Obama Kills 3 Top Journalists, "Destroys" Brian Williams of NBC over Leaking Russian 9/11 Evidence

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

Brian Williams (NBC News)

An astounding new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) states that top US newsman Brian Williams of NBC News has been “effectively destroyed” and three of his colleagues killed this past week over Obama regime fears they were ready to release evidence provided to them by Russia proving that the 11 September 2001 attacks upon America were an “inside job” done by their own government. 

Brian Williams, this report explains, was the anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News (the most watched television news programme in the US) when after a week of savage attacks relating to common false memories experienced by all human beings was expelled from his post and still faces the likelihood of his being fired outright.

Important to note about Williams, this report says, are that the “stolen valor” false memories he was accused of pale in comparison to those long told by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of her being under sniper fire in Bosnia when video footage shows the true facts of this not being so.

Bob Simon

Even more grimly to note, this report continues, is that not only has Williams and his reputation been “destroyed”, this past week three of his most important colleagues, former NBC international reporter Ned Colt, top CBS News correspondent Bob Simon, and top New York Times reporter David Carr, were also killed.

Bob Simon, 73, this report states quoting US propaganda mainstream media sources, was killed Wednesday in New York City in a car crash, and on Thursday Ned Colt, 58, was said to have perished by a massive stroke followed within hours by David Carr, 58, collapsing and dying in his New York Times newsroom office.

Important to note about the deaths of these award winning journalists, and the “reputation destruction” of Williams, SVR experts in this report note, was that the four of them had formed an independent video news company last month and filed the necessary security documents that would allow them access to the Kremlin’s most secret archive of evidence relating to the 11 September 2001 attacks.

In relation to these 9/11 archives held by the Kremlin, this report says, President Putin had previously alerted he was going to release them, and as we can, in part, read: [For English translation click HERE]

“American experts believe that despite the fact that relations between the US and Russia reached the worst point since the Cold War, Putin delivered until Obama only minor troubles. Analysts believe that this is only the  “calm before the storm.”
Putin is going to hit once, but he's going to hit hard as he  is preparing the release of evidence of the involvement of the US government and intelligence services to the September 11 attacks.
Published material can prove malice government towards the people of the US and the successful manipulation of public opinion. Attack planned US government, but spent her proxy.  So that an attack on America and the people of the United States looked like an act of aggression of international terrorism.
The motive for deception and murder its own citizens served as US oil interests in the Middle East and their state corporations.”

David Carr

Spearheading the independent video news company seeking to uncover the truth of 9/11 with Williams, this report continues, was David Carr who in his capacity at the New York Times was a champion of Edward Snowden and after having watched the documentary CITIZENFOUR for the second time tried to go to sleep...but couldn't...so he turned the lights back on due to his fears of what his nation has turned into.

Carr had, likewise, this report explains, became “seriously disillusioned” with the New York Times this past year over its reporting of the Ukraine war…and not just its failing to tell the truth, but its actually whiting out the Nazi emblems on the helmets of soldiers loyal to the regime battling the rebels.

Ned Colt

Working with both Williams and Carr on this 9/11 video project, the SVR says, was Ned Colt, who after leaving NBC News remained a lifelong friend of Williams and honed his humanitarian skills while working at the International Rescue Committee, and Bob Simon who remained “extremely regretful” of the US medias manipulation of the public in the run-up to war in Iraq. 

After the destruction of Williams, and the killings of Carr, Colt and Simon, this report grimly notes, the Obama regime has sent a “clear message” to the Americas elite media class daring anyone else to expose their darkest secrets.
Even worse, SVR experts in this report state, with the media elites in the US now cowering in fear, the Obama regime has now turned its sights upon the alternative news media and is threatening to outlaw all websites that disagree with them, and has also shockingly backed a legislative proposal from The National Fraternal Order of Police to classify any criticism by the American people against the police as a “hate crime”.

With President Putin having yesterday ordered the largest nuclear weapons exercises in history, and three more combat ships joining Russia’s fleet in the Mediterranean, one can only wonder who will be left to tell the American people about the true causes of World War III after the deaths and destruction of these journalists?

Then again, there still remains little evidence that these people even care anymore. 

(WhatDoesItMean.com)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

YES! The FBI & CIA can read your Emails. Here's how

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

“Petraeus-gate,” some U.S. pundits are calling it. How significant is it that even the head of the CIA can have his emails read by an albeit friendly domestic intelligence agency, which can lead to his resignation and global, and very public humiliation? Here’s how. The U.S. government — and likely your own government, for that matter — is either watching your online activity every minute of the day through automated methods and non-human eavesdropping techniques, or has the ability to dip in as and when it deems necessary — sometimes with a warrant, sometimes without. That tin-foil hat really isn’t going to help. Take it off, you look silly.

Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, resigned over the weekend after he was found to have engaged in an extra-marital affair. What caught Petraeus out was, of all things, his usage of Google’s online email service, Gmail.

This has not only landed the former CIA chief in hot water but has ignited the debate over how, when, and why governments and law enforcement agencies are able to access ordinary citizens’ email accounts, even if they are the head of the most powerful intelligence agency in the world.

If it makes you feel any better, the chances are small that your own or a foreign government will snoop on you. The odds are much greater — at least for the ordinary person (terrorists, hijackers et al: take note) — that your email account will be broken into by a stranger exploiting your weak password, or an ex-lover with a grudge (see “Fatal Attraction“).

Forget ECHELON, or signals intelligence, or the interception of communications by black boxes installed covertly in data centers. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies can access — thanks to the shift towards Web-based email services in the cloud — but it’s not as exciting or as Jack Bauer-esque as one may think or hope for.

The easiest way to access almost anybody’s email nowadays is still through the courts. (Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s true.)

The ‘save as draft’ trick

Petraeus set up a private account under a pseudonym and composed email messages but never sent them. Instead, they were saved in draft. His lover, Paula Broadwell, would log in under the same account, read the email and reply, all without sending anything. The traffic would not be sent across the networks through Google’s data centers, making it nigh on impossible for the National Security Agency or any other electronic signals eavesdropping agency (such as Britain’s elusive GCHQ) to ‘read’ the traffic while it is in transit.

Saving an email as a draft almost entirely eliminates network traffic, making it nigh on impossible for intelligence agencies to ‘traffic sniff.’

And yes, terrorists and pedophiles have been known to use this ‘trick’, but also sophisticated criminals also use this technique. It eliminates a network trail to a greater or lesser extent, and makes it more difficult to trace.

But surely IP addresses are logged and noted? When emails are sent and received, yes. But the emails were saved in draft and therefore were not sent. However, Google may still have a record of the IP addresses of those who logged into the account.

However, most Internet or broadband providers offer dynamic IP addresses that change over time, and an IP address does not always point to the same computer, let alone the same region or state every time it is assigned to a user. Even then, recent U.S. court cases have found that IP addresses do not specifically point to a computer, meaning even if the authorities were sure that it was Petraeus, for instance — though IP addresses very rarely give the exact house number and street address — it would not stick in court.

As is often the case, human error can land someone in the legal spotlight. 37-year-old Florida resident Jill Kelley, a family friend to the Petraeus’, allegedly received emails from an anonymous account warning Kelley to stay away from the CIA chief.

But when Broadwell sent these messages, it left behind little fragments of data attached to the email — every email you send has this data attached — which first led the FBI on a path that led up to the very door of Petraeus’ office door in Langley, Virginia.

Get a warrant, serve it to Google?

There’s no such thing as a truly ‘anonymous’ email account, and no matter how much you try to encrypt the contents of the email you are sending, little fragments of data are attached by email servers and messaging companies. It’s how email works and it’s entirely unavoidable.

Every email sent and received comes with ‘communications data,’ otherwise known as “metadata” — little fragments of information that carries the recipient and the sender’s address, and routing data such as the IP addresses of the sender and the servers or data center that it’s passed through. Extracting this metadata is not a mystery or difficult, in fact anyone can do it, but if you have the legal tools and law enforcement power to determine where the email was passed through — such as an IP address of one of Google’s data center in the United States.

Email is surprisingly similar to the postal system, especially when it comes to the communication “metadata.”

The system is remarkably similar to the postal system. You can seal the envelope and hide what’s inside, but it contains a postmark of where it came from and where it’s going. It may even have your fingerprints on it. All of this information outside the contents is “metadata.”

That said, even if you use a disposable Gmail account — such as iamananonymousemailsender@gmail.com, for instance — it’s clearly a Gmail account, and Gmail is operated by Google. Sometimes it just takes a smidgen of common knowledge.

Ultimately, only Google had access to the emails. Because it’s a private company, it does not fall under the scope of the Fourth Amendment. If the U.S. government or one of its law enforcement agencies wanted to access the private Petraeus email account, it would have to serve up a warrant.

In this case, however, the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) would not apply. Even the Patriot Act would not necessarily apply in this case, even though it does allow the FBI and other authorized agencies to search email. However, in this case, above all else, the Stored Communications Act does apply — part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The act allows for any electronic data to be read if it has been stored for less than 180 days. In this case, the law was specifically designed — albeit quite some time before email became a mainstream communications medium — to allow server- or computer-stored data to be accessed by law enforcement.

However, a court order must be issued after the 180 days, and in this case it was. Reporting from London, the BBC News’ Mark Ward summed it up in a single sentence:

Once it knew Ms. Broadwell was the sender of the threatening messages, the FBI got a warrant that gave it covert access to the anonymous email account.

And that’s how they do it. No matter which way you look at it, no matter how much the government or its law enforcement agencies want the data or the proof of wrongdoing, they must almost always get a court order.

And Petraeus is no different from any other U.S. citizen, U.K. citizen, or European citizen — and further afield for that matter. What it always boils down to is a court order, and it’s as simple as that. It’s not ECHELON or an episode of “24“ using hacking or cracking techniques; it’s an afternoon in a fusty courtroom with a semi-switched on (and preferably sober) judge.

That said, it doesn’t grant unfettered or unrestricted access to a user’s inbox or email account, but when an alleged crime has been committed or law enforcement starts digging around, it allows a fairly wide berth of powers to request access to electronically stored data.

Former assistant secretary to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Stewart Baker told the Associated Press:

The government can’t just wander through your emails just because they’d like to know what you’re thinking or doing. But if the government is investigating a crime, it has a lot of authority to review people’s emails.

So there it is. A court order is all you need to access a person’s inbox, but sufficient evidence is often required in order to do this — particularly through the Stored Communications Act, or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

It sounds obvious, of course, that’s because it is.

That said, if there is reasonable suspicion albeit lacking evidence, or a U.S. law enforcement agency is dealing with a foreign national outside of the United States, that normally requires a secret FISA court order to be granted in order to proceed with the interception of data or warranted access to an email account, for example.

Outside the U.S.: Is it still ‘just’ a court order?

A simple court order is all it takes and it can apply to anyone in public office or the man on the street holding a sign warning that “the end is nigh.”

But it’s OK; you’re in Europe, or Australia, or Asia. The U.S. can’t use their laws against you in a foreign country because, well, you’re outside of its jurisdiction. Again, sorry to burst your privacy bubble but that excuse didn’t wash with the European Parliament, it shouldn’t with you either.

If you’re a European citizen with a Microsoft, Google, Yahoo or Apple account — or any email offered in the cloud by a U.S. company — which is most consumer email services nowadays — it is accessible to the U.S. courts and other nations through various acts of law, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or the PATRIOT Act, in which the latter amended much of what the former had implemented in the first place.

(“Oh great, he’s talking about the Patriot Act again,” says everybody.)

It’s worth noting a common few misconceptions. Since first reporting this some years ago (and subsequently sparking a trans-Atlantic diplomatic row, whoops) analysts and experts alike, some who are under the thumb of the cloud companies themselves, claim that the Patriot Act — to use the umbrella, common term — does not allow the U.S. government or its law enforcement agencies the powers that others (*cough* including me) claim.

Let’s just run through a few examples of false claims on top of false claims:

Myth Fact
The Patriot Act is the magic wand that allows the U.S. government unrestricted access to any data, anywhere, anytime. Untrue.
The Patriot Act gives the U.S. government unprecedented access to data hosted by U.S. companies anywhere in the world. Untrue.
All countries have similar legislation that gives the authorities a means to requisition data on cloud services, to investigate and prevent acts of terrorism. Unt… actually, quite true.
It doesn’t give “unrestricted” or “unprecedented” access to date outside the U.S., because for the most part these warrants must go through a special FISA court. The trouble is even though there is some level of accountability via the FISA courts, these sessions are held in secret and there are no public minutes or record to go from, so swings and roundabouts.

Only in exceptional cases where warrants are not issued is when there is an immediate threat to life. But because these courts are secret, there’s no definitive and ultimate way to know for an absolute fact that the U.S. authorities don’t just bypass the FISA courts and skip ahead with their investigations anyway. (You only really have my word — and my sources in the U.S. government, such as legal counsels and spokespeople, to go on.)

Pretty much every country around the world has ‘Patriot Act’-like legislation. It’s just where to look for it.

On the third point, other countries do have similar laws and this should be noted. (I personally thought it was relatively common knowledge, forgive my naivety.) The U.K., for instance, has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act that can be used to acquire data from a third-country via a U.K.-based firm, just as the Patriot Act can be used on a U.S. firm to access data in a third-country via a local subsidiary.

But in terms of where the major email and cloud providers are based — the United States, notably on the West Coast — it means that U.S. law must apply, in spite of foreign laws that attempt to or successfully counteract the provisions offered in U.S. law. Not many major cloud providers operate solely in the U.K., whereas Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon are all U.S. headquartered with a subsidiary in the U.K. and other countries.

The lesson here? We’re all as bad as each other and no legally or financially reasonable place is safe to store data if you’re a massive criminal or looking to stash a bunch of secret or uncouth documents away from the authorities.

As for Petraeus, he may have been careful but in spite of his counter-terrorism knowledge and clever tricks in going under the radar, ultimately there was a weak link in the security chain — and no matter how far you go to try and cover your tracks, often it always falls down to two things: human error, or sex.

Zack Whittaker

(ZD.net)

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

Mark of the Beast: FBI wants Tattoo Database

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

In July, the Department of Homeland Security announced it has branched “out from fingerprint matching to iris and facial recognition for identity verification” and is considering “additional biometric modalities” in an aggressive push to establish a sprawling Stasi-like data network.

Government implementation of biometric technology has come to the attention of Congress. On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing of the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law dealing with facial recognition and civil liberties.

Concerns about civil liberties, however, will not slow down Big Brother.

The FBI has announced it is working to establish a tattoo “symbols” database as part of an overarching effort to “foster collaboration, improve information sharing, and advance the adoption of optimal biometric and identity management solutions within the FBI and across the law enforcement and national security communities.” The agency is serious about “on-going work in other modalities including voice and face recognition, handwriting, palm prints, scars, marks, and tattoos.”

As NSA whistle-blower William Binney revealed, the government is “pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you’re doing.” Face recognition, handwriting, palm prints, scars, marks, and tattoos – in addition to your email, web destinations, medical and credit records, and cell phone GPS coordinates – are all part of the dossier process.

Tattoos, of course, are a natural addition to this on-going effort to establish a high-tech mega-Stasi surveillance and control network. The Nazis tattooed Jews and political prisoners for easy identification. In the Roman Empire, soldiers were required by law to have identifying tattoos on their hands in order to make it difficult to remain anonymous if they deserted. Slaves and gladiators were also required to be tattooed. It was a common practice to tattoo “tax paid” on the forehead of slaves prior to the rule of Emperor Constantine, who banned the practice.

In America, circa 2012, no such law or requirement is needed – the act of tattooing is now wildly popular. This will make it easy for the state to further identify and control the populace.

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

FBI sees Islam as its new enemy: Ex-Informant from FBI

• Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates

While the FBI insists they are acting to defend the USZ from potential terrorist attacks, a former informant says it treats an entire religious group as suspicious. He told RT about some of the bureau's ethically murky practices.

RT: Back in 2006 you became Farouk al-Aziz, a French-Syrian in search of his Islamic roots. Tell us how did that happen?
CM: I was successful as an informant from 2003 to early 2006 working on money-for-hire operations, bank robberies, infiltrating white supremacist groups. And one day as I was speaking to my handler, her name was Tracy Hanlon. I said I am interested in infiltrating mosques. And she said “Oh my Gosh! That would be amazing. You would be gold!” They needed a specific kind of man, who can adapt and blend into the Muslim community to learn the language, learn the religion and use the religion and the culture against the Muslim community.
The FBI supplied me with sophisticated surveillance devices. They were called key fobs. It is like a car remote control. I had maybe five or six of them. They are always charged and I left them around the mosques where I would frequently pray. I had one in my pocket the entire time, always on and I had other key fobs just laying around in certain places where the they wanted me to target – the Imams’ offices, certain board members’ offices, certain worshippers’ cars, in their homes. So those devices were pretty much used on daily basis.

RT: Did you use any information that you acquired to create other informants?
CM: Yes. That was part of my role on Operation Flex. For example, in my conversations, or in their private conversations, certain things would come up. Like if a Muslim man was married and he had a girlfriend, a mistress, the FBI would use that information to blackmail that individual to become an informant. Or someone, perhaps, had a different sexual orientation. Or a certain youth had recreational drug use or desire to use certain narcotics. The FBI would use this information to blackmail them to become an informant.

RT: At that time did you think that what you were doing was wrong?
CM: Yes, I did. But I had been paid a lot of money at that time and I was assured by my handlers that the information that I was gathering and the method that I was using to gather it was far more important than the violation of anyone’s rights. So I continued. My handler Kevin Armstrong had serious concerns about the method which I was tasked to use to gather information, but he was overruled by the operational leader Paul Allen to keep me using entrapment types of methods to gather information.

RT: Some believe that entrapment is a necessary evil and it is a part of a price to be paid for national security. Do you agree with that?
CM: No, I don’t agree. In retrospect, especially, because again I used those tactics on a daily basis for over a year. And the reason why I disagree is because entrapment methods never stop. It always grows. There are no boundaries for it. If I can seek out an individual and get them coerced in some way to do something they normally would not do, that behavior from the informant only grows into more violation, more severe violations of the civil rights of Americans. So I think entrapment alone must be stopped.

RT: How widespread was entrapment among law enforcement agencies in the USZ?
CM: I worked with several federal agencies and several local police departments as an informant. And on each and every operation and case I worked on, a large degree of entrapment is the principal method. That is not justice. And I believe the FBI must rethink their policies and procedures. I believe that entrapment creates enemies.

RT: Does the USZ entrap people abroad too?
CM: Abroad? Yes. Operation Flex began in the United States of Zionism, but it expanded beyond the borders of America. There were people in Afghanistan and a certain few in Iraq, a few in Yemen, who were entrapped. But that entrapment method was used to blackmail them to become informants not lead to arrests. It was to blackmail them. Usually when federal authorities, the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration], ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], FBI want you, they would arrange some type of operation where they lure you in an entrapment manner where you may be innocent of this particular crime but they will use that arrest to pressure you to plead guilty on other arrests.

RT: Are other minority communities in America targeted as intensively as Muslims?
CM: No, I think the Muslims today are what the African-Americans were in 1950s, 60s and 70s. The order of today where the FBI needs an enemy, they found it in Islam. And I think unfortunately, a religious war, yes, but they would never say that because they can’t. It’s a violation of one’s constitutional rights, but that’s exactly what it is, the war on terror is a war on Islam.

(RT)

Mildly edited by Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter

OBL fake video exposed by FBI website information

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates 
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

According to FBI, OBL was left handed as shown in this snapshot taken from FBI website. However, take a look at this fake OBL operating a TV remote control with his right hand. What do you call it?

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force
Follow PCF on Facebook

Follow PCF on Twitter