Corruption Corner – Page 46

A Complete Lack of Government Transparency

Our government has a wonderful knack for keeping secrets while claiming to be a government “by the people, for the people.” It’s rather hard to keep tabs on the government that’s supposedly working for you when you haven’t a clue what they’re up to. People complained that the Bush administration unnecessarily increased the amount of information deemed classified by our government and when Obama was campaigning he promised to reverse this trend and unleash an era of unprecedented government transparency. Surprising only to his supporters Obama didn’t deliver on that promise and we are still living under a government that’s keep absolutely ridiculous stuff classified:

In 2009, President Obama famously promised “an unprecedented level of openness” in his administration, and a lynchpin in his open government plan was an overhaul of the government’s bloated secrecy system.

[…]

Unfortunately, besides the most peripheral and cosmetic changes, government secrecy has only increased since Obama took office. Last year, as part of their Washington Post series and subsequent book Top Secret America, Dana Priest and William Arkin reported, “An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.” Yet incredibly, when the government released its official count as part of an intelligence community report to Congress two months ago, the number of people holding the Top Secret clearance had ballooned to 1,419,051. And the same report noted that 4.2 million people hold some level of security clearances for access to classified information.

I guess we can sweep this hole mess under the old hope and change rug. Whenever I bring up the government’s abuse of classification I inevitably get told by somebody that these practices are absolutely essential for national security. What those people must not realize is that the government classified plenty of documents that have nothing to do with the realm of national security:

Document classification, already at record highs under the Bush Administration, has continued to explode as well. The government classified a staggering 77 million documents in 2010, a 40% increase over the previous year.

Overclassification causes a myriad of problems. It can open the government up to ridicule, like when the CIA recently refused to release a single passage from its study on global warming, claiming it would harm national security. It can stifle public debate, like two months ago when the CIA tried to censor the memoir critical of its post-9/11 tactics (despite the fact that much of the information that had already been revealed in Congressional testimony). It can encourage waste and incompetence, as it has at the Department of Homeland Security, where even the budget and number of employees is classified. And most critically, it can be used as a veil to hide illegal conduct, such as the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.

I’m sure the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) study on global warming holds significant concerns regarding this country’s security. The government is even using their power of classification to remove any threat of being held responsible for killing an American citizen without due process:

Nowhere was this absurdity starker than when the media reported on the death of Yemen’s alleged al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, at the hands of a (classified) C.I.A. drone. The evidence against him, the panel of U.S officials who decided he was to be put on a “kill list,” and the legal memo “authorizing” his killing were all “Top Secret,” despite the extraordinary constitutional implications of extrajudicially killing an American citizen.

While our government says we should simply trust them to judge which American citizens should live and which should die they’re not willing to present the evidence they used to come to their decisions. We have no clue what evidence existed that nominated al-Awlaki for the kill list.

In a free country where the people are supposed to keep an eye on their government nothing can be accomplished if those very people are kept in the dark on what their government is doing. We are left to speculate on every little action they take and most people know that those concealing their intentions are usually up to no good.

Chaos Computer Club Claims to have Cracked Spying Software Used by the German Government

It seems the American government doesn’t have a monopoly on illegally spying on its citizens. The Chaos Computer Club claims to have crack malicious software used by the German government to illegally spy on its citizens:

It sounds like something out of George Orwell’s novel “1984” — a computer program that can remotely control someone’s computer without their knowledge, search its complete contents and use it to conduct audio-visual surveillance via the microphone or webcam.

But the spy software that the famous German hacker organization Chaos Computer Club has obtained is not used by criminals looking to steal credit-card data or send spam e-mails. If the CCC is to be believed, the so-called “Trojan horse” software was used by German authorities. The case has already triggered a political shockwave in the country and could have far-reaching consequences.

On Saturday, the CCC announced that it had been given hard drives containing a “state spying software” which had allegedly been used by German investigators to carry out surveillance of Internet communication.

As you can guess this news didn’t surprise me (just once I’d like a government to surprise me by not actually being up to anything nefarious) but I do find it interesting that the software allows the controller to remotely control the target’s computer. Such a feature seems like a potential court defense since somebody whose machine was infected with the software could claim that the police are framing him. Then again the state runs the courts and the police so it’s unlikely any judge would be willing to throw a case out because his fellow state agents were doing something naughty. That isn’t even the worst part though, the software also demonstrates that a state can’t actually do anything with any measurable amount of competency:

The organization had analyzed the software and found it to be full of defects. They also found that it transmitted information via a server located in the US. As well as its surveillance functions, it could be used to plant files on an individual’s computer. It was also not sufficiently protected, so that third parties with the necessary technical skills could hijack the Trojan horse’s functions for their own ends. The software possibly violated German law, the organization said.

Nice, not only does the software allow a third-party to remotely control the system but it’s also full of security holes so any jackass on the Internet could waltz right in. Security flaws is ultimately the reason I don’t believe any evidence gathered from software of this nature should be admissible in court. Anytime you install a new piece of software you face possible security issues that could allow a third-party to gain remote access to your system. If state agents infect your machine with this software and a third-party uses a security flaw in the software to access your machine and perform illegal acts it’s most likely the state is going to target you because they already suspect you’re up to something they don’t approve of.

I also find the fact that the software transmits data to server in the United States interesting. This could be a barrier put into place so the gathered evidence lies outside of German jurisdiction (for instance if the software is discovered and the state decides to perform an investigation into what was gathered). Another possible reason for sending data to the United States could be due to some secret agreement between the two country’s governments regarding intelligence sharing. Of course it could just be due to the software manufacturer being a United States company and the software is transmitting quality assurance data.

Either way this story should demonstrate the fact that agents of the state can never be trusted. Software such as this is supposed to be illegal according to German law:

If the CCC’s claims are true, then the software has functions which were expressly forbidden by Germany’s highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court, in a landmark 2008 ruling which significantly restricted what was allowed in terms of online surveillance. The court also specified that online spying was only permissible if there was concrete evidence of danger to individuals or society.

When has a state complied with its own ruling though? While I hope the information being presented by the Chaos Computer Club is incorrect I honestly trust a group of hackers far more than any government.

Mexican Police Caught Holding Kidnap Victims for Drug Cartels

With friends like this who needs enemies? It’s pretty well known by now that the Mexican drug cartels wield an immense amount of power. Knowing this it shouldn’t be too surprising to hear that some police stations have been holding kidnap victims for the drug cartels:

Several police officers in northern Mexico allowed a violent drug gang to hold kidnap victims in the local jail while ransom payments were being negotiated, an official has said.

Four police officers from Juárez, a suburb of the city of Monterrey, are being held pending further investigation, said Jorge Domene, the security spokesman for Nuevo León state.

The scandal came to light this week when state and federal police freed two kidnapping victims from jail cells in Juárez. Investigators believe that the victims were abducted by the extremely violent Zetas cartel and that the officers were working for the Zetas, Domene said.

So riddle me this. The police are given a monopoly on the initiation of force with the supposed goal being the protection of the citizenry. As the police have a monopoly on this “service” who is supposed to protect the people from the police when they switch sides? Another frightening thought to consider is the high likelihood that other police officers in Mexico are doing the same thing.

More Proof That The Government Views Us as Serfs

I often throw around the word serf as a tongue-in-cheek description of how the government views us. Sadly it’s not as tongue-in-cheek as it should be. A serf was a term used for somebody who worked land owned by a lord. While the lord reaped all of the benefits of the land the serfs were merely allowed to work said land and live there. This is basically the relationship that exists between government and people. Minnesota decided to give a great example of this fact to the citizenry by auctioning off mineral rights to private property:

Private property owners from the Ely area will make a final appeal Wednesday to the state’s top leaders to stop exploration for copper on their land, which lies in a part of the state cherished for its clean lakes and stately forests.

The state’s Executive Council, made up of the governor, the attorney general and other elected officials, is holding a special meeting to hear out citizens who have been fighting the state’s decision last April to sell 50-year mineral leases on their land.

Residents and cabin owners in what may become a new copper mining district near Ely say they were shocked that the state’s century-old minerals law seems skewed to favor mining companies over property owners. It was also their introduction to a side of the Department of Natural Resources that they had never seen — the one with a mission to promote mining.

This is very common throughout the world, while the government will “sell” you property they will keep all mineral rights over that property even after the sale. Canada is a great example of this where the government claims ownership to the mineral rights of all property sold after the early 1900s.

While the people living in Ely, Minnesota thought they owned their land they’re now realizing that they don’t. If they truly owned their land they could forcibly remove the mine speculators from their property as trespassers. Instead those speculators have permission from the government to not only search “private” property for minerals but also mine those minerals without having to grant the “owner” of the property anything but minor compensations.

How disgusting is it that you don’t even own your own property? If you find gold somewhere on your property you’d best not tell anybody as the government may gain knowledge of it and move in to take that gold from you. For a society to be truly peaceful absolute property rights must be recognized.

The Case of Anwar al-Awlaki

The news is in, Anwar al-Awlaki is dead! Hurray! Go America! That’s how this news is being reported by a great number of sources with few giving much consideration to the fact that the President ordered a hit on a United States citizen without granting that citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed right to face his accusers. Thankfully there are some dissenter left on Capitol Hill who are willing to point out this face:

Paul, known for his fierce libertarian views, said the death of the New Mexico native-turned-terrorist-preacher was akin to “assassination” during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

“I don’t think it’s a good way to deal with our problems,” the Texas Congressman said. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.”

I fully agree with Dr. Paul on this. Anwar al-Awalki may have been a terrible person but he was still a citizen of the United States of America, which means he should have enjoyed the so-called rights ascribed by the Constitution. Namely al-Awalki’s Sixth Amendment guarantee to a trial by jury and right to face his accuser were violated:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The United States is supposedly a landed where rule of law reigns supreme. Instead our government sees fit to throw out laws when those rules become inconvenient to them. Would arresting somebody and trying him for crimes be a pain in the ass? “No problem!” our politicians say, “Just send a missile at him from an unmanned drone!”

People in this country should be truly frightening by this turn of events. When you give the government an inch they always take a lightyear. Sure they’re using the excuse that al-Awalki was a terrorist this time but what’s to stop the government from expanding on this? We’re currently fighting a war on drugs so should the President have the power to order hits on drug deals who are citizens of the United States? Considering the fact that the federal government has been using clauses in the PATRIOT Act to fight the war on drugs what I’m suggesting wouldn’t be too great of a leap. From there why not allow the President to order hits on drug users?

The blind approval of the assassination of al-Awalki is a slippery slope indeed. We, as American people, need to decide if our country is indeed a land where all are equal under the law or if our country is run by a ruling class who can exempt themselves from the law whenever they so choose. Should our politicians have to abide by the Constitution at all times or only pay it lip service when it’s politically expedient? We can’t have it both ways.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t

As Jay will tell you Massachusetts is one messed up state. I’ve mentioned before that the state’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s OK to charge people to appeal a ticket and now they’ve ruled that it’s OK to charge somebody who successfully fought a ticket:

Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.

Emphasis mine. In the state of Massachusetts you can be punished for not even committing a crime. How fucking convenient is that for agents of the state? If the local police department is running low on money they can just write a bunch of tickets to everybody and collect money whether or not their victims are able to get the bogus tickets overthrown.

This precedence sets up a huge conflict of interest. What’s to stop police officers from issuing bogus tickets now? No matter what happens they win and get money out of the deal.

A Message From the FDA to Asthma Sufferers

This week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a powerful message to asthma sufferers, you can all go fuck yourselves and pay three times as much for the inhalers you need to breath. Oh and if you want to continue breathing you’re going to need a prescription:

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government’s latest attempt to protect the Earth’s atmosphere.

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.

See those over-the-counter inhalers use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which have been linked with the hole in the ozone layer. Due to this over-the-counter inhalers are being banned because the ozone layer is far more important than your breathing… even though it has been recovering in spite of these Earth killing inhalers. But let us not get tied up in logic here, we need to enrich the pharmaceutical companies who charge three times as much for prescription inhalers than current over-the-counter inhalers:

But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.

Perhaps I’m just being cynical. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that cheap over-the-counter inhalers are being banned for a completely unnecessary reason and the only legal alternatives cost up to three times as much.

Shut Up Peasant

Remember slave, defiance of the government will not be tolerated:

More than 200 people were arrested outside the White House Saturday following two weeks of protests directed at President Obama in an effort to persuade him to deny final permitting of a controversial 1,661-mile pipeline that would carry oil from Alberta, Canada, to Port Arthur, Tex.

The arrests follow more than 1,000 arrests made since protesters arrived in late August to conduct sit-ins along Pennsylvania Avenue.

Those damned people peacefully assembling to demonstrate their opposition to something the government is proposing! How dare they defy the will of the government! Don’t they know there are procedures in place to contact “representatives” to voice opposition? After all it’s much easier to ignore the peasantry when they’re sending letters and making phone calls than it is when they’re physically in front of the White House yelling.

Proportional Punishment

I’m a fan of proportional punishment. That is to say punishment should match the crime, so if somebody has stolen $100.00 from you then you should be able to get $200.00 out of them (as the thief stole your right of ownership over $100.00 you should be able to retrieve that money and punish him by taking his right of ownership over $100.00). So when I read a story about a man facing life in prison for filming the police you can bet I’m not going to find the punishment reasonable:

When cops in Illinois started inspecting Michael Allison’s vehicles parked on his mom’s property, he turned on his camera while he went to see what the hubbub was about. That didn’t put that happy of a face on the police officer, and now Allison is facing 75 years in prison for hitting “record.”

Authorities have charged Allison, 42, with five counts of eavesdropping, each with a maximum of 15 years in prison. He is looking at spending the rest of his life behind bars because the state is applying an archaic law to modern technology to keep citizens from snooping around cops.

That’s right, Allison is facing 75 years in prison for recording the actions of public “servants.” As public “servants” are supposed to be our employees it would seem logical that we should be allowed to keep tabs on them while they’re on the job. But in actuality they view themselves not as our employees but our masters and thus believe they can rightly demand complete obedience.

Still 75 years for simply recording the police is insane. That’s a longer sentence that many receive for murder. I think a system of justice would require somebody who murdered another to receive a much harsher punishment than somebody who simply recorded a police officer. Hell I’m not even sure how the state can justify enforcing a law against recording police officers in the first place.

What’s the Difference Between the Police and the Mob

What’s the difference between the police and the mob? The mob doesn’t try to justify their actions as being for your own good. The Los Angeles Police Department have recovered a stolen Rembrandt sketch and are now refusing to return it to its proper owner:

Police investigators in Los Angeles are refusing to return a stolen Rembrandt sketch to its owners unless they prove they own it and that it is a Rembrandt.

[…]

According the Los Angeles Times, the piece’s authenticity is in question.

The authorities also say San Francisco gallery The Linearis Institute has yet to provide proof of ownership.

Let’s look at the two issues the police are citing; the proof of ownership being in question and the authenticity of the piece. First of all there is no need for the The Linearis Institute to provide proof of ownership because there are no other reports of the piece being stolen. An item can only be considered stolen if somebody is claiming it as such. For instance the police should not be able to retain one of my 10 year-old computers simply because I no longer possess the receipt as nobody is claiming that the computer was stolen from them. Proof that the piece was at the gallery (provided by security cameras) should be more than sufficient to release the sketch back to the hands of the institute.

Now let us look at the other issue the police are citing, the question of the piece’s authenticity. When the fuck did the police get into the business of determining the authenticity of artistic pieces? It’s not their job to judge whether or not a piece of art is authentic, their only job lies in recovering reported stolen property and returning it to its owner. If somebody is questioning the authenticity of an artistic piece they can hire an expert on the subject to evaluate and determine the piece’s authenticity. Unless I missed a memo somewhere the scope of such a task is well outside of the police’s job.

Considering these two facts why would the police be making it difficult for the institute to reclaim the sketch? Take a guess:

It is the latest development in a widely-reported case that began when the sketch, valued at $250,000 (£154,152), was reported stolen from a Californian hotel on 13 August.

Any property the police have recovered that hasn’t been reclaimed by the owner are sold at police auctions. The Los Angeles Police Department are likely retaining the sketch so they can sell it at an auction and get the $250,000 for it. At least when the mob steals from you they don’t try to justify the theft in a wrapping of bullshit.