Nashua refuses to fly the Pine Tree flag, Manchester recognizes Friends of the Piscataquag River Park and then things go downhill fast, kids are too coddled, and who is running for what?
What is the fate of free staters who were charged with money laundering using cryptocurrency? The FBI and US Attorney’s office explain their investigation of the case and two of those dubbed “The Crypto Six” share their perspectives from prison.
The US government sows fear. Its intelligence agencies sow paranoia. Politicians exploit both to stay in office. The Deep State feeds off this dark energy to grow.
Manufactured fear is running–and ruining–the world.
One prevailing geopolitical theory is “everyone is blackmailing someone”.
I have questions:
1. What are ppl doing in their everyday lives that is so grossly heinous? Might want to reflect on that and reform your ways?
2. With the advent of “deep fakes” the “blackmail model” of statecraft will soon be rendered obsolete, or at least lose much of its power to plausible deniability, which is where shady players are going to make their AI-generated bread & butter.
If “perception is reality” but we have evolved to a point where you cannot “believe your own eyes,” what have we wrought?
Living through the past few years persuaded me this confusion is not accidental.
Control Freaks are turning our streets and public spaces into insane asylums by making up shit on the internet and scaring people into literal MINDLESSNESS. Brain-dead zombies unable to discern truth from bullshit.
Where do we go from here?
Get HEALTHY so YOU can control your own mind!
Control mind > Mind control
If you catch this week’s Manch Talk, you’ll hear me discuss the latest developments regarding Right-to-Know in New Hampshire. Long story short, the NH AG’s office finally, FINALLY released the new RTK memo, nine years after the last one in 2015.
[PDF]
Since last week was Sunshine Week, when we typically celebrate or highlight national open government efforts, and as a RTKNH board member, I submitted an op-ed to the Union Leader, which got pulled last minute because the memo was released. I’ll take it! Stay tuned for an in-depth delve into the 158-page document, coming soon!
Here was the op-ed that was NOT published:
Dear Editor,
It is Sunshine Week, our annual reminder that if we don’t want more government corruption, we must demand transparency. What is hidden in government is what is rotten in government, and with distrust in government institutions at an all-time high, the need for open government has never been more critical.
I serve on the board of Right-to-Know NH, a statewide, nonpartisan group of open government advocates. We are from different walks in life, different political parties, religions, and backgrounds, but what unites us is the understanding that without open, transparent, accessible, and accountable government, local politics won’t work.
And, sadly, the trend in New Hampshire suddenly seems to be towards darkness, not light. For example: An insidious bill, HB 1002, would introduce a use fee for RTK requests, thereby introducing a new tax. Imagine the impact this would have on the press’ ability to investigate stories, or the chilling effect due to costs that this will have on open government activists.
Over the past few years, open government advocates have seen some successes. The RTK Ombudsman office finally opened last year, but already suffers from too complex rules, and a backlog. Several NH Supreme Court cases were found in favor of more open government. The Fenniman case was even overturned after almost three decades, significantly broadening our right to view government employees’ personnel files.
And yet, in the past decade, the government has also managed to seal the names of law enforcement officers who should have appeared on the Laurie’s List, they have arrested Right-to-Know activists, they have spent millions of your tax dollars fighting open government requests, and the NH Municipal Association has lobbied against common sense legislation to help broaden the press and Granite Staters’ Right-to-Know.
Last year during Sunshine Week, I implored the AG’s Office to update the 2015 Right-to-Know memorandum. We have now formally requested this update at least 5 times in writing, to no avail. The failure by the AG to act, especially when such failure shrouds in secrecy the incredible gains that have been made in favor of more open government, breeds suspicion.
In the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Let us, therefore, redouble our efforts to shine a light on the inner workings of our local government. It starts with that updated memo. To the NH Attorney General’s Office: Stop undermining public trust.
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
Carla lives in West Manchester, and serves on the board of Right-to-Know NH. She is an outspoken critic of big government.
Above is what Edward Snowden saw at Liberty Forum 2016. (Get your tix to Liberty Forum 2024 with Tulsi Gabbard today!)
Right after he saw us all put up masks of his face to drive home the point, “We are all Edward Snowden now.” I remember during the sound check having to warn him about the masks because I thought it might be strange to be confronted by such a visual unexpectedly. He was embarrassed, flattered, and gracious.
Still think the whole Snowden package–from getting him to speak, to getting the announcement that he was speaking on the front page of hundreds of newspapers worldwide, to the masks, to the incredible interview with Nick Gillespie of REASON–was one of our coolest “Only in the Free State” moments!
Thanks to everyone who helped make it happen. Feel free to add your recollections too.
***
I ran across this post that Liberty Forum Producer Angela Harris made soon after the 2016 event:
WOW, what a weekend! If you had told me a year ago that Emmett and I would be organizing the next Liberty Forum, and that not only would we have Edward Snowden as our keynote speaker, but that we would have already Triggered the Move weeks before, I would have told you were crazy – optimistic and cute, but crazy. Now my head is reeling from the reality of it all – I need a pinch! Or a drink! (Ask me about my Emergency Nip if we get a chance –this may become an essential part of my packing routine in the future.)
I kept watch over the course of the four days, and almost everywhere I turned, I saw smiling faces and heard excited voices – people greeting old friends, enrapt in conversations in the corridors, laughing together as they headed off to the next gathering. It was truly humbling and invigorating to play host to such a diverse and passionate group of people.
An event the size and scope of Liberty Forum does not come together overnight, and it does not happen at the whim of one, or even two, people – it takes a small army of dedicated volunteers to pull it off and make it look effortless and seamless, and each of our volunteers devoted untold amounts of time, talent, and treasure to make Liberty Forum 2016 one for the record books. My sincere, heartfelt thanks go out to everyone on the entire team, especially:
Amy Day for pulling together a million threads to make one cohesive, impressive schedule – your talents amaze me and I thank you for dealing with my billion-and-one emails every day;
Sandy Pierre for wrangling libertarian cats into speaking slots and ensuring they all had the information they needed;
Kyle Laura Bennett for stocking and managing a kick-ass VIP suite – it truly felt like home away from home (but much nicer!);
Chip Spangler for running back and forth between four salons to keep the A/V machine humming so that everyone could see and hear what was going on;
Liam Enael for sending the signal to the universe, designing and printing the printed matter, and pulling my bacon out of the fire more than once;
Samantha Leane for keeping the Registration table running smoothly and making sure everyone got where they needed to go – oh, and for having an amazing collection of pretty paperclips;
Hershel Nunez for reaching out to and wrangling not 10, not 20, but 40+ exhibitors – you are a gracious host and have great vision;
Nicholas Buroker for not breaking the Internet during the Snowden talk; 😉
Carolyn Albert for going above and beyond the call of duty to make sure speakers got here and home again, and had lodging in between;
Rachel Goldsmith for liaising with our sponsors and making sure their needs were all met;
Jessica Love for envisioning and creating Porc Family Connection, giving parents a place to take their kids and where they could have fun while interacting with other parents – I don’t think there is any other conference in the world that has anything close;
Christine Mizer Butler for outstanding creative vision for the Liberty in Action Awards dinner – you and your team knocked it out of the park!;
Andre Rosa for a fabulously funny story and spectacular performance – what a show!;
JJ Epic for filming Snowden’s talk and the Liberty in Action Awards – wonderful eye, beautiful work!;
Jon Lts for putting on a hilarious comedy show to start the weekend off on the right foot;
Theresa Eudaimonia for keeping our relationship with the hotel on good footing and other various and sundry important deeds of helpfulness throughout the weekend;
Tara.טארה פאוול for deescalating situations (and de-icky-fying situations) like a PRO!;
Chris Lopez for being an amazing ambassador for Manchester by arranging ten spectacular off-site tours for the weekend;
Glenn Bailey for always being ready with some muscle when needed;
Dawn Lincoln for keeping the salons running smoothly and ensuring our speakers and attendees had what they needed for the talks;
Kari DePhillips and Brinck Slattery for being the bestest PR team on the planet;
Tennyson McCalla for being everywhere, tirelessly taking photos of everyone and everything, and putting up with my self-critical eye;
Jeremy Harris for being an awesome Man Friday and happily filling in where needed;
and last, but by no means least, Carla Gericke and Matt Philips for being an outstanding resource for all things Organizer, and for landing some pretty phenomenal speakers!
My deepest gratitude to all! And this is only the tip of the iceberg; many of these team members had a team of their own, each and every one of them working to ensure that Liberty Forum 2016 went off without a hitch, that each attendee had an enjoyable time, and that folks would want to come back for Liberty Forum 2017. I would say they were totally successful! I am exceptionally proud to have worked with this outstanding group of folks; they are the reason Liberty Forum happened at all. Please give them a pat on the back if you see them. 😃 ❤
This week, Manch Talk is in the new studio and bugs are still being sorted. We cover the moves towards more secretive government and censorship, with Carla uncovering some startling revelations from Grok on X, including “#FreeAssange” being banned.
I will upload the Grok screen grabs here later.
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW ABOUT THE MOST INSIDIOUS NH HOUSE BILL BEING HEARD TOMORROW!!!
They’re creating a tax for open record requests. We HAVE TO KILL HB 1002!!!
Here’s the documents created by Right-to-Know NH regarding HB 1002. HUGE SHOUT OUT to Katherine Kokko of Right-to-Know NH for the incredible work she did on this issue, including the Q&A below. Right-to-Know NH is a nonpartisan group working together to keep NH government open, transparent, and ACCOUNTABLE to the people.
HB1002: Frequently Asked Questions
How does HB1002 impact the public’s Right to Know?
HB1002 imposes labor, retrieval, and redaction costs on requestors under RSA Chapter 91-A (NH’s “Right to Know” Law). HB1002 constrains a citizens’ right to know to what can be learned in 10 hours or less in a 30-day period, while charging for additional details within that time period.
A ten hour limit on requests sounds reasonable on paper. Why is this a problem?
The limit hampers the public’s ability to understand and scrutinize complex government operations thoroughly, setting conditions for opacity in government. HB1002 targets, and discourages members of the public from performing the public service of assuring transparency in government, jeopardizing public access and government transparency in New Hampshire. There are other ways to address the problem of “burdensome requests” as presented to the House (See inside).
What else is wrong with HB1002?
By defining the reasonableness of a request as a time limit, HB1002 contravenes the intent of the RTK Law repeatedly affirmed by the courts – to define reasonableness of a request in a manner that provides the greatest information, consistent with statutory and constitutional objectives.
Furthermore, high labor estimates for responding to a request are likely to be issued due to issues like poor record retention practices or the use of overzealous redactions. Those are the responsibility of the public body, not the fault of the requestor.
Why is it important for the public to have unfettered access to public information under NH’s Right to Know law?
NH’s law is entirely and uniquely reliant on private action by individuals for enforcement, giving the public a statutory role in ensuring transparency in NH. There is no oversight body to ensure that NH’s Right-to-Know law is enforced.
Any investigation, even by the RTK Ombudsman, must be instigated by private action. HB1002 erects financial barriers to the public and perversely incentivizes public bodies to increase their estimated labor in responding to RTK requests.
This bill appears to have lot of support from local communities, public bodies and their lobbyists. Who is opposing this bill?
Because this bill would severely harm government accountability and transparency in New Hampshire, it is opposed by a broad Coalition of stakeholders, including the Right-to-Know NH, the ACLU-NH, the New England First Amendment Coalition, the N.H. Press Association, the N.H. Union Leader, the N.H. Bulletin and Americans for Prosperity.
WHY VOTE NO
ON HB1002?
It sounds like “burdensome requests” are a big problem for public bodies/communities? Does RTKNH agree?
The bill’s sponsor Katelyn Kuttab (R-Windham), the NH Municipal Association and Right to Know NH have all confirmed that the large, problematic requests at issue are infrequent. In testimony, examples of “burdensome requests” were anecdotal and not placed in context. Most labor-intensive RTK requests come from commercial entities who are likely willing to pay.
By contrast, the average citizen will likely abandon their RTK request when faced with potential fees for a public interest inquiry, serving no public good. The impact on the average citizen request will be far more profound than the impact on burdensome commercial requests.
If this bill is NOT passed, how will public bodies/communities deal with these “burdensome requests”?
HB1002 addresses a perceived issue that is already addressed by the Right to Know law and existing State and Federal case law. HB1002 disincentivizes public bodies from understanding the existing parameters of the RTK law and the court’s definitions of “reasonableness”… at the public’s expense.
Finally, public bodies always have the option of communicating with the requestor to try and clarify the scope of the request. Many do not do this and choose a legalistic approach instead.
Are there other ways to address these “burdensome requests?”
Yes. Public bodies, including elected officials, should be trained on Right to Know. There is no training requirement. Relying on legal counsel or trying to base decisions on in-house interpretations – instead of training public employees on the front lines – exacerbates issues. When a community spends an inordinate amount of time on Right to Know requests, it is often due to this lack of training and/or reliance on overly legalistic responses.
• What else could be done to assist public bodies?
Multiple stakeholders have asked the AG’s Office to update its 2015 Memorandum on NH’s Right to Know Law so that public bodies can appropriately apply the many precedent-setting decisions made since 2015. The AG’s Office has not done so (claiming that it is in process) while failing to provide a timeline for completion. Meanwhile, it has endorsed HB1002 and specifically the proposed fee structure. This is an unacceptable abdication of its own role in assuring the integrity of the application of the Right-to-Know law.
• The House Judiciary Committee voted this bill OTPA. Why should I disagree with their recommendation?
With only 2 business days between the hearing and Executive Session, the House Judiciary Committee voted HB1002 OTPA 12-8 along evenly split party lines (6D/6R to 4D/4R), without:
(i) Investigating examples, or the origin and root causes of, burdensome requests that are being cited anecdotally to justify this bill
(ii) Considering more targeted proposals to limit excessive requests.
(iii) Investigating the role that RTK training and public guidance (including from the NH Attorney General’s office) could have in resolving this issue.
• How will this bill impact the “average” RTK request?
HB1002 reinforces the use of problematic practices like unnecessary redactions, use of outside contracted support staff and “data dumps” of large volumes of unnecessary documents by allowing billing for such labor. It will also have a “chilling effect” on anything but the most simple request, discouraging the public from researching and understanding issues of interest because they are “too complicated” to warrant paying for the public interest.
Developed and Funded by Committed NH Citizen-Advocates through Right-to-Know NH
Page 2
List the most famous American whistleblowers and how their bravery to come forward led to actual substantive changes that improved government accountability and public trustChatGPT
ChatGPT
Several famous American whistleblowers have played a significant role in exposing government misconduct and promoting government accountability and public trust. Here are some of the most well-known American whistleblowers and the impact of their actions:
- Daniel Ellsberg:
- Ellsberg was a former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, a top-secret Department of Defense study on the Vietnam War.
- His actions exposed government deception and the secret escalation of the war, leading to increased public skepticism about the government’s actions.
- The publication of the Pentagon Papers contributed to the eventual end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and led to greater transparency in government decision-making.
- Mark Felt (Deep Throat):
- Felt, an associate director of the FBI, provided information to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.
- His anonymous leaks helped uncover the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up, leading to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
- Felt’s actions demonstrated the importance of whistleblowers in exposing government corruption and holding high-level officials accountable.
- Frank Serpico:
- Serpico was a New York City police officer who exposed widespread corruption and bribery within the NYPD in the early 1970s.
- His testimony before the Knapp Commission led to investigations and reforms within the police department, including the establishment of the independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to oversee police misconduct.
- Serpico’s actions inspired public debate about police integrity and accountability.
- Jeffrey Wigand:
- Wigand was a former tobacco industry executive who blew the whistle on the industry’s knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking and the manipulation of nicotine levels in cigarettes.
- His disclosures contributed to multiple lawsuits against tobacco companies and led to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which imposed significant financial penalties on the industry and led to greater regulation and public awareness of the dangers of smoking.
- Edward Snowden:
- Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified documents in 2013 that revealed the extent of government surveillance programs, including mass data collection on American citizens.
- His disclosures sparked a global debate on privacy, surveillance, and government overreach.
- Snowden’s actions led to reforms such as the USA Freedom Act and increased scrutiny of intelligence agencies’ activities.
These whistleblowers demonstrated immense courage in exposing government wrongdoing, leading to substantive changes in government policies, increased transparency, and greater public trust by holding those in power accountable for their actions.
You
Explain what “increased scrutiny of US intelligence agencies’ activities” happened after Snowden ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent of surveillance conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the National Security Agency (NSA), led to increased scrutiny and changes in the way these agencies operate. Here are some of the key ways in which increased scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities occurred after Snowden’s disclosures:
- Public Awareness and Debate: Snowden’s leaks brought the previously secret and massive surveillance programs into the public spotlight. This triggered a national and international conversation about the balance between national security and individual privacy. Citizens and policymakers became more informed about the scope of government surveillance.
- Legal Challenges: Snowden’s disclosures led to legal challenges against the NSA and its surveillance programs. Civil liberties organizations and concerned citizens filed lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of certain surveillance practices, such as bulk data collection.
- Reform Legislation: The increased public and congressional scrutiny prompted efforts to reform U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities. The USA Freedom Act, signed into law in 2015, was a significant piece of legislation that imposed limitations on bulk data collection and introduced more transparency and oversight measures. It also ended the government’s bulk collection of call records.
- Increased Oversight: The revelations prompted calls for greater oversight of intelligence agencies. Congress established more robust mechanisms for overseeing surveillance programs, including increased reporting requirements and greater involvement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in certain cases.
- International Diplomatic Fallout: Snowden’s disclosures strained U.S. relations with other countries, particularly European allies who were upset by reports of NSA surveillance on their leaders and citizens. This diplomatic fallout led to discussions and negotiations about international norms and rules for cyber espionage.
- Technology and Encryption: Snowden’s revelations encouraged tech companies to strengthen encryption and security measures to protect user data from government surveillance. Tech giants like Apple and Google started to prioritize user privacy and resist government demands for backdoors to encrypted data.
- Whistleblower Protections: Snowden’s actions spurred discussions about the need for stronger protections for whistleblowers who expose government misconduct. Some argued that there should be legal avenues for whistleblowers to come forward with classified information while still safeguarding national security.
Overall, Edward Snowden’s disclosures significantly increased transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities. While opinions about Snowden’s actions vary widely, there is no doubt that they had a profound impact on the national and international conversation surrounding surveillance, privacy, and government accountability.
You
Is it not true that Google and Apple routinely provide backdoors to governments now?ChatGPT
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, both Google and Apple have stated their commitment to user privacy and encryption, and they have resisted government requests for backdoors to access user data. However, the landscape of technology and government policies can change, and it’s essential to stay updated with the latest developments.
Here are some key points related to Google and Apple’s stance on user privacy and government access:
- Encryption: Both Google and Apple have implemented encryption measures to protect user data. This means that data stored on devices and transmitted over their services is typically end-to-end encrypted, making it challenging for anyone, including governments, to access user data without the user’s consent.
- Legal Requests: Both companies do comply with lawful government requests for user data when presented with appropriate legal process, such as court orders and subpoenas. However, they have been known to challenge overly broad or unconstitutional requests in court.
- Transparency Reports: Google and Apple publish transparency reports that provide information about the number and types of government requests for user data they receive. This transparency allows users to understand how often and why governments seek access to user information.
- Resistance to Backdoors: Historically, both companies have resisted government pressure to build backdoors or weaken encryption. They argue that weakening encryption would compromise user privacy and security.
- Government Access Debate: The debate over government access to encrypted communications and devices continues to be a topic of discussion among tech companies, privacy advocates, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers. There are ongoing debates about the balance between privacy and security in the digital age.
Since my knowledge is not up to date beyond January 2022, I recommend checking the latest news and developments regarding Google and Apple’s policies on government access and encryption to ensure you have the most current information on this topic. Technology companies’ positions and policies can evolve in response to legal and regulatory changes, as well as public and political pressure.
You
Post the most recent “transparency reports of government requests” by Apple and then GoogleChatGPT
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion, but I do not have the capability to access real-time data or the internet, including the most recent reports. My knowledge is based on information available up to January 2022, and I cannot provide updates beyond that date.
To access the most recent transparency reports from Apple and Google regarding government requests for user data, I recommend visiting the respective companies’ official websites or conducting an internet search using relevant keywords. Both Apple and Google regularly update their transparency reports to provide information on government requests for user data, and you can find the latest information directly from their official sources.
You
Summarize the current scope of “secret government surveillance” as it relates to social media ChatGPT
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the scope of secret government surveillance related to social media was a subject of concern and debate, with several key aspects:
- Bulk Data Collection: Government agencies, particularly in the United States, had been engaged in bulk data collection programs where they collected vast amounts of metadata related to social media communications. This metadata included information about who was communicating with whom, when, and for how long. The content of the messages was typically not collected through these programs.
- National Security Agency (NSA): The NSA, as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013, had programs like PRISM that reportedly allowed the agency to access data from major tech companies, including social media platforms. These programs were aimed at identifying potential threats to national security.
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court: Surveillance requests by government agencies were subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the United States. FISC was responsible for granting or denying requests for surveillance, including those related to social media and internet communications.
- Private Companies’ Role: Social media companies were often compelled to provide user data to government agencies in response to legal requests, such as court orders and subpoenas. These companies generally complied with lawful requests while advocating for transparency and limits on government access.
- Global Concerns: Surveillance activities related to social media were not limited to the United States. Governments in various countries were also engaged in surveillance efforts, and revelations about these practices raised concerns about the balance between national security and individual privacy worldwide.
- Encryption Debates: The use of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps raised debates about government access to private communications. Some governments argued for “backdoors” that would allow them to access encrypted messages, while tech companies and privacy advocates argued against weakening encryption, citing security and privacy concerns.
Please note that the scope and nature of government surveillance can evolve over time due to changes in laws, policies, and technology. Since my knowledge is not up to date beyond January 2022, I recommend consulting the latest news and reports for the most current information on government surveillance related to social media. It’s also essential to stay informed about any legislative or policy changes that may impact the scope of surveillance activities.
You
How many FISA requests have been issued? ChatGPT
ChatGPT
I don’t have access to real-time or current data, including the exact number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests that have been issued since my last knowledge update in January 2022. FISA requests are typically classified and subject to national security considerations, and detailed statistics about them may not be publicly available.
To obtain the most up-to-date information on FISA requests and related statistics, you may need to refer to official government reports, statements, or releases from the relevant government agencies responsible for FISA oversight and compliance, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Keep in mind that some aspects of FISA activities may remain classified or sensitive for national security reasons.
You
How can there be public trust and oversight of government surveillance if the number of FISA requests are secret? ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The tension between maintaining national security and ensuring public trust and oversight in government surveillance is a complex and ongoing challenge. While some aspects of government surveillance, such as specific FISA requests, may need to remain classified for legitimate national security reasons, there are mechanisms in place to balance these concerns:
- Transparency Reports: Government agencies, particularly in democratic countries like the United States, often release periodic transparency reports. These reports provide aggregated statistics on surveillance requests and activities without disclosing specific details that could compromise national security. Transparency reports offer the public insight into the scale and scope of surveillance efforts.
- Oversight Bodies: Many countries have established oversight bodies or committees responsible for reviewing government surveillance activities. These bodies, often composed of lawmakers, legal experts, and sometimes members of the public, are tasked with ensuring that surveillance activities are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individual privacy rights.
- Judicial Review: In countries with legal frameworks like the United States, government surveillance requests, especially those related to FISA, are subject to judicial review. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the U.S. reviews and approves or denies surveillance requests. The court operates behind closed doors to protect classified information but is intended to provide a check on government surveillance.
- Legislative Oversight: Elected representatives in legislatures have a role in overseeing government surveillance activities. They can hold hearings, request information, and pass legislation to address concerns about surveillance and enhance transparency.
- Whistleblower Protections: Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing government misconduct, including unlawful or overreaching surveillance practices. Laws protecting whistleblowers can encourage individuals to come forward with concerns about government surveillance without fear of retaliation.
- Public Advocacy and Civil Liberties Groups: Public advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations actively monitor and advocate for transparency, accountability, and privacy protections in government surveillance programs. They often use legal means, advocacy campaigns, and public education efforts to promote awareness and accountability.
Balancing national security and individual privacy is an ongoing challenge, and the appropriate level of transparency and oversight may vary from one country to another. Striking the right balance requires constant vigilance, public engagement, and adaptation of laws and policies to address emerging technologies and threats while upholding democratic values and principles. It’s an area where public debate, legal challenges, and legislative reforms play a crucial role in shaping the rules governing government surveillance.
You
You mention “whistleblower protections”. Can you tell me how the past 10 most famous whistleblowers were protected?ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Whistleblower protections vary depending on the specific circumstances and legal frameworks in place at the time of their disclosures. Here’s a brief overview of the past 10 most famous whistleblowers and how they were protected or faced legal consequences:
- Edward Snowden:
- Snowden exposed classified NSA documents related to mass surveillance. He fled to Russia to avoid prosecution in the United States, where he faced charges under the Espionage Act.
- He was granted temporary asylum in Russia, which protected him from extradition to the United States. Some countries and human rights organizations offered support and protection.
- Chelsea Manning:
- Manning leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, including diplomatic cables and military records. She was arrested and faced a court-martial.
- Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison but had her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama in 2017. She was released from prison in 2017.
- Daniel Ellsberg:
- Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret study of the Vietnam War, to the New York Times and other newspapers. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act.
- His case was eventually dismissed due to government misconduct and illegal surveillance, which came to light during the trial.
- Mark Felt (Deep Throat):
- Felt remained anonymous as Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal. His identity was revealed in 2005 after his death.
- He was never prosecuted for his role as a whistleblower. His status as a confidential informant was known only to a few individuals at the time.
- Frank Serpico:
- Serpico exposed widespread corruption within the NYPD in the 1970s. He testified before the Knapp Commission.
- He faced retaliation from fellow officers but was eventually protected by the Knapp Commission and continued to speak out against corruption.
- Jeffrey Wigand:
- Wigand exposed tobacco industry practices related to the health risks of smoking. He faced legal threats from tobacco companies.
- His disclosures led to legal battles and lawsuits against tobacco companies. He received legal support and protection during the process.
- Katharine Gun:
- Gun leaked a memo from the U.S. National Security Agency requesting British support for the Iraq War. She faced possible prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
- The charges against her were dropped, and she was not prosecuted due to concerns about her prosecution’s impact on the trial.
- Thomas Drake:
- Drake exposed waste and abuse within the NSA, specifically regarding a failed surveillance program. He faced charges under the Espionage Act.
- The government’s case against him collapsed, and he eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge, receiving no jail time.
- John Kiriakou:
- Kiriakou revealed details about the CIA’s use of waterboarding and faced charges related to the leak.
- He was sentenced to prison but later released. He received support from advocacy groups during his legal battle.
- Reality Winner:
- Winner leaked a classified NSA document related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. She faced charges under the Espionage Act.
- She was sentenced to more than five years in prison but was released in June 2021 after a commutation of her sentence.
Whistleblower protection can be a complex and evolving process, involving legal battles, public support, advocacy groups, and sometimes presidential pardons or commutations. The level of protection and consequences can vary significantly based on the nature of the disclosures and the legal and political context at the time.
You
While you claim whistleblowers can act as a safeguard against secret government surveillance, the reality is the government punishes whistleblowers to try to silence them and to create a chilling effect in the future… is this not correct? ChatGPT
ChatGPT
You are correct that in some cases, governments have taken legal action against whistleblowers, and there have been instances where whistleblowers faced retaliation as a means to discourage others from coming forward. The treatment of whistleblowers can vary widely depending on the nature of their disclosures, the legal framework in place, and the prevailing political climate. Here are some key points to consider:
- Legal Protections: While there are legal protections for whistleblowers in many countries, including the United States (such as the Whistleblower Protection Act), these protections may not always be sufficient to shield whistleblowers from prosecution or retaliation, especially when they expose classified information.
- Espionage Act: In the United States, the Espionage Act has been used to prosecute whistleblowers who leak classified information. This has been a point of controversy, as it can lead to lengthy prison sentences for those convicted.
- Public Support: Whistleblowers often rely on public support, advocacy groups, and legal defense funds to help protect their rights and interests. Public awareness and support can play a significant role in the outcome of whistleblower cases.
- Presidential Pardons or Commutations: In some cases, outgoing U.S. presidents have issued pardons or commutations to whistleblowers, as seen with Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner, to mitigate their sentences or charges.
- Chilling Effect: The fear of retaliation and legal consequences can indeed have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers. When individuals see others facing harsh penalties for exposing government wrongdoing, they may be less likely to come forward with information.
It is essential to acknowledge that whistleblowers often take significant personal and professional risks when they decide to expose government misconduct or classified information. Their actions can lead to legal battles, loss of employment, and personal hardships. However, whistleblowers also play a crucial role in holding governments accountable and promoting transparency and accountability in democratic societies.
Efforts to strengthen whistleblower protections and create more robust legal frameworks for disclosing government misconduct are ongoing. Public awareness, legal challenges, and advocacy are key elements in shaping the treatment of whistleblowers and influencing the broader conversation about the balance between national security, government transparency, and individual rights.
You
Under what legal framework does national security trump individual rights? ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The legal framework in which national security concerns may be used to justify limitations on individual rights varies from one country to another and can depend on the specific legal context and the balance struck by the country’s legal system. The extent to which national security can potentially trump individual rights is a complex and evolving issue, and different legal systems provide different mechanisms and standards for addressing this balance. Here are some general principles and legal frameworks that are commonly referenced:
- Constitutional Frameworks: Many countries have constitutions or foundational legal documents that outline individual rights and freedoms. These documents often include provisions that allow for the limitation of these rights in cases of national security or public safety. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights includes provisions such as the First and Fourth Amendments, which protect freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but these rights are subject to limitations in certain circumstances.
- National Security Legislation: Many countries have specific national security laws that grant authorities the power to take measures to protect the nation from threats. These laws may outline the circumstances under which individual rights can be restricted in the interest of national security.
- Judicial Review: In many legal systems, including the United States, the judiciary plays a crucial role in determining the legality of government actions that may infringe on individual rights in the name of national security. Courts can assess whether government actions comply with constitutional and legal standards, and they may strike down measures that are deemed to be excessive or unconstitutional.
- International Human Rights Law: International human rights agreements and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provide a framework for protecting individual rights on a global scale. These agreements recognize that individual rights may be limited in certain circumstances, but such limitations must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review.
- Balancing Tests: In some legal systems, including the United States, courts use balancing tests to weigh the government’s interest in national security against the individual’s right. Courts consider factors such as the nature of the threat, the impact on individual rights, and whether less intrusive means could achieve the same security objectives.
It’s important to note that the precise balance between national security and individual rights can vary significantly between countries and may be influenced by legal traditions, historical events, and public sentiment. Additionally, the interpretation and application of these legal frameworks can evolve over time through court decisions and legislative changes.
In democratic societies, there is an ongoing debate and tension between the need to protect national security and the imperative to uphold individual rights and civil liberties. Courts, lawmakers, and civil society organizations play essential roles in defining and preserving this balance.
You
Is this balancing test done in the secret FISA courts? ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also known as the FISA court, does perform a form of balancing test when considering government surveillance requests related to national security. However, it operates under a unique and somewhat secretive legal framework.
In FISC proceedings:
- Application for Surveillance: Government agencies, typically the FBI and the NSA, submit applications to the FISC requesting authorization to conduct surveillance on foreign individuals or entities within the United States when there is a suspicion of involvement in activities that pose a threat to national security. These applications are often made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
- Probable Cause: The government is required to demonstrate to the FISC that there is “probable cause” to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This threshold is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases but still requires a reasonable basis for suspicion.
- Minimization Procedures: FISC orders typically include minimization procedures, which are designed to limit the collection, retention, and dissemination of information about U.S. persons who are incidentally collected during foreign intelligence surveillance.
- Ex Parte Proceedings: FISC proceedings are typically ex parte, meaning that only the government presents its case, and there is no adversarial process with opposing arguments. This secrecy is intended to protect national security interests.
- Balancing National Security: While FISC judges are tasked with ensuring that government surveillance requests comply with legal requirements, they also consider the government’s interest in national security. This can be seen as a form of balancing, where the court evaluates whether the surveillance is justified in the context of national security concerns.
- Judicial Review: The FISC operates under the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) and the ability of individuals or entities subject to FISC orders to challenge those orders in certain circumstances.
It’s important to note that FISC proceedings are not open to the public, and the court’s decisions are often classified due to the sensitive nature of national security matters. This lack of transparency has led to debates about the extent of oversight and the potential for abuse.
In recent years, there have been calls for greater transparency and reform in FISC proceedings, including efforts to declassify more decisions and provide opportunities for adversarial proceedings in certain cases. The balance between national security and individual rights remains a topic of ongoing discussion and scrutiny.
You
What was the last thing that was declassified? ChatGPT
ChatGPT
I don’t have access to real-time data, and my knowledge is based on information available up to January 2022. Declassification of government documents and information is an ongoing process, and it can vary depending on the specific documents, agencies, and national security considerations involved.
The declassification of government information is typically determined by the government agencies responsible for the classification of the information, and it can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the passage of time, changes in national security concerns, and legal or policy decisions.
To find the most recent declassified information, I recommend checking official government sources, such as the websites of government agencies responsible for declassification or relevant news reports from reputable sources. These sources often provide updates on declassified documents and information as they become available to the public.
I was banned on Twitter/X for almost 6 months. I was never given a reason why. Whenever I appealed, I ended up in an infinite automatic loop of non-responses leading nowhere. I shudder to think of our futures in the hands of these inane auto-loops. If you think classical muzak on long-hold calls is bad, consider it an angelic symphony compared to stock email answers from a bot.
Last week, when my credit card was again charged for my Blue Check ($8) and Elon Musk subscription ($4) (which I merely took in support of the proof of concept for the subscription model and can hardly afford to be handing money to a billionaire, but m’kay), I decided I was going to get stroppy.
By which I mean, I was going to stop half-arsing my frustration, and take concrete action: reach out to tech contacts who might know people in X Legal; line up folks at Institute of Justice and F.I.R.E.; send one final appeal request.
In response to the receipt I received, I sent an email complaint back. Then suddenly things started to move and within an hour, I was restored, my 20,000 past Tweets came back, and then a bit later, my followers.
Friends and colleagues cheered my return. I’m pretty chuffed too. Follow me now.
But what did I learn during my six-month exile?
The urgency of the news cycle is fake. When you don’t know what’s cooking every second, you… eventually… don’t care AND… it… doesn’t actually matter? That you can, and likely, should, take a break. I’m not even sure I want to be back. I may be cured. I like having my attention span back. While in exile: I wrote more; I read more long form; I listened to more music. I’m going to protect these gains and protect my mind, because those who control your attention, control your mind. Mind your mind, because it matters.
I try and roll with the punches… so I haven’t complained much about getting banned from X after PorcFest…
But now that I’m trying to finalize a project before the end of the year, and have come to discover THEY’VE LITERALLY ERASED MY ENTIRE PRESENCE FROM TWITTER, I’m fucking pissed.
For a while, even though I couldn’t post anymore, you were still able to find my content, and you could still search my 20,000+ posts.
TWENTY THOUSAND IDEAS OVER 10+ YEARS THAT I PUT OUT IN THE UNIVERSE, ERASED.
ONE HUNDRED sequenced “My Life in Balance” post-its, sorted and ready to be compiled into a book, ERASED.
The history of erasing history is a “tyranny tell” that those of us who study history understand the historical significance of. By which I mean, as a self-respecting dissident: FUCK THIS SHIT.
Yes, I know I shouldn’t place trust in Big Tech and Big Bro. Together, they’re the worst bullies on the playground. But when you get pushed out of the playground entirely, things start to take a different bent.
This year, as you can see, my Halloween costume was Street Fighter CHUN-LI, the strongest woman in the world. This wasn’t an accidental choice. This was me manifesting the notion, if I can’t spread my ideas online, I will take them to the streets.
To the enemies of liberty: Be careful what you wish for.
What is the status of my X “case”–shall we call it my “X-File”?
* Every appeal has been dismissed without a reason being cited, and after my last complaint, they erased me down the memory-hole.
* X is still charging me for my Blue Check and Elon Musk subscription. Big mistake: I am literally a paying customer being denied service. This gives me strong standing and is going to be part of my First Amendment case to get reinstated.
* I am also going to approach FIRE and the Institute of Justice to see whether these organizations will help me. (If you’re reading this and have other suggestions, please DM me, thanks!)
* Many of you know I have been trying to get Elon’s attention about the Free State Project for years now. Guess the cosmos is telling me to sue his ass?
My frustration is heartfelt. I am sitting here writing in bed, fuming so hard, Louis can see smoke: “THIS ISN’T FAIR”!!! lol
But then I remind myself, Rome was not dismantled in a day, and I find gratitude in the fact that I have orchestrated a life where I know thousands of people in meatspace too, and that I can make a difference on the ground in New Hampshire because, ultimately, THIS is THE value proposition of the Free State: concentrating freedom fighters in one geographic area… IRL.
Finally, I am reminded, as you know, my secret middle name is PERSEVERANCE: I am unstoppable, and I’m coming for you, Big Bro.
