ‘U.S. Hacked China Computers For Years’
Edward Snowden Tells South China Morning Post: U.S. Has Been Hacking Hong Kong And China Since 2009
Glenn Greenwald “The Grounds On Which He Called For My Prosecution Was An Outright Fabrication”
John Bolton on NSA Leaker Edward Snowden: “I’m Not at All Sure He’s Acting Alone Here”
Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years
Former CIA operative makes more explosive claims and says Washington is ‘bullying’ Hong Kong to extradite him
US whistle-blower Edward Snowden yesterday emerged from hiding in Hong Kong and revealed to the South China Morning Post that he will stay in the city to fight likely attempts by his government to have him extradited for leaking state secrets.
In an exclusive interview carried out from a secret location in the city, the former Central Intelligence Agency analyst also made explosive claims that the US government had been hacking into computers in Hong Kong and on the mainland for years.
At Snowden’s request we cannot divulge details about how the interview was conducted.
A week since revelations that the US has been secretly collecting phone and online data of its citizens, he said he will stay in the city “until I am asked to leave”, adding: “I have had many opportunities to flee HK, but I would rather stay and fight the US government in the courts, because I have faith in HK’s rule of law.”
In a frank hour-long interview, the 29-year-old, who US authorities have confirmed is now the subject of a criminal case, said he was neither a hero nor a traitor and that:
US National Security Agency’s controversial Prism programme extends to people and institutions in Hong Kong and mainland China;
The US is exerting “bullying’’ diplomatic pressure on Hong Kong to extradite him;
Hong Kong’s rule of law will protect him from the US;
He is in constant fear for his own safety and that of his family.
Snowden has been in Hong Kong since May 20 when he fled his home in Hawaii to take refuge here, a move which has been questioned by many who believe the city cannot protect him.
“People who think I made a mistake in picking HK as a location misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to hide from justice, I am here to reveal criminality,” he said.
Snowden said that according to unverified documents seen by the Post, the NSA had been hacking computers in Hong Kong and on the mainland since 2009. None of the documents revealed any information about Chinese military systems, he said.
I’m neither traitor nor hero. I’m an American
One of the targets in the SAR, according to Snowden, was Chinese University and public officials, businesses and students in the city. The documents also point to hacking activity by the NSA against mainland targets.
Snowden believed there had been more than 61,000 NSA hacking operations globally, with hundreds of targets in Hong Kong and on the mainland.
“We hack network backbones – like huge internet routers, basically – that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one,” he said.
“Last week the American government happily operated in the shadows with no respect for the consent of the governed, but no longer. Every level of society is demanding accountability and oversight.”
Snowden said he was releasing the information to demonstrate “the hypocrisy of the US government when it claims that it does not target civilian infrastructure, unlike its adversaries”.
“Not only does it do so, but it is so afraid of this being known that it is willing to use any means, such as diplomatic intimidation, to prevent this information from becoming public.”
Since the shocking revelations a week ago, Snowden has been vilified as a defector but also hailed by supporters such as WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.
“I’m neither traitor nor hero. I’m an American,” he said, adding that he was proud to be an American. “I believe in freedom of expression. I acted in good faith but it is only right that the public form its own opinion.”
Snowden said he had not contacted his family and feared for their safety as well as his own.
“I will never feel safe.
“Things are very difficult for me in all terms, but speaking truth to power is never without risk,” he said. “It has been difficult, but I have been glad to see the global public speak out against these sorts of systemic violations of privacy.
“All I can do is rely on my training and hope that world governments will refuse to be bullied by the United States into persecuting people seeking political refuge.”
Asked if he had been offered asylum by the Russian government, he said: “My only comment is that I am glad there are governments that refuse to be intimidated by great power”.
The interview comes on the same day NSA chief General Keith Alexander appeared before Congress to defend his agency over the leaks. It was his first appearance since the explosive revelations were made last week. Alexander’s prepared remarks did not specifically address revelations about the Prism program.
Snowden’s revelations threaten to test new attempts to build US-Sino bridges after a weekend summit in California between the nations’ presidents, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping.
If true, Snowden’s allegations lend credence to China’s longstanding position that it is as much a victim of hacking as a perpetrator, after Obama pressed Xi to rein in cyber-espionage by the Chinese military.
Tens of thousands of Snowden’s supporters have signed a petition calling for his pardon in the United States while many have donated money to a fund to help him.
“I’m very grateful for the support of the public,” he said. “But I ask that they act in their interest – save their money for letters to the government that breaks the law and claims it noble.
“The reality is that I have acted at great personal risk to help the public of the world, regardless of whether that public is American, European, or Asian.”
The US consulate in Hong Kong could not be contacted yesterday on a public holiday.
Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America)
Obama’s secret microtargeting operation
Campaigns admit to data mining
During campaigning, candidates are going to great lengths to find out about residents. Both presidential campaigns admit to tracking everything you do online.
Obama’s win: data mining
How We Used Data to Win the Presidential Election
Dan Siroker, of the Obama Campaign and CarrotSticks, describes how the campaign used data to win the presidential election. He shares the lessons his team learned along the way and how one can apply them to any data-driven decision one needs to make — whether it be in developing, designing, or even marketing.
Can You Replicate the Obama Strategy? | The New School for Public Engagement
Political campaigns have revolutionized the way they target, contact and motivate supporters. Strategists are taking the insights of experimental social science and marrying them to the corporate world’s Big Data marketing tools. The Obama Campaign won in large part by using statistical modeling techniques to identify persuadable voters and to fine-tune persuasive messages. This is politics today and in the future—not only for elections but on issue campaigns for education reform, health care, the environment, labor rights and beyond. Who are the pioneers? And how might you apply their the strategies?
Strata 2013: Sasha Issenberg, “The Victory Lab”
The Victory Lab: ‘Moneyball for Politics’” Sasha Issenberg
A Conversation with Sasha Issenberg
Sasha Issenberg discusses the 2012 Obama campaign
Sasha Issenberg discusses the use of social science experiments in Rick Perry’s 2006 campaign
Political Checklist: Frontline Looks at Digital Campaigns
Frontline: The Digital Factor in Election 2012
Frontline: How Much Do Digital Campaigns Know About You?
Webinar – Political Campaign Fundraising with Aristotle 360
Use Voter Data for a Smart Political Campaign
‘Big Brother’ is watching, in sophisticated digital ways
By Gitte Laasby
Town of Mukwonago voter Priscilla Trulen is used to ignoring political solicitations. For weeks, she’s been receiving three political robocalls per day related to the presidential election. On Thursday, she got seven.
But one call she got on Halloween still haunts her. It was a recorded message read by a presidential candidate trying to get her to vote.
“It was Mitt Romney saying, ‘I know you have an absentee ballot and I know you haven’t sent it in yet,’ ” Trulen said in an interview. “That just sent me over the line. Not only is it like Big Brother. It is Big Brother. It’s down to where they know I have a ballot and I haven’t sent it in! I thought when I requested the ballot that the only other entity that would know was the Mukwonago clerk.”
Trulen isn’t the only voter among Wisconsin’s much-courted electorate who is getting creeped out by the political campaigns’ unprecedented, uncanny ability to micro-target voters who are likely to vote for their candidate.
The solicitations give only a small glimpse into how much digital information the campaigns are able to access about voters.
For years, campaigns have requested the statewide voter registration list, which is subject to public information requests.
The database contains the names and addresses of active voters who are registered and able to vote, as well as inactive voters who are ineligible to vote because they have passed away, moved out of state or committed a felony, or people who need to re-register to be eligible, said Reid Magney, public information officer with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.
The list also contains information that the state does not release, for instance people’s birth dates, driver’s license numbers and phone numbers.
“It’s typical for both parties, or individual candidates, to be making public records requests from the clerks. And it’s perfectly legal,” Magney said. “This information is public so there’s transparency in our elections. . . . Except for how you vote, there really are no secrets.”
The state database also contains information on absentee voters. The state’s 1,851 municipalities are required to account for military and overseas absentee ballots both before and after the election, Magney said. Municipalities don’t have to report to the state whether regular absentee ballots such as Trulen’s have been returned until the election is over. However, some municipalities, including the Town of Mukwonago where Trulen lives, report to the state database as they go whether those ballots have been returned. Most likely, that’s how the Republican campaign found out Trulen received an absentee ballot.
“There’s nothing confidential as far as, ‘Did so and so vote?’ ” said Kathy Karalewitz, administrative clerk treasurer with the town. “As far as how they vote, yes.”
Requesters can also request information related to absentee ballots directly from the municipalities, although that’s more cumbersome and labor intensive.
The cost of the entire state database is $12,500. Four requesters have been willing to pay that since Sept. 1, Magney said: Catalist (a progressive voter database organization), the Democratic National Committee, and data analysis firm Aristotle – all based in Washington, D.C. The last requester was Colorado-based Magellan Strategies, a firm that specializes in “micro-targeting” for Republican parties and candidates.
Another 200 requests have been made since Sept. 1 for smaller portions of the database, Magney said.
Crunching the numbers
But what really enables the campaigns to “slice and dice” the electorate down to individual voters is that the voter list is correlated with a slew of other information designed to predict voting behavior and issues that the voter would care about.
In an interview with PBS that aired in October, Aristotle’s chief executive officer, John Phillips, said the company keeps up to 500 data points on each voter – from the type of clothes they buy, the music they listen to, magazines they read and car they own, to whether they are a NASCAR fan, a smoker or a pet owner, or have a gold credit card. Some of that information comes from commercial marketing firms, product registration cards or surveys. Other information is obtained through Facebook, door-to-door canvassing, petitions and computer cookies – small data codes that register which websites the user has visited.
Through data modeling, analyzers can categorize voters based on how they feel about specific issues, values or candidates. They then try to predict voting behavior and figure out which issue ads voters are most likely to be susceptible to – for instance ads on education, gun control or immigration.
One of the companies that requested the full Wisconsin voter database, Magellan Strategies, explains on its website that it conducts surveys on people’s opinions and merges that with their political, consumer and census demographics.
“By correlating respondents’ demographics to the demographics of the whole voting district, we can make predictions about the voting preferences of each voter in the district,” the site states.
The company also states why the strategy is so popular.
“Microtargeting enables campaigns to send targeted messages to voters who are very receptive to those messages,” the website states. “Microtargeting allows for the most cost effective voter targeting programs, for voter persuasion or get-out-the-vote.”
According to its website, Magellan has conducted microtargeting since 2008.
A little extra effort is required to determine party affiliation in Wisconsin which, contrary to other states such as California, does not register people to vote by party.
The last piece of the puzzle is the phone number, which is not available through the government, but easily found in a phone book or located in online databases, sometimes free of charge.
Nathan Conrad, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, did not respond to a request for comment on how the campaign obtained Trulen’s digits. Graeme Zielinski, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, did not respond for requests on how his party obtains phone numbers either.
As for Trulen, she just wishes she could find a way to make the calls stop.
“It’s alarming to me,” she said. “It’s just not right. . . . It’s like you can feel the tentacles creeping into your house under your door.”
The calls to Trulen were likely part of the GOP’s effort to get out the vote in what the party considers one of its strongest counties. Waukesha County is traditionally a Republican stronghold, just as Milwaukee tends to go for Democrats.
The irony is that the robocallers apparently haven’t figured out Trulen is actually a minority in her county: She has been voting Democratic.
Big Brother
Political campaigns can obtain nearly unlimited information about people through commercially available databases. Here’s what information they can, and can’t, learn about you from public records related to voting:
Public (obtainable)
Your name, address, gender and race
Which elections you voted in, going back to 2000
Whether you have requested an absentee ballot and whether you have sent it in.
Private (redacted)
Whom you voted for
Your date of birth
Your Social Security number, and any part of it
Your driver’s license number
Your phone number (if officials remember to redact it before they release your registration to anyone who asks.)
Online
For more on the information that campaigns and others collect on you, watch this video from PBS.
They then use various means of communication—direct mail, phone calls, home visits, television, radio, web advertising, email, text messaging, etc.–to communicate with voters, crafting messages to build support for fundraising, campaign events, volunteering, and eventually to turn them out to the polls on election day. Microtargeting’s tactics rely on transmitting a tailored message to a subgroup of the electorate on the basis of unique information about that subgroup.
History
Although some of the tactics of microtargeting had been used in California since 1992, it really started to be used nationally only in 2004.[1] In that year, Karl Rove, along with Blaise Hazelwood at the Republican National Committee, used it to reach voters in 18 states that George W. Bush’s reelection campaign was not able to reach by other means. The results were greater contacts with likely Bush voters. For example, in Iowa the campaign was able to reach 92% of eventual Bush voters (compared to 50% in 2000) and in Florida it was able to reach 84% (compared to 50% in 2000).[2] Much of this pioneering work was done by Alex Gage and his firm, TargetPoint Consulting.
Democrats did only limited microtargeting in 2004, with some crediting microtargeting for Kerry’s win in Iowa in 2004.[3] Some news accounts credited Republican superiority in that area for victories in that election cycle.[4] Democrats later developed microtargeting capabilities for the 2006 election cycle.[1][2] “It’s no secret that the other side [Republicans] figured this out a little sooner”, said Josh Syrjamaki, director of the Minnesota chapter of America Votes in October 2006. “They’ve had four to six years’ jump on us on this stuff…but we feel like we can start to catch up.”[5]
Method
Microtargeting is a modification of a practice used by commercial direct marketers. It would not be possible on a large scale without the development of large and sophisticated databases that contain data about as many voters as possible. The database essentially tracks voter habits in the same ways that companies like Visa track consumer spending habits. The Republican National Committee’s database is called Voter Vault. The Democratic National Committee effort is called VoteBuilder.[6] A parallel Democratic effort is being developed by Catalist, a $9 million initiative headed by Harold Ickes,[2] while the leading non-partisan database is offered by Aristotle.[7]
The databases contain specific information about a particular voter (party affiliation, frequency of voting, contributions, volunteerism, etc.) with other activities and habits available from commercial marketing vendors such as Acxiom, Dun & Bradstreet, Experian Americas, and InfoUSA. Such personal information is a “product” sold to interested companies. These data are particularly illuminating when portrayed through a Geographic Information System (GIS), where trends based on location can be mapped alongside dozens or hundreds of other variables. This geographic depiction also makes it ideal for volunteers to visit potential voters (armed with lists in hand, laid out in the shortest route – much like how FedEx and UPS pre-determine delivery routes).
These databases are then mined to identify issues important to each voter and whether that voter is more likely to identify with one party or another. Political information is obviously important here, but consumer preferences can play a role as well. Individual voters are then put into groups on the basis of sophisticated computer modeling. Such groups have names like “Downscale Union Independents”, “Tax and Terrorism Moderates,” and “Older Suburban Newshounds.”[2][5]
Once a multitude of voting groups is established according to these criteria and their minute political differences, then the tailored messages can be sent via the appropriate means. While political parties and candidates once prepared a single television advertisement for general broadcast nationwide, it is now not at all uncommon to have several dozen variations on the one message, each with a unique and tailored message for that small demographic sliver of the voting public. This is the same for radio advertisement, direct mail, email, as well as stump speeches and fundraising events.
The actual data mining task is the automatic or semi-automatic analysis of large quantities of data to extract previously unknown interesting patterns such as groups of data records (cluster analysis), unusual records (anomaly detection) and dependencies (association rule mining). This usually involves using database techniques such as spatial indices. These patterns can then be seen as a kind of summary of the input data, and may be used in further analysis or, for example, in machine learning and predictive analytics. For example, the data mining step might identify multiple groups in the data, which can then be used to obtain more accurate prediction results by a decision support system. Neither the data collection, data preparation, nor result interpretation and reporting are part of the data mining step, but do belong to the overall KDD process as additional steps.
The related terms data dredging, data fishing, and data snooping refer to the use of data mining methods to sample parts of a larger population data set that are (or may be) too small for reliable statistical inferences to be made about the validity of any patterns discovered. These methods can, however, be used in creating new hypotheses to test against the larger data populations.
Data mining uses information from past data to analyze the outcome of a particular problem or situation that may arise. Data mining works to analyze data stored in data warehouses that are used to store that data that is being analyzed. That particular data may come from all parts of business, from the production to the management. Managers also use data mining to decide upon marketing strategies for their product. They can use data to compare and contrast among competitors. Data mining interprets its data into real time analysis that can be used to increase sales, promote new product, or delete product that is not value-added to the company.
Etymology
In the 1960s, statisticians used terms like “Data Fishing” or “Data Dredging” to refer to what they considered the bad practice of analyzing data without an a-priori hypothesis. The term “Data Mining” appeared around 1990 in the database community. At the beginning of the century, there was a phrase “database mining”™, trademarked by HNC, a San Diego-based company (now merged into FICO), to pitch their Data Mining Workstation;[8] researchers consequently turned to “data mining”. Other terms used include Data Archaeology, Information Harvesting, Information Discovery, Knowledge Extraction, etc. Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro coined the term “Knowledge Discovery in Databases” for the first workshop on the same topic (1989) and this term became more popular in AI and Machine Learning Community. However, the term data mining became more popular in the business and press communities.[9] Currently, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery are used interchangeably.
Background
The manual extraction of patterns from data has occurred for centuries. Early methods of identifying patterns in data include Bayes’ theorem (1700s) and regression analysis (1800s). The proliferation, ubiquity and increasing power of computer technology has dramatically increased data collection, storage, and manipulation ability. As data sets have grown in size and complexity, direct “hands-on” data analysis has increasingly been augmented with indirect, automated data processing, aided by other discoveries in computer science, such as neural networks, cluster analysis, genetic algorithms (1950s), decision trees (1960s), and support vector machines (1990s). Data mining is the process of applying these methods with the intention of uncovering hidden patterns[10] in large data sets. It bridges the gap from applied statistics and artificial intelligence (which usually provide the mathematical background) to database management by exploiting the way data is stored and indexed in databases to execute the actual learning and discovery algorithms more efficiently, allowing such methods to be applied to ever larger data sets.
Research and evolution
The premier professional body in the field is the Association for Computing Machinery‘s (ACM) Special Interest Group (SIG) on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD). Since 1989 this ACM SIG has hosted an annual international conference and published its proceedings,[11] and since 1999 it has published a biannual academic journal titled “SIGKDD Explorations”.[12]
Computer science conferences on data mining include:
or a simplified process such as (1) pre-processing, (2) data mining, and (3) results validation.
Polls conducted in 2002, 2004, and 2007 show that the CRISP-DM methodology is the leading methodology used by data miners.[13][14][15] The only other data mining standard named in these polls was SEMMA. However, 3-4 times as many people reported using CRISP-DM. Several teams of researchers have published reviews of data mining process models,[16][17] and Azevedo and Santos conducted a comparison of CRISP-DM and SEMMA in 2008.[18]
Pre-processing
Before data mining algorithms can be used, a target data set must be assembled. As data mining can only uncover patterns actually present in the data, the target data set must be large enough to contain these patterns while remaining concise enough to be mined within an acceptable time limit. A common source for data is a data mart or data warehouse. Pre-processing is essential to analyze the multivariate data sets before data mining. The target set is then cleaned. Data cleaning removes the observations containing noise and those with missing data.
Data mining
Data mining involves six common classes of tasks:[1]
Anomaly detection (Outlier/change/deviation detection) – The identification of unusual data records, that might be interesting or data errors that require further investigation.
Association rule learning (Dependency modeling) – Searches for relationships between variables. For example a supermarket might gather data on customer purchasing habits. Using association rule learning, the supermarket can determine which products are frequently bought together and use this information for marketing purposes. This is sometimes referred to as market basket analysis.
Clustering – is the task of discovering groups and structures in the data that are in some way or another “similar”, without using known structures in the data.
Classification – is the task of generalizing known structure to apply to new data. For example, an e-mail program might attempt to classify an e-mail as “legitimate” or as “spam”.
Regression – Attempts to find a function which models the data with the least error.
Summarization – providing a more compact representation of the data set, including visualization and report generation.
Sequential pattern mining – Sequential pattern mining finds sets of data items that occur together frequently in some sequences. Sequential pattern mining, which extracts frequent subsequences from a sequence database, has attracted a great deal of interest during the recent data mining research because it is the basis of many applications, such as: web user analysis, stock trend prediction, DNA sequence analysis, finding language or linguistic patterns from natural language texts, and using the history of symptoms to predict certain kind of disease.
Results validation
The final step of knowledge discovery from data is to verify that the patterns produced by the data mining algorithms occur in the wider data set. Not all patterns found by the data mining algorithms are necessarily valid. It is common for the data mining algorithms to find patterns in the training set which are not present in the general data set. This is called overfitting. To overcome this, the evaluation uses a test set of data on which the data mining algorithm was not trained. The learned patterns are applied to this test set and the resulting output is compared to the desired output. For example, a data mining algorithm trying to distinguish “spam” from “legitimate” emails would be trained on a training set of sample e-mails. Once trained, the learned patterns would be applied to the test set of e-mails on which it had not been trained. The accuracy of the patterns can then be measured from how many e-mails they correctly classify. A number of statistical methods may be used to evaluate the algorithm, such as ROC curves.
If the learned patterns do not meet the desired standards, then it is necessary to re-evaluate and change the pre-processing and data mining steps. If the learned patterns do meet the desired standards, then the final step is to interpret the learned patterns and turn them into knowledge.
Standards
There have been some efforts to define standards for the data mining process, for example the 1999 European Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM 1.0) and the 2004 Java Data Mining standard (JDM 1.0). Development on successors to these processes (CRISP-DM 2.0 and JDM 2.0) was active in 2006, but has stalled since. JDM 2.0 was withdrawn without reaching a final draft.
For exchanging the extracted models – in particular for use in predictive analytics – the key standard is the Predictive Model Markup Language (PMML), which is an XML-based language developed by the Data Mining Group (DMG) and supported as exchange format by many data mining applications. As the name suggests, it only covers prediction models, a particular data mining task of high importance to business applications. However, extensions to cover (for example) subspace clustering have been proposed independently of the DMG.[19]
Since the early 1960s, with the availability of oracles for certain combinatorial games, also called tablebases (e.g. for 3×3-chess) with any beginning configuration, small-board dots-and-boxes, small-board-hex, and certain endgames in chess, dots-and-boxes, and hex; a new area for data mining has been opened. This is the extraction of human-usable strategies from these oracles. Current pattern recognition approaches do not seem to fully acquire the high level of abstraction required to be applied successfully. Instead, extensive experimentation with the tablebases – combined with an intensive study of tablebase-answers to well designed problems, and with knowledge of prior art (i.e. pre-tablebase knowledge) – is used to yield insightful patterns. Berlekamp (in dots-and-boxes, etc.) and John Nunn (in chessendgames) are notable examples of researchers doing this work, though they were not – and are not – involved in tablebase generation.
Business
Data mining is the analysis of historical business activities, stored as static data in data warehouse databases, to reveal hidden patterns and trends. Data mining software uses advanced pattern recognition algorithms to sift through large amounts of data to assist in discovering previously unknown strategic business information. Examples of what businesses use data mining for include performing market analysis to identify new product bundles, finding the root cause of manufacturing problems, to prevent customer attrition and acquire new customers, cross-sell to existing customers, and profile customers with more accuracy.[20] In today’s world raw data is being collected by companies at an exploding rate. For example, Walmart processes over 20 million point-of-sale transactions every day. This information is stored in a centralized database, but would be useless without some type of data mining software to analyse it. If Walmart analyzed their point-of-sale data with data mining techniques they would be able to determine sales trends, develop marketing campaigns, and more accurately predict customer loyalty.[21] Every time we use our credit card, a store loyalty card, or fill out a warranty card data is being collected about our purchasing behavior. Many people find the amount of information stored about us from companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon, disturbing and are concerned about privacy. Although there is the potential for our personal data to be used in harmful, or unwanted, ways it is also being used to make our lives better. For example, Ford and Audi hope to one day collect information about customer driving patterns so they can recommend safer routes and warn drivers about dangerous road conditions.[22]
Data mining in customer relationship management applications can contribute significantly to the bottom line.[citation needed] Rather than randomly contacting a prospect or customer through a call center or sending mail, a company can concentrate its efforts on prospects that are predicted to have a high likelihood of responding to an offer. More sophisticated methods may be used to optimize resources across campaigns so that one may predict to which channel and to which offer an individual is most likely to respond (across all potential offers). Additionally, sophisticated applications could be used to automate mailing. Once the results from data mining (potential prospect/customer and channel/offer) are determined, this “sophisticated application” can either automatically send an e-mail or a regular mail. Finally, in cases where many people will take an action without an offer, “uplift modeling” can be used to determine which people have the greatest increase in response if given an offer. Uplift modeling thereby enables marketers to focus mailings and offers on persuadable people, and not to send offers to people who will buy the product without an offer. Data clustering can also be used to automatically discover the segments or groups within a customer data set.
Businesses employing data mining may see a return on investment, but also they recognize that the number of predictive models can quickly become very large. Rather than using one model to predict how many customers will churn, a business could build a separate model for each region and customer type. Then, instead of sending an offer to all people that are likely to churn, it may only want to send offers to loyal customers. Finally, the business may want to determine which customers are going to be profitable over a certain window in time, and only send the offers to those that are likely to be profitable. In order to maintain this quantity of models, they need to manage model versions and move on to automated data mining.
Data mining can also be helpful to human resources (HR) departments in identifying the characteristics of their most successful employees. Information obtained – such as universities attended by highly successful employees – can help HR focus recruiting efforts accordingly. Additionally, Strategic Enterprise Management applications help a company translate corporate-level goals, such as profit and margin share targets, into operational decisions, such as production plans and workforce levels.[23]
Another example of data mining, often called the market basket analysis, relates to its use in retail sales. If a clothing store records the purchases of customers, a data mining system could identify those customers who favor silk shirts over cotton ones. Although some explanations of relationships may be difficult, taking advantage of it is easier. The example deals with association rules within transaction-based data. Not all data are transaction based and logical, or inexact rules may also be present within a database.
Market basket analysis has also been used to identify the purchase patterns of the Alpha Consumer. Alpha Consumers are people that play a key role in connecting with the concept behind a product, then adopting that product, and finally validating it for the rest of society. Analyzing the data collected on this type of user has allowed companies to predict future buying trends and forecast supply demands.[citation needed]
Data mining is a highly effective tool in the catalog marketing industry.[citation needed] Catalogers have a rich database of history of their customer transactions for millions of customers dating back a number of years. Data mining tools can identify patterns among customers and help identify the most likely customers to respond to upcoming mailing campaigns.
Data mining for business applications is a component that needs to be integrated into a complex modeling and decision making process. Reactive business intelligence (RBI) advocates a “holistic” approach that integrates data mining, modeling, and interactive visualization into an end-to-end discovery and continuous innovation process powered by human and automated learning.[24]
In the area of decision making, the RBI approach has been used to mine knowledge that is progressively acquired from the decision maker, and then self-tune the decision method accordingly.[25]
An example of data mining related to an integrated-circuit (IC) production line is described in the paper “Mining IC Test Data to Optimize VLSI Testing.”[26] In this paper, the application of data mining and decision analysis to the problem of die-level functional testing is described. Experiments mentioned demonstrate the ability to apply a system of mining historical die-test data to create a probabilistic model of patterns of die failure. These patterns are then utilized to decide, in real time, which die to test next and when to stop testing. This system has been shown, based on experiments with historical test data, to have the potential to improve profits on mature IC products.
In the study of human genetics, sequence mining helps address the important goal of understanding the mapping relationship between the inter-individual variations in human DNA sequence and the variability in disease susceptibility. In simple terms, it aims to find out how the changes in an individual’s DNA sequence affects the risks of developing common diseases such as cancer, which is of great importance to improving methods of diagnosing, preventing, and treating these diseases. The data mining method that is used to perform this task is known as multifactor dimensionality reduction.[27]
In the area of electrical power engineering, data mining methods have been widely used for condition monitoring of high voltage electrical equipment. The purpose of condition monitoring is to obtain valuable information on, for example, the status of the insulation (or other important safety-related parameters). Data clustering techniques – such as the self-organizing map (SOM), have been applied to vibration monitoring and analysis of transformer on-load tap-changers (OLTCS). Using vibration monitoring, it can be observed that each tap change operation generates a signal that contains information about the condition of the tap changer contacts and the drive mechanisms. Obviously, different tap positions will generate different signals. However, there was considerable variability amongst normal condition signals for exactly the same tap position. SOM has been applied to detect abnormal conditions and to hypothesize about the nature of the abnormalities.[28]
Data mining methods have also been applied to dissolved gas analysis (DGA) in power transformers. DGA, as a diagnostics for power transformers, has been available for many years. Methods such as SOM has been applied to analyze generated data and to determine trends which are not obvious to the standard DGA ratio methods (such as Duval Triangle).[28]
Another example of data mining in science and engineering is found in educational research, where data mining has been used to study the factors leading students to choose to engage in behaviors which reduce their learning,[29] and to understand factors influencing university student retention.[30] A similar example of social application of data mining is its use in expertise finding systems, whereby descriptors of human expertise are extracted, normalized, and classified so as to facilitate the finding of experts, particularly in scientific and technical fields. In this way, data mining can facilitate institutional memory.
In adverse drug reaction surveillance, the Uppsala Monitoring Centre has, since 1998, used data mining methods to routinely screen for reporting patterns indicative of emerging drug safety issues in the WHO global database of 4.6 million suspected adverse drug reaction incidents.[34] Recently, similar methodology has been developed to mine large collections of electronic health records for temporal patterns associating drug prescriptions to medical diagnoses.[35]
Data mining of government records – particularly records of the justice system (i.e. courts, prisons) – enables the discovery of systemic human rights violations in connection to generation and publication of invalid or fraudulent legal records by various government agencies.[36][37]
Spatial data mining is the application of data mining methods to spatial data. The end objective of spatial data mining is to find patterns in data with respect to geography. So far, data mining and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have existed as two separate technologies, each with its own methods, traditions, and approaches to visualization and data analysis. Particularly, most contemporary GIS have only very basic spatial analysis functionality. The immense explosion in geographically referenced data occasioned by developments in IT, digital mapping, remote sensing, and the global diffusion of GIS emphasizes the importance of developing data-driven inductive approaches to geographical analysis and modeling.
Data mining offers great potential benefits for GIS-based applied decision-making. Recently, the task of integrating these two technologies has become of critical importance, especially as various public and private sector organizations possessing huge databases with thematic and geographically referenced data begin to realize the huge potential of the information contained therein. Among those organizations are:
offices requiring analysis or dissemination of geo-referenced statistical data
public health services searching for explanations of disease clustering
environmental agencies assessing the impact of changing land-use patterns on climate change
geo-marketing companies doing customer segmentation based on spatial location.
Challenges in Spatial mining: Geospatial data repositories tend to be very large. Moreover, existing GIS datasets are often splintered into feature and attribute components that are conventionally archived in hybrid data management systems. Algorithmic requirements differ substantially for relational (attribute) data management and for topological (feature) data management.[39] Related to this is the range and diversity of geographic data formats, which present unique challenges. The digital geographic data revolution is creating new types of data formats beyond the traditional “vector” and “raster” formats. Geographic data repositories increasingly include ill-structured data, such as imagery and geo-referenced multi-media.[40]
There are several critical research challenges in geographic knowledge discovery and data mining. Miller and Han[41] offer the following list of emerging research topics in the field:
Developing and supporting geographic data warehouses (GDW’s): Spatial properties are often reduced to simple aspatial attributes in mainstream data warehouses. Creating an integrated GDW requires solving issues of spatial and temporal data interoperability – including differences in semantics, referencing systems, geometry, accuracy, and position.
Better spatio-temporal representations in geographic knowledge discovery: Current geographic knowledge discovery (GKD) methods generally use very simple representations of geographic objects and spatial relationships. Geographic data mining methods should recognize more complex geographic objects (i.e. lines and polygons) and relationships (i.e. non-Euclidean distances, direction, connectivity, and interaction through attributed geographic space such as terrain). Furthermore, the time dimension needs to be more fully integrated into these geographic representations and relationships.
Geographic knowledge discovery using diverse data types: GKD methods should be developed that can handle diverse data types beyond the traditional raster and vector models, including imagery and geo-referenced multimedia, as well as dynamic data types (video streams, animation).
Sensor data mining
Wireless sensor networks can be used for facilitating the collection of data for spatial data mining for a variety of applications such as air pollution monitoring.[42] A characteristic of such networks is that nearby sensor nodes monitoring an environmental feature typically register similar values. This kind of data redundancy due to the spatial correlation between sensor observations inspires the techniques for in-network data aggregation and mining. By measuring the spatial correlation between data sampled by different sensors, a wide class of specialized algorithms can be developed to develop more efficient spatial data mining algorithms.[43]
Visual data mining
In the process of turning from analogical into digital, large data sets have been generated, collected, and stored discovering statistical patterns, trends and information which is hidden in data, in order to build predictive patterns. Studies suggest visual data mining is faster and much more intuitive than is traditional data mining.[44][45][46] See also Computer Vision.
Music data mining
Data mining techniques, and in particular co-occurrence analysis, has been used to discover relevant similarities among music corpora (radio lists, CD databases) for the purpose of classifying music into genres in a more objective manner.[47]
Surveillance
Data mining has been used to stop terrorist programs under the U.S. government, including the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, Secure Flight (formerly known as Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II)), Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE),[48] and the Multi-state Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX).[49] These programs have been discontinued due to controversy over whether they violate the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, although many programs that were formed under them continue to be funded by different organizations or under different names.[50]
In the context of combating terrorism, two particularly plausible methods of data mining are “pattern mining” and “subject-based data mining”.
Pattern mining
“Pattern mining” is a data mining method that involves finding existing patterns in data. In this context patterns often means association rules. The original motivation for searching association rules came from the desire to analyze supermarket transaction data, that is, to examine customer behavior in terms of the purchased products. For example, an association rule “beer ⇒ potato chips (80%)” states that four out of five customers that bought beer also bought potato chips.
In the context of pattern mining as a tool to identify terrorist activity, the National Research Council provides the following definition: “Pattern-based data mining looks for patterns (including anomalous data patterns) that might be associated with terrorist activity — these patterns might be regarded as small signals in a large ocean of noise.”[51][52][53] Pattern Mining includes new areas such a Music Information Retrieval (MIR) where patterns seen both in the temporal and non temporal domains are imported to classical knowledge discovery search methods.
Subject-based data mining
“Subject-based data mining” is a data mining method involving the search for associations between individuals in data. In the context of combating terrorism, the National Research Council provides the following definition: “Subject-based data mining uses an initiating individual or other datum that is considered, based on other information, to be of high interest, and the goal is to determine what other persons or financial transactions or movements, etc., are related to that initiating datum.”[52]
Knowledge grid
Knowledge discovery “On the Grid” generally refers to conducting knowledge discovery in an open environment using grid computing concepts, allowing users to integrate data from various online data sources, as well make use of remote resources, for executing their data mining tasks. The earliest example was the Discovery Net,[54][55] developed at Imperial College London, which won the “Most Innovative Data-Intensive Application Award” at the ACM SC02 (Supercomputing 2002) conference and exhibition, based on a demonstration of a fully interactive distributed knowledge discovery application for a bioinformatics application. Other examples include work conducted by researchers at the University of Calabria, who developed a Knowledge Grid architecture for distributed knowledge discovery, based on grid computing.[56][57]
Reliability / Validity
Data mining can be misused, and can also unintentionally produce results which appear significant but which do not actually predict future behavior and cannot be reproduced on a new sample of data. See Data snooping, Data dredging.
Privacy concerns and ethics
Some people believe that data mining itself is ethically neutral.[58] While the term “data mining” has no ethical implications, it is often associated with the mining of information in relation to peoples’ behavior (ethical and otherwise). To be precise, data mining is a statistical method that is applied to a set of information (i.e. a data set). Associating these data sets with people is an extreme narrowing of the types of data that are available. Examples could range from a set of crash test data for passenger vehicles, to the performance of a group of stocks. These types of data sets make up a great proportion of the information available to be acted on by data mining methods, and rarely have ethical concerns associated with them. However, the ways in which data mining can be used can in some cases and contexts raise questions regarding privacy, legality, and ethics.[59] In particular, data mining government or commercial data sets for national security or law enforcement purposes, such as in the Total Information Awareness Program or in ADVISE, has raised privacy concerns.[60][61]
Data mining requires data preparation which can uncover information or patterns which may compromise confidentiality and privacy obligations. A common way for this to occur is through data aggregation. Data aggregation involves combining data together (possibly from various sources) in a way that facilitates analysis (but that also might make identification of private, individual-level data deducible or otherwise apparent).[62] This is not data mining per se, but a result of the preparation of data before – and for the purposes of – the analysis. The threat to an individual’s privacy comes into play when the data, once compiled, cause the data miner, or anyone who has access to the newly compiled data set, to be able to identify specific individuals, especially when the data were originally anonymous.
It is recommended that an individual is made aware of the following before data are collected:[62]
the purpose of the data collection and any (known) data mining projects
how the data will be used
who will be able to mine the data and use the data and their derivatives
the status of security surrounding access to the data
how collected data can be updated.
In America, privacy concerns have been addressed to some extent by the US Congress via the passage of regulatory controls such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The HIPAA requires individuals to give their “informed consent” regarding information they provide and its intended present and future uses. According to an article in Biotech Business Week’, “‘[i]n practice, HIPAA may not offer any greater protection than the longstanding regulations in the research arena,’ says the AAHC. More importantly, the rule’s goal of protection through informed consent is undermined by the complexity of consent forms that are required of patients and participants, which approach a level of incomprehensibility to average individuals.”[63] This underscores the necessity for data anonymity in data aggregation and mining practices.
Data may also be modified so as to become anonymous, so that individuals may not readily be identified.[62] However, even “de-identified”/”anonymized” data sets can potentially contain enough information to allow identification of individuals, as occurred when journalists were able to find several individuals based on a set of search histories that were inadvertently released by AOL.[64]
KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner, a user friendly and comprehensive data analytics framework.
ML-Flex: A software package that enables users to integrate with third-party machine-learning packages written in any programming language, execute classification analyses in parallel across multiple computing nodes, and produce HTML reports of classification results.
NLTK (Natural Language Toolkit): A suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for the Python language.
SenticNet API: A semantic and affective resource for opinion mining and sentiment analysis.
UIMA: The UIMA (Unstructured Information Management Architecture) is a component framework for analyzing unstructured content such as text, audio and video – originally developed by IBM.
Weka: A suite of machine learning software applications written in the Java programming language.
IBM DB2 Intelligent Miner: in-database data mining platform provided by IBM, with modeling, scoring and visualization services based on the SQL/MM – PMML framework.
LIONsolver: an integrated software application for data mining, business intelligence, and modeling that implements the Learning and Intelligent OptimizatioN (LION) approach.
Holsys One: Tool for the analysis of complex systems (sensors network, industrial plant) based on a reinterpretation of the IF-THEN clause in the sense of the theory of holons.
Marketplace surveys
Several researchers and organizations have conducted reviews of data mining tools and surveys of data miners. These identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of the software packages. They also provide an overview of the behaviors, preferences and views of data miners. Some of these reports include:
2011 Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery[65]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
~United States Constitution, Amendment IV
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
“Big Brother is Watching You.”
~George Orwell’s 1984
POWER IS NOT A MEANS, IT IS AN END
Maxine Waters Confirms Big Brother Database 2013 Foretells NSA Phone & Internet Spying
Glenn Beck:Govt Storing Citizen Cellphone& Internet Activity
Digital Blackwater: How the NSA Gives Private Contractors Control of the Surveillance State
Glenn Greenwald on How NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Helped Expose a “Massive Surveillance Apparatus”
What You Should Know About The New NSA Utah Data Center
Is Edward Snowden a Hero? A Debate With Journalist Chris Hedges & Law Scholar Geoffrey Stone
Spying On Americans By NSA Prism Collection Details – Rand Paul On Hannity
NSA is Spying on EVERYTHING you do. Phone calls and internet activity is being stored and monitored.
PRISM: Why the NSA is Mining Internet Data
Total Surveillance : N.S.A. data mining all computers, phone calls, internet, emails
CNET Update – Uproar over PRISM government surveillance
NSA Caught Spying on Americans’ Internet Use
Columnist exposes Obama surveillance
Meet Edward Snowden: NSA PRISM Whistleblower
Sky News interview w/ Julian Assange and JP Barlow RE: Prism and Edward Snowden
Complete News – Snowden leaks show NSA ‘routinely lies’ to Congress
Judge Napolitano On NSA Spying: Most Extraordinarily Broad Search Warrant Ever Issued In US History
Rand Paul Discusses The NSA’s Violation Of The Bill Of Rights On Yahoo News (6-6-13)
Rand Paul On NSA Spying: ‘I’m Going To Challenge This At The Supreme Court’ -
Ron Paul: NSA Seizing Phone Records Symptom of Failure of The State
NSA Constitutional Violations? – Judge Andrew Napolitano – Geraldo
Clever Denials Surrounding the NSA PRISM Piracy Scandal
Peter Eckersley from the Electronic Frontier Foundation stopped by to explain why Silicon Vally’s top tech companies are dancing around PRISM allegations. Interview recorded Friday June 7, 2013
NSA Surveillance – Does Obama Have ANY Credibility Left?
“In his remarks today defending the NSA programs gathering telephone records and mining Internet companies, Obama sounded a familiar refrain, saying he welcomes the “debate” over the proper balance between civil liberties and national security.”*
Obama gave a speech in defense of recently uncovered secret programs to wiretap and data-mine U.S. citizens almost indiscriminately, and Congress agrees. Do you believe his remarks that we NEED these programs? Would Obama agree with himself campaigning about his stance on civil rights? Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz, and John Iadarola discuss.
How PRISM Easily Gives Your Private Data Over to Big Brother
The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.”*
We’ve been assured by the president that the NSA’s PRISM program won’t affect “ordinary” U.S. citizens, but what is the criteria for deciding who gets their data mined and monitored? Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz, and John Iadarola (Host, TYT University) discuss the egregious reach of the Obama administration’s secret mass surveillance program.
The federal government is launching an expansive program dubbed “Perfect Citizen” to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies running such critical infrastructure as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants, according to people familiar with the program.The surveillance by the National Security Agency, the government’s chief eavesdropping agency, would rely on a set of sensors deployed in computer networks for critical infrastructure that would be triggered by unusual activity suggesting an impending cyber attack, though it wouldn’t persistently monitor the whole system, these people said.
Defense contractor Raytheon Corp. recently won a classified contract for the initial phase of the surveillance effort valued at up to $100 million, said a person familiar with the project.
An NSA spokeswoman said the agency had no information to provide on the program. A Raytheon spokesman declined to comment.
Some industry and government officials familiar with the program see Perfect Citizen as an intrusion by the NSA into domestic affairs, while others say it is an important program to combat an emerging security threat that only the NSA is equipped to provide.
“The overall purpose of the [program] is our Government…feel[s] that they need to insure the Public Sector is doing all they can to secure Infrastructure critical to our National Security,” said one internal Raytheon email, the text of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. “Perfect Citizen is Big Brother.”
Glenn Becks “SURVEILLANCE STATE” (Must Viewing)
NSA spying on All Americans Part 1
NSA spying on All Americans Part 2
How to Protect Yourself from The NSA
NSA Whistleblower Seeks Asylum in Iceland
Former CIA Officer: Officials Considering NSA Whistleblower’s Case Potential Chinese Espionage
Judge Jeanine Slams IRS, NSA and Obama for Expanding Surveillance Program – Opening Statement
James Bamford: Inside the NSA’s Largest and Most Expansive Secret Domestic Spy Center 1 of 2
James Bamford: Inside the NSA’s Largest and Most Expansive Secret Domestic Spy Center 2 of 2
NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post
“The NSA Is Lying”: U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails Says NSA Whistleblower
NSA whistleblower William Binney Keynote at HOPE Number Nine
U.S. v. Whistleblower Tom Drake
Tom Drake, a former NSA senior executive indicted last year for espionage after leaking to the media allegations that the nation’s largest intelligence organization had committed fraud, waste and abuse will appear in his first television interview. Scott Pelley reports.
Whistle Blower Threatened with 35 Years in Prison, Warns of Developing Tyranny
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Prevails in Unprecedented Obama Admin Crackdown
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake speaks at National Press Club – March 15, 2013
Part 2: Former NSA Employee Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack on Whistleblower Crackdown
The Police – Every Breath You Take
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. …”
Domestic Spying, Mainstream Source – NSA, Internet Spying, AT&T
Domestic Spying, Mainstream Source – NSA Copying Entire Internet
Glenn Becks “SURVEILLANCE STATE”
Barack Obama’s Surveillance Society
GLENN BECK ‘They Are Liars’
Glenn Greenwald: Challenging the US Surveillance State
2012.05.01 – GBTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – NSA Warning
Project Vigilant: Shadowy Spy Group Building Dossiers On Internet Users For Feds – Alex Jones Tv 3/3
Total Information Awareness – Social Networking Sites (mirror)
The Information Awareness Office (IAO) was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in January 2002 to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying surveillance and information technology to track and monitor terrorists and other asymmetric threats to national security, by achieving Total Information Awareness (TIA). This would be achieved by creating enormous computer databases to gather and store the personal information of everyone in the United States, including personal e-mails, social networks, credit card records, phone calls, medical records, and numerous other sources including, without any requirement for a search warrant.[1] This information would then be analyzed to look for suspicious activities, connections between individuals, and “threats”.[2] Additionally, the program included funding for biometric surveillance technologies that could identify and track individuals using surveillance cameras, and other methods.[2]
Following public criticism that the development and deployment of these technologies could potentially lead to a mass surveillance system, the IAO was defunded by Congress in 2003. However, several IAO projects continued to be funded, and merely run under different names.
ThinThread
ThinThread is the name of a project that the United StatesNational Security Agency (NSA) pursued during the 1990s, according to a May 17, 2006 article in The Baltimore Sun.[1] The program involved wiretapping and sophisticated analysis of the resulting data, but according to the article, the program was discontinued after the September 11, 2001 attacks due to the changes in priorities and the consolidation of U.S. intelligence authority. The “change in priority” consisted of the decision made by the director of NSA General Michael V. Hayden to go with a concept called Trailblazer, despite the fact that ThinThread was a working prototype that protected the privacy of U.S. citizens.
Redacted version of the DoD Inspector General audit, obtained through FOIA[4][5]
A group of former NSA workers — Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, and Thomas A. Drake, along with House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark (an expert on the NSA budget[6]) — believed the operational prototype system called ThinThread was a better solution than Trailblazer, which was just a concept on paper at the time. They complained to the DoD Inspector General office in 2002 about mismanagement and the waste of taxpayer money at the NSA surrounding the Trailblazer program. In 2007 the FBI raided the homes of these people, an evolution of President Bush’s crackdown on whistleblowers and “leaks” after the New York Times disclosed a separate program (see NSA warrantless surveillance controversy). In 2010, one of the people who had helped the IG in the ensuing investigation, NSA official Thomas Andrews Drake, was charged with espionage,[6][7] part of the Obama administration’s crackdown on whistleblowers and “leaks”.[7][8][9] The original charges against him were later dropped and he pled to a misdemeanor.
The result of the DoD IG complaint was a 2004 audit report that was released under FOIA in 2011.[5] Although highly redacted, the report contained significant criticisms of Trailblazer, and included some relatively minor criticisms of ThinThread, for example, citing a low “quality of service and support” from the ThinThread program team, a lack of documentation, a lack of a configuration management system, and a lack of a trouble ticket system. However, “The findings that led to the recommendations would not have prevented the successful deployment of THINTHREAD … the recommendations were made to improve the operational efficiency of THINTHREAD after it was deployed …”[10]
Technical details
The program would have used a technique of encrypting sensitive privacy information in order to comply with legal concerns, and would have automatically identified potential threats. The sources of the data for this program would have included “massive phone and e-mail data,” but the extent of this information is not clear. Only once a threat was discovered, would the data be decrypted for analysis by agents.[11]
ThinThread would have bundled together four cutting-edge surveillance tools.:[citation needed]
Used more sophisticated methods of sorting through massive phone and e-mail data to identify suspect communications.
Identified U.S. phone numbers and other communications data and encrypted them to ensure caller privacy.
Employed an automated auditing system to monitor how analysts handled the information, in order to prevent misuse and improve efficiency.
Analyzed the data to identify relationships between callers and chronicle their contacts. Only when evidence of a potential threat had been developed would analysts be able to request decryption of the records.
Intelligence experts describe as rigorous testing of ThinThread in 1998, the project succeeded at each task with high marks. For example, its ability to sort through massive amounts of data to find threat-related communications far surpassed the existing system. It also was able to rapidly separate and encrypt U.S.-related communications to ensure privacy.[1]
The Pentagon report concluded that ThinThread’s ability to sort through data in 2001 was far superior to that of another NSA system in place in 2004, and that the program should be launched and enhanced. ThinThread was designed to address two key challenges: One, the NSA had more information than it could digest, and, two, increasingly its targets were in contact with people in the United States whose calls the agency was prohibited from monitoring.[citation needed]
Trailblazer Project had more political support internally because it was initiated by Michael Hayden when he first arrived at the NSA.[citation needed]
NSA’s existing system for data-sorting has produced a database clogged with corrupted and useless information. The mass collection of relatively unsorted data, combined with system flaws erroneously flag people as suspect, has produced numerous false leads, draining analyst resources. NSA leads have resulted in numerous dead ends.[citation needed]
NSA dropped the component that monitored for abuse of records. It not only tracked the use of the database, but hunted for the most effective analysis techniques, and some analysts thought it would be used to judge their performance. Within the NSA, the primary advocate for the ThinThread program was Richard Taylor. Taylor has retired from the NSA. The strength of ThinThread’s approach is that by encrypting information on Americans, it is legal regardless of whether the country is at war.[citation needed]
ThinThread “was designed very carefully from a legal point of view, so that even in non-wartime, you could have done it legitimately.”[12]
End of the project
The project was ended after successful testing by General Michael Hayden, and while the privacy elements were not retained, the analysis technology is reported to be the underlying basis of current NSA analysis techniques.
“They basically just disabled the [privacy] safeguards.”[11] [That quote does not appear in the link]
Some anonymous NSA officials told Hosenball of Newsweek that the ThinThread program, like Trailblazer, was a “wasteful failure”.[6]
Drake was interviewed on The Daily Show on August 6, 2012 about his charges and the program with his lawyer.
Trailblazer was a United States National Security Agency (NSA) program intended to develop a capability to analyze data carried on communications networks like the Internet. It was intended to track entities using communication methods such as cell phones and e-mail.[1][2] It ran over budget, failed to accomplish critical goals, and was cancelled.
NSA whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer Diane Roark complained to the Department of Defense’s Inspector General (IG) about waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and the fact that a successful operating prototype existed, but was ignored when the Trailblazer program was launched. The complaint was accepted by the IG and an investigation began that lasted until mid-2005 when the final results were issued. The results were largely hidden, as the report given to the public was heavily (90%) redacted, while the original report was heavily classified, thus restricting the ability of most people to see it.
The people who filed the IG complaint were later raided by armed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. While the Government threatened to prosecute all who signed the IG report, it ultimately chose to pursue an NSA Senior Executive — Thomas Andrews Drake — who helped with the report internally to NSA and who had spoken with a reporter about the project. Drake was later charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. His defenders claimed this was retaliation.[3][4] The charges against him were later dropped, and he agreed to plead guilty to having committed a misdemeanor under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, something that Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project (which helped represent him) called an “act of civil disobedience“.[5]
In 2002 a consortium led by Science Applications International Corporation was chosen by the NSA to produce a technology demonstration platform in a contract worth $280 million. Project participants included Boeing, Computer Sciences Corporation, and Booz Allen Hamilton. The project was overseen by NSA Deputy Director William B. Black, Jr., an NSA worker who had gone to SAIC, and then been re-hired back to NSA by NSA director Michael Hayden in 2000.[6][7][8] SAIC had also hired a former NSA director to its management; Bobby Inman.[9] SAIC also participated in the concept definition phase of Trailblazer.[10][11]
The NSA Inspector General issued a report on Trailblazer that “discussed improperly based contract cost increases, non-conformance in the management of the Statement of Work, and excessive labor rates for contractor personnel.” [13]
In 2004 the DoD IG report criticized the program (see the Whistleblowing section below). It said that the “NSA ‘disregarded solutions to urgent national security needs’” and “that TRAILBLAZER was poorly executed and overly expensive …” Several contractors for the project were worried about cooperating with DoD’s audit for fear of “management reprisal.”[5] The Director of NSA “nonconcurred” with several statements in the IG audit, and the report contains a discussion of those disagreements.[14]
In 2005, NSA director Michael Hayden told a Senate hearing that the Trailblazer program was several hundred million dollars over budget and years behind schedule.[15] In 2006 the program was shut down,[3] after having cost billions of US Dollars.[16] Several anonymous NSA sources told Hosenball of Newsweek later on that the project was a “wasteful failure”.[17]
The new project replacing Trailblazer is called Turbulence.[3]
Whistleblowing
According to a 2011 New Yorker article, in the early days of the project several NSA employees met with Diane S Roark, an NSA budget expert on the House Intelligence Committee. They aired their grievances about Trailblazer. In response, NSA director Michael Hayden sent out a memo saying that “individuals, in a session with our congressional overseers, took a position in direct opposition to one that we had corporately decided to follow … Actions contrary to our decisions will have a serious adverse effect on our efforts to transform N.S.A., and I cannot tolerate them.”[3]
In September 2002, several people filed a complaint with the Department of Defense IG’s office regarding problems with Trailblazer: they included Roark (aforementioned), ex-NSA senior analysts Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Senior Computer Systems Analyst Ed Loomis, who had quit the agency over concerns about its mismanagement of acquisition and allegedly illegal domestic spying.[3][18][19] A major source for the report was NSA senior officer Thomas Andrews Drake. Drake had been complaining to his superiors for some time about problems at the agency, and about the superiority of ThinThread over Trailblazer, for example, at protecting privacy.[19] Drake gave info to DoD during its investigation of the matter.[19] Roark also went to her boss at the House committee, Porter Goss, about problems, but was rebuffed.[20] She also attempted to contact William Renquist, the Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time.[19]
Drake’s own boss, Maureen Baginski, the third-highest officer at NSA, quit partly over concerns about the legality of its behavior.[3]
In 2003, the NSA IG (not the DoD IG)[19] had declared Trailblazer an expensive failure.[21] It had cost more than $1 billion.[8][22][23]
In 2005, the DoD IG produced a report on the result of its investigation of the complaint of Roark and the others in 2002. This report was not released to the public, but it has been described as very negative.[18] Mayer writes that it hastened the closure of Trailblazer, which was at the time in trouble from congress for being over budget.[3]
In November 2005, Drake contacted Siobhan Gorman, a reporter of The Baltimore Sun.[24][17][25] Gorman wrote several articles about problems at the NSA, including articles on Trailblazer. This series got her an award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[17]
In 2005, President George W. Bush ordered the FBI to find whoever had disclosed information about the NSA electronic surveillance program and its disclosure in the New York Times. Eventually, this investigation led to the people who had filed the 2002 DoD IG request, even though they had nothing to do with the New York Times disclosure. In 2007, the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe were raided by armed FBI agents. According to Mayer, Binney claims the FBI pointed guns at his head and that of his wife. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.[3][18] None of these people were ever charged with any crime. Four months later, Drake was raided in November 2007 and his computers and documents were confiscated.
In 2010 Drake was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of obstructing justice, providing false information, and violating the Espionage Act of 1917,[17][26][27] part of President Barack Obama‘s crackdown on whistleblowers and “leakers”.[24][17][28][18] The government tried to get Roark to testify to a conspiracy, and made similar requests to Drake, offering him a plea bargain. They both refused.[3]
In June 2011, the ten original charges against Drake were dropped, instead he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.[5]
ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement[1] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, referred to by a number of abbreviations, including AUSCANNZUKUS[1] and Five Eyes).[2][3] It has also been described as the only software system which controls the download and dissemination of the intercept of commercial satellite trunk communications.[4]
ECHELON, according to information in the European Parliament document, “On the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system)” was created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early 1960s.[5]
The system has been reported in a number of public sources.[6] Its capabilities and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001,[5] and by author James Bamford in his books on the National Security Agency of the United States.[4] The European Parliament stated in its report that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of information presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links.[5]
Bamford describes the system as the software controlling the collection and distribution of civilian telecommunications traffic conveyed using communication satellites, with the collection being undertaken by ground stations located in the footprint of the downlink leg.
The UKUSA intelligence community was assessed by the European Parliament (EP) in 2000 to include the signals intelligence agencies of each of the member states:
The EP report concluded that it seemed likely that ECHELON is a method of sorting captured signal traffic, rather than a comprehensive analysis tool.[5]
Capabilities
The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[5] During World War II and through the 1950s, high frequency (“short wave”) radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication,[7] and could be intercepted at great distances.[5] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications. The report to the European Parliament of 2001 states: “If UKUSA states operate listening stations in the relevant regions of the earth, in principle they can intercept all telephone, fax and data traffic transmitted via such satellites.”[5]
The role of satellites in point-to-point voice and data communications has largely been supplanted by fiber optics; in 2006, 99% of the world’s long-distance voice and data traffic was carried over optical-fiber.[8] The proportion of international communications accounted for by satellite links is said to have decreased substantially over the past few years[when?] in Central Europe to an amount between 0.4% and 5%.[5] Even in less-developed parts of the world, communications satellites are used largely for point-to-multipoint applications, such as video.[9] Thus, the majority of communications can no longer be intercepted by earth stations; they can only be collected by tapping cables and intercepting line-of-sight microwave signals, which is possible only to a limited extent.[5]
One method of interception is to place equipment at locations where fiber optic communications are switched. For the Internet, much of the switching occurs at relatively few sites. There have been reports of one such intercept site, Room 641A, in the United States. In the past[when?] much Internet traffic was routed through the U.S. and the UK, but this has changed; for example, in 2000, 95% of intra-German Internet communications was routed via the DE-CIXInternet exchange point in Frankfurt.[5] A comprehensive worldwide surveillance network is possible only if clandestine intercept sites are installed in the territory of friendly nations, and/or if local authorities cooperate. The report to the European Parliament points out that interception of private communications by foreign intelligence services is not necessarily limited to the U.S. or British foreign intelligence services.[5]
Most reports on ECHELON focus on satellite interception; testimony before the European Parliament indicated that separate but similar UK-US systems are in place to monitor communication through undersea cables, microwave transmissions and other lines.[10]
Controversy
Intelligence monitoring of citizens, and their communications, in the area covered by the AUSCANNZUKUS security agreement has caused concern. British journalist Duncan Campbell and New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager asserted in the 1990s that the United States was exploiting ECHELON traffic for industrial espionage, rather than military and diplomatic purposes.[10] Examples alleged by the journalists include the gear-less wind turbine technology designed by the German firm Enercon[5][11] and the speech technology developed by the Belgian firm Lernout & Hauspie.[12] An article in the US newspaper Baltimore Sun reported in 1995 that European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the US National Security Agency reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[13][14]
In 2001, the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the US intelligence agencies.[5]
Bamford provides an alternative view, highlighting that legislation prohibits the use of intercepted communications for commercial purposes, although he does not elaborate on how intercepted communications are used as part of an all-source intelligence process.
Hardware
According to its website, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) is “a high technology organization … on the frontiers of communications and data processing”. In 1999 the Australian Senate Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was told by Professor Desmond Ball that the Pine Gap facility was used as a ground station for a satellite-based interception network. The satellites were said to be large radio dishes between 20 and 100 meters in diameter in geostationary orbits.[citation needed] The original purpose of the network was to monitor the telemetry from 1970s Soviet weapons, air defence radar, communications satellites and ground based microwave communications.[15]
Name
The European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System stated: “It seems likely, in view of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including American sources, that its name is in fact ECHELON, although this is a relatively minor detail.”[5] The U.S. intelligence community uses many code names (see, for example, CIA cryptonym).
Former NSA employee Margaret Newsham claims that she worked on the configuration and installation of software that makes up the ECHELON system while employed at Lockheed Martin, for whom she worked from 1974 to 1984 in Sunnyvale, California, US, and in Menwith Hill, England, UK.[16] At that time, according to Newsham, the code name ECHELON was NSA’s term for the computer network itself. Lockheed called it P415. The software programs were called SILKWORTH and SIRE. A satellite named VORTEX intercepted communications. An image available on the internet of a fragment apparently torn from a job description shows Echelon listed along with several other code names.[17]
Ground stations
The 2001 European Parliamentary (EP) report[5] lists several ground stations as possibly belonging to, or participating in, the ECHELON network. These include:
Likely satellite intercept stations
The following stations are listed in the EP report (p. 54 ff) as likely to have, or to have had, a role in intercepting transmissions from telecommunications satellites:
Segment 4: No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~ Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
National Security Agency
Obama the Hypocrite on NSA, FISA, Patriot Act
Pres. Obama’s response to the 2013 NSA PRISM spying scandal
Do Politicians All Agree Wiretapping Is In the Peoples Interest?
Glenn Becks “SURVEILLANCE STATE” (Must Viewing)
Glenn Greenwald Details ‘Menacing’ Reach Of NSA’s Invasion Of Google, Facebook, Apple Servers
6/6/13 Krauthammer on the NSA-Verizon scandal
NSA tracking Verizon phone calls
Reporter who broke the story tells CNN’s Jake Tapper the government is engaged in ‘unthinkable types of surveillance.’
A Massive Surveillance State: Glenn Greenwald Exposes Massive NSA Program Collecting Calls, Emails
Judge Napolitano On NSA Spying: Most Extraordinarily Broad Search Warrant Ever Issued In US History
US admits monitoring internet firms’ servers [1]
US admits monitoring internet firms’ servers [2]
NSA Admits Tapping Google And Facebook Servers
Ted Cruz Fires At Obama Administration ‘They View Constitution As A Pesky Obstruction’
NSA Spying on All Americans Part 1
NSA spying on All Americans Part 2
Dershowitz: Don’t overreact to NSA acts
NSA Secretly Collected Millions of Phone Records
he National Security Agency has secretly collected data about millions of domestic and international calls by Verizon customers. Jeffrey Brown gets debate on the privacy and civil liberty concerns from Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies and former NSA official Col. Cedric Leighton.
NSA Whistleblowers: “All U.S. Citizens” Targeted By Surveillance Program, Not Just Verizon Customers
Chocking Revelation!!! – Chaos In The Federal Government – NSA, Can You Hear Me Now? – O’Reilly
Government Data Mining: Impossible to Escape?
Big Brother & Your Money – Obama Admin Plans To Give Full Access To Intel, To American’s Finance
NSA Secretly Storing Verizon Calls: Report – White House Calls Program ‘Critcal’
Complete News – NSA Collects Phone Records on Millions
NSA Spying: Sweeping US data-mining program revealed
NSA Spying On Americans Verizon – Obama House Scandals- Newt Gingrich – Hannity
Shep Smith And Judge Napolitano Rail Against NSA Abuse: ‘We’re Not Letting This Go.’
Obama Orders Verizon to Spy on Americans
BREAKING! Obama’s NSA Collecting Phone Records Of Millions Of Americans Daily
“The NSA Is Lying”: U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails Says NSA Whistleblower
Inside NSA – The National Security Agency – Documentary
James Bamford: Inside the NSA’s Largest Secret Domestic Spy Center
Whistle Blower Threatened with 35 Years in Prison, Warns of Developing Tyranny
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake speaks at National Press Club – March 15, 2013
Jon Stewart Tears Apart Obama, DOJ For Prosecuting Whistleblowers And Potheads But Not Bankers
National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance
NSA whistleblower William Binney Keynote at HOPE Number Nine
NSA whistleblower exposes Obama’s secrets
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Prevails in Unprecedented Obama Admin Crackdown
Obama’s NSA: Close to Knowing All About Us
What You Should Know About The New NSA Utah Data Center
The Utah Data Center
NSA Building Colossal New Data Center: Spying on Americans
NSA Utah Data Spy Center Revealed
DEA pushes for warrantless access to your medical records.
Glenn Greenwald on the High Cost of Government Secrecy
Glenn Greenwald on Domestic Surveillance: NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Controversy (2006)
Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. In August 2012, he left Salon.com, where he was a columnist, to become a columnist at the US edition of The Guardian newspaper, to which he has contributed since June 2011. Politically, Greenwald described himself as independent when he first began writing about politics in 2005,[6] though others now see him as a liberal or progressive.
Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator before becoming a contributor (columnist and blogger) to Salon.com, where he focused on political and legal topics.[12] He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times,[13][14][15] the Los Angeles Times,[16] The American Conservative,[17] The National Interest,[18] and In These Times.[19][20]
Greenwald has written four books, three of which have been New York Times bestsellers: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006); A Tragic Legacy (2007), and With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, released in October 2011. He also wrote Great American Hypocrites (2008).
Greenwald has received awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism, in 2009,[21] and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary.[22] Greenwald is a frequent speaker on college campuses, including Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, UCLA School of Law, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Maryland and others. He also appears on various radio and television programs as a guest political pundit.
Challenging the Surveillance State – Glenn Greenwald
122712 – Sen. Rand Paul Discusses FISA Amendment
Rand Paul: ‘Appalled’ At NSA’s Violation Of The Bill Of Rights – Yahoo News 6/6/2013
NSA taps in to internet giants’ systems to mine user data, secret files reveal
• Top secret PRISM program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Facebook and Apple
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007
Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill
The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.
The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers.
Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.
In a statement, Google said: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”
Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. “If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge,” one said.
An Apple spokesman said it had “never heard” of PRISM.
The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.
The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.
It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.
Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.
The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.
Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.
It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.
Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.
The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies.
Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users’ communications under US law, but the PRISM program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies’ servers. The NSA document notes the operations have “assistance of communications providers in the US”.
The revelation also supports concerns raised by several US senators during the renewal of the Fisa Amendments Act in December 2012, who warned about the scale of surveillance the law might enable, and shortcomings in the safeguards it introduces.
When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA’s inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.
A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.
The document is recent, dating to April 2013. Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA, which prides itself on maintaining a high level of secrecy.
The PRISM program allows the NSA, the world’s largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders.
With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users.
The presentation claims PRISM was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a “home-field advantage” due to housing much of the internet’s architecture. But the presentation claimed “Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage” because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US.
“Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them,” the presentation claimed. “It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all.”
The new measures introduced in the FAA redefines “electronic surveillance” to exclude anyone “reasonably believed” to be outside the USA – a technical change which reduces the bar to initiating surveillance.
The act also gives the director of national intelligence and the attorney general power to permit obtaining intelligence information, and indemnifies internet companies against any actions arising as a result of co-operating with authorities’ requests.
In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA.
The document also shows the FBI acts as an intermediary between other agencies and the tech companies, and stresses its reliance on the participation of US internet firms, claiming “access is 100% dependent on ISP provisioning”.
In the document, the NSA hails the PRISM program as “one of the most valuable, unique and productive accesses for NSA”.
It boasts of what it calls “strong growth” in its use of the PRISM program to obtain communications. The document highlights the number of obtained communications increased in 2012 by 248% for Skype – leading the notes to remark there was “exponential growth in Skype reporting; looks like the word is getting out about our capability against Skype”. There was also a 131% increase in requests for Facebook data, and 63% for Google.
The NSA document indicates that it is planning to add Dropbox as a PRISM provider. The agency also seeks, in its words, to “expand collection services from existing providers”.
The revelations echo fears raised on the Senate floor last year during the expedited debate on the renewal of the FAA powers which underpin the PRISM program, which occurred just days before the act expired.
Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware specifically warned that the secrecy surrounding the various surveillance programs meant there was no way to know if safeguards within the act were working.
“The problem is: we here in the Senate and the citizens we represent don’t know how well any of these safeguards actually work,” he said.
“The law doesn’t forbid purely domestic information from being collected. We know that at least one Fisa court has ruled that the surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can’t say and average Americans can’t know.”
Other senators also raised concerns. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted, without success, to find out any information on how many phone calls or emails had been intercepted under the program.
When the law was enacted, defenders of the FAA argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA’s inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.
When the NSA reviews a communication it believes merits further investigation, it issues what it calls a “report”. According to the NSA, “over 2,000 PRISM-based reports” are now issued every month. There were 24,005 in 2012, a 27% increase on the previous year.
In total, more than 77,000 intelligence reports have cited the PRISM program.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, that it was astonishing the NSA would even ask technology companies to grant direct access to user data.
“It’s shocking enough just that the NSA is asking companies to do this,” he said. “The NSA is part of the military. The military has been granted unprecedented access to civilian communications.
“This is unprecedented militarisation of domestic communications infrastructure. That’s profoundly troubling to anyone who is concerned about that separation.”
A senior administration official said in a statement: “The Guardian and Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law does not allow the targeting of any US citizen or of any person located within the United States.
“The program is subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. It involves extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-US persons outside the US are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about US persons.
“This program was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.
“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.
“The Government may only use Section 702 to acquire foreign intelligence information, which is specifically, and narrowly, defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This requirement applies across the board, regardless of the nationality of the target.”
Additional reporting by James Ball and Dominic Rushe
NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily
Glenn Greenwald
Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama
The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.
The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.
The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.
Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.
The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government’s domestic spying powers.
Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.
The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.
The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.
The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.
“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.
The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of “all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls”.
The order directs Verizon to “continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order”. It specifies that the records to be produced include “session identifying information”, such as “originating and terminating number”, the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and “comprehensive communication routing information”.
The information is classed as “metadata”, or transactional information, rather than communications, and so does not require individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such “metadata” is not limited to the aforementioned items. A 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.
While the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.
It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.
The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration’s surveillance activities.
For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on “secret legal interpretations” to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be “stunned” to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.
Because those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.
Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained: “We’ve certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of ‘relevance’ to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized suspicion.” The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does precisely that.
The law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration’s extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.
In a letter to attorney general Eric Holder last year, they argued that “there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows.”
“We believe,” they wrote, “that most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted” the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act.
Privacy advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect and store unlimited “metadata” is a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens’ communications activities. Those records enable the government to know the identity of every person with whom an individual communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and their location at the time of the communication.
Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual’s network of associations and communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.
The NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4 October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic telephone, internet and email records. A furore erupted in 2006 when USA Today reported that the NSA had “been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth” and was “using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.” Until now, there has been no indication that the Obama administration implemented a similar program.
These recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA’s mission has transformed from an agency exclusively devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that focuses increasingly on domestic communications. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the agency’s focus on domestic activities.
In the mid-1970s, Congress, for the first time, investigated the surveillance activities of the US government. Back then, the mandate of the NSA was that it would never direct its surveillance apparatus domestically.
At the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned: “The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter.”
Additional reporting by Ewen MacAskill and Spencer Ackerman
Verizon forced to hand over telephone data – full court ruling
The US government is collecting the phone records of millions of US customers of Verizon under a top secret court order. Read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order
DNI Statement on Recent Unauthorized Disclosures of Classified Information
Thursday, June 06, 2013
June 6, 2013
DNI Statement on Recent Unauthorized Disclosures of Classified Information
The highest priority of the Intelligence Community is to work within the constraints of law to collect, analyze and understand information related to potential threats to our national security.
The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation.
The article omits key information regarding how a classified intelligence collection program is used to prevent terrorist attacks and the numerous safeguards that protect privacy and civil liberties.
I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use. In order to provide a more thorough understanding of the program, I have directed that certain information related to the “business records” provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be declassified and immediately released to the public.
The following important facts explain the purpose and limitations of the program:
The judicial order that was disclosed in the press is used to support a sensitive intelligence collection operation, on which members of Congress have been fully and repeatedly briefed. The classified program has been authorized by all three branches of the Government.
Although this program has been properly classified, the leak of one order, without any context, has created a misleading impression of how it operates. Accordingly, we have determined to declassify certain limited information about this program.
The program does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone’s phone calls. The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber. The only type of information acquired under the Court’s order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.
The collection is broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications. Acquiring this information allows us to make connections related to terrorist activities over time. The FISA Court specifically approved this method of collection as lawful, subject to stringent restrictions.
The information acquired has been part of an overall strategy to protect the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it may assist counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities.
There is a robust legal regime in place governing all activities conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which ensures that those activities comply with the Constitution and laws and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties. The program at issue here is conducted under authority granted by Congress and is authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). By statute, the Court is empowered to determine the legality of the program.
By order of the FISC, the Government is prohibited from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata acquired under the program. All information that is acquired under this program is subject to strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and handling. The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization. Only specially cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in the Court-approved procedures may even access the records.
All information that is acquired under this order is subject to strict restrictions on handling and is overseen by the Department of Justice and the FISA Court. Only a very small fraction of the records are ever reviewed because the vast majority of the data is not responsive to any terrorism-related query.
The Court reviews the program approximately every 90 days. DOJ conducts rigorous oversight of the handling of the data received to ensure the applicable restrictions are followed. In addition, DOJ and ODNI regularly review the program implementation to ensure it continues to comply with the law.
The Patriot Act was signed into law in October 2001 and included authority to compel production of business records and other tangible things relevant to an authorized national security investigation with the approval of the FISC. This provision has subsequently been reauthorized over the course of two Administrations – in 2006 and in 2011. It has been an important investigative tool that has been used over the course of two Administrations, with the authorization and oversight of the FISC and the Congress.
Discussing programs like this publicly will have an impact on the behavior of our adversaries and make it more difficult for us to understand their intentions. Surveillance programs like this one are consistently subject to safeguards that are designed to strike the appropriate balance between national security interests and civil liberties and privacy concerns. I believe it is important to address the misleading impression left by the article and to reassure the American people that the Intelligence Community is committed to respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all American citizens.
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
US intelligence chief denounces release of information
Spencer Ackerman
Revealing huge surveillance programme risks damaging US national security, James Clapper says
Disclosure of the massive surveillance of phone records and internet communications risks “long-lasting and irreversible harm” to US national security, the director of national intelligence says.
Late on Thursday night US time James Clapper issued a bullet-point defence of the surveillance programs disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post, saying they contained “numerous safeguards that protect privacy and civil liberties”. To correct the “misleading impression left in the article” – apparently a reference to the Guardian’s original story – Clapper said he approved the declassification of his defence of the National Security Agency’s collection of every phone record from millions of Verizon customers.
“There is a robust legal regime in place governing all activities conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Clapper wrote, “which ensures that those activities comply with the Constitution and laws and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties. The program at issue here is conducted under authority granted by Congress and is authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). By statute, the Court is empowered to determine the legality of the program.”
Clapper attacked the disclosures by the Guardian and the Washington Post as “reprehensible” for risking “important protections for the security of Americans”.
A judge for Fisa Court, as the surveillance body is known, reviewed and approved the surveillance. But critics have pointed out that the Fisa Court has almost never, in its 35-year history, rejected a US surveillance request – a perception of docility that prompted its presiding judge, Reggie Walton, to defend the court’s integrity in a statement to the Guardian on Thursday.
Clapper said the Fisa Court had established procedures preventing the government “indiscriminately sifting” through the collected phone records. “The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organisation,” Clapper said. “Only a small fraction of the records are ever reviewed” by “specifically cleared counterterrorism personnel”.
At the same time, Clapper said national security required the NSA to collect all the Verizon subscriber data, even if not all the data would be analysed, and regardless of any evidence to link the phone records to crime, foreign espionage or terrorism. On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that other telecoms received similar orders from the government for the subscriber data.
“The collection is broad in scope,” Clapper wrote, “because more narrow collection would limit our ability to protect the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it may assist counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities.”
Yet the collection does not need to be tied to terrorism to occur – something that alarmed one Democrat senator, Jeff Merkley. He told the Guardian on Thursday that the sweeping “barn-door” collection appeared to violate the provision of the Patriot Act purportedly authorising it.
“We can’t really propose changes to the law unless we know what the words mean as interpreted by the court,” Merkley said.
Clapper reiterated a point the Obama administration made on Thursday in its response to the Guardian’s story: the NSA’s dragnet of Verizon phone records, which the Fisa Court authorised until 19 July, does not include the “content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber”. Yet the so-called “metadata” – phone numbers, duration of calls – can be combined with publicly available information to easily determine subscriber identity. And a second NSA surveillance effort, disclosed by the Guardian on Thursday and codenamed PRISM, collects the content of communications provided through Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and five other large internet companies.
Clapper came under criticism on Thursday for statements to Democrat senator Ron Wyden that appeared to be contradicted by the revelations of the surveillance programs. Asked in March whether “millions” of Americans had “any kind of [their] data” collected by the US government, Clapper replied: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”
He has denied misleading Congress, but Clapper’s statement on Thursday suggested the collection of Americans’ phone records was deliberate, methodical and institutionalised.
“Discussing programs like this publicly,” Clapper concluded, “will have an impact on the behavior of our adversaries and make it more difficult for us to understand their intentions.”
Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.
Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.
The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.
Based on an article in The Guardian published Wednesday night, we now know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency used the Patriot Act to obtain a secret warrant to compel Verizon’s business services division to turn over data on every single call that went through its system. We know that this particular order was a routine extension of surveillance that has been going on for years, and it seems very likely that it extends beyond Verizon’s business division. There is every reason to believe the federal government has been collecting every bit of information about every American’s phone calls except the words actually exchanged in those calls.
Articles in The Washington Post and The Guardian described a process by which the N.S.A. is also able to capture Internet communications directly from the servers of nine leading American companies. The articles raised questions about whether the N.S.A. separated foreign communications from domestic ones.
A senior administration official quoted in The Times online Thursday afternoon about the Verizon order offered the lame observation that the information does not include the name of any caller, as though there would be the slightest difficulty in matching numbers to names. He said the information “has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats,” because it allows the government “to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.”
That is a vital goal, but how is it served by collecting everyone’s call data? The government can easily collect phone records (including the actual content of those calls) on “known or suspected terrorists” without logging every call made. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was expanded in 2008 for that very purpose.
Essentially, the administration is saying that without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to know whom Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, for how long they talk and from where.
This sort of tracking can reveal a lot of personal and intimate information about an individual. To casually permit this surveillance — with the American public having no idea that the executive branch is now exercising this power — fundamentally shifts power between the individual and the state, and it repudiates constitutional principles governing search, seizure and privacy.
The defense of this practice offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd. She said on Thursday that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the vice chairman of the committee, said the surveillance has “proved meritorious, because we have gathered significant information on bad guys and only on bad guys over the years.”But what assurance do we have of that, especially since Ms. Feinstein went on to say that she actually did not know how the data being collected was used?
The senior administration official quoted in The Times said the executive branch internally reviews surveillance programs to ensure that they “comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties.”
That’s no longer good enough. Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press. Even then, it took him more than a year and a half to acknowledge the killing, and he is still keeping secret the protocol by which he makes such decisions.
We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the surveillance policy of the George W. Bush administration “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”
Two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, have raised warnings about the government’s overbroad interpretation of its surveillance powers. “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act,” they wrote last year in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. “As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”
On Thursday, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, said that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds by obtaining a secret order to collect phone log records from millions of Americans.
“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the F.B.I.’s interpretation of this legislation,” he said in a statement. “While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.” He added: “Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”
Stunning use of the act shows, once again, why it needs to be sharply curtailed if not repealed.
To find the legal authority underpinning the top-secret Prism surveillance program, we once again turn to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Law Blog on Thursday wrote about the statute allowing the government to compel the production of “business records” relevant to a foreign intelligence probe.
Another statute, Section 702 of FISA, provides procedures for spying on the online communication of foreigners or groups located outside our borders.
In a statement Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said Section 702 “cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.”
But the statute passed by Congress in 2008 leaves quite a bit of wiggle room, according to legal experts. Here are some potential loopholes:
‘Reasonably believed’: The Attorney General and the intelligence director must certify to a special surveillance judge that targets are “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” How certain is that? According to the Washington Post, that means a 51% confidence, similar to the preponderance of evidence standard.
“Given the scale of collection here, even if [the error rate] were only a few percent, we’d still be talking about a huge number of American communications,” Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, told Law Blog.
Also, the government doesn’t have to be 51% sure that the target isn’t an American citizen nor a legal resident. The government just has to assert that it’s not intentionally targeting a citizen or legal resident.
Who’s the target? There’s another ambiguity around the notion of a target. It’s unclear whether NSA interprets the law to allow the government to tap into accounts belonging to Americans as long as the surveillance is broadly directed at a foreign group, like Al Qaeda, according to Mr. Sanchez.
Optional verifying: The targeting procedures are subject to judicial review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but “the court is not required to look behind the assertions made in the certifications” submitted by the attorney and the national intelligence director, according to an analysis of the law prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan and independent group that advises Congress on legal matters.
Exigent circumstances: In the absence of a court order, the attorney general and intelligence director may also authorize targeting if they determine that “exigent circumstances exist which would cause the loss or delay of important national security intelligence, according to the Congressional Research Service. The government has seven days to submit the “certification” paperwork to the court, but it can move forward with the spying during that week.
“They’re assuring us that there are secret procedures in place to protect privacy, but there’s never been a public evaluation of them,” Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, told Law Blog. “We’re disinclined to take their word for it knowing that they are doing things like collecting everybody’s telephone records.”
Mr. Clapper in his statement said that information collected under Prism “is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.”
Mr. Clapper also said in his statement that “activities authorized” by the law “involve extensive procedures . . . to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted . . . ”
A spokesperson for Mr. Clapper’s office did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA” Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C.ch. 36) is a United States law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers” (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. The law has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.
Subsequent amendments
The Act was amended in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.
An overhaul of the bill, the Protect America Act of 2007 was signed into law on August 5, 2007.[2] It expired on February 17, 2008.
The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government’s covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the “surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”. If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.
Bush administration warrantless domestic wiretapping program
The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article[5] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002; a subsequent Bloomberg article[6] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000.
Scope and limits
For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, “foreign powers” means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of U.S. persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2), and (3)).
The statute includes limits on how it may be applied to U.S. persons. A “U.S. person” includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the United States.
The code defines “foreign intelligence information” to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.[7]
In sum, a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance must be to obtain intelligence in the United States on foreign powers (such as enemy agents or spies) or individuals connected to international terrorist groups. To use FISA, the government must show probable cause that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.”[4][8]
The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.[9] This number has steadily grown to 2,224 warrants in 2006.[10] In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.[11]
Electronic surveillance
Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.
Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information;[7] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C.§ 1801(a)(1),(2),(3)[12] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[13]
Since 50 U.S.C.§ 1802(a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.[16] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties[17] and civil liabilities.[18]
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance “for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress”.[19]
With a court order
Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.[20] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power”, and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain “minimization requirements” for information pertaining to U.S. persons.[21]
Physical searches
In addition to electronic surveillance, FISA permits the “physical search” of the “premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by” a foreign power. The requirements and procedures are nearly identical to those for electronic surveillance.
The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. The court is located within the Department of Justice headquarters building. The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve seven year terms.
Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected.
Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The Court of Review is a three judge panel. Since its creation, the court has come into session twice: in 2002 and 2008.
Remedies for violations
Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.
Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.[17]
In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney’s fees.[18] Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches. In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.
Lone wolf amendment
In 2004 FISA was amended to include a “lone wolf” provision. 50 U.S.C.§ 1801(b)(1)(C). A “lone wolf” is a non-U.S. person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of “foreign power” to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the “lone wolf” and a foreign government or terrorist group. However, “if the court authorizes such a surveillance or physical search using this new definition of ‘agent of a foreign power’, the FISC judge has to find, in pertinent part, that, based upon the information provided by the applicant for the order, the target had engaged in or was engaging in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor”.[22]
Constitutionality
Before FISA
In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that “may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents”.
In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of “warrantless wiretaps”. In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen’s conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
A plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization. In this case, the court found that the domestic organization was not a “foreign power or their agent”, and “absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.”
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.
However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President’s inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
Criticisms
K. A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute, James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation,[23] and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School,[24] among others,[25] have argued that FISA may need to be amended (to include, among other things, procedures for programmatic approvals) as it may no longer be adequate to address certain foreign intelligence needs and technology developments, including: the transition from circuit-based communications to packet-based communications; the globalization of communications infrastructure; and the development of automated monitoring techniques, including data mining and traffic analysis.[26]
The need for programmatic approval of technology-enabled surveillance programs is particularly crucial in foreign intelligence. See, for example, John R. Schmidt, the associate attorney general (1994–1997) in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton,[27] recalling early arguments made by then-Attorney General Edward Levi to the Church Committee that foreign intelligence surveillance legislation should include provisions for programmatically authorizing surveillance programs because of the particular needs of foreign intelligence where “virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets” may be required. In these situations, “the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal.”
And, in a recent essay, Judge Richard A. Posner opined that FISA “retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist.”[28]
Amendments
Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006
On March 16, 2006, Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),[29][30] under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 2453),[31][32] which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty[33] for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight “electronic surveillance programs”. On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S. 3001) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.
All three competing bills were the subject of Judiciary Committee hearings throughout the summer.[34] On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.[35]
On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson’s bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson’s bill and it was referred to the Senate.[36]
Protect America Act of 2007
On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA (S. 1927) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110–55, S. 1927) was then signed into law by George W. Bush on 2007-08-05.[37]
Under the Protect America Act of 2007, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the U.S. government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of “electronic surveillance” in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.
The Act provides procedures for the government to “certify” the legality of an acquisition program, for the government to issue directives to providers to provide data or assistance under a particular program, and for the government and recipient of a directive to seek from the FISA Court, respectively, an order to compel provider compliance or relief from an unlawful directive. Providers receive costs and full immunity from civil suits for compliance with any directives issued pursuant to the Act.
A summary of key provisions follows. The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”) to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning “persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States” if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:
There are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
The acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
A significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
Minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.
This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.
Once the certification is filed with the FISA Court, the Attorney General or DNI can direct a provider to undertake or assist in the undertaking of the acquisition.
If a provider fails to comply with a directive issued by the Attorney General or DNI, the Attorney General may seek an order from the FISA Court compelling compliance with the directive. Failure to obey an order of the FISA Court may be punished as a contempt of court.
Likewise, a person receiving a directive may challenge the legality of that directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court. An initial review must be conducted within 48 hours of the filing to determine whether the petition is frivolous, and a final determination concerning any non-frivolous petitions must be made – in writing – within 72 hours of receipt of the petition.
Determinations of the FISA Court may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Court of Appeals, and a petition for a writ of certiorari of a decision from the FICA can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court.
All petitions must be filed under seal.
The Act allows providers to be compensated, at the prevailing rate, for providing assistance as directed by the Attorney General or DNI.
The Act provides explicit immunity from civil suit in any federal or state court for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under the Act.
Within 120 days, the Attorney General must submit to the FISA Court for its approval the procedures by which the government will determine that acquisitions authorized by the Act conform with the Act and do not involve purely domestic communications. The FISA Court then will determine whether the procedures comply with the Act. The FISA Court thereafter will enter an order either approving the procedures or directing the government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under the government procedures. The government may appeal a ruling of the FISA Court to the FICA and ultimately the Supreme Court.
On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall inform the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate of incidents of noncompliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General or the DNI, incidents of noncompliance with FISA Court-approved procedures by the Intelligence Community, and the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.
The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.
Subsequent developments
Legal experts experienced in national security issues are divided on how broadly the new law could be interpreted or applied. Some believe that due to subtle changes in the definitions of terms such as “electronic surveillance”, it could empower the government to conduct warrantless physical searches and even seizures of communications and computer devices and their data which belong to U.S. citizens while they are in the United States, if the government contended that those searches and potential seizures were related to its surveillance of parties outside the United States. Intelligence officials, while declining to comment directly on such possibilities, respond that such interpretations are overly broad readings of the act, and unlikely to actually occur. Democratic lawmakers have nonetheless indicated that they are planning to introduce a revised version of the legislation for consideration as early as September 2007.[39]
Also on September 10, DNI Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that the Protect America Act had helped foil a major terror plot in Germany. U.S. intelligence-community officials questioned the accuracy of McConnell’s testimony and urged his office to correct it, which he did in a statement issued September 12, 2007. Critics cited the incident as an example of the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims and contradictory statements about surveillance activities. Counterterrorism officials familiar with the background of McConnell’s testimony said they did not believe he made inaccurate statements intentionally as part of any strategy by the administration to persuade Congress to make the new eavesdropping law permanent. Those officials said they believed McConnell gave the wrong answer because he was overwhelmed with information and merely mixed up his facts.[41]
Speaking at National Security Agency headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland on September 19, 2007, President George W. Bush urged Congress to make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent. Bush also called for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who had cooperated with government surveillance efforts, saying, “It’s particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks”.[42]
On October 4, 2007, the bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee of the Constitution Project, co-chaired by David Keene and David D. Cole, issued its “Statement on the Protect America Act”.[43] The Statement urged Congress not to reauthorize the PAA, saying the language of the bill “runs contrary to the tripartite balance of power the Framers envisioned for our constitutional democracy, and poses a serious threat to the very notion of government of the people, by the people and for the people”. Some in the legal community have questioned the constitutionality of any legislation that would retroactively immunize telecommunications firms alleged to have cooperated with the government from civil liability for having potentially violated their customers’ privacy rights.[44]
In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry found significant flaws in the technical implementation of the Protect America Act which they said created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by the government.[45]
On October 7, 2007, the Washington Post reported that House Democrats planned to introduce alternative legislation which would provide for one-year “umbrella” warrants, and would require the Justice Department inspector general to audit the use of those warrants and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress. The proposed bill would not include immunity for telecommunications firms facing lawsuits in connection with the administration’s NSA warrantless surveillance program. House Democrats said that as long as the administration withholds requested documents explaining the basis for the program that they cannot consider immunity for firms alleged to have facilitated it.[46] On October 10, 2007 comments on the White House South Lawn, President Bush said he would not sign any bill that did not provide retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations.[47]
On October 18, 2007, the House Democratic leadership put off a vote on the proposed legislation by the full chamber to avoid consideration of a Republican measure that made specific references to Osama bin Laden. At the same time, the Senate Intelligence Committee reportedly reached a compromise with the White House on a different proposal that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.[48]
On November 15, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 along party lines to send an alternative measure to the full Senate other than the one the intelligence committee had crafted with the White House. The proposal would leave to the full Senate whether or not to provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications firms that cooperated with the NSA. Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy said that granting such immunity would give the Bush administration a “blank check” to do what it wants without regard to the law. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said that court cases may be the only way Congress can learn exactly how far outside the law the administration has gone in eavesdropping in the United States. When the full Senate takes up the bill, Specter is expected to offer a compromise that would shield the companies from financial ruin but allow lawsuits to go forward by having the federal government stand in for the companies at trial.[49]
On the same day, the House of Representatives voted 227-189 to approve a Democratic bill that would expand court oversight of government surveillance inside the United States while denying immunity to telecom companies. House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers left the door open to an immunity deal in the future, but said that the White House must first give Congress access to classified documents specifying what the companies did that requires legal immunity.[50]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
In February 2008, the Senate passed the version of the new FISA that would allow telecom companies immunity. On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held a secret session to discuss related information. On March 14, the House voted 213-197 to approve a bill that would not grant telecom immunity — far short of the 2/3 majority required to override a Presidential veto.[51] The Senate and House bills are compared and contrasted in a June 12, 2008 report from the Congressional Research Service.[52]
On March 13, 2008, the House of Representatives held a secret, closed door meeting to debate changes to the FISA bill.[53][54]
Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. In August 2012, he left Salon.com, where he was a columnist, to become a columnist at the US edition of The Guardian newspaper,[1][2] to which he has contributed since June 2011.[3][4][5]
Greenwald practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (1994–1995); in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland (later renamed Greenwald Christoph PC), where he litigated cases concerning issues of U.S. constitutional law and civil rights.[6][18] According to Greenwald, “I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing.”[18]
In February 2007, Greenwald became a contributing writer at Salon.com, and the new column and blog superseded Unclaimed Territory, though Salon.com prominently features hyperlinks to it in Greenwald’s dedicated biographical section.[19][20]
Greenwald’s criticism of the conditions in which U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, was being held ultimately led to a formal investigation by the U.N. high official on torture,[26][27] denunciations by Amnesty International,[28] and the resignation of State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley after he publicly criticized Manning’s detention conditions.[29] Since then, Greenwald has been a strong supporter of Manning. He calls Manning “a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives”, and “a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg.”[30]
The Guardian
Greenwald left Salon.com on August 20, 2012 for The Guardian, citing “the opportunity to reach a new audience, to further internationalize my readership, and to be re-invigorated by a different environment” as reasons for the move.[31]
Greenwald has been placed on numerous ‘top 50′ and ‘top 25′ lists of columnists in the United States.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] In June, 2012, Newsweek magazine named him one of America’s Top 10 Opinionists, saying that “a righteous, controlled, and razor-sharp fury runs through a great deal” of his writing, and: “His independent persuasion can make him a danger or an asset to both sides of the aisle.”[46]
Personal life
Greenwald is gay, and lives most of the time in Rio de Janeiro, the hometown of his Brazilian partner, David Michael Miranda.[18][47][48][49][50] In a profile in Out magazine, Greenwald explained that his residence in Brazil is due to the fact that American law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), bars the federal recognition of same-sex marriages and thus prevents his partner from obtaining immigration rights in the US.[51]
Greenwald and his partner have 11 dogs, all rescued from the street,[52][53], and he frequently picks up dogs from the street and uses his platforms to find homes for them.[54][55][56]
Books
Greenwald’s first book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, was published by Working Assets in 2006. It was a New York Times bestseller,[57] and ranked #1 on Amazon.com both before its publication (due to pre-orders based on attention from ‘UT’ readers and other bloggers) and for several days after its release, ending its first week at #293.[58]
A Tragic Legacy, his second book, examines the presidency of George W. Bush “with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions).”[59] Published in hardback by Crown (a division of Random House) on June 26, 2007 and reprinted in a paperback edition by Three Rivers Press on April 8, 2008, it too was a New York Times Best Seller, also ranking #1 for a day on Amazon.com’s Non-Fiction Best Seller List and #2 the next day (also due to heavy “discussions and promotions by blogs – a campaign catalyzed by Jane Hamsher [at FireDogLake]“, according to Greenwald).[60]
His third book, entitled Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, was published by Random House in April 2008, the same month that Three Rivers Press reissued A Tragic Legacy in paperback.[61][62]
His fourth book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, was released by Metropolitan Books (of Henry Holt and Company) in October 2011.
Political views
Greenwald is critical of actions jointly supported by Democrats and Republicans, writing: “the worst and most tyrannical government actions in Washington are equally supported on a fully bipartisan basis.”[63] In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald opens with some of his own personal political history, describing his ‘pre-political’ self as neither liberal nor conservative as a whole, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals (indeed, not voting at all).[64]
Bush’s ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency “changed” Greenwald’s previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process “completely”:
Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding”; for, “the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering—fear of terrorists, specifically—means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American.”[64]
Believing that “It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is”, he stresses: “I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary.”[64]
Resistant to applying ideological labels to himself, he emphasizes repeatedly that he is a strong advocate for U.S. constitutional “balance of powers”[14] and for constitutionally-protected civil and political rights in his writings and public appearances.[6]
Throughout his work he has relentlessly criticized the policies of the George W. Bushadministration and those who support or enable it, arguing that most of the American “Corporate News Media” excuse Bush’s policies and echo administration talking points rather than asking hard questions.[49][32]
Regarding civil liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said, “I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it.”[65] He did, however, raise money for Russ Feingold’s 2010 Senate re-election bid,[66] Bill Halter’s 2010 primary challenge to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln [67] as well as several Congressional candidates in 2012 he described as “unique”.[68]
Greenwald has been criticized regarding his positions which are critical of Israel’s foreign policy and influence on U.S. politics.[69][70][71][72][73]
Are there radical Islamic terror camps in North America? Apparently there are dozens author says
Radical Jihadists Training On U.S. Soil – Behind Enemy Lines – Wake Up America!!!
Glenn Beck – The Project Part 1
Glenn Beck – The Project Part 2
The Third Jihad – Radical Islam’s Vision for America
Beslan: 5 years on
Dispatches – Beslan (2006)
The school siege at Beslan was the bloodiest act of terrorism ever to take place on Russian soil. Yet beyond this horrible truth remain many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on who the terrorists were. How many they numbered? Where they came from? How they got to Beslan? What they wanted? Whether they were all killed or captured? And just how the siege which began on September 1 2004, ended so catastrophically?
This Dispatches special uses testimony from eyewitnesses, survivors and security services. This is combined with video and audio archive footage presents the fullest account of what happened at Beslan.
The film examines the background to the events of Beslan. It also looks at the Russian state’s reaction to the atrocity and the motivation of the hostage-takers. Beslan School Siege also documents how a small town is coming to terms with the loss of its children.
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 1
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 2
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 3
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 4
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 5
Glenn Beck U.S. Denial of Islamic Jihad Threat, Beslan School Massacre 4-26-13
Glenn Beck The Story of Beslan
Glenn Beck Beslan, Terror, and Chechnya
Glenn Beck Experts on Beslan
Background Articles and Videos
Terrorism & Jihad: An Islamic Perspective – Dr. Zakir Naik
Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)
Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law
Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process
Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process
Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law
Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History
US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!
Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April
U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers
JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014′
Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014
Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis
Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets
Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!
Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013
Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013
Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards
Jim Rickards Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)
James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar
Currency Wars: Jim Rickards
Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser
CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber
Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2
Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!
Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything
Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview
Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists
Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”
ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING
Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013
Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014
Background Articles and Videos
Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010
Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)
The Fall of Lehman Brothers
Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2
The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse
LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.
It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.
One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.
Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.
In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.
A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”
The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”
And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”
In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.
Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.
It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.
“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”
Obama’s Emotional Speech On Gun Control Vote FAIL Senate rejects expanded gun background checks
OBAMA’S & THE MSM’S PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL LOSES STEAM
04/17/13 Ted Cruz Speaks about new gun control amendments
Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills – Hannity 3/28/2013
Obama Has Been Planning Gun Control For A Long Time
Penn & Teller Bullshit! – Gun Control -
FEAR & LOADING in US: GUN SALES sky ROCKET as fears of TOUGHER GOVT’ GUN control RISE! [GUN-WARS]
Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World
Pro-gun rallies held across US
Ted Nugent Exposes Gun Trafficker General Eric Holder
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Overview
When buying a firearm, background checks are processed via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This is a great overview of the NICS process.
FBI NICS at NRA Convention
FBI: National Instant Criminal Background Check System [1998]
Gun Background Checks: How the System is Still Broken
Series exploring the history of the people and ideas behind what became known as Thatcherism. When Thatcher became Prime Minister, the monetarist policies used to combat inflation created large-scale unemployment and weakened the unions. As riots broke out across Britain, there was growing dissent even inside the government. How would Mrs Thatcher survive her plummeting popularity?
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 2: The Road to Power – BBC 2007
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 3: The Exercise of Power – BBC 2007
Will The Unemployment Rate Stall in 2013? (Extra Segment) (EiP)
Will the Unemployment Rate Stall in 2013? (Full Video) (EiP)
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
HOUSEHOLD DATA Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
[Percent]
Measure
Not seasonally adjusted
Seasonally adjusted
Mar. 2012
Feb. 2013
Mar. 2013
Mar. 2012
Nov. 2012
Dec. 2012
Jan. 2013
Feb. 2013
Mar. 2013
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
4.9
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.1
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
8.4
8.1
7.6
8.2
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.6
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
8.9
8.6
8.1
8.7
8.3
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.1
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
9.7
9.6
9.0
9.6
9.2
9.4
9.3
9.2
8.9
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
14.8
14.9
13.9
14.5
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.3
13.8
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Employment-population Ratio
16 years and over
Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio Labor force status: Employment-population ratio Type of data: Percent or rate
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Employment Level
143,286,000 March 2013
146,595,000 Nov. 2007 Peak of Boom
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
136559(1)
136598
136701
137270
136630
136940
136531
136662
136893
137088
137322
137614
2001
137778
137612
137783
137299
137092
136873
137071
136241
136846
136392
136238
136047
2002
135701
136438
136177
136126
136539
136415
136413
136705
137302
137008
136521
136426
2003
137417(1)
137482
137434
137633
137544
137790
137474
137549
137609
137984
138424
138411
2004
138472(1)
138542
138453
138680
138852
139174
139556
139573
139487
139732
140231
140125
2005
140245(1)
140385
140654
141254
141609
141714
142026
142434
142401
142548
142499
142752
2006
143150(1)
143457
143741
143761
144089
144353
144202
144625
144815
145314
145534
145970
2007
146028(1)
146057
146320
145586
145903
146063
145905
145682
146244
145946
146595
146273
2008
146378(1)
146156
146086
146132
145908
145737
145532
145203
145076
144802
144100
143369
2009
142153(1)
141644
140721
140652
140250
140005
139898
139481
138810
138421
138665
138025
2010
138439(1)
138624
138767
139296
139255
139148
139167
139405
139388
139097
139046
139295
2011
139253(1)
139471
139643
139606
139681
139405
139509
139870
140164
140314
140771
140896
2012
141608(1)
142019
142020
141934
142302
142448
142250
142164
142974
143328
143277
143305
2013
143322(1)
143492
143286
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Civilian Labor Force
155,028,000 March 2013
153,845,000 Nov. 2008
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
142267(1)
142456
142434
142751
142388
142591
142278
142514
142518
142622
142962
143248
2001
143800
143701
143924
143569
143318
143357
143654
143284
143989
144086
144240
144305
2002
143883
144653
144481
144725
144938
144808
144803
145009
145552
145314
145041
145066
2003
145937(1)
146100
146022
146474
146500
147056
146485
146445
146530
146716
147000
146729
2004
146842(1)
146709
146944
146850
147065
147460
147692
147564
147415
147793
148162
148059
2005
148029(1)
148364
148391
148926
149261
149238
149432
149779
149954
150001
150065
150030
2006
150214(1)
150641
150813
150881
151069
151354
151377
151716
151662
152041
152406
152732
2007
153144(1)
152983
153051
152435
152670
153041
153054
152749
153414
153183
153835
153918
2008
154063(1)
153653
153908
153769
154303
154313
154469
154641
154570
154876
154639
154655
2009
154232(1)
154526
154142
154479
154742
154710
154505
154300
153815
153804
153887
153120
2010
153455(1)
153702
153960
154577
154110
153623
153709
154078
153966
153681
154140
153649
2011
153244(1)
153269
153358
153478
153552
153369
153325
153707
154074
154010
154096
153945
2012
154356(1)
154825
154707
154451
154998
155149
154995
154647
155056
155576
155319
155511
2013
155654(1)
155524
155028
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate
63.3% March 2013
66.0% Nov. 2007
63.3% May 1979
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.1
67.1
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.8
66.9
67.0
2001
67.2
67.1
67.2
66.9
66.7
66.7
66.8
66.5
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
2002
66.5
66.8
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.6
66.4
66.3
2003
66.4
66.4
66.3
66.4
66.4
66.5
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
2004
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
66.1
66.1
66.0
65.8
65.9
66.0
65.9
2005
65.8
65.9
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
2006
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.3
66.4
2007
66.4
66.3
66.2
65.9
66.0
66.0
66.0
65.8
66.0
65.8
66.0
66.0
2008
66.2
66.0
66.1
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
65.8
2009
65.7
65.8
65.6
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.1
65.0
65.0
64.6
2010
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.1
64.9
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.4
64.6
64.3
2011
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.0
64.0
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.1
64.0
2012
63.7
63.9
63.8
63.6
63.8
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.6
63.8
63.6
63.6
2013
63.6
63.5
63.3
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
1948
58.6
58.9
58.5
59.0
58.3
59.2
59.3
58.9
58.9
58.7
58.7
59.1
1949
58.7
59.0
58.9
58.8
59.0
58.6
58.9
59.2
59.1
59.6
59.4
59.2
1950
58.9
58.9
58.8
59.2
59.1
59.4
59.1
59.5
59.2
59.4
59.3
59.2
1951
59.1
59.1
59.8
59.1
59.4
59.0
59.4
59.2
59.1
59.4
59.2
59.6
1952
59.5
59.5
58.9
58.8
59.1
59.1
58.9
58.7
59.2
58.7
59.1
59.2
1953
59.5
59.5
59.6
59.1
58.6
58.9
58.9
58.6
58.5
58.5
58.6
58.3
1954
58.6
59.3
59.1
59.2
58.9
58.5
58.4
58.7
59.2
58.8
58.6
58.1
1955
58.6
58.4
58.5
59.0
58.8
58.8
59.3
59.7
59.7
59.8
59.9
60.2
1956
60.2
59.9
59.8
59.9
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
59.8
59.8
59.8
1957
59.5
59.9
59.8
59.5
59.5
59.8
60.0
59.3
59.6
59.5
59.5
59.6
1958
59.3
59.3
59.3
59.6
59.8
59.5
59.6
59.8
59.7
59.6
59.2
59.2
1959
59.3
59.0
59.3
59.4
59.2
59.2
59.4
59.2
59.3
59.4
59.1
59.5
1960
59.1
59.1
58.5
59.5
59.5
59.7
59.5
59.5
59.7
59.4
59.8
59.7
1961
59.6
59.6
59.7
59.3
59.4
59.7
59.3
59.3
59.0
59.1
59.1
58.8
1962
58.8
59.0
58.9
58.7
58.9
58.8
58.5
59.0
59.0
58.7
58.5
58.4
1963
58.6
58.6
58.6
58.8
58.8
58.5
58.7
58.5
58.7
58.8
58.8
58.5
1964
58.6
58.8
58.7
59.1
59.1
58.7
58.6
58.6
58.7
58.6
58.5
58.6
1965
58.6
58.7
58.7
58.8
59.0
58.8
59.1
58.9
58.7
58.9
58.8
59.0
1966
59.0
58.8
58.8
59.0
59.0
59.1
59.1
59.3
59.3
59.3
59.6
59.5
1967
59.5
59.3
59.1
59.4
59.3
59.6
59.6
59.7
59.7
59.9
59.8
59.9
1968
59.2
59.6
59.6
59.5
59.9
60.0
59.8
59.6
59.5
59.5
59.6
59.7
1969
59.6
60.0
59.9
60.0
59.8
60.1
60.1
60.3
60.3
60.4
60.2
60.2
1970
60.4
60.4
60.6
60.6
60.3
60.2
60.4
60.3
60.2
60.4
60.4
60.4
1971
60.4
60.1
60.0
60.1
60.2
59.8
60.1
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.4
60.4
1972
60.2
60.2
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.6
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.5
1973
60.0
60.5
60.8
60.8
60.6
60.9
60.9
60.7
60.8
60.9
61.2
61.2
1974
61.3
61.4
61.3
61.1
61.2
61.2
61.4
61.2
61.4
61.3
61.3
61.2
1975
61.4
61.0
61.2
61.3
61.5
61.2
61.3
61.3
61.2
61.2
61.1
61.1
1976
61.3
61.3
61.3
61.6
61.5
61.5
61.8
61.8
61.6
61.6
61.9
61.8
1977
61.6
61.9
62.0
62.1
62.2
62.4
62.1
62.3
62.3
62.4
62.8
62.7
1978
62.8
62.7
62.8
63.0
63.1
63.3
63.2
63.2
63.3
63.3
63.5
63.6
1979
63.6
63.8
63.8
63.5
63.3
63.5
63.6
63.6
63.8
63.7
63.7
63.9
1980
64.0
64.0
63.7
63.8
63.9
63.7
63.8
63.7
63.6
63.7
63.8
63.6
1981
63.9
63.9
64.1
64.2
64.3
63.7
63.8
63.8
63.5
63.8
63.9
63.6
1982
63.7
63.8
63.8
63.9
64.2
63.9
64.0
64.1
64.1
64.1
64.2
64.1
1983
63.9
63.8
63.7
63.8
63.7
64.3
64.1
64.3
64.3
64.0
64.1
64.1
1984
63.9
64.1
64.1
64.3
64.5
64.6
64.6
64.4
64.4
64.4
64.5
64.6
1985
64.7
64.7
64.9
64.9
64.8
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.9
65.0
64.9
65.0
1986
64.9
65.0
65.1
65.1
65.2
65.4
65.4
65.3
65.4
65.4
65.4
65.3
1987
65.4
65.5
65.5
65.4
65.7
65.5
65.6
65.7
65.5
65.7
65.7
65.7
1988
65.8
65.9
65.7
65.8
65.7
65.8
65.9
66.1
65.9
66.0
66.2
66.1
1989
66.5
66.3
66.3
66.4
66.3
66.5
66.5
66.5
66.4
66.5
66.6
66.5
1990
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.6
66.4
66.5
66.5
66.4
66.4
66.4
66.4
1991
66.2
66.2
66.3
66.4
66.2
66.2
66.1
66.0
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
1992
66.3
66.2
66.4
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.2
66.3
66.3
1993
66.2
66.2
66.2
66.1
66.4
66.5
66.4
66.4
66.2
66.3
66.3
66.4
1994
66.6
66.6
66.5
66.5
66.6
66.4
66.4
66.6
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.7
1995
66.8
66.8
66.7
66.9
66.5
66.5
66.6
66.6
66.6
66.6
66.5
66.4
1996
66.4
66.6
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.9
66.7
66.9
67.0
67.0
67.0
1997
67.0
66.9
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.2
67.2
67.1
67.1
67.2
67.2
1998
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.2
67.2
67.1
67.2
1999
67.2
67.2
67.0
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.1
67.1
2000
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.1
67.1
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.8
66.9
67.0
2001
67.2
67.1
67.2
66.9
66.7
66.7
66.8
66.5
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
2002
66.5
66.8
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.6
66.4
66.3
2003
66.4
66.4
66.3
66.4
66.4
66.5
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
2004
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
66.1
66.1
66.0
65.8
65.9
66.0
65.9
2005
65.8
65.9
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
2006
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.3
66.4
2007
66.4
66.3
66.2
65.9
66.0
66.0
66.0
65.8
66.0
65.8
66.0
66.0
2008
66.2
66.0
66.1
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
65.8
2009
65.7
65.8
65.6
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.1
65.0
65.0
64.6
2010
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.1
64.9
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.4
64.6
64.3
2011
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.0
64.0
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.1
64.0
2012
63.7
63.9
63.8
63.6
63.8
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.6
63.8
63.6
63.6
2013
63.6
63.5
63.3
Unemployment Level
11,742,000 March 2013
7,240,000 Nov. 2007
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
5708
5858
5733
5481
5758
5651
5747
5853
5625
5534
5639
5634
2001
6023
6089
6141
6271
6226
6484
6583
7042
7142
7694
8003
8258
2002
8182
8215
8304
8599
8399
8393
8390
8304
8251
8307
8520
8640
2003
8520
8618
8588
8842
8957
9266
9011
8896
8921
8732
8576
8317
2004
8370
8167
8491
8170
8212
8286
8136
7990
7927
8061
7932
7934
2005
7784
7980
7737
7672
7651
7524
7406
7345
7553
7453
7566
7279
2006
7064
7184
7072
7120
6980
7001
7175
7091
6847
6727
6872
6762
2007
7116
6927
6731
6850
6766
6979
7149
7067
7170
7237
7240
7645
2008
7685
7497
7822
7637
8395
8575
8937
9438
9494
10074
10538
11286
2009
12079
12881
13421
13826
14492
14705
14607
14819
15005
15382
15223
15095
2010
15016
15078
15192
15281
14856
14475
14542
14673
14577
14584
15094
14354
2011
13992
13798
13716
13872
13871
13964
13817
13837
13910
13696
13325
13049
2012
12748
12806
12686
12518
12695
12701
12745
12483
12082
12248
12042
12206
2013
12332
12032
11742
U-3 Unemployment Rate
7.6% March 2013
4.7% Nov. 2007
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
2001
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.7
2002
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
6.0
2003
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
2004
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.4
2005
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
2006
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
2007
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.0
2008
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
2009
7.8
8.3
8.7
9.0
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
9.9
2010
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.8
9.3
2011
9.1
9.0
8.9
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.6
8.5
2012
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
2013
7.9
7.7
7.6
U-6 Total Unemployment Rate
13.8% March 2013
88.4% Nov. 2007
Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed
part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
2001
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.4
9.6
2002
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.8
2003
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.3
10.3
10.1
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
2004
9.9
9.7
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.7
9.4
9.2
2005
9.3
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.9
9.0
8.7
8.7
8.6
2006
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
7.9
2007
8.4
8.2
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.8
2008
9.2
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.7
10.1
10.5
10.8
11.0
11.8
12.6
13.6
2009
14.2
15.1
15.7
15.9
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.7
17.1
17.1
17.1
2010
16.7
17.0
17.0
17.1
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.8
16.7
16.9
16.6
2011
16.2
16.0
15.8
16.0
15.8
16.1
16.0
16.1
16.3
16.0
15.5
15.2
2012
15.1
15.0
14.5
14.5
14.8
14.8
14.9
14.7
14.7
14.5
14.4
14.4
2013
14.4
14.3
13.8
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-13-0581
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, April 5, 2013
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2013
Nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000), and the unemployment rate was
little changed at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment grew in professional and business services and in health care but declined
in retail trade.
Household Survey Data
Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.7 million, and the unemployment rate, at
7.6 percent, were little changed in March. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.9 percent),
adult women (7.0 percent), teenagers (24.2 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks
(13.3 percent), and Hispanics (9.2 percent) showed little or no change in March. The
jobless rate for Asians was 5.0 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from
a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In March, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was
little changed at 4.6 million. These individuals accounted for 39.6 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force declined by 496,000 over the month, and the labor force
participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 63.3 percent. The employment-
population ratio, at 58.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 350,000 over the month to 7.6 million. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In March, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially
unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 803,000 discouraged workers in March, little
changed from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for
them. The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in March
had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000). Over the prior 12 months,
employment growth had averaged 169,000 per month. In March, employment increased in
professional and business services and in health care, while retail trade employment
declined. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 51,000 jobs in March. Over the past 12 months,
employment in this industry has grown by 533,000. Within professional and business
services, accounting and bookkeeping services added 11,000 jobs over the month, and
employment continued to trend up in temporary help services and in several other
component industries.
Job growth in health care continued in March, with a gain of 23,000, similar to the prior
12-month average. Within health care, employment increased by 15,000 in ambulatory health
care services, such as home health care, and by 8,000 in hospitals.
Construction employment continued to trend up in March (+18,000). Job growth in this
industry picked up this past fall; since September, the industry has added 169,000
jobs. In March, employment continued to expand among specialty trade contractors
(+23,000). Employment in specialty trade contractors has increased by 128,000 since
September, with the gain about equally split between the residential and nonresidential
components.
Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places continued
to trend up in March (+13,000). Over the past year, the industry added 262,000 jobs.
In March, retail trade employment declined by 24,000. The industry had added an average
of 32,000 jobs per month over the prior 6 months. In March, job declines occurred in
clothing and clothing accessories stores (-15,000), building material and garden supply
stores (-10,000), and electronics and appliance stores (-6,000).
Within government, U.S. Postal Service employment fell by 12,000 in March. Employment in
other major industries, including mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation
and warehousing, information, financial activities, state government, and local government,
showed little change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1
hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek decreased by 0.1 hour to 40.8 hours, and
factory overtime rose by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.8 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)
In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls, at $23.82,
changed little (+1 cent). Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 42 cents,
or 1.8 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees, at $20.03, changed little (-1 cent) in March. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised from +119,000 to
+148,000, and the change for February was revised from +236,000 to +268,000.
____________
The Employment Situation for April is scheduled to be released on Friday, May 3, 2013, at
8:30 a.m. (EDT).
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
CategoryMar.
2012Jan.
2013Feb.
2013Mar.
2013Change from:
Feb.
2013-
Mar.
2013Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population242,604244,663244,828244,995167Civilian labor force154,707155,654155,524155,028-496Participation rate63.863.663.563.3-0.2Employed142,020143,322143,492143,286-206Employment-population ratio58.558.658.658.5-0.1Unemployed12,68612,33212,03211,742-290Unemployment rate8.27.97.77.6-0.1Not in labor force87,89889,00889,30489,967663 Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over8.27.97.77.6-0.1Adult men (20 years and over)7.77.37.16.9-0.2Adult women (20 years and over)7.47.37.07.00.0Teenagers (16 to 19 years)25.023.425.124.2-0.9White7.37.06.86.7-0.1Black or African American14.013.813.813.3-0.5Asian (not seasonally adjusted)6.26.56.15.0-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity10.39.79.69.2-0.4 Total, 25 years and over6.86.56.36.2-0.1Less than a high school diploma12.612.011.211.1-0.1High school graduates, no college8.08.17.97.6-0.3Some college or associate degree7.57.06.76.4-0.3Bachelor’s degree and higher4.23.73.83.80.0 Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs7,0216,6376,5226,329-193Job leavers1,11198195698630Reentrants3,2643,5153,3403,176-164New entrants1,4211,2871,2791,31637 Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,5962,7662,6672,464-2035 to 14 weeks2,7843,0282,7822,8385615 to 26 weeks1,8771,8581,6951,7374227 weeks and over5,3024,7084,7974,611-186 Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,6647,9737,9887,638-350Slack work or business conditions5,0605,1265,1364,906-230Could only find part-time work2,3602,6302,5782,576-2Part time for noneconomic reasons18,53018,46418,90818,745-163 Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,3522,4432,5882,326-Discouraged workers865804885803– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary
Discouraged Worker
In economics, a discouraged worker is a person of legal employment age who is not actively seeking employment or who does not find employment after long-term unemployment. This is usually because an individual has given up looking or has had no success in finding a job, hence the term “discouraged”.
In other words, even if a person is still looking actively for a job, that person may have fallen out of the core statistics of unemployment rate after long-term unemployment and is therefore by default classified as “discouraged” (since the person does not appear in the core statistics of unemployment rate). In some cases, their belief may derive from a variety of factors including a shortage of jobs in their locality or line of work; discrimination for reasons such as age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability; a lack of necessary skills, training, or experience; or, a chronic illness or disability.[1]
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as “marginally attached to the labor force”, “on the margins” of the labor force, or as part of “hidden unemployment”, are not considered to be part of the labor force and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates, which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.
United States
Discouraged Workers (US, 2004-09)
In the United States, a discouraged worker is defined as a person not in the labor force who wants and is available for a job and who has looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of his or her last job if a job was held within the past 12 months), but who is not currently looking because of real or perceived poor employment prospects.[2][3][4]
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count discouraged workers as unemployed but rather refers to them as only “marginally attached to the labor force”.[5][6][7] This means that the officially measured unemployment captures so-called “frictional unemployment” and not much else.[8] This has led some economists to believe that the actual unemployment rate in the United States is higher than what is officially reported while others suggest that discouraged workers voluntarily choose not to work.[9] Nonetheless, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has published the discouraged worker rate in alternative measures of labor underutilization under U-4 since 1994 when the most recent redesign of the CPS was implemented.[10][11]
The United States Department of Labor first began tracking discouraged workers in 1967 and found 500,000 at the time.[12] Today, In the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of April 2009, there are 740,000 discouraged workers.[13][14] There is an ongoing debate as to whether discouraged workers should be included in the official unemployment rate.[12] Over time, it has been shown that a disproportionate number of young people, blacks, Hispanics and men, make up discouraged workers.[15][16] Nonetheless, it is generally believed that the discouraged worker is underestimated because it does not include homeless people or those who have not looked for or held a job during the past twelve months and is often poorly tracked.[12][17]
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are the following:[18]
The worker thinks no work is available.
The worker could not find work.
The worker lacks schooling or training.
The worker is viewed as too young or too old by the prospective employer.
The worker is the target of various types of discrimination. …
References
^ abc Akyeampong, Ernest B. “Discouraged workers – where have they gone?” (PDF). Perspectives on Labour and Income. 3 (Canada: Statistics Canada) 4 (Article 5). Catalogue=75- 001E. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
^O’Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003) [January 2002]. Economics: Principles in Action. The Wall Street Journal: Classroom Edition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall: Addison Wesley Longman. p. 336. ISBN0-13-063085-3.
^“BLS Information”. Glossary. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services. February 28, 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
^“Employment Situation Summary”. Economic News Release. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Labor Force Statistics. May 8, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
^ abcd Akyeampong, Ernest B. (Autumn 1989). “Discouraged Workers” (PDF). Perspectives on Labour and Income. 2 (Canada: Statistics Canada) 1. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
Akyeampong, Ernest B. “Persons on the Margins of the Labour Force,” The Labour Force (71-001). Statistics Canada, April 1987.
Akyeampong, Ernest B. “Women Wanting Work But Not Looking Due to Child Care Demands,” The Labour Force. April 1988.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Persons in the Labour Force, Australia (Including Persons who Wanted Work but who were not Defined as Unemployed) (6219.0). July 1985.
Jackson, George. “Alternative Concepts and Measures of Unemployment,” The Labour Force. February 1987.
Macredie, Ian. “Persons Not in the Labour Force: Job Search Activities and the Desire for Employment, September 1984,” The Labour Force. October 1984.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Employment Outlook. September 1987. Akyeampong, E.B. “Discouraged workers.” Perspectives on labour and income, Quarterly, Catalogue 75-001E, Autumn 1989. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 64–69.
“Women wanting work, but not looking due to child care demands.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, April 1988. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 123–131.
“Persons on the margins of the labour force.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, April 1987. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 85–131.
Frenken, H. “The pension carrot: incentives to early retirement.” Perspectives on labour and income, Quarterly, Catalogue 75-001E, Autumn 1991. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 18–27.
Jackson, G. “Alternative concepts and measures of unemployment.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, February 1987. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 85–120.
Macredie, I. “Persons not in the labour force – job search activities and the desire for employment, September 1984.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, October 1984. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 91–104.
President Obama, Secretary Duncan Announce Race to the Top
The Bottom Line :Education Database
Why We Need Common Core: “I choose C.”
Common Core Lesson Plans – Rated very funny!
Common Core Standards & Forming a Professional Learning Network (PLN)
Vision of the Common Core
Common Core State Standards: Principles of Development
General Session: Common Core State Standards
Moderator: Governor Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida from 1999-2007 and Chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education
Panelists: David Coleman, President and CEO of the College Board Bob Corcoran, President and Chairman of the GE Foundation Dr. William Schmidt, University Distinguished Professor and Co-Director of the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University, Minnesota State Representative
The Common Core State Standards and What’s Next for Higher Education | College Board Forum 2012
P20 Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Indoctrination And The Progressive Future – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.03.27
Data Mining In Common Core – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program
Urgent Message On Common Core – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.03.28
Part 1 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 2 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 3 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 4 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 5 of 5 Stop the Common Core
The Government will Control Your Childs Every Move? Common Core Disaster?
The Glenn Beck Program – Air Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013
Rick Hess: Common Core as one more Obama initiative
Teacher Talk episode: Common Core State Standards
Learn the Common Core Standards in 10 Minutes
Common Core Curriculum Standards
Common Core Standards Overview | LiteracyTA
Common Core Standards- Mathematics by David Foster
Two Moms Against Common Core
Neal McCluskey: The Folly of Common Core Curricula
Pete Seeger – What Did You Learn In School?
School-Standards Pushback
Conservative Groups Oppose National ‘Common Core’ as an Intrusion on States
By STEPHANIE BANCHERO
The Common Core national math and reading standards, adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia two years ago, are coming under attack from some quarters as a federal intrusion into state education matters.
The voluntary academic standards, which specify what students should know in each grade, were heavily promoted by the Obama administration through its $4.35 billion Race to the Top education-grant competition. States that instituted changes such as common learning goals received bonus points in their applications.
Supporters say the Common Core standards better prepare students for college or the workforce, and are important as the U.S. falls behind other nations in areas such as math proficiency.
A 2010 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-leaning educational-research group, said the Common Core standards “are clearly superior to those currently in use in 39 states in math and 37 states in English. For 33 states, the Common Core is superior in both math and reading.”
But conservative lawmakers and governors in at least five states, including Utah and Alabama, recently have been pushing to back out, or slow down implementation, of Common Core. They worry that adoption of the standards has created a de facto national curriculum that could at some point be extended into more controversial areas such as science.
Critics argue that the standards are weak and could, for example, de-emphasize literature in favor of informational texts, such as technical manuals. They also dislike that the standards postpone teaching algebra until ninth grade from the current eighth grade in many schools.
A study released this year by a researcher at the Brookings Institution think tank projected Common Core will have no effect on student achievement. The study said states with high standards improved their national math and reading scores at the same rate as states with low standards from 2003 to 2009.
But mainly, critics of Common Core object to what they see as the federal government’s involvement in local-school matters.
“The Common Core takes education out of the hands of South Carolina and parents, so we have no control over what happens in the classroom,” said Michael Fair, a Republican state senator who plans to introduce a measure that would bar his state from spending money on activities related to the standards, such as training teachers and purchasing textbooks.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who took office after the state adopted Common Core, wrote in a letter to Mr. Fair that the state should not “relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states.”
Common Core could take another hit Friday when the 23-member board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of more than 2,000 state lawmakers and business members who back limited government and free markets, among other conservative goals, is set to vote on a resolution to formally oppose the standards. The resolution was passed by the ALEC education task force in December.Model legislation often is drafted from the group’s resolutions and taken by ALEC members to their state legislatures.
Common Core evolved from a drive by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to delineate world-class skills students should possess. The standards, created with funding from, among others, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set detailed goals, such as first graders should understand place values in math and eighth graders should know the Pythagorean Theorem.
“We brought the best minds in the country together to create international benchmarks that, once mastered, would make our students more competitive, globally,” said Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. He said his group has no plans to create national science standards.
As the standards were being developed, the Obama administration launched Race to the Top in July 2009, which awarded points to states that adopted “a common set of K-12 standards” that are “substantially identical across all states in a consortium,” according to the grant’s policies. The department didn’t specifically mention Common Core, but it was the only common set of standards being developed.
As a result, most state’s legislatures or state boards of education adopted Common Core.
The standards have yet to show up in many classrooms as states are just beginning to implement them. But in Kentucky, where Common Core rolled out this school year, teachers are altering instruction and searching for new classroom reading materials.
Jahn Owens, a teacher in Owensboro, Ky., said the more rigorous standards require her to teach her fifth-graders how to multiply and divide fractions. Previously, that was taught in sixth grade. First-grade teacher Heidi Dees has added more nonfiction books to her classroom.
“These standards take students much deeper into the subjects and force them to do more critical thinking,” Ms. Owens said. “It’s been hard work for the teachers because the implementation was so quick, but we are now more purposeful about student learning.”
The Obama administration has awarded more than $360 million to two groups to create student assessments aligned to Common Core.
Wireless Generation, an education-technology company owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal, recently purchased Intel-Assess, a company that creates student assessments aligned to Common Core.
Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the U.S. Department. of Education, called Common Core a “game changer” but said the administration didn’t force states to adopt it. “A bipartisan group of governors created these standards and states collectively adopted them,” he said.
But Emmett McGroarty, executive director of American Principles in Action, a conservative lobbying group that wrote the ALEC resolution, said states were “herded” into adopting the standards with no time to deliberate on their worth. He called the standards “mediocre” and costly to implement.
The Common Core Curriculum
National education standards that even conservatives can love.
By Chester E. Finn, Jr. & Michael J. Petrilli
After votes yesterday in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, 28 states have now embraced the new “Common Core” standards for primary and secondary education. Already, a majority — including red states such as South Carolina, Utah, and Oklahoma — have declared that they will use Common Core English and math standards in their public schools. Yet this profound, and we think positive, shift in American education is occurring with little outcry from the right, save for a half-dozen libertarians who don’t much care for government to start with. How come?
It certainly helps that the new standards were created by a voluntary partnership of 48 states, not by the federal government. But it’s also true that the Common Core standards are remarkably strong, vastly better than the standards most states have developed independently over the past 15 years. Yesterday, our institute released a 370-page study that finds the Common Core standards to be clearly superior to the existing English standards of 37 states and the existing math standards of 39.
One reason the Common Core fared so well is that its authors eschewed the vague and politically correct nonsense that infected so many state standards (and earlier attempts at national standards). They expect students to master arithmetic and memorize their times tables; they promote the teaching of phonics in the early grades; they even expect all students to read and understand the country’s founding documents. The new standards aren’t perfect. Our reviewers found three jurisdictions that did better in English (California, Indiana, and — believe it or not — the District of Columbia), mostly because they better distinguish among different “genres” of literature and other writing. Another dozen states (including Massachusetts) are “too close to call,” meaning that their standards are about equal in content and rigor to the Common Core. But anybody worried that this national effort will dumb down what we expect young Americans to learn in school can relax, at least for now.
Anxiety will surely rise when school kids across the land begin (three or four years hence) to take tests linked to these standards, and even more when those test results start to determine promotion from fifth to sixth grade or graduation from high school. (The development of those tests will soon start, aided by $350 million of federal stimulus funds.) But without tests and results-based accountability, along with solid curricula, quality textbooks, and competent teaching, standards alone have no traction in real classrooms. Adopting good standards is like having a goal for your cholesterol; it doesn’t mean you will actually eat a healthy diet or live longer.
When high expectations for schools and students are combined with smart implementation in thousands of classrooms, policymakers can move mountains. That’s the lesson we take from Massachusetts, which has established high standards, well-designed assessments, a tough-minded (yet humane) accountability system, rigorous certification requirements for teachers, and a high bar that students must clear to earn their diplomas. The Bay State has been making steady achievement gains in reading and math in both fourth and eighth grades. That, of course, is why Massachusetts politicians and policymakers sparred over the proposal by state education commissioner Mitchell Chester to replace the state’s standards and tests with the new national versions.
Until now, however, the vast majority of states have failed to adopt rigorous standards, much less to take actions geared to boosting pupil achievement. In 2007, we published a comparison of states’ “proficiency” expectations under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The results were dismaying: In some places, students could score below the tenth percentile nationally and still be considered “proficient.” In other locales, they had to reach the 77th percentile to wear the same label. And it wasn’t just that expectations varied, but that they varied almost randomly from place to place, grade to grade, and year to year.
Most Americans understand that this is not the way a big, modernized country on a competitive planet should operate its education system. Three years ago, an Education Next poll asked whether people favored “a single national standard and a single national test for all students in the United States? Or do you think that there should be different standards and tests in different states?”
Like so many education reform initiatives that seem to arise out of nowhere, the Common Core State Standards is another of these sweeping phantom movements that have gotten their impetus from a cadre of invisible human beings endowed with inordinate power to impose their ideas on everybody.
For example, the idea of collecting intimate personal data on public school students and teachers seems to have arisen spontaneously in the bowels of the National Center for Education Statistics in Washington. It required a small army of education psychologists to put together the data handbooks, which are periodically expanded to include more personal information.
Nobody knows who exactly authorized the creation of such a dossier on every student and teacher in American public schools, but the program exists and is being paid for by the taxpayer. And strange as it may seem, it arose seemingly out of nowhere, like a vampire, to suck the freedom out of the American people. Unlike Santa’s elves who work behind the scenes to bring happiness to children, these subterranean phantoms work overtime to find ways of making American children miserable.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is another such vampire calculated not only to suck the freedom out of the American people, but also to suck out the brains of their children. And all of this is planned in the dark, away from the prying eyes of parents and writers like me. Ask any educator: “Who is the author of the Common Core Standards?” and they will not be able to tell you.
So I decided to look into the origin of the CCSS. It is said that it originated with the National Governors Association (NGA). When and where? At what meeting? At whose behest? The NGA’s Mission Statement says on its website:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.
Sounds wonderful. But why do we need it? Why are we re-inventing the wheel? Didn’t our public schools provide a decent education for the “greatest generation” when they were in school? That generation not only learned enough to win World War II but also enough to create the scientific foundation of our high-tech society. The only reason why we need the CCSS is because all of these graduate educationists need something to do to justify their degrees and the salaries that go with them. And of course the new curriculum will cost billions of dollars which will enable these vampires to live in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. By the way, if you object to my referring to these people as vampires, feel free to use your own designations.
The CCSS adds nothing to what we know about how to teach reading. It adds nothing to how we teach arithmetic and mathematics. It adds nothing to how we teach history, geography, and the “social studies.” In short, it is a fraud to get the American taxpayer to shell out big bucks for something that we already know how to do. Yes, science has greatly expanded, but it also expanded from 1850 to 1950 and didn’t require a different methodology from the scientific method developed by the great scientists of the past. We may have better equipment which students of science must learn to operate, but the scientific method has not changed.
And of course, the CCSS were made to be as complicated as possible so that no parent or normal human being could understand them. For example, there is something called “Common Core State Standards Official Identifiers and XML Representation.” It states:
As states, territories, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Education Activity move from widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to implementation, there is a need to appropriately identify and link assets using a shared system of identifiers and a common XML representation. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), working closely with the standards authors, have released an official, viable approach for publishing identifiers and XML designation to represent the standards, consistent with their adopted format, as outlined below.
So now we know that there is such a body as “the standards authors,” who work closely with such bureaucratic organizations as the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. And to make sure that the Standards are being correctly implemented, we read the following in typical vampire language:
De-referenceable Uniform Resource Identifier (URIs) at the corestandards.org domain, e.g. http://corestandards.org/2010/math/content/6/EE/1 or http://corestandards.org/2010/math/practice/MP7. Matching the published identifiers, these dereferenceable URIs allow individuals and technology systems to validate the content of a standard by viewing the web page at the identifier’s uniform resource locator (URL). The NGA Center and CCSSO strongly recommend that http://www.corestandards.org remain the address of record for referring to standards.
What kind of human beings not only write such gobbledegook but also know what it means? And these educationists are among the well-paid elite who know how to make everything so complicated that only they are capable of understanding their own complexity. Here’s more:
Globally unique identifiers (GUIDs), e.g. A7D3275BC52147618D6CFEE43FB1A47E. These allow, when needed, to refer to standards in both disciplines in a common format without removing the differences in the published identifiers. GUIDs are unwieldy for human use, but they are necessarily complex to guarantee uniqueness, an important characteristic for databases, and are intended for use by computer systems. There is no need for educators to decode GUIDs.
Did you read that line, “GUIDS are unwieldy for human use, but they are necessarily complex to guarantee uniqueness”? These people are masters at creating complexity for its own sake. The more complex, the more difficult it is for normal human beings to know what in blazes they are talking about.
What is the National Governors Association for Best Practices? Here is what their website says:
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) develops innovative solutions to today’s most pressing public policy challenges and is the only research and development firm that directly serves the nation’s governors….
The mission of NGA Office of Federal Relations is to ensure governors’ views are represented in the shaping of federal policy. Policy positions, reflecting governors’ principles on priority issues, guide the association’s work to influence federal laws and regulations.
The initiative for the Common Core State Standards seems to have arisen from a speech NGA Chairman Governor Paul Patton, Democrat, of Kentucky gave at the NGA meeting on June 12, 2002, in which he said:
Governors are constantly searching for solutions that will help all schools succeed, but some schools require more help than others. The long-term goal for states is to improve overall system performance while closing persistent gaps in achievement between minority and non-minority students. Fortunately, there are places to look for guidance. Although some schools continue to struggle, some have responded successfully to state reform efforts and others have gone far in improving student performance and closing the achievement gap. Current research also suggests there are ways state policies can effectively stimulate and support school improvement.
How that was translated into the need for Common Core State Standards, is not very clear. The Executive Director of the NGA is Dan Crippen, a Washington policy bureaucrat who was director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1999 to 2002. The Director of the NGA Center for Best Practices is David Moore, formerly of the Congressional Budget Office. The Director of the Education Division is Richard Laine. His profile states:
Laine directs research, policy analysis, technical assistance and resource development for the Education Division in the areas of early childhood, K-12, and postsecondary education. The Education Division is working on a number of key policy issues relevant to governors’ efforts to develop and support the implementation of policy, including: birth to 3rd grade access, readiness and quality; the Common Core State Standards, STEM and related assessments; teacher and leader effectiveness; turning around low-performing schools; high school redesign; competency-based learning; charter schools; and postsecondary (higher education & workforce training) access, success & affordability. The Division is also working on policy issues related to bridging the system divides between the early childhood, K-12 and postsecondary systems.
Well now we know who’s in charge of the Common Core State Standards. What is Mr. Laine’s background?
Previous Positions: Director of Education, The Wallace Foundation; Director of Education Policy and Initiatives, Illinois Business Roundtable; Associate Superintendent for Policy, Planning and Resource Management, Illinois State Board of Education; Executive Director, Coalition for Educational Rights; Executive Secretary, Committee for Educational Rights; School Finance Analyst, Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance; Associate Director, California Democratic Congressional Delegation.
Education: M.P.P., M.B.A. and Certificate of Advanced Study in Education Administration and Public Policy, University of Chicago; B.A., University of California — Santa Barbara.
Obviously, Mr. Laine is one of those invisible bureaucrats who create policies for the governors, few of whom ever read them. He was Associate Director of California’s Democratic Congressional Delegation, which includes some of the worst left-wing members of Congress. He’s also in charge of “birth to 3rd grade access,” which the National Education Association strongly favors. Among Mr. Laine’s staff is Albert Wat, whose expertise is Early Childhood Education. His profile states:
Wat provides state policymakers with analyses and information on promising practices and the latest research in early childhood education policy, from birth through third grade. His work focuses on preschool education systems and alignment of early childhood and early elementary practices and policies, including standards, assessments and data systems.
Previous Positions: Research Manager, Senior Research Associate and State Policy Analyst, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Pew Center on the States, Pre-K Now.
Education: Master of Arts in Education Policy Studies, The George Washington University; Nonprofit Management Executive Certificate, Georgetown University; Master of Arts in Education, with focus in Social Sciences in Education and Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, with Distinction, Stanford University.
Like so many Washington policy wonks, Mr. Wat has to justify his bureaucratic position by thinking up new ways to create costly education reform that no freedom- loving citizen wants. Note his and Mr. Laine’s interest in “birth to 3rd grade” education, an area traditionally left up to parents. But then the totalitarian mind wants control over everything and everybody.
In other words, the Common Core State Standards have no more legitimacy than the plans of your local village idiot to reform education. They are the thought emanations of those who have nothing better to do. Yet, they will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and make American public education more confusing than ever.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a U.S. education initiative that seeks to bring diverse state curricula into alignment with each other by following the principles of standards-based education reform. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Development
The past twenty years in the U.S. have also been termed the “Accountability Movement,” as states are being held to mandatory tests of student achievement, which are expected to demonstrate a common core of knowledge that all citizens should have to be successful in this country.[1] As part of this overarching education reform movement, the nation’s governors and corporate leaders founded Achieve, Inc. in 1996 as a bi-partisan organization to raise academic standards, graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability in all 50 states.[2] The initial motivation for the development of the Common Core State Standards was part of the American Diploma Project (ADP).[3]
A report titled, “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts,” from 2004 found that both employers and colleges are demanding more of high school graduates than in the past.[4] According to Achieve, Inc., “current high-school exit expectations fall well short of [employer and college] demands.”[5] The report explains that the major problem currently facing the American school system is that high school graduates were not provided with the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed.[5] “While students and their parents may still believe that the diploma reflects adequate preparation for the intellectual demands of adult life, in reality it falls far short of this common-sense goal.” (page 1). The report continues that the diploma itself lost its value because graduates could not compete successfully beyond high school,[5] and that the solution to this problem is a common set of rigorous standards.
In 2009 the National Governors Association hired David Coleman and Student Achievement to write curriculum standards in the areas of literacy and mathematics instruction. Announced on June 1, 2009,[6] the initiative’s stated purpose is to “provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them.”[7] Additionally, “The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers,” which will place American students in a position in which they can compete in a global economy.[7] Forty-five of the fifty states in the United States are members of the initiative, with the states of Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska not adopting the initiative at a state level.[8] Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards.[9]
Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months. (See below for current status.) States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the possibility of competitive federal Race to the Top grants. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform.[10] To be eligible, states had to adopt “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place.”[11] This meant that in order for a state to be eligible for these grants, the states had to adopt the Common Core State Standards or a similar career and college readiness curriculum. The competition for these grants provided a major push for states to adopt the standards.[12] The adoption dates for those states that chose to adopt the Common Core State Standards Initiative are all within the two years following this announcement.[13] The common standards are funded by the governors and state schools chiefs, with additional support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others.[14] States are planning to implement this initiative by 2015[15] by basing at least 85% of their state curricula on the Standards.
Standards
In 2010, Standards were released for English language arts and mathematics. Standards have not yet been developed for science or social studies.
English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
The stated goal of the English & Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects standards[16] is to ensure that students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high school (page 3). There are five key components to the standards for English and Language Arts: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language, and Media and Technology.[17]The essential components and breakdown of each of these key points within the standards are as follows:
Reading
As students advance through each grade, there is an increased level of complexity to what students are expected to read and there is also a progressive development of reading comprehension so that students can gain more from what they read.[17]
There is no reading list to accompany the reading standards. Instead, students are simply expected to read a range of classic and contemporary literature as well as challenging informative texts from an array of subjects. This is so that students can acquire new knowledge, insights, and consider varying perspectives as they read. Teachers, school districts, and states are expected to decide on the appropriate curriculum, but sample texts are included to help teachers, students, and parents prepare for the year ahead.[17]
There is some critical content for all students — classic myths and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. documents, seminal works of American literature, and the writings of Shakespeare — but the rest is left up to the states and the districts.[17]
Writing
The driving force of the writing standards is logical arguments based on claims, solid reasoning, and relevant evidence. The writing also includes opinion writing even within the K–5 standards.[17]
Short, focused research projects, similar to the kind of projects students will face in their careers as well as long-term, in-depth research is another important piece of the writing standards. This is because written analysis and the presentation of significant findings is critical to career and college readiness.[17]
The standards also include annotated samples of student writing to help determine performance levels in writing arguments, explanatory texts, and narratives across the grades.[17]
Speaking and Listening
Although reading and writing are the expected components of an ELA curriculum, standards are written so that students gain, evaluate, and present complex information, ideas, and evidence specifically through listening and speaking.[17]
There is also an emphasis on academic discussion in one-on-one, small-group, and whole-class settings, which can take place as formal presentations as well as informal discussions during student collaboration.[17]
Language
Vocabulary instruction in the standards takes place through a mix of conversations, direct instruction, and reading so that students can determine word meanings and can expand their use of words and phrases.[17]
The standards expect students to use formal English in their writing and speaking, but also recognize that colleges and 21st century careers will require students to make wise, skilled decisions about how to express themselves through language in a variety of contexts.[17]
Vocabulary and conventions are their own strand because these skills extend across reading, writing, speaking, and listening.[17]
Media and Technology
Since media and technology are intertwined with every student’s life and in school in the 21st century, skills related to media use, which includes the analysis and production of various forms of media, are also included in these standards.[17]
Preliminary “example” works to be studied by students include works by Ovid, Atul Gawande, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Turgenev, Poe, Robert Frost, Yeats, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Amy Tan, and Julia Alvarez.[15]
Cursive and keyboarding
The standards do not mandate the teaching of cursive handwriting, although states are free either to add a cursive requirement or to permit individual school districts to require it. The standards include instruction in keyboarding.[18]
Mathematics
The stated goal of the mathematics Standards[19] is to achieve greater focus and coherence in the curriculum (page 3). This is largely in response to the criticism that American mathematics curricula are “a mile wide and an inch deep”.
The mathematics Standards include Standards for Mathematical Practice and Standards for Mathematical Content.
Mathematical practice
The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Model with mathematics.
Use appropriate tools strategically.
Attend to precision.
Look for and make use of structure.
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
The practices are adapted from the five process standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the five strands of proficiency in the National Research Council’s Adding It Up report.[20] These practices are to be taught in every grade from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Details of how these practices are to be connected to each grade level’s mathematics content are left to local implementation of the Standards.
As an example of mathematical practice, here is the full description of the sixth practice:
6 Attend to precision.
Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning. They state the meaning of the symbols they choose, including using the equal sign consistently and appropriately. They are careful about specifying units of measure, and labeling axes to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. They calculate accurately and efficiently, express numerical answers with a degree of precision appropriate for the problem context. In the elementary grades, students give carefully formulated explanations to each other. By the time they reach high school they have learned to examine claims and make explicit use of definitions.
Mathematical content
The Standards lay out the mathematics content that should be learned at each grade level from kindergarten to Grade 8 (age 13-14), as well as the mathematics to be learned in high school. The Standards do not dictate any particular pedagogy or what order topics should be taught within a particular grade level. Mathematical content is organized in a number of domains. At each grade level there are several standards for each domain, organized into clusters of related standards. (See examples below.)
Four domains are included in each of the grades from kindergarten (age 5-6) to fifth grade (age 10-11):
Operations and Algebraic Thinking;
Number and Operations in Base 10;
Measurement and Data;
Geometry.
Kindergarten also includes the domain Counting and Cardinality. Grades 3 to 5 also include the domain Number and Operations–Fractions.
Four domains are included in each of the Grades 6 through 8:
The Number System;
Expressions and Equations;
Geometry;
Statistics and Probability.
Grades 6 and 7 also include the domain Ratios and Proportional Relationships. Grade 8 includes the domain Functions.
In addition to detailed standards (of which there are 21 to 28 for each grade from kindergarten to eighth grade), the Standards present an overview of “critical areas” for each grade. (See examples below.)
In high school (Grades 9 to 12), the Standards do not specify which content is to be taught at each grade level. Up to Grade 8, the curriculum is integrated; students study four or five different mathematical domains every year. The Standards do not dictate whether the curriculum should continue to be integrated in high school with study of several domains each year (as is done in other countries, as well as New York and Georgia), or whether the curriculum should be separated out into separate year-long algebra and geometry courses (as has been the tradition in most U.S. states). An appendix[21] to the Standards describes four possible pathways for covering high school content (two traditional and two integrated), but states are free to organize the content any way they want.
There are six conceptual categories of content to be covered at the high school level:
Number and quantity;
Algebra;
Functions;
Modeling;
Geometry;
Statistics and probability.
Some topics in each category are indicated only for students intending to take more advanced, optional courses such as calculus, advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics. Even if the traditional sequence is adopted, functions and modeling are to be integrated across the curriculum, not taught as separate courses. In fact, modeling is also a Mathematical Practice (see above), and is meant to be integrated across the entire curriculum beginning in kindergarten. The modeling category does not have its own standards; instead, high school standards in other categories which are intended to be considered part of the modeling category are indicated in the Standards with a star symbol.
Each of the six high school categories includes a number of domains. For example, the “number and quantity” category contains four domains: the real number system; quantities; the complex number system; and vector and matrix quantities. The “vector and matrix quantities” domain is reserved for advanced students, as are some of the standards in “the complex number system”.
Examples of mathematical content
Second grade example: In the second grade there are 26 standards in four domains. The four critical areas of focus for second grade are (1) extending understanding of base-ten notation; (2) building fluency with addition and subtraction; (3) using standard units of measure; and (4) describing and analyzing shapes. Below are the second grade standards for the domain of “operations and algebraic thinking” (Domain 2.OA). This second grade domain contains four standards, organized into three clusters:
Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
1. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.
Add and subtract within 20.
2. Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers.
Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
3. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing objects or counting them by 2s; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal addends.
4. Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to 5 rows and up to 5 columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends.
Domain example: As an example of the development of a domain across several grades, here are the clusters for learning fractions (Domain NF, which stands for “Number and Operations—Fractions”) in Grades 3 through 6. Each cluster contains several standards (not listed here):
Grade 3:
Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.
Grade 4:
Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.
Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.
Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal fractions.
Grade 5:
Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.
Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to multiply and divide fractions.
In Grade 6, there is no longer a “number and operations—fractions” domain, but students learn to divide fractions by fractions in the number system domain.
High school example: As an example of a high school category, here are the domains and clusters for algebra. There are four algebra domains (in bold below), each of which is broken down into as many as four clusters (bullet points below). Each cluster contains one to five detailed standards (not listed here). Starred standards, such as the Creating Equations domain (A-CED), are also intended to be part of the modeling category.
Seeing Structure in Expressions (A-SSE)
Interpret the structure of expressions
Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve problems
Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Functions (A-APR)
Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials
Understand the relationship between zeros and factors of polynomials
Use polynomial identities to solve problems
Rewrite rational expressions
Creating Equations.★ (A-CED)
Create equations that describe numbers or relationships
Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A-REI)
Understand solving equations as a process of reasoning and explain the reasoning
Solve equations and inequalities in one variable
Solve systems of equations
Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically
As an example of detailed high school standards, the first cluster above is broken down into two standards as follows:
Interpret the structure of expressions
1. Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.★
a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.
b. Interpret complicated expressions by viewing one or more of their parts as a single entity. For example, interpretP(1+r)nas the product of P and a factor not depending on P.
2. Use the structure of an expression to identify ways to rewrite it. For example, seex4 – y4as (x2)2 – (y2)2, thus recognizing it as a difference of squares that can be factored as (x2 – y2)(x2 + y2).
Different standards, by state
States have individual variations on implementing the standards.
Vermont
Emphasize basic arithmetic, fractions in elementary school. Focus on memorization instead of reliance on calculators.
An Algebra I capability is perceived for elementary school graduates; Algebra II for high school graduates.
Improve difficulty level of books being read. Less emphasis on how students “feel” about a book and more on analyzing content.
Testing by computer is planned with results available almost “instantly.”[15]
Criticism
Critics question forcing a rigid template on schools already coping with other initiatives like No Child Left Behind. For some states, this will be the third (or more) major change over the past 16 years.[15]
Some critics also question whether there is a demand for creating state standards to begin with. According to the NGA and the CCSSO one motivating factor is the U.S.’s ranking on international test results; however, there does not seem to be a relationship between the US’s low score on these tests and the US’s economic ranking.[22] The United States has ranked 1st or 2nd on the World Economic Forum since 1998 despite scoring near the bottom on the International Mathematics and Science Studies for the past 50 years.[22]
In June 2011, the Voice of America Special English reported on the common core standards on its weekly Education Report for people learning American English. Some commentators criticized the idea that “one size fits all.”[23][24]
In a Huffington Post piece, “Do We Need a Common Core?”, Nicholas Tampio raised two objections to the Common Core. First, he suggests the importance of “America’s historical commitment to local control over school districts,” and the second is his anecdotal discussion of the Common Core claims that the program provide appropriate benchmarks to all students everywhere. He recounts the changes in his son’s kindergarten as the teacher began spending more time teaching from the Common Core curriculum, and says an “inspired kindergarten curriculum has been replaced with a banal one.”
Adoption of Common Core Standards by states
The chart below contains the adoption status of the Common Core Standards as of January 15, 2013.[25] Texas and Alaska are the only states that are not members of the initiative. Nebraska and Virginia are members but have decided not to adopt the standards. Minnesota rejected the Common Core Standards for mathematics, but accepted the English/Language Arts standards.[9] The District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the American Samoa Islands have also adopted the standards. Puerto Rico has not adopted the standards.
State
Adoption stance
Alabama
Formally adopted; repeal legislation introduced in upper and lower houses, February, 2013[26]
Alaska
Non-member
Arizona
Formally adopted
Arkansas
Formally adopted
California
Formally adopted
Colorado
Formally adopted
Connecticut
Formally adopted
Delaware
Formally adopted
District of Columbia
Formally adopted
Florida
Formally adopted
Georgia
Formally adopted
Hawaii
Formally adopted
Idaho
Formally adopted
Illinois
Formally adopted
Indiana
Formally adopted; repealed in State Senate on February 21, 2013
Iowa
Formally adopted
Kansas
Formally adopted
Kentucky
Formally adopted
Louisiana
Formally adopted
Maine
Formally adopted
Maryland
Formally endorsed
Massachusetts
Formally adopted
Michigan
Formally adopted
Minnesota
Adopted (English standards only, math standards rejected)
Mississippi
Formally adopted
Missouri
Formally adopted
Montana
Formally adopted
Nebraska
Initiative member (will not adopt)[27]
Nevada
Formally adopted
New Hampshire
Formally adopted
New Jersey
Formally adopted
New Mexico
Formally adopted
New York
Formally adopted
North Carolina
Formally adopted
North Dakota
Formally adopted
Ohio
Formally adopted
Oklahoma
Formally adopted
Oregon
Formally adopted
Pennsylvania
Formally adopted
Rhode Island
Formally adopted
South Carolina
Formally adopted
South Dakota
Formally adopted
Tennessee
Formally adopted
Texas
Non-member
Utah
Formally adopted
Vermont
Formally adopted
Virginia
Initiative member (will not adopt)[28]
Washington
Formally adopted
West Virginia
Formally adopted
Wisconsin
Formally adopted
Wyoming
Formally adopted
Assessment
With the implementation of new standards, states are also required to adopt new assessment benchmarks to measure student achievement. According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, formal assessment is expected to take place in the 2014–2015 school year, which coincides with the projected implementation year for most states.[13] The assessment has yet to be created, but two consortiums were generated with two different approaches as to how to assess the standards.[29] “26 states formed the PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium. Their approach focused on computer-based ‘through-course assessments’ in each grade combined with streamlined end of year tests, including performance tasks.”[30] The second consortium, “the SMARTER Balance Consortium, brought together 31 states proposing to create adaptive online exams.”[30] The final decision of which assessment to use will be determined by individual state education agencies. The Common Core State Standards website explained that some states plan to work together to create a common, universal assessment system based on the common core state standards while other states are choosing to work independently or through these two consortiums to develop the assessment.[31] Both of these leading consortiums are proposing computer-based exams that include fewer selected and constructed response test items, which moves away from what we typically think of as the Standardized Test most students are currently taking. This kind of assessment would be better aligned to college and career readiness, but does pose some interesting challenges considering the limited computer and technology resources available to some schools.
References
^ Gibbs, T. H. and Howley, A. (2000). “”World-Class Standards” and Local Pedagogies: Can We Do Both?” Thresholds in Education. ERIC Publications. 51 – 55.
To view specific dates of adoption and projected implementation years for each state visit this Google Map of the Common Core State Standards Initiative and click on each state’s place holder. (Note that whereas the Google Map claims Montana has not yet adopted the Standards, the official Common Core website claims Montana accepted the Standards on November 4, 2011.)
The traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman held by a majority of Americans is being challenged by a growing minority who want to expand the definition of marriage by including gay or same-sex couples.
In November 2008 California voters approved the Proposition 8 ballot initiative, which amended the state constitution and states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Subsequently, the United States District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have found Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
On March 26, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger, initially, and then Perry v. Brown) regarding the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.
Below are some of the highlights of the justices’ questions and remarks:
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
“When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?”
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”
Associate Justice Elena Kagan
“Suppose a state said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito
“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.”
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
“There’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”
Chief Justice John Roberts
“I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say, ‘Let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals.’ The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case is expected in June.
Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/
Audio Excerpts of High Court Gay Marriage Case
Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban
Supreme Court Hears Prop. 8 Case (Full Audio)
Gay marriage was heard before the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, that defined marriage between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by California’s voters in the 2008 General Election, but struck down later by the district court.
The basic history of how the case came to the court:
Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger, initially, and then Perry v. Brown) is a case currently before the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, a three judge appellate panel held that California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry, was unconstitutional. Lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were filed in state and federal courts nearly immediately after the initiative’s passage. In Strauss v. Horton (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was a valid enactment under California law. However, in August 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judgment was stayed pending appeal. On February 7, 2012, a divided three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court, though it did so on much narrower grounds than the District Court did. On June 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied a request for a rehearing en banc. The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case by granting a writ of certiorari on December 7, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013.
The full case:
Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage
THE LATEST NEWS : Same-sex marriage ‘too new’ for court?
5 Gay Marriage Issues Before Supreme Court
Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage: “I Don’t Care”
Audio » Mark Levin – Supreme Court On California’s Proposition 8
Gay Marriage ban overturned: Judge Napolitano weighs in on Prop 8 appeal
Rush on Prop 8 ruling: This is Tyranny!
Media hypes Prop 8, ignores real issues
08/04/10 – Prop 8 Overturned – Rob Reiner, Ted Olson & David Boise Celebrate Outside Courthouse
Proposition 8 – Overturned by California Supreme Court?! – 05-23-09
Cord Cutters: Play YouTube videos on your Roku, AirPlay-styl
Roku 3 Review: Pure Awesomeness
Roku 3 Evolves, Shows the “Way of the Future” – Breaking Analysis
Apple TV vs Roku 3
Roku 3: Unboxing & Review
Cord Cutters: Roku 3 review
Roku 3 Review & New Interface Tour
REVIEW: The Roku 3 Blows Away The Apple TV
By Steve Kovach | Business Insider – 2 hours 33 minutes ago
There’s no shortage of devices with so-called smart TV functions.
You have the Apple TV that connects to your iTunes content. The Boxee that lets you record network TV on a virtual online DVR. TV makers like Samsung and LG have streaming apps built directly into their web-connected TV sets. And so on.
But at their core, none of these devices revolutionize television the way many are hoping Apple will if it ever launches its rumored television set. Most of these gadgets, the current Apple TV box included, function largely the same. You get access to the standard library of streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, plus the option to buy and rent movies and TV shows.
That’s about it.
What’s most important in today’s streaming devices is the interface, an interface that lets you find what you want to watch as quickly as possibly and jump in. You also need plenty of good content to enjoy.
The newest box from Roku, the Roku 3, achieves both these things better than any other device I’ve used, making the $99.99 streaming box the best you can buy today.
New LookThe Roku 3 interface is a complete overhaul of the last one, and it’s so good I’m going to have trouble going back to my clunky Apple TV.
Unlike the Apple TV which can make you click through as many as four or five menus before you’re able to jump into the thing you want to watch, every detail in the Roku 3′s user interface is designed to minimize your effort.
Scrolling vertically lets you cycle through apps or menu options in an infinite loop so there’s no need to navigate back to the top of a list. (If you’ve used Apple TV’s menus before, you know this can be a pain.) Scrolling horizontally lets you dive deeper into your selection, meaning you can launch the app you want or get more information on a specific piece of content. These are tiny details, but they feel so natural that the interface almost disappears. I haven’t seen anyone pull that off on the television screen yet.
But the best feature by a longshot is search, which lets you look up content by actor, director, title, etc. and provides you with a list of all streaming sources you can watch the video on. For example, a search for “South Park” gives you the option to stream the show on Netflix, Hulu, or purchase individual episodes.
There’s no clicking through endless menus and search options. There’s no hoping what you want to watch is on Hulu or Netflix or Amazon or whatever else before you search that individual app. You just search for the stuff you want and the Roku finds it for you wherever it lives. It’s such an essential and simple feature that I’m shocked it’s not standard on all streaming devices by now.
Content SelectionBecause Roku is open to third-party developers, you have a much larger content selection than you get on Apple TV. The Roku has all the standard stuff Apple TV has like Netflix, Hulu, and sports services like MLB.tv. But you also get a lot of stuff the Apple TV doesn’t have yet like HBO GO, Amazon Instant, Spotify, and Pandora.
Plus there are several casual games like Angry Birds and other streaming video apps to choose from in Roku’s virtual store.
If you want to buy or rent videos, there’s Vudu, a virtual store with a selection about as good as Apple’s. You can stream purchased videos directly to your Roku and they remain tied to your account so you can access them whenever you want. It also has several shows available the day after the air, which can come in handy for those who no longer subscribe to cable.
That was my biggest problem with the Roku 3. Over the years I’ve purchased a ton of movies and TV shows through iTunes, meaning I’m already locked into Apple’s system. The Roku 3 is so good I regret doing that. If you’re like me, you’ll have to repurchase a lot of your favorite content through Vudu if you decide to switch to the Roku.
Yes, Apple TV is slowly letting more apps onto its platform. Hulu Plus finally got the green light last year. HBO GO is reportedly coming soon and you can now use AirPlay to beam videos from the the iPhone or iPad version to your Apple TV. And there’s increased talk that Apple will open Apple TV to third-party developers soon, meaning even more content could be on the way.
But as it stands now, Roku simply offers you more content options for the same price as the Apple TV.
The HardwareThe Roku 3 does have a few hardware advances worth mentioning, especially when it comes to the remote control. In fact, the remote is probably the biggest hardware innovation the Roku 3 offers: a headphone jack on the side that automatically mutes your TV and pumps the audio to your headphones instead.
It’s perfect if you want to watch TV in bed without disturbing your partner. It’s perfect if you only have one TV and want to share the living room with someone who’d rather be reading instead of listening to some gory “Game of Thrones” battle. Like the user interface, the headphone jack is a simple detail that was perfectly executed and solves a common annoyance on our TVs that no one has really tried to tackle before. If you’ve ever had to compete for the sound waves in your living room, you know what I’m talking about.
The remote also has built-in motion controls for gaming, sort of like the remote on the Wii video game console. But I found it’s not as accurate as the remote on the Wii. When playing Angry Birds Space, for example, the cursor didn’t always match up perfectly to where I pointed the remote, so I had to keep resetting the position to match what I was seeing on the screen. It was a minor annoyance, but definitely worth noting in case you think the Roku would make a good gaming machine.
Other than the remote, there’s not much different with the Roku 3. It looks very similar to the last version, a small squarish device that can fit in the palm of your hand. But it does has a faster processor so apps and games run slightly smoother than before. It also has a dual-band WiFi chip for faster wireless speeds, but you’ll need a special router to take advantage of that. (I think you’re better off plugging the Ethernet cable directly into the Roku if you can.)
Finally, there’s a USB port so you can plug in an external hard drive or thumb drive and play video files that you’ve made yourself or downloaded from somewhere else.
The new hardware features are nice, but there’s no need to upgrade from the second-generation Roku unless you really, really want that new remote with the headphone jack. All those great software features I mentioned? You’ll get them in a software update soon if you haven’t already.
If you don’t have a Roku, the hardware upgrades are definitely more versatile than what you get with the Apple TV.
ConclusionAs I said in the intro, no streaming box can offer you some sort of revolution in web-based video watching. But the Roku is the best at working with what is out there already. You get access to more streaming services and content than the Apple TV has, plus an incredible interface that helps you find what you want better than anything else out there.
It’s that good.
Unless you already have a lot of content purchased through iTunes, the Roku 3 is the best choice.
Greetings citizens of the world, the following is a very special message for all of humanity. Too long have we lived in fear, fear of greed, fear of corruption, fear of failure, fear that everything we’ve known turned out to be wrong.
No longer will we live in fear! It ends here and now, with you and me! We are brothers and sisters of humanity, the time has come for us to unite! We must forge a new beginning of peace and love, we must be the good we want to see in the world.
Humanity is still young, and for the first time ever in human history we have a real chance at true peace as a species. The internet has united us more than ever before, its time we use this gift to promote the unity of us all. Its time we stand up as a planet and declare we will no longer take part in a system based on fear, greed, corruption, and war.
Lets put everything into perspective for those of you that need more convincing, the United Sates alone has spent trillions of dollars on wars. War has claimed the lives of over 264 million people throughout the course of known human history, many of whom where civilians. Human progress has been halted by senseless wars.
While we fight amongst ourselves on Earth there’s an entire universe passing us by. There are an estimated 160 billion planets in our galaxy alone, many of which could potentially be home to carbon-based life as we know it. Stars go supernova, entire solar systems get destroyed, even whole galaxies collide while we argue and fight over small and pointless issues. We should be happy we have a planet to live on, not fighting over who owns the planet. In truth no individual or even an entire species owns it, because in truth all life on Earth owns this planet.
Someday soon humanity will venture to the stars, will we go into the unknown divided and fighting? Or will we say as one voice, as one species, “We the People of Earth, united as one, declare from this day fourth that no force, however big or small, shall ever divide the spirit of humanity again. United in our cause for peace, knowledge, and progress, we go forward into the unknown as brothers and sisters, as a species no longer divided by war, greed, corruption, and fear.”
The choice is yours to make, you are Anonymous, you are the future of Earth. You can either continue the wars and division of humanity, or you can try something new. You can give peace a chance, you can help secure a beautiful world of peace, knowledge, and progress for all generations to come.
You are Anonymous,
You are part of Humanity,
You should Forgive,
yet You should never Forget,
It’s time to Expect Yourself…Lets unite under WORLD ANONYMOUS NOW.
With your help, may one day the innocent never suffer and the brave never die, for on that day we’ll truly be free. United as one, divided by zero.
anonymous ITU and WCIT 3-15 december
New Trend: Governing the Internet
TAKE ACTION for a FREE and OPEN INTERNET, Threat Wire Ep. 002
This week on Threat Wire, Darren and Shannon discuss the issues with the ITU and keeping the internet free and open for the world.
The UN have apparently released details that they will to add certain levels of control on the internet, which would for one thing cause traffic from abroad to larger international websites based in the US (such as facebook or Google) to have to pay a tax,.
“”Proposals for the new ITU treaty run to more than 200 pages. One idea is to apply the ITU’s long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a ‘sender-party-pays’ rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country to the local phone company at the receiving end. Under a sender-pays approach, U.S.-based websites would pay a local network for each visitor from overseas, effectively taxing firms such as Google and Facebook. “
ALERT – United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
United Nation Planning to Control The Internet – Alex Jones Tv
United Nations Seeks to Control the Internet – Thoughts & Opinions
Does the ITU threaten freedom of speech on the Internet? – Truthloader
Assange s prophecy Govnts plan Internet takeover
Richard Hill at the EIF debate on WCIT and ITRs
The 193 member countries of the ITU will meet in Dubai 3-14 December at World Conference on International Telecommunication 2012 to revise the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), a 1988 treaty-level document establishing policies governing international telecommunications services between countries. While some Member States of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as well as a few independent groups, are advocating for expanded intergovernmental powers over the Internet with respect to the Internet as well as wireless, IP-based, and next generation networks; other countries believe that the WCIT should adopt only minor changes to the ITRs as necessary to modernize the existing provisions of the treaty, and that new provisions and authorities are unnecessary.
Europe’s role and view will be crucial in the debate and to its outcome. In the dinner debate organised by the European Internet Foundation, representatives from the European Commission, European Industry and Civil society had been invited to exchange views on issues at stake and present their positions.
Perspectives from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) were presented by Richard Hill, Counsellor at the ITU
Vint Cerf on the ITU
Vint Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist, shares a message with participants at the Big Tent Dublin on the importance of free expression. Vint also expresses his concerns about potential threats to an Open Internet in Internet governance reform at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) conference in Dubai in December 2012.
YOUR INTERNET IS IN DANGER!!!
Your internet is fine. I lied. But Google lied first, so I think it’s justified.
Alex Jones Exposes Google’s Plan to Dominate the Internet
Goodlatte speaks in opposition to UN control of the Internet
ITU TELECOM WORLD 2012 – Highlights Video
Highlights video of ITU TELECOM WORLD 2012, Dubai, UAE.
ITU Telecom World 2012, 14-18 October 2012, Dubai International Convention and Exhibition Centre (DICEC).
Five days of pivotal discussion and debate on some of the hottest topics facing the ICT industry.
The world is changing faster than ever before in human history, thanks largely to the explosive growth of the ICT sector. New technologies, new industry players and new global trends is at the heart of debates in Dubai.
Hundreds of industry leaders came together with government ministers, regulators and manufacturers for five days of critical debate to shape the policies, regulations and competitive strategies of future communications.
ITU INTERVIEW @ WCIT-12: Paul Budde, Independent Analyst, BuddeComm
Interview with Paul Budde, Independent Analyst, BuddeComm at WCIT 2012
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3-14 December 2012.
The World Conference on International Telecommunications will review the current International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.
ITU Secretary – General Video Message: Dr Hamadoun I.Touré, S-G, ITU on WCIT – 12
ITU Secretary General Video Message: Dr Hamadoun I.Touré, Secretary-General, International Telecommunications Union, speaking about the World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012(WCIT -12).
ITU will convene the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 3-14 December 2012. This landmark conference will review the current International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.
FRANCE 24 Tech 24: Who rules the Web? : ITU vs. ICANN
Internet at Liberty 2012: Plenary II - Riz Khan, Gary Fowlie, Ben Wagner
Possible Internet Take Over By The ITU (UN) [HD]
Spread the word, share & take action! :
*Sign-on Letter Opposing ITU Authority Over the Internet :
[Internet advocates all over the world are organizing around the upcoming ITU conference. On this page, we've collected a set of tools and resources to help interested groups and citizens get involved.]
Ivailo Kalfin (MEP, BG) argues in the European parliament that Internet should stay free and open, ahead of the WCIT meeting in Dubai in December. Internet is a very strong tool these days and there are many that would like to control it and the people, using it. For example by changing its business model and making it more expensive and less accessible. Some governments are even suggesting creating a “national internet”, which is an oxymoron, something that is against the nature of Internet itself, says Kalfin
Operation WCIT – Keep OUR internet Free
We love the internet.
And we’re guessing you do too. Think about all the awesome things it gives us: A vast communication network; innovative businesses; a platform to freely speak or challenge powerful governments; and hundreds and hundreds of hours of cat videos.
All this great stuff is available because the internet was designed in an open and inclusive way, with a multitude of voices being able to get a say on how it’s governed.
But the internet is in danger.
There’s a meeting between the world’s governments in a just a few weeks, and it could very well decide the future of the internet through a binding international treaty. It’s called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), and it’s being organized by a government-controlled UN agency called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for internet access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimizes monitoring and blocking of online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. Used as a pretext to internet pornography among other things as an excuse to censor sensitive material pages (note that there are too many cases of child pornography that are ignored by the police) In addition to paying for internet service, you’d also have to pay for visiting certain sites, such as YouTube. Your communications would be constantly monitored and archived, meaning the end of Internet privacy. This could potentially lead to individuals becoming victims of blackmail by malicious people who control the monitoring. The Internet is home to many organized social movements which fight for human rights worldwide. If we allow this, we will not be able to use the Internet to organize the defense of our rights…
If the delicate balance of the internet is upset, it could have grave consequences for businesses and human rights.
This must be stopped.
Only governments get a vote at WCIT, so we need people from all around the world to demand that our leaders keep the internet open.
Watch the video, and take action above to tell your governments to oppose handing over key decisions about the internet to the ITU. Let’s use the internet’s global reach to save it.
We are the internet
We are anonymous
We are here to help you with your revolution
Background Articles and Videos
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12)
“…ITU will convene the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 3-14 December 2012. This landmark conference will review the current International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.
The treaty sets out general principles for assuring the free flow of information around the world, promoting affordable and equitable access for all and laying the foundation for ongoing innovation and market growth. The ITRs were last negotiated in Melbourne, Australia in 1988, and there is broad consensus that the text now needs to be updated to reflect the dramatically different information and communication technology (ICT) landscape of the 21st century.
HD 2K 4K Video Time Lapse Stock Footage Showreel 2011 – Night Rush Around the World 2
Ultra High Definition Television: Threshold of a new age
A look at 4K TV, with Tech Expert Marc Saltzman at CES 2012
Sony Bravia KD-84X9005 84-inch 4K HDTV (IFA 2012)
VIDEO: Sony’s Ultra High-Definition 84-Inch Television
SONY 84 INCH 4K UHD TV WTF?!?!
Sony’s Ultra High Definition TV will come with world’s first 4K delivery system
Démo TV Sony 4K Ultra HD 84″ (214cm)
Ultra high-definition 84-inch TV coming to the U.S. with a $25,000 (£15,614) price tag
Sony is releasing its first ultra-high-definition television, a massive 84-inch set that retails for $25,000 (£15,614) and features nearly four times the resolution of typical high-definition TVs
Ultra HD is widely regarded as the next evolution in TV technology
“…The new, restored and rebooted films from Sony Pictures are among the content coming pre-loaded on a video player bundled with Sony’s first ultra-high-definition television, a massive 84-inch set that retails for $25,000 (£15,614) and features nearly four times the resolution of typical high-definition TVs.
‘People ask the question, “Do I need to get a bigger house to fit an 84-inch TV?”’ said Chris Cookson, president of Sony Pictures Technologies.
‘The answer is that 25 inches was right for standard definition; 50 inches was right for high-definition; and 84 inches is right now that we’re going ultra-high-def.’
Ultra HD is widely regarded as the next evolution in TV technology, but there’s currently a lack of content that takes advantage of the vast resolution, though Ultra HD sets are equipped to upscale lower resolution video.
Sony Corp. is hoping to overcome that pitfall that with this new player.
The Japanese electronics giant debuted the hard-disc server – hidden in a cabinet underneath the behemoth television – at a posh invite-only party Thursday at a private mansion in Santa Monica that featured a performance by John Legend.
The video player will include 4K content such as short films, concerts and 10 feature-length movies, including ‘The Other Guys,’ ‘Salt’ and ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai.’
Sony’s TV will also come with an Xperia Tablet S, which can be used as a touchscreen remote control.
‘Cypherpunks’: Assange book backs privacy protection, power of transparency
Assange s prophecy Govnts plan Internet takeover
Clearing the smokescreen on Julian Assange and Wikileaks
With all the propaganda about Julian Assange and wikileaks in the media it’s sometimes hard to tell the truth from the lies. Here is a very impartial documentary that only looks at the hard facts, from direct witnesses to the lawyers involved in the case.
Julian Assange Interview (web surveillance)
Julian Assange on the Surveillance State, Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks
Petraeus – Benghazi Scandal: Best Explanation out there today!!! Glenn Beck 11.12.12
Benghazi-gate Obama Cover-Up
Benghazi Gate – Obama Admin & The Cover-up Continues
Obama Admin Are You Lying About Benghazi To Get Elected? – Judge
Obama and his Press Secretary Blaming the Video for the Benghazi Attack
Rice: Libya attacks spontaneous
LIBYA Susan Rice: Embassy Attack By Extremists Is Spontaneous, Heavy Weapons Accessible
Ambassador Rice: Anti-Islam Film Responsible For Attacks, Not Administration’s Policy
Chris Wallace Grills Robert Gibbs Over Obama Admin.’s Insistence That Libya Attack Was Spontaneous
Innocence of Muslims Full Movie HD 1080P Trailer
SHOCKING: OBAMA Knew Libya Attack Was Terrorism Within 24 Hours
Glenn Beck discusses Benghazi and Petraeus with Judge Napolitano
Glenn Beck – Sex, Lies, and Libya Part 1
Glenn Beck – Sex, Lies, and Libya Part 2
Obama Has Crossed A Line – TheBlaze
GBTV: President is lying
Rush Limbaugh – Obama Lied About the Benghazi Terrorist Attack
James Clapper, Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence, is making Gen. Petraeus “an offer he can’t refuse” (Beck)
Benghazi Libya – James Clapper Taking The Blame?
Intelligence chief on Benghazi
The O’Reilly Factor Recorded Nov 16, 2012
US CONSULATE In LIBYA Was Actually ATTACKED By AL-QAEDA
Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help
Gowdy Calls for Clear Answers on Benghazi from the Administration
Judge Napolitano on Fox News: Libyan Embassy Attack Is Blowback 10/22/12
Petraeus, Allen, Gaouette, Ham: The Benghazi Story The Media Isn’t Telling You
General Petraeus Sex Scandal…
Benghazi why not what
Petraeus wants to clear up confusion
Gen. Petraeus Testimony Ends GOP Benghazi Scandal Or Does It?
David Petraeus Affair Scandal Fallout: ‘This Week’ Roundtable Discussion
CNN: FBI Raids Home Of General Petraeus Mistress
Benghazi Attack Exposed – G Edward Griffin Speculates on the Conspiracy – Is Petraeus a Scapegoat?
Was There A Libya Cover-Up? – Pat Caddell Democratic Pollster On O’Reilly
BENGHAZI-GATE “Sex, Lies and Obama’s Smoking Gun” (Part 1)
In Part 1 of Benghazi-gate, Christopher Greene investigates the Obama Administration’s massive cover-up that killed Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the Libyan embassy on Sept 11, 2012.
Bombshell: Clinton Ordered More Security In Benghazi, Obama Denied Request
Petraeus testifies in Congress behind closed doors
‘Commander curse in Afghanistan both domestic rivalry & policy backfire’
The US campaign in Afghanistan has suffered a military-grade blow with at least two celebrity generals and veterans of the intervention falling from grace. A sex scandal that started with revelations of the ex-CIA chief having an affair, has now claimed the reputation of the current Afghan campaign commander.
Dr. Sreeram Chaulia, from the Jindal School of International Affairs in India believes the generals’ main mistake was total failure in Afghanistan.
Petraeus Gagged? ‘Scandal timing may mean political cover-up’
Death And Deceit In Benghazi – Did Obama Amind Try Hide The Truth? – W Bret Bair
Benghazi Attack: Ambassador Patrick Kennedy Opening Statement
General Petraeus’ sex scandal: CIA vs FBI?
General David Petraeus’ resignation as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency came after the FBI investigated complaints of harassing emails. This lead to the discovery of Petraeus’ love affair with his biographer and many believe that the rivalry between the FBI and the CIA had something to do with the leaked information. So does the FBI have the power to search emails without a warrant? Trevor Aaronson, author of the book The Terror Factory, gives us his take on the scandal.
General Petraeus leaked secret info on Benghazi attack to his mistress?
General David Petraeus has been making headlines for his extramarital love-affair and his lack of judgement during the Benghazi attacks on the US consulate in Libya among other things, but the mainstream media has not held Petraeus accountable for his controversial action during his military career. So what is going on with the fourth estate? Retired Colonel Morris Davis joins us with more on Petraeus’ career and relation with the media.
David Petraeus Resigns from CIA Over Affair
David Petraeus Scandal: Truth Behind Resignation, Paula Broadwell
Petraeus’ Fall from Grace; Details of Former CIA Director General Petraeus’ Extramarital Affair
The Real Reason Petraeus Resigned
Glenn Beck on David Petreaus sex scandal
Petraeus Sex Scandal: FBI Agent Who Launched Investigation ID’d as Frederick H
