Global Intel Hub

Global Intelligence

End of the World Wide Web

by Leave a Comment

The internet promised to change the world, change business, how we live, how society functions.

Used for a long time for military, academic, scientific, and specific corporate use, consumer use of the WWW exploded in the mid to late 90's being further fueled by the .com boom.  While B2B and enterprise applications were being developed during the same period, the main focus was on the consumer using a browser, including the corporate consumer.  Not much notice was taken as HTTP was adopted as the main use of the WWW with email having a strong second place.  The same way that the PC dominated the desktop market, the browser and WWW dominated the internet.

Fast forward to post .com bust, and a new trend called "SEO" was dominating business internet discussions.  Since Google had seized a rare opportunity to dominate the search market, everyone wanted to be #1 in Google (forgetting that previously Google didn't even exist).  Then this too fell out of fashion, in favor of 'social media' and the Socialnomics movement (Web 2.0).  Instead of searching Google for results, users of sites like Facebook would not bother going outside Facebook to find information.  This was especially true of sites like YouTube, Wikipedia, and others.  We have seen hints of a new "Web 3.0" trend but have not yet experienced the same technological paradigm shift as we saw in previous shifts.  We can speculate why this has not happened but let's take a look at how the internet has been changing last few years.

Key groundbreaking developments last 3 years:

  • Implementation of IP6 - we have literally run out of IP4 addresses!
  • The opening up of TLD registration
  • Wikileaks, and more recently Edward Snowden, changing how people think of internet usage
  • Exponential growth of the "Dark Internet"

These combination of factors, happening in the backdrop of a severe global economic crisis, has permanently changed how the internet will be used in the future.  What the end of the WWW will look like:

  • Decreased use of public websites
  • Implementation of HTTP alternative
  • Increased use of security tools such as Tor browser, making many websites dysfunctional
  • New development with security and privacy in mind
  • Decrease in use of Javascript, Flash, etc.
  • Drastic change of the 'free with advertisements' model
  • Death of SEO
  • Decrease use of traditional ISPs, rise of Mesh Networks

Business models will also change.  The rise of the WWW brought with it a confluence of competing models, one being Google's 'free but with a catch' and the other being Napster's 'pay a low membership fee' with many in between.

Author Note:

Global Intel Hub is developing a model for the 'new' use of the internet.  Like all paradigm shift, it's not about technology.  Internet infrastructure existed for decades before it was the right business, social, and political climate to utilize (no more cold war paranoia, investing in technology instead of weapons, etc.) Ask any WW2 pilot and they will tell you cellphones existed for the last 60 years!  But it took the right climate to build a business out of it.

We believe the only model to develop systems is an open-model.  Not only open-source, but open to participation, well documented, and in a closed system whereby developers are working in parallel to user development, providing a constant feedback loop.  So all the development will take place inside the private member network of the hub.

To contrast this model, Google gives you gmail, search, and other apps free - but they barrage you with ads and sell your data to corporations, who now even can offer you loans based on your social media habits ( https://www.avantcredit.com/ ), and gives your data to the NSA and other government agencies!  What's wrong with the model 'if it's free, it's for me' - Google being extreme example as there are paid services that offer secure mail, corporate search (lexis nexus for example) and other paid-services without the security concerns or ads.  But it's not only about money, payment also authenticates you as a 'member' - it's a simple form of electronic due diligence.  If you can't afford $10, and you don't have a paypal account, you don't qualify to be a member of Global Intel Hub.  Paying for membership is for a private security only, private membership.

Presenting The Numerous, Undisputed And Very Clear Signs That India’s Currency Was Set For An Epic Crash

by Leave a Comment

Citizens of India have been watching, in stunned amazement, as over the past month the local currency has lost an unprecedented 15% of its value, with a record plunge taking place just last night [5]. And, as so often happens, the population habituated to a government "acting in its best interests" is asking itself - how could we have possibly known this was coming. The answer, as usually happens, was staring everyone right in the face.

As Grant Williams shows in his latest "Things That Make You Go Hmm", the warnings came loud and clear, and were very explicit in the form of not one, not two, not ten, but many more sequentially imposed and escalating forms of capital controls by the Indian central bank that sought to prevent the conversion of paper into hard currency. Gold. (Which also overnight hit a record high in rupee terms [6]).

Following are the measures taken by the central bank and the government in 2013:

  • Jan 21 - The government raises the gold import duty by 2% to 6%.
  • Jan 22 - The government more than doubles the duty on raw gold to 5%.
  • Jan 30 - Finance Minister P. Chidambaram says there are no plans for additional taxes or curbs on gold imports.
  • Feb 1 - The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) plans to introduce three or four gold-linked products in the next few months.
  • Feb 6 - The RBI says it would consider imposing value and quantity restrictions on gold imports by banks.
  • Feb 14 - The central bank relaxes rules on gold deposit schemes offered by banks by allowing lenders to offer the products with shorter maturities.
  • Feb 20 - The Trade Ministry recommends suspending cheaper gold jewellery imports from Thailand.
  • Feb 28 - India keeps its gold import duty unchanged in its annual national budget, defying industry expectations.
  • Feb 28 - India proposes a transaction tax of 0.01% on nonagricultural futures contracts, including for precious metals.
  • March 1 - The Finance Minister appeals to people not to buy so much gold.
  • March 18 - The Reserve Bank of India says it is examining banks that sell gold coins and wealth management products to identify "systemic issues", with a view to closing any legal loopholes.
  • April 2 - The Finance Ministry suggests it is unlikely to raise the import tax on gold further to avoid smuggling and would instead introduce inflation-indexed instruments.
  • May 3 - The RBI restricts the import of gold on a consignment basis by banks.
  • June 3 - The Finance Minister says India cannot afford high levels of gold imports and may review its import policy.
  • June 5 - India hikes the gold import duty by a third, to 8%.
  • June 21 - Reliance Capital halts gold sales and investments in its gold-backed funds.
  • June 24 - India's biggest jewellers' association asks members to stop selling gold bars and coins, about 35% of their business.
  • July 10 - India's jewellers announce they might continue a voluntary ban on sales of gold coins and bars for six months.
  • July 22 - The RBI moves to tighten gold imports again, making them dependent on export volumes, but offers relief to domestic sellers by lifting restrictions on credit deals.
  • July 31 - India hopes to contain gold imports well below the 845 tonnes that were shipped last year, the Finance Minister says.
  • Aug 13 - India hikes the import duty on gold for a third time in 2013, to 10%. Duties for silver and platinum are also increased to 10%. The customs duty on gold ore bars, ore, and concentrate are increased to 8% from 6%.
  • Aug 14 - India turns the screws on gold buying again, banning imports of coins and medallions and making domestic buyers pay cash.

All of that culminated with the events from last night when the Rupee literally imploded.

Were the signs there for all to see? Why yes. If only people had opened their eyes.

Much more on this, and the different attitudes toward gold between the West and the East can be found in Williams' full newsletter below

TTMYGH_26_Aug_2013

August US Equity Trading Volume Plunges To Lowest In 16 Years

by Leave a Comment

Earlier we showed one indicator of the US investor's (should they exist anymore) loss of interest [4] in the Federal-Reserve-sponsored equity market - i.e. CNBC ratings at 20-year lows. In the interest of being more fair-and-balanced we present anther perspective... US equity trading volume in August of 2013 is the lowest on average in 16 years... and all-time highs, middle-east war, taper, weak macro, housing un-recovery, German elections, Asian FX crisis will do little to improve that risk-appetite for the retiring boomer army.

 

 [5]

 

(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer [6])

http://www.zerohedge.com/print/478172

450 On The S&P, Sub-1% 10 Year, And $10,000 Gold – Albert Edwards

by Leave a Comment

It has been a while since Albert Edwards updated the world on his macro and market thoughts. He finally does so today with a tour de force on the crash in the emerging markets, which for him exposes the "idiocy of one of the key investment themes since the 2008 Great Recession – namely that with developed economies burdened with excessive debt and in the throes of multi-year deleveraging, investing in emerging markets would not only produce superior returns but was also less risky. Regular readers will know we have long railed against this idea, having dubbed the BRIC story a Bloody Ridiculous Investment Concept."

He links what is happening now to his "call at the end of last year that the EMs were heading for a balance of payments crisis and would see a currency debacle similar to 1997 was met with total indifference. We still find the same disregard to our call for a renminbi  devaluation."

Continuing the litany of vindication, Edwards next observes that the "global economy and markets have been far, far more vulnerable to a resumption of the 2008 crisis than the happy-clappy consensus would have us believe. At the moment, investors think that problems are isolated to a few EM countries that have allowed their current account deficits to get out of hand. I see this as the beginning of a process where the most wobbly domino falls and topples the whole precarious, rotten, risk-loving edifice that our policymakers have built."

Naturally no crash prediction will be complete without some fond reminiscences on the most historic crash of all: 1987

The fabulously entertaining Zero Hedge website keeps running the charts showing that the evolution of bond yields and equity markets this year resembles closely what happened in 1987 (see below). Now we should all take these comparisons with a pinch of salt, but what if…

 [12]

I remember the 1987 crash well. I was working at Bank America Investment Management as an economist/strategist at the time. Of course, the immediate trigger for the equity crash was the fear of US recession caused by the fear that the US would have to hike rates sharply to defend the dollar. Those fears were triggered by Germany raising rates at a time when the G6 had recently agreed to stabilise the US dollar at the February 1987 Louvre Accord, after two years of sanctioned dollar weakness. Investors got into a tizzy about recession, jumping many steps ahead of the game. But, in the wake of a run-up in US bond yields that year, equities were richly priced and so very vulnerable to recession fears, however unfounded. And then the machines took over. That couldn’t possibly happen again, or could it?

Therein lies one of the key lessons I learnt in my 30 years in the markets. It is not just to try to predict what will happen, but to second-guess what the markets fear might happen. Indeed a recession did not ensue and the 1987 crash turned into a tremendous buying opportunity.

And while Albert delves much deeper into the EM story, one extensively discussed here, it is the "next shoe" that concern Edwards the most. Namely China.

But another shoe will surely drop soon. China has gone off the radar in the last month, as the data have firmed, but it is set to return centre stage. Our China economist Wei Yao, thinks “this sudden turn-around is similar to that during Q4 2012, when the multi-quarter deceleration trend reversed shortly after the policy stance shifted to “cautious” easing. But that growth pick-up did not last for more than one quarter.” A continued slowdown in credit growth will strangle the current buoyancy of house price inflation (see charts below), with property sales growth having already peaked. Wei expects the Chinese data to relapse in Q4.

 

He then links to recent observations by CLSA's Russell Napier and ties it all together:

“Many people are writing about a Chinese credit crunch and banking crisis. I disagree. The authorities will have a choice as to whether to accept such a crunch or devalue and launch a new credit cycle to keep the balls in the air once again. Devaluation is the preferred option…..So the (recent) spike in SHIBOR was not a tremor indicating the earthquake of a banking crisis, but a tremor of a forthcoming RMB devaluation.” That will be the biggest domino of all to fall. And, as with the 1987 crash, markets will react to the fear of the devaluation and the deflation it will bring to the west, rather than the event itself. This is one domino it will pay not to be resting under as it comes crashing to the ground.

In conclusion, here is Edwards' own conclusion:

The emerging markets "story" has once again been exposed as a pyramid of piffle. The EM edifice has come crashing down as their underlying balance of payments weaknesses have been exposed first by the yen’s slide and then by the threat of Fed tightening. China has flipflopped from berating Bernanke for too much QE in 2010 to warning about the negative impact of tapering on emerging markets! It is a mystery to me why anyone, apart from the activists that seem to inhabit western central banks, thinks QE could be the solution to the problems of the global economy. But in temporarily papering over the cracks, they have allowed those cracks to become immeasurably deep crevasses. At the risk of being called a crackpot again, I repeat my forecasts of 450 for the S&P, sub-1% US 10y yields and gold above $10,000.

Maybe there is a reason why Bernanke is getting out while the getting's good...

PROTON, CLEARWATER and Lexis-Nexis

by Leave a Comment

PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS

Given the use of constitutionally repulsive practices by the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies, this information is being made public to educate and inform so they might arm themselves against government intrusion and for attorneys as a backgrounder for future appeals.

I suggest American guerillas seek non-Internet modes of communication. If you think Rex Sherwood was pulled over for not using a turn signal, you are wrong.

I was "read on" the PROTON/CRISSCROSS program in late 2006 and was a frequent user of this system for over a year. As part of my duties, I employed PROTON/CRISSCROSS in HUMINT exploitation role. In the Intelligence Community, PROTON/CRISSCROSS is referred to as PROTON. Unless otherwise specified, the same is true in this report.

PROTON is a storage and analysis system of telecommunications selectors at the TS/SI/FISA/ORCON/NOFORN level of classification and handling. PROTON is the program name as well as the name of the technology. It has been described as "SAP-like", and I suspect that PROTON was once a DEA special program. PROTON is well known in HUMINT and DOJ clandestine law enforcement. It remains the primary, if not fundamental, tool of HUMINT and DOJ law enforcement operations, both of which have considerable overlap in phenomenology and methodology. PROTON carries the FISA caveat because Top Secret FISA collection is contained in PROTON's massive database.

Through my professional associations within the Intelligence Community, I became aware of a Department of Justice (DOJ) system called CLEARWATER. CLEARWATER is similar to PROTON but at the SECRET/NOFORN level of classification and exclusively a DOJ program, where PROTON is CIA, DOJ and DOD. Most DOJ Special Agents and analysts do not have Top Secret clearance. Every informant is run through CLEARWATER, every witness gets vetted through the system.

PROTON and CLEARWATER are not just analytic tools, they provide actionable intelligence and both programs are used everyday for target discovery and development. CLEARWATER practically leads FBI and DEA investigations. PROTON is used throughout HUMINT for asset validation, recruitment, background checks on sources, etc. The FBI and DEA as both law enforcement and intelligence community members have resources of both sides and domestic law enforcement by these agencies is more of a HUMINT operation of the type seen in Afghanistan. Find, Fix, Arrest. PROTON and CLEARWATER work so well that Special Agents and Case Officers can't wait to get data into the system and see how it networks together.

Top Secret and FISA mean NSA sensitive sources and foreign collection. NSA resources are unneeded in America---CALEA and the DOJ have that covered for you under Title III, the Patriot Act and opinion from the federal kangaroo judiciary.

FISA is not only used against terrorists and spies but also private and quasi-government organizations . The most impressive network I ever laid eyes upon was the PROTON derived communications network of the Netherlands and Swiss SWIFT. Allot of target discovery there. It's how you find a needle in a haystack. The U.S. hosts one of three SWIFT secure messaging centers. Well, the NSA and CIA have insured SWIFT is allot less secure. SWIFT is a major communications target and the NSA is deep in that This is a modern take on "follow the money." If Americans are wondering how the IRS found their secret bank accounts..well, here 'ya go.

When I read the description of Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) DEA Internet Connectivity Environment (DICE) system: the billions of records, partnership with CIA, NSA and DOD, the need to cover sources at the expense of a fair trail--- it struck me that what was described sounded more like PROTON and/or CLEARWATER.

As I read further, DICE was sounding more like a legitimate DEA program that was being used to provide cover for PROTON and/or CLEARWATER---either intentionally or sacrificially. The early descriptions of DICE present it as an information sharing and collaboration tool through the Internet. The recent public descriptions of DICE are awkward and contrived when compared to past information.

DICE is being used to cover PROTON and/or CLEARWATER.

Properly, CRISSCROSS is the database of telecommunications selectors. Selectors are, in NSA terms, that information that selects a target for analysis, investigation or collection. Telephone numbers, email addresses, hexadecimal addresses from INMARSAT telephones, IMEI---really any telecommunications "number" or "address" a person would have as a means to contact another, are contained in CRISSCROSS.

PROTON is the operating software written in JAVA for cross-platform usability and runs on JWICS for connectivity to CRISSCROSS.

PROTON contains the tools for network analysis and would be familiar to anyone who has experience in undergraduate social network analysis, statistics and data visualization.

CRISSCROSS has an interesting and murky history. As it was explained to me by a PROTON Program Officer, CRISSCROSS was originally a very secret DEA program to provide a repository for DEA collected selectors. It was, by every account, an excellent resource. With the post-911 reorganization of the Intelligence Community, everyone was required to share their resources for the "War of Terror." CRISSCROSS was very successful and well-received and ultimately exceeded DEA capabilities to manage. The CIA took over as executive agent---but CRISSCROSS is shared by the DOD and DOJ in a co-ownership manner.

It's uncertain if PROTON received Special Collection Service (SCS) data when it was a solely DEA activity, but PROTON presently receives SCS collection amounting to about 1 one terabyte monthly, and that's just selectors, not content. PROTON also receives data from Computer Network Exploitation (CNE), by the now famous Tailored Access Office (TAO). Included as well is an enormous repository of Title III data from CALEA enabled domestic collection, FISA and an enormous amount of purchased data from various communications providers like Intellius.

PROTON does not contain content, only selectors for targeting. Consider that in the context of one (1) terabyte of just selectors per month (just from the SCS) for over 10 years. I have no idea how much the TAO provides, however the two biggest contributors to PROTON are the SCS and TAO.

An analyst or law enforcement officer can "run" a selector in PROTON and visualize the social network of correspondents associated with that selector in a visual format. The user can select and display most frequent numbers called or have called, duration of call, and other functions familiar to social network analysis. An analyst may choose to look at the network in terms of who called who: persons of importance typically have allot of people calling them so we can build a network based on that to determine centricity. We can build a network based on call duration, frequency, date---pick a variable. Sometimes it's useful to look at the outliers which may be hang-arounds to some drug trafficking organization. We can task NSA or DOJ for collection on these hang-arounds and begin network deconstruction from the ground up.

These calling networks include family, friends and other non-target persons. Non-target persons, like family members, are very useful in developing the target and as leverage. Non-target communications provide intelligence from things spoken between people in confidence who may not be aware of the targets activities or associations, like the location of a fugitive who has ceased using his known selectors, but communicates with his mother through her known selectors.

Another very useful feature is the Bankswitch function, which allows network discovery by the calling pattern, not necessarily by a selector. Often, groups of U.S. government interest will use a cellphone, then dispose of them , preventing further intelligence collection from that group of cellphones. Bankswitch allows the analyst to quickly rediscover the calling network that has switched phones. Humans typically have some constant behavior in who and how they make their calls and persons. Groups and enterprises not having supplicated to the U.S. government avarice will have a whole additional set of behaviors in who and how they call.

This is highly useful for calling networks that dispose and rotate telephones regularly. A fresh cellphone provides enough of a lead to discover the calling pattern of the whole network based on historical calling records. Both the DEA and FBI have found this useful in their activities in Columbia, Mexico and the United States.

I know for certain PROTON contains communications selectors on American Citizens (AMCITS) since I ran a query on a number using only a Maryland area code and a partial prefix. PROTON returned a huge list of "masked" domestic numbers. An NSA masked number is always domestic and reveals only the area code and prefix with the rest of the number obscured. A PROTON user can email the NSA with a request to unmask the number---it's in the database, but a user has to present some justification for a number to be unmasked. Voice cuts are available through a similar process.

PROTON is really well thought out. Not only does it provide a wealth of network investigative tools, it also allows for the easy introduction of data. Let's say you're a DEA Special Agent surveilling local boat captains as part of OPERATION PANAMA EXPRESS (PANEX) in Barranquilla Columbia---a major Port of Origin for drugs to the U.S. and someone gives you a business card. Just run the number and see if it hits. The Special Agent" can take that card and mail it to the PROTON Program Office (PPO). Scans, cell pictures of the information are also acceptable to ingest.

An FBI Case Officer attending a UAV conference in Las Vegas can take all the "grey literature" and hand that to the PROTON office as well. The numbers find their way into the database The PROTON office will also ingest entire phone books---still popular in some parts of Europe and Asia. They use a method similar to Google books to automatically turn pages and scan data from them.

Anything that contains a selector can go into PROTON. Part of the PROTON program is the resource that provides software engineering to order unordered data and otherwise make raw data ingestible. PROTON users can add and edit PROTON data as well. If a user discovers the identity of a previously unidentified selector, one can edit that record or leave notes for other users.

With PROTON, you can see who's talking to whom in a telecommunications relationship context. How you hit that network is up to you.

Network deconstruction techniques vary throughout the 'Community. Domestically, the DOJ prefers the highly publicized raid with the media providing the entertainment backdrop. The DEA prefers covertness. The DOD prefers a Predator strike. Yes, those drone attacks are network deconstruction techniques and target selection is often facilitated, if not provided, by PROTON.

As stated earlier, CLEARWATER is a SECRET/NOFORN version of PROTON. The DEA red herring called DICE reportedly contained NSA collection which rules-out CLEARWATER (a S//NF system) and highlights PROTON (a TS//SI system) as the source of DICE intelligence.

I'm providing information on both since the government is no longer under constitutional restraint and is illegitimate. Parallel Construction. You fuckers. A cornerstone of American law and western culture sacrificed for the security of the Elites.

With the CALEA requirements, TITLE III collection is very simple affair involving a court order and the Cisco routers which, through CALEA legislation, are engineered for surveillance. Cisco is a very enthusiastic partner to the Intelligence Community---one of those sensitive relationships managed through the NSA Special Source Operations office. The NSA finesses such relationships---with the DOJ, you get a thug in a nice suit and the quiet menace of federal law enforcement. If you think the DOJ is a law enforcement agency, you're stupid. Internal security is DOJ Job #1. As we have seen, the DOJ is maintaining internal security by both legal and extralegal means with the full support of the federal judiciary and the lukewarm animus of the U.S. Congress.

Federal judges and congress persons are largely immune to DOJ surveillance. You are not. The "new" counter-insurgency operations by the government concentrate on a Reasonable Suspicion by persons and groups---not on Probable Cause.

CLEARWATER contains selectors from any number of sources: TITLE III, purchased data from telecommunications data brokers, National Security Letters, subpoenas, technical operations by FBI TACOPS, search warrant, informant production, arrests, detentions. If the DOJ has searched you, arrested you or let you go, count on that data being in CLEARWATER. Did you give the Special Agent your telephone number?

Arresting someone to search them without needing consent or court order is not an unheard of means to get a Person of Interests selectors into CLEARWATER. Something laying openly on your desk? A cell-phone snap and email to the program office. How about those utility bills you throw away without shredding? If you're a Person of Interest, somebody is walking away with your trash.

There is a a real motivation by DOJ Special Agents to get telecommunications selectors into PROTON or CLEARWATER to build the networks for analysis and deconstruction.

CLEARWATER has all the features of PROTON and at least one other---mapping. An FBI Case Officer operating domestically can query say, Lahore Pakistan, and place on a map, those locations in the U.S. where those calls originated or terminate---a choropleth map with colored density clusters, all in a spatial context. With that, the DOJ knows where to focus it's domestic security efforts. A DEA Special Agent can run a selector seized in an amphetamine investigation and, within a few minutes, have the calling network and visualize the correspondents locations on a map. That's how DOJ led task forces show up in your neighborhood.

Watching a OWS protester enter a number into their cell phone is perfectly legal without consent or a warrant and once I get that number, we'll look at that calling network, find the node that is you, and walk that back to that moment we shared under the chestnut tree.

If you're visiting the USA from abroad, you may have your wallet and pocket litter photocopied at secondary screening. Then an email to the National Counterrorism Center (NCTC) Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) office, and from there, a Forward to the PROTON office.

PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS all provide data export into Analyst Notebook file format (and PDF for ease of sharing).

All members of the Intelligence Community have access to LEXIS-NEXIS. LEXIS-NEXIS contains biographic information on most Americans having a driver or occupational license. Your state sells the contents of its drivers license database to companies like LEXIS-NEXIS for a profit. They can do this since that information is considered in the public domain---driving is a privilege and if you don't want to be in database then don't get a drivers license. LEXIS-NEXIS contains other highly personal and granular information depending on which state is providing information. Florida provides pretty much everything it can to LEXIS-NEXIS. Automobile information, luxury water craft, occupational licenses---if you submit information to a state agency, it can end up in LEXIS-NEXIS. All domestic law enforcement has access to LEXIS-NEXIS, its a fundamental investigative tool. IRS, DOJ, Treasury, Local PD, Sheriffs Office all have a LEXIS-NEXIS access or the means to pull data from them.

Law Enforcement Officers can have their data removed from LEXIS-NEXIS. An LAPD and NYPD "spokesperson" informed me that this is the case. Imagine your a citizen in New York and you get surveilled by one of the numerous surveillance technicians the NYPD has fielded since 9-11 , a quick look-up via mobile device or WiFi and they know who you are now.

So, a Special Agent or analyst simply runs the selectors in PROTON and CLEARWATER, then runs those names or other biographic/vital information again in LEXIS-NEXIS, all that data related to the TARGET is exported in Analyst Notebook format, those files are imported into the Analyst Notebook application and...viola!...a relatively complete social network and biographics of the TARGET. That could be you of course.

By Supreme Court decision and other judicial misadventures, LEXIS-NEXIS contains public information and you do not have an expectation of privacy. There is no need for Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion because this data is, by judicial opinion, public. Something to think about next time you're at the DMV. Citizens are queried regularly in LEXIS-NEXIS. CLEARWATER and PROTON provides network association and the selectors. A subpoena, NSL or search warrant to the telecommunications provider of that selector gives us names and locations. LEXIS-NEXIS provides Pattern of Life, geolocation and personalia. I was able to see my past three residential addresses, past telephone numbers and identifying information about my previous automobile. LEXIS-NEXIS is coupled to Automatic License Plate Recognition Systems (ALPRS) as well. Who you are, where you were and where you are.

The DOJ and Intelligence Community access LEXIS-NEXIS through a VPN and a proxy (government). A DOD proxy is registered to the Virginia Contracting Office, but it's a non-logging proxy so, good luck in your discovery. LEXIS-NEXIS has no idea of the individual accessing it's database and, according to the spokesperson, does not maintain logs of government clients. A subpoena cannot discover what is not there.

Around 2008, LEXIS-NEXIS purchased Choicepoint to start their new product line. I recall some representative, at a promotional meeting, extolling the virtues of Choicepoint---all the data in a easy to use format. A user of Choicepoint could run a query and not only get biographics and addresses but have that information located on a map or satellite image (by Pinpoint, Inc. or a Google map server). The Choicepoint representative giving the presentation said no Social Security Numbers or drivers license pictures would be included in the database in order to protect the rights of the citizen. Such conceits are good ethics in Washington, D.C.

That said, CLEARWATER and PROTON are not omnipotent. Foreign intelligence organizations use the Internet for covert and clandestine communication without detection and you can as well. Do not believe that the NSA or DOJ is all powerful. They are not and they can be defeated. Of the many systems used by NSA and DOJ, CLEARWATER, PROTON and LEXIS-NEXIS are the most significant from a "boots on the ground" investigative prospective.

There is real concern that PROTON may be to widely known for such a program and efforts are being made to walk it back into a compartment.

 

A Proton/Crisscross job ad:
http://jobs.cgi.com/job/Hanover-SIGINT-Analyst-Job-MD-21075/1184801/

SIGINT Analyst Job

Date: Aug 14, 2013

Location: Hanover, MD, US
Job Order: J0311-0630 - Permanent Full Time
Title: SIGINT Analyst
Category: Consulting / Business / Functional
City: Hanover, Maryland, United States

Job Description: SIGINT Analyst

CGI Federal is seeking a SIGINT Analyst to work in our Hanover, MD office.

Specific Duties:

Applicants will work as a member of a government-contractor team whose primary focus will be providing support to deployed analysts and software developers.

In this capacity, uses an in-depth knowledge of general communications procedures, traffic analysis and reporting formats and vehicles to produce time-sensitive and event-oriented reports

Provide support to force protection, indications and warning and situational awareness; provides target continuity and mentorship to a junior and rotating workforce; conducts research to answer RFIs and produces working aids to support new tool development.

Must be willing to receive and conduct training on new systems, databases, processes and procedures.

Analyst will be supporting deployed US military troops and must understand the military decision making process and miliary doctrine.

Minimum of five (5) years experience with the military or government agency using the collection management cycle, intelligence cycle, targeting cycle, and the SIGINT intelligence fusion process from tactical to national level required.

Additional Requirements:

Experience with Falconview, Analyst Notebook, Arc View, Arc-GIS, Arc-Editor, AIM, Pathfinder, SEAS, STARLIGHT, GCCS and other current analyst tools.

Active TS/SCI security clearance w/ polygraph required.

Preferred:

Experience with NSANET, RTRG tool suite, Global Reach, Proton/Criss Cross, Broom Stick, CW II, Banyan. Geo Bootcamp and knowledge of ArcGIS a plus.

Preferred experience includes analysis in OIF/OEF, NSA, INSCOM, or ACE At CGI, we're a team of builders. We call our employees members because all who join CGI are building their own company - one that has grown to 71,000 professionals located in more than 40 countries. Founded in 1976, CGI is a leading IT and business process services firm committed to helping clients succeed. We have the global resources, expertise, stability and dedicated professionals needed to achieve results for our clients - and for our members. Come grow with us. Learn more at www.cgi.com.

This is a great opportunity to join a winning team. CGI offers a competitive compensation package with opportunities for growth and professional development. Benefits for full-time, permanent members start on the first day of employment and include a paid time-off program and profit participation and stock purchase plans.

We wish to thank all applicants for their interest and effort in applying for this position, however, only candidates selected for interviews will be contacted.

No unsolicited agency referrals please.

WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.

Skills

- Analytical Thinking
- Signal Intelligence (SIGINT)

Reference: 137685

http://cryptome.org/2013/08/proton-clearwater-lexis-nexis.htm

Syria: A Comprehensive Look at the Options for Intervention (Stratfor)

by Leave a Comment

Summary

The United States and its allies have a few options if they proceed with an intervention in Syria, a prospect that seems increasingly likely. A limited punitive strike on critical targets meant to discourage future use of chemical weapons would be the simplest operation. Another option would be to target the Syrian regime's chemical weapons delivery systems and storage facilities, but this option would require significantly more resources than the limited strike, and the risk of mission creep would be high.

Another problem with targeting the regime's chemical weapons is that such weapons are notoriously difficult to destroy. Therefore, the West could elect to deploy ground forces to secure the chemical weapons and ensure their destruction. Such a mission would be tantamount to a full-scale invasion, and thus we believe it is very unlikely.

Analysis

In general, the larger and more complex the operation, the more time it will take, the more of a leading role the United States will have to assume and the more obvious the force buildup will be.

Limited Punitive Strike

A limited punitive strike on regime targets is the least risky option and requires the fewest resources. This option would seek to demonstrate American and allied credibility by striking regime targets, including command and control facilities and other high-value and symbolic targets. The purpose of a punitive strike would be to dissuade the al Assad regime from the further use of chemical weapons in the civil war without crippling the Syrian regime itself.

Target Set

In this scenario there are more possible targets than the West is interested in attacking. Command and control facilities will likely be prioritized, driving home the message that the regime leadership, particularly the military leadership, would pay for the decision to use chemical weapons. However, Bashar al Assad himself would probably not be targeted because his death would tie the coalition deeper into the conflict than it wants to be.

Specific facilities that may be targeted are the Defense Ministry, the Air Force Intelligence Directorate, the Political Security Directorate, the Interior Ministry, the 4th Armored Division and Republican Guard headquarters in Damascus, the headquarters of the three Syrian army corps and various key communication and command and control facilities across the country. The specific artillery units that are believed to have participated in the chemical weapons attack could also be on the list.

Assets Required

In total, the United States and its allies would need to strike fewer than a hundred targets in such a mission, although some targets would require multiple munitions and repeated strikes. The majority of these targets could be engaged with non-penetrating cruise missiles, but those with hardened defenses or those that are buried underground would require bunker-busting munitions.

Given U.S. resources and their current deployment, Washington is already in a position to commence a limited punitive strike. A crucial advantage is that the United States would not need to deploy tactical aviation in this strike and would not need to penetrate the Syrian air defense network with non-stealth warplanes. The United States already has four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean. Two of the destroyers can carry up to 96 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the other two can carry as many as 90 Tomahawk missiles. In reality, the vessels carry other missiles, such as air defense missiles, so the Tomahawk payload is usually much less -- about half would be a good estimate. Therefore, it can be assumed that the four destroyers can deploy around 180 Tomahawk missiles.

If the payload of the nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine that is likely nearby is added, then the number of Tomahawk missiles on U.S. naval vessels already in theater is at least 334 -- and likely more because other nuclear attack submarines are almost certainly in the region. If needed, strategic bombers and even tactical fighters can deploy air-launched cruise missiles such as the JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) from beyond the range of Syrian air defenses. These aircraft can stage out of Europe and the Middle East or, in the case of the bombers, can even come from the continental United States.

For hardened targets, the United States can rely on B-2 bombers flying missions from the continental United States. Each B-2 can carry 16 2,000-pound (about 900 kilograms) penetrating bombs or 8 5,000-pound bombs, enabling it to strike multiple targets in one mission.

Cripple the Regime's Chemical Weapons Delivery Capability

Should the United States and its allies decide to take the mission a step further, they could attempt not only to discourage the further use of chemical weapons but also to remove the regime's ability to use the weapons. The command, control and communication facilities would still be targeted, but the operation would also need to strike at a much wider network of targets and their associated defenses.

Target Set

The mission would focus on the three main ways the regime can deliver its chemical weapons: the air force, the ballistic missile force and the artillery force.

Although several regime airfields have been neutralized or captured by the rebels, several others are still operable. In theory, aircraft from at least 13 airfields can participate in a chemical weapons attack. To neutralize an airfield, the United States can crater the airfield, strike parked aircraft, destroy fuel and ammunition stores and disable ground control, radar and maintenance facilities. Some of the airfields contain a considerable number of aircraft hangars and bunkers. For example, the Tiyas air base has some 30 aircraft shelters, not all of which can survive a Tomahawk strike.

Battlefield use during the conflict has significantly diminished the Syrian ballistic missile force. At least half of the regime's ballistic missile inventory has been expended in strikes against rebel-held territory, leaving approximately a couple of hundred missiles at most. Syrian ballistic missiles, especially the larger ones, are mostly concentrated in a few bases around the country, of which the 155th and 156th brigades based in al-Qutayfah appear to be particularly prominent. At these bases the Syrians have constructed several underground drive-in vehicle storage bunkers to protect their transporter erector launchers as well as other underground bunkers for missile storage. Other notable bases that house ballistic missiles include the Hirjillah army barracks and the Mezze and Dumayr tactical surface-to-surface missile storage facilities. Roughly one-third to one-half of the chemical weapons inventory is believed to have been assigned for ballistic missile delivery prior to the Syrian civil war.

The best estimates for the Syrian army's remaining artillery inventory ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 pieces, including towed, self-propelled and multiple-rocket artillery. As the conflict has progressed, the Syrian army has dispersed its artillery holdings in support of its widespread operations. While the artillery pieces are not located in hardened positions, their dispersal complicates their targeting.

Assets Required

Adequately neutralizing all three forces, and thus crippling the regime's ability to carry out chemical weapons attacks, would require a significant contribution of resources by the United States and its allies. The risk of mission creep is high, and the campaign would tie the United States deeply into the Syrian conflict. Simply eliminating the bulk of the regime's artillery and air force would instantly tilt the balance of power toward the rebels, implicating the United States in the responsibility of post-al Assad Syria. The psychological impact of such a campaign should also not be underestimated; loyalist forces under incessant air attack while fighting on the front lines against the rebels would be under considerable stress.

Significant post-strike analysis would be necessary in such an expansive campaign, and the effort to neutralize the regime's artillery assets in particular would require extensive tactical and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. Given the need to operate within the range of Syrian air defenses with non-stealth aircraft, a comprehensive suppression of enemy air defenses campaign would also be necessary. The Syrian air defense network has suffered several blows during the civil war but remains dense and dangerous.

Many more Tomahawk-equipped vessels would be required for the initial campaign to take out air defenses as well as the follow-on strikes, and U.S. Navy carriers with tactical aviation assets, especially electronic warfare aircraft such as the EA-18G Growler, would need to be deployed. Indeed, electronic warfare would figure prominently in such a campaign, from jamming to cyber attacks. At least one super carrier would be needed, but more could be deployed depending on the number of tactical aviation squadrons sent by the U.S. Air Force and allied countries.

Without short-range basing from countries such as Cyprus, Turkey, Jordan or Greece, operations by tactical fixed-wing aircraft would be greatly complicated because of the limited combat radius of those aircraft. The deployment of combat search and rescue elements would also necessitate forward bases (or aircraft carriers) close to Syria. In total, at least 400 Tomahawk missiles would likely be needed for the operation before a comprehensive fixed-wing campaign could commence -- more than twice the number fired during the intervention in Libya. Such a campaign would require a variety of munitions, including anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles, penetrating bombs, air-to-air missiles, gravity bombs and air-to-ground tactical missiles.

Notably, several variables can shape the nature of the conflict. There are hundreds if not thousands of different orders of battle that can be deployed based on wide-ranging factors, such as the allies' commitments, available basing, cost, commanders' preferences and enemy resilience. For example, something as simple as whether Turkey joins the mission dramatically alters the scenario, immediately bringing 200 or more tactical fighters to the operation (by the simple fact of their being within range and Turkey being vulnerable to retaliation and operating accordingly).

Secure the Chemical Weapons in Syria

The most ambitious and risky operation would be to attempt to secure the regime's chemical weapons to definitively prevent their further use. This operation would probably also signal the demise of the al Assad regime. In many ways, this option would be synonymous with an invasion of Syria, since any attempt to secure the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal would necessitate significant ground forces. It is for this reason that we believe the likelihood of this option to be very remote.

Target Set

Scant information is publicly available on Syria's chemical weapons program. However, Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, and until July 23 the regime had not publicly admitted to possessing the weapons. The al Assad regime is suspected of having VX, sarin, tabun and mustard gas, and it purportedly can produce a few hundred tons of chemical agents per year.

Several major storage and production sites are believed to be located near Homs, Hama, Eastern Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia and Palmyra. An additional 45-50 smaller facilities are believed to be spread across the country. While the United States and other Western allies have proved that they have active intelligence and surveillance of numerous sites, it would be nearly impossible for the entire stockpile to be accounted for at any one time, and it can assumed that all locations are not known.

Chemical weapons are difficult to destroy completely. The most common method is incineration at very high temperatures over a sustained period of time in a contained system. Munitions used by the military almost never reproduce these effects, especially the ones designed to penetrate a hardened structure. Another problem is the sheer volume of material. Estimates put Syrian stockpiles in the hundreds of tons of various types.

The most likely result of strikes on hardened facilities holding chemical weapons is the destruction of some of the material and the release of some into the atmosphere while the rest remains protect by the collapsed structure in rubble. In other words, a strike would succeed in destroying the material only partially while potentially causing collateral damage (many of the facilities are near populated areas) and only temporarily denying the regime the use of any remaining stockpiles.

Assets Required

Securing all of Syria's chemical weapons would necessitate a comprehensive suppression of enemy air defenses campaign. This first step would require strategic and tactical air assets combined with naval platforms, similar to the steps taken to eliminate the chemical weapons delivery capability. However, the difference is that securing the weapons would also require ground forces to be deployed in the country.

Securing even a few chemical weapons manufacturing or storage facilities would require the deployment of numerous detachments of special operations forces. Such a deployment would likely be preceded by the seizure of a Syrian airfield, which would serve as a temporary base for the operations. After the initial campaign to suppress the regime's air defenses, all threats within the vicinity of the airfield would be targeted and special operations forces would be flown in for either a combat drop or air landing. From there, the airfield would be used as a temporary bridgehead to launch several smaller operations aimed at grabbing specific sites.

The benefit of such an operation is that it would quickly put highly trained assets on the ground in moderate numbers with no buildup necessary in neighboring countries, meaning that tactical surprise could be achieved. Once the bridgehead is established, it would then be used as an air bridge to bring in reinforcements such as the 82nd Airborne Division. Absolute dominance of the airspace would have to be maintained during such an operation.

Chemical weapons are difficult to comprehensively eradicate; in about four decades the United States has destroyed only about half of its stockpiles. Units seizing chemical weapons sites could not simply strap C4 explosive blocks to them for the same reason that cruise missile strikes would not work: little is destroyed and much of it would just be flung around, risking unintended contamination and only temporarily denying the material to the enemy.

A comprehensive scenario that entails the seizure of all known stockpiles and roots out any missed supplies would essentially entail a full-scale invasion of Syria. The U.S. military reportedly estimates that it would need 75,000 troops to secure the entire network of Syrian chemical weapons. This is probably a low estimate. This option would be very complex and multifaceted. Again, a requisite suppression of enemy air defenses campaign would have to take place so the United States could dominate the airspace. Ground forces would have to be bought into theater in numbers, primarily in Jordan or Turkey. An amphibious component involving U.S. Marines could be utilized to establish beachheads on the Syrian coast. Special operations forces could also be tapped in conjunction with the 82nd Airborne Division to seize critical airfields to open up further fronts or capture time-sensitive targets deep in the Syrian core.

This would take a lot of time. Similar buildups for Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom took months. There would be little to no strategic or tactical surprise, and the United States and its allies would rely on raw firepower and rapid movement. This would be a full combined arms operation, where air and naval assets would facilitate the movement of ground forces.

This is the option with the greatest potential for bogging down forces in an occupation. Chemical weapons are hard to deal with and require time to destroy and longer still to move elsewhere and destroy. Either way, a standing army will find itself in Syria for at least a few months. Any form of mission creep into nation re-stabilization or building extends the timeline indefinitely. Even if the invasion went well, as it did in Iraq, the occupation period creates an opening for guerrilla or insurgent warfare waged by the fallen regime, Islamist extremists, disenfranchised rebels or all of the above.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/syria-comprehensive-look-options-intervention

Syria War 2013

by Leave a Comment

Syria crisis: warplanes spotted in Cyprus as tensions rise in Damascus | World news | The Guardian

Syrian Official: Obama Administration’s Claims Assad Regime Carried Out Chemical Attack ‘Completely Wrong’ « CBS DC

BBC News - Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike

» An Attack On Syria Would Be the Most Unpopular War Ever 

» Obama’s Cruise Missile Attack Will Not Topple Assad 

» US Attempts to Sabotage UN Chemical Weapons Investigation

Pentagon Sees Syrian Military, Not Chemical Sites, as Target - NYTimes.com

Potential military strike in Syria sparks concern in Congress - CBS News

U.S. military "ready" to attack Syria, Hagel says - CBS News

Google and the NSA: Who’s holding the ‘shit-bag’ now?

by Leave a Comment

August 24th, 2013

It has been revealed today, thanks to Edward Snowden, that Google and other US tech companies received millions of dollars from the NSA for their compliance with the PRISM mass surveillance system.

So just how close is Google to the US securitocracy? Back in 2011 I had a meeting with Eric Schmidt, the then Chairman of Google, who came out to see me with three other people while I was under house arrest. You might suppose that coming to see me was gesture that he and the other big boys at Google were secretly on our side: that they support what we at WikiLeaks are struggling for: justice, government transparency, and privacy for individuals. But that would be a false supposition. Their agenda was much more complex, and as we found out, was inextricable from that of the US State Department. The full transcript of our meeting is available online through the WikiLeaks website.

The pretext for their visit was that Schmidt was then researching a new book, a banal tome which has since come out as The New Digital Age. My less than enthusiastic review of this book was published in the New York Times in late May of this year. On the back of that book are a series of pre-publication endorsements: Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Michael Hayden (former head of the CIA and NSA) and Tony Blair. Inside the book Henry Kissinger appears once again, this time given pride of place in the acknowledgements.

Schmidt’s book is not about communicating with the public. He is worth $6.1 billion and does not need to sell books. Rather, this book is a mechanism by which Google seeks to project itself into Washington. It shows Washington that Google can be its partner, its geopolitical visionary, who will help Washington see further about America’s interests. And by tying itself to the US state, Google thereby cements its own security, at the expense of all competitors.

Two months after my meeting with Eric Schmidt, WikiLeaks had a legal reason to call Hilary Clinton and to document that we were calling her. It’s interesting that if you call the front desk of the State Department and ask for Hillary Clinton, you can actually get pretty close, and we’ve become quite good at this. Anyone who has seen Doctor Strangelove may remember the fantastic scene when Peter Sellers calls the White House from a payphone on the army base and is put on hold as his call gradually moves through the levels. Well WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison, pretending to be my PA, put through our call to the State Department, and like Peter Sellers we started moving through the levels, and eventually we got up to Hillary Clinton’s senior legal advisor, who said that we would be called back.

Shortly afterwards another one of our people, WikiLeaks’ ambassador Joseph Farrell, received a call back, not from the State Department, but from Lisa Shields, the then girlfriend of Eric Schmidt, who does not formally work for the US State Department. So let’s reprise this situation: The Chairman of Google’s girlfriend was being used as a back channel for Hillary Clinton. This is illustrative. It shows that at this level of US society, as in other corporate states, it is all musical chairs.

That visit from Google while I was under house arrest was, as it turns out, an unofficial visit from the State Department. Just consider the people who accompanied Schmidt on that visit: his girlfriend Lisa Shields, Vice President for Communications at the CFR; Scott Malcolmson, former senior State Department advisor; and Jared Cohen,  advisor to both Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, a kind of Generation Y Kissinger figure — a noisy Quiet American as the author Graham Greene might have put it.

Google started out as part of Californian graduate student culture around San Francisco’s Bay Area. But as Google grew it encountered the big bad world. It encountered barriers to its expansion in the form of complex political networks and foreign regulations. So it started doing what big bad American companies do, from Coca Cola to Northrop Grumman. It started leaning heavily on the State Department for support, and by doing so it entered into the Washington DC system. A recently released statistic shows that Google now spends even more money than Lockheed Martin on paid lobbyists in Washington.

Jared Cohen was the co-writer of Eric Schmidt’s book, and his role as the bridge between Google and the State Department speaks volumes about how the US securitocracy works. Cohen used to work directly for the State Department and was a close advisor to both Condolezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. But since 2010 he has been Director of Google Ideas, its in-house ‘think/do’ tank.

Documents published last year by WikiLeaks obtained from the US intelligence contractor Stratfor, show that in 2011 Jared Cohen, then (as he is now) Director of Google Ideas, was off running secret missions to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan. In these internal emails, Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice President for Intelligence and a former senior State Department official, describes Google as follows:

“Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do…[Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag”

In further internal communication, Burton subsequently clarifies his sources on Cohen’s activities as Marty Lev, Google’s director of security and safety and.. Eric Schmidt.

WikiLeaks cables also reveal that previously Cohen, when working for the State Department, was in Afghanistan trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto US military bases. In Lebanon he covertly worked to establish, on behalf of the State Department, an anti-Hezbollah Shia think tank. And  in London? He was offering Bollywood film executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into Bollywood films and promising to connect them to related networks in Hollywood. That is the Director of Google Ideas. Cohen is effectively Google’s director of regime change. He is the State Department channeling Silicon Valley.

That Google was taking NSA money in exchange for handing over people’s data comes as no surprise. When Google encountered the big bad world, Google itself got big and bad.

Ownership meme creates personal liability

by Leave a Comment

An underlying meme proliferated throughout the American economic system is ownership.  The so called "American Dream" is to own; own a home, own a car, own as much as you can; and keep it all in your name.  Many American teenagers and 20 somethings of many social classes experience a brief period of freedom in their lives when they have little or no ownership.  Work hard, then spend your money so that you can say 'it's mine' - this is the mantra drilled into the minds who go through the education system.

They reinforce this by unfairly comparing the American 'ownership' society to societies where ownership was illegal or impossible.  So we are supposed to feel lucky by owning things.

Anyone who has ever been through a bankruptcy, divorce, or lawsuit, will probably understand that ownership is a liability.

The simplest example is physical assets, most notably any real estate.  Property requires maintenance, taxes must be paid, in the case of residential areas association dues, etc.  Also it's an accident waiting to happen; someone breaks their leg on your property and sues you.

Katko v. Briney

The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse in Iowa, the property was boarded up, had "no trespass" signs around it, and had been unused and was in a deteriorating condition for several years. Briney was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins into his unoccupied farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse to fire when the north bedroom door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruder's legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five days later, Katko went into the farmhouse with the intent of collecting some old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the room, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shotgun fired into Katko’s legs at point blank range. The gunshot wounds sustained by Katko were sufficiently severe for him to require hospitalization. Katko sued Briney after his release from hospital.

The case had several subsequent results. The Brineys sold 80 of their 120 acres (0.49 km2) to pay the judgment while proceeding with an appeal. Three of Briney's neighbors bought the property at auction, paying $1 more than the minimum bid of $10,000. After the appeal was denied, they made a leaseback arrangement with Briney, but eventually one sold his share to his son for a profit. Briney and Katko then joined in a lawsuit against the neighbor to create a constructive trust on the profit, but the case was settled before trial in an amount sufficient to close out the judgment against Briney.[1]

As Katko's injury was misreported by the United Press International wire service as having taken place in the Briney residence, several states introduced what were called "Briney Bills" for self-defense, which was not at issue in the case. The Nebraska Legislature act, stating that no person ... shall be placed in ... jeopardy ... for protecting, by any means necessary, himself, his family, or his real estate property ..., was overturned due to improper delegation of sentencing authority in State v. Goodseal (1971).[1]

Four years after the case was decided, Briney was asked if he would change anything about the situation. Briney replied: "There's one thing I'd do different, though, I'd have aimed that gun a few feet higher."[2]

This case shows how even an abandoned property can create liability; you have to protect it, maintain it, and even a burglar can sue you!

Taxes

Most taxes are the obligation to the individual receiving the income.  There is no way around income tax, everyone claims deductions but aside from that income tax is personal liability.  There are hidden costs to income tax such as if you utilize credit, making payments to loan obligations (with a few small exceptions such as interest on mortgages) is not deductible.

The Elite

Long ago the Elite learned that ownership is a liability.  This is why they limit personal income and assets to a reasonable level and keep most assets in trusts, charities, corporations, and other types of entities.

Historian Howard Zinn points to the Ludlow Massacre as the watershed event that caused the Elite to rethink their social position.

The Ludlow Massacre was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914.

In 1914, when workers at Colorado mine went on strike, company guards fired machine guns and killed several men. More battling followed, during which 2 women and 11 children were killed and John D. Rockefeller Jr., the chief mine owner, was pilloried for what had happened.

The massacre resulted in the violent deaths of between 19 and 25 people; sources vary but include two women and eleven children, asphyxiated and burned to death under a single tent. The deaths occurred after a daylong fight between militia and camp guards against striking workers. Ludlow was the deadliest single incident in the southern Colorado Coal Strike, lasting from September 1913 through December 1914. The strike was organized by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) against coal mining companies in Colorado. The three largest companies involved were the Rockefeller family-owned Colorado Fuel & Iron Company (CF&I), the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company (RMF), and the Victor-American Fuel Company (VAF).

In retaliation for Ludlow, the miners armed themselves and attacked dozens of mines over the next ten days, destroying property and engaging in several skirmishes with the Colorado National Guard along a 40-mile front from Trinidad to Walsenburg.[1] The entire strike would cost between 69 and 199 lives. Thomas G. Andrews described it as the "deadliest strike in the history of the United States".[2]

The Ludlow Massacre was a watershed moment in American labor relations. Historian Howard Zinn described the Ludlow Massacre as "the culminating act of perhaps the most violent struggle between corporate power and laboring men in American history".[3] Congress responded to public outcry by directing the House Committee on Mines and Mining to investigate the incident.[4] Its report, published in 1915, was influential in promoting child labor laws and an eight-hour work day.

The result of this situation led to the beginnings of workers rights institutions, as well as the Elite heavily using foundations and charities they funded, owned, and controlled, to have the appearance of 'giving back' - but also giving them big tax breaks.

The Rockefeller Foundation was founded in 1913, around the same time as the founding of the Federal Reserve Private Central Bank System, and the beginning of a new 'institutional' era of ownership.  The previous generation was 'owned' by individuals such as Rockefeller, whereas the modern system we have now is owned and controlled by institutions.  This took hold during and after WW2, with the foundation of institutions across multiple industries, but most notably banking and intelligence institutions such as the IMF and the CIA.

The Problem

People are reluctant to transfer assets out of their name.  But strangely, they are doing this every time they make a deposit in a bank account!  But since the bank produces a paper with their name on it, they feel that the account is actually 'theirs' which we've seen proven false with all the institutional problems of late.

The way most trusts are setup they are more like a contract with a 'trusted' agent called a fiduciary, usually an attorney or financial professional, who acts as a trusted custodian.

When you have assets in your personal name you are a target.  Not only are you liable to manage the assets, you're only one situation away from potentially losing them.  A business deal gone bad, angry ex lover,  desperate family members, or a desperate government trying to create new revenue, are all potential problems.

The Solution

The solution is simple; establish an entity for yourself or immediate family, ideally in a 2nd country.  Don't be misled thinking there is a paradise of some jurisdiction.  The fact is that it's always better to work with 2 countries than one.  For those living in the EU, the US may be a good jurisdiction to setup an entity.  The reason for this is there is usually special treatment for foreigners.  For example in the case of Malta, Malta has rules regarding "International Trading Companies" that are not applicable to Maltese residents.  Only foreigners with assets in Malta can receive tax benefits, it is not available to locals.  The same applies to IRS rules where a double taxation treaty exists.  The point is not to dissect the rules in each jurisdiction, rather to understand that working in 2 jurisdictions is always better than one.  Also, as the global situation changes, it may be difficult to get established offshore as they close the borders, whereas existing entities may be grandfathered in with old rules.

Transferring assets out of your name is a big leap for many who have been taught to be 'owners' - but there are many structures that would allow the same degree of control over your assets while providing protection from the threats listed in this article.  If you are considering doing this, understand that it will be required for a law firm to establish the entity for you, but much of the work can be done yourself if you choose.  Otherwise you will need to find a financial adviser in the jurisdiction where you are considering establishing your entity.  DO NOT consult with US advisers about offshore structures unless it is their specific specialty.  Similarly, if you are in the EU, do not consult with EU advisers about US rules.

Structured Consulting can assist in establishing an offshore corporation or trust for you, or simply put you in contact with our network of international professionals.  Contact Structured Consulting

Hungary cuts off IMF eyes EU exit

by Leave a Comment

By Ronald L. Ray

Hungary is making history of the first order.

Not since the 1930s in Germany has a major European country dared to escape from the clutches of the Rothschild-controlled international banking cartels. This is stupendous news that should encourage nationalist patriots worldwide to increase the fight for freedom from financial tyranny.

Already in 2011, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán promised to serve justice on his socialist predecessors, who sold the nation’s people into unending debt slavery under the lash of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the terrorist state of Israel. Those earlier administrations were riddled with Israelis in high places, to the fury of the masses, who finally elected Orbán’s Fidesz party in response.

According to a report on the German-language website “National Journal,” Orbán has now moved to unseat the usurers from their throne. The popular, nationalistic prime minister told the IMF that Hungary neither wants nor needs further “assistance” from that proxy of the Rothschild-owned Federal Reserve Bank. No longer will Hungarians be forced to pay usurious interest to private, unaccountable central bankers.

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=12418

First Iceland, and now Hungary, are now embarking on a Sovereign Money road to monetary independence.  They are both telling the IMF and other international bankers from the EU that "Thanks, but no thanks for your debt money, we can make our own debt-freemoney."  Forces from both the far Right andprogressive side of the political spectrum are coming together in throwing out the unsustainable debt-money system, which not only preaches unworkable austerity, and sequestration, but whose adherents can't even understand the basic fact that you can't eliminate debt in a debt-based money system without eliminating money as well, and plunging us into a deflationary depression not seen since Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt in 1836 - resulting in an even worse and longer depression than the Great Depression. What we need to do is continue necessary spending, but eliminate the debt.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Cutting-Loose-Hungary-pay-by-Scott-Baker-Banks_Debt_Debt-Ceiling_Debt-Ceiling-130826-40.html

Follow Global Intel Hub

Follow GIH and get free updates on Global Intelligence, Analysis, and more.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

s2Member®
%d bloggers like this: