Privacy International Protects Partners With Its Onion Address

> it is not a joke but a true story.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the initial Snowden leaks. Everyone here no doubt remembers them--- but how many details to you remember?

I encourage everyone to take a moment to visit https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/nsadocs, pick a file at random, and study it. Just to slightly refresh your memory about the enormous scope and ambition of the dragnet.

"Collect it all.. exploit it all". And NSA means that quite literally. They want *all* of it. Everything in anyone's electronic device anywhere, whether connected to the Internet or not. Some teenager's late night call to a friend, your laundry list from April 1992, grandma's purchase last week of a birthday gift for your aunt... everything. Because anything and everything might perhaps prove in some way "useful" to them... someday.

But why do they snoop on such a scale? Because they can. Current technology makes enormously intrusive dragnets affordable. That is perhaps the most important lesson of the Snowden leaks.

It may not be a coincidence that today the stranger corners of the Internet were full of hysterical wide-eyed "reporting" based upon an odd incident from back in April:

popularmechanics.com
Government Accidentally Releases Documents on "Psycho-Electric" Weapons
David Grossman
19 Apr 2018

> The government has all kinds of secrets, but only a true conspiracy theorist might suspect that "psycho-electric weapons" are one of them. So it's odd that MuckRock, a news organization that specializes in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with state and federal government bodies, received mysterious documents about mind control, seemingly by accident. Journalist Curtis Waltman was writing to the Washington State Fusion Center (WSFC), a joint operation between Washington State law enforcement and the federal government to request information about Antifa and white supremacist groups. He got responses to the questions he asked, but also a file titled “EM effects on human body.zip.”

(EM = electromagnetic field.)

The zip contained several documents apparently written by at least three distinct people who were clearly afflicted by something--- but probably not something caused directly by the USG spy agencies--- plus an over the top "mea culpa" from a WSFC employee who made the mistaken(?) disclosure. As Grossman remarks, it was a pretty weird mistake. Yet in a way, a valuable if nonresponsive disclosure: those who wonder what WSFC employees do all day in their jobs "monitoring the Internet". A partial answer seems to be: not monitoring neonazi groups, but collecting anatomical diagrams from some poor lady who apparently believed the government was giving her "forced orgasms". American taxpayer dollars at work, woo hoo.

The longest document appears to be part of a 1992 civil suit against NSA, which was later reprinted (without permission?) by Nexus magazine, an Australian publication which specializes in nonstandard medical news and conspiracy theories. (There should probably be "scare quotes" around some of those words but I'll let the reader decide where to place them.)

The interesting thing about this document is that, while the author is clearly not an engineer and does not appear to be entirely sane, many of the detailed allegations he made--- in 1992, recall--- has been validated, in detail, by the 2013 Snowden leaks.

He also devotes much space to some allegations about "RNM" which appear rather implausible, based upon what is publicly known in 2018, but it is interesting that everything he discusses is in fact the subject of DARPA research (verging on pseudoscience, but DARPA prides itself on being willing to conduct pseudo scientific research with equal gusto as its more mainstream research). And in 2018 the fact that DARPA is doing this is hardly secret.

I suppose one conclusion we can draw from this story is that because so few people really know very much about current technological capabilities, very few people are really in a position to judge whether some "wild" claim about surveillance is plausible or not.

For example, how many ordinary citizens would have credited the claim, made before the recent Cambridge Analytics scandal made healines news, that an on-line personality survey was simply a way to trick sixty million ordinary citizens into giving up private information to a British "information action as a service" company with ties to Russian intelligence, which would later be sold to a US Presidential campaign? Before the Snowden leaks, how many ordinary citizens would have regarded as credible the claim that USG implanted sophisticated malware in data centers around the world? Intruded into telecom and banking networks around the world? Targeted scientists to steal their scientific data before publication?

In many ways, the world of government secrecy is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we *can* imagine. Unless we are shown the actual above top secret documents. Which is why the Snowden leaks were so important: Snowden showed us the documents, and suddenly no-one could deny anymore that the truth was not only far worse than we thought, it was far worse than hardly anyone could even have imagined.

Back to the spate of "stories" today trumpeting the claims made in this documents as if they were genuine government documents (which they clearly are not), it is possible, even plausible, to suspect that this represents the last disinformation campaign in which NSA attempts to persuade forgetful citizens that the Snowden leaks were all some kind of mass hysterical joke about some poor lady who apparently thought the government was giving her "forced orgasms".

But the Snowden leaks were no joke, the dragnet is very real, it is still very much with us, and its continued existence threatens us all. Snowden himself phrased it like this: the contents of the Utah Data Center amount to "databases of ruin". Those contents will come back to haunt all of us, if we cannot cause NSA to be deleted from the world.

hidden wifi function implemented in the cpu : does it work ? is it not a dead acoustic cookie reception/emission ?
i wonder why the person who alerts never give us the details of the chip/model/number & never explain who uses it & why and how an acoustic cookie could reveal something or someone..
by whom he is payed for ...