Cruz: I Wouldn’t Give Up My Paycheck After a 21-hour speech where he pledged to stop the upcoming Affordable Care Act or close the government trying,
Senator Ted Cruz admitted during a Skype call to an Austin conference that he had not really considered what effect a shutdown would have on his own salary. After being pressed further, he conceded that he “had no intention” of giving up his paycheck if the federal government shuts down. Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced Friday night that 1.4 million U.S. troops will be kept on the job but not paid if a shutdown occurs. Read it at CBS September 27, 2013 10:32 PM
3 Important Lessons from a Canadian Border Crossing
By Jeffrey Tucker
Sep 17 2013
I was at the Canadian border, headed toward the freedom that exists a few feet beyond the last security check. I was gently waved down a side corridor.
Ninety minutes later, I was let go, but not before something truly alarming happened. I’m pretty sure that the Canadian government captured a mirrored version of my smartphone — which pretty much holds the whole of my life.
I’ll explain precisely how this happened in just a bit — in the hopes that perhaps you can take precautions that I did not. But let’s first establish that this practice is not unusual. According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, this has become the standard backdoor method of search used today by governments around the world.
At border crossings, governments have discovered that they can get away with seizing and searching electronic devices from smartphones to laptops to tablets. The reason is that it is standard practice that border officials can ask you anything. Anything at all. You have to answer. They can make you empty the full contents of your brain and check for even the smallest misstatement. You can refuse to answer, but then you can expect detention for untold amounts of time. So of course, you comply.
If this is standard practice, it makes perfect sense that there is not anything they are not entitled to know. This is why they have begun to profile people based on their devices.
Maybe there was nothing I could have done to stop it. Maybe I was somehow fated to be among the 15 that were hit with this. But as I look back, I realize now that I was far too nonchalant in my whole approach. I’ve crossed that border dozens of times and never had any trouble. I expected no trouble this time.
The problem began at passport check. I was coming into Canada just to visit friends, but my dress suggested business. An official later confirmed to me that this was the first point that caused me to be flagged. Then, in stating my traveling route to get to that point, I flubbed a bit on the cities I had been in (some I entered by car and others by plane). I just wasn’t focusing, and I was just a bit too chatty and casual.
As I became increasingly flustered, the agent apparently marked my customs form to indicate that I should undergo a secondary screening. I didn’t know this had happened. As I casually presented my form to the last agent in the line, he signaled for me to follow a different path. I did so. There were no agents around. There were no officials. I just walked and walked until I found myself in a long and nearly empty room.
I realized that I was going to be there for a few minutes at least, and that I was in some kind of lineup. I was, essentially, under arrest. Unguarded, but arrested. There was nowhere to go. I could not go forward nor could I go back. There was no one to protest to.
I asked the people ahead of me how long they had been there. Forty-five minutes. I pulled out my laptop and starting watching an episode of Breaking Bad to pass the time.
After about an hour, I was called up. At first, everything seemed fine. The official wanted some clarification about whom I was visiting. They wanted the phone number in particular — a startling demand, but one never knows for sure when one should comply or refuse. Of course, I didn’t have the number memorized.
This was (I think) when I made my fateful decision. I reached into my pocket. I pulled out my smartphone. I unlocked it. I pulled up the contact information. Instead of reading it out loud, I showed the agent the number. She calmly took the phone — which I thought she was doing so she could see the number better.
In an instant, she was gone. She went to some back room somewhere. I stood there at the counter, completely unguarded. My heart started to race. My palms grew sweaty. I began to fidget. After all, my whole life was suddenly in the hands of a government official. My emails, my phone calls, my Facebook messages, my contacts far and wide, my financial information, my browsing history — even my diet and exercise routines were there.
And incredibly, I had unlocked it all and handed it over.
READ AND ACT
A Rally Against Mass Surveillance | Stop Watching Us
Anonymous outs lawmakers’ ties to intelligence contractors
OpNSA highlights, without hacking or DDoS attacks, ties between intelligence industry and Washington
BY NATASHA LENNARD
Sep 11 2013
For those paying even a modicum of attention to recent revelations about NSA surveillance, it’s been well-established that a vast surveillance apparatus is supported by a network of government, intelligence industry, and Silicon Valley connections.
With its new OpNSA, however, Anonymous is attempting to highlight specific lawmakers as in the pocket of intelligence contractors with a campaign revealing specific campaign contributions. The information is already public, but has not garnered the attention that Anons behind OpNSA believe it deserves. As Global Post reported:
Unlike other Anonymous operations, however, OpNSA does not involve hacking or illegality of any kind.
Instead, the operation aims to bring attention to what Anons have termed collusion between U.S. senators and private contractors, whom Anons allege enabled privacy violations as part of National Security Agency surveillance programs.
The contractors include Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and others.
Specifically, Anons hope to highlight suspect campaign contributions to several prominent US lawmakers — including Diane Feinstein, Dutch Ruppersberger, Mike Rogers and Saxby Chambliss — by US defense and intelligence contractors.