Enforced Transparency 101

CIA Director John Brennan

CIA Director John Brennan

When the ones who should be taking care of our security go bad, do bad things and fuck up the world someone must Enforce Transparency on them.

This just happened and #TheBrennan will be a part of history from now.

It’s not a bad thing to hack the bad and to expose their corruption / abuse of power. It’s an indication of a good hack when the bad are hacked. It is in fact supreme Lulz to do so.

The kuul thing is that his whole security clearance file is there. Kuul for everyone but Brennan, that is, since everyone he ever knew is in it. Hmmmm.

Hat tip @ 4:20 and high school teens making hero moves. All hail Enforced Transparency!

“Today, 21 October 2015 and over the coming days WikiLeaks is releasing documents from one of CIA chief John Brennan’s non-government email accounts. Brennan used the account occasionally for several intelligence related projects.

John Brennan became the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in March 2013, replacing General David Petraeus who was forced to step down after becoming embroiled in a classified information mishandling scandal. Brennan was made Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on the commencement of the Obama presidency in 2009–a position he held until taking up his role as CIA chief.”

WikiLeaks Emails

~ by Raymond Johansen

Cybergovernance and Cyberwarfare: In Whose Interests?

arpanetCybergovernance and cyberwarfare are nothing more than flawed concepts attempting to imitate real world processes, invoked by governments, on behalf of the Corporatocracy, to control people, resources, and economies world-wide through cyberspace. Think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations aim to analyze current situations with a goal to justify and rationalize those acts and establish best practices for accomplishing those specific aims, also on behalf of the Corporatocracy.

When the Internet was originally created by DARPA (ARPANet), one of it’s purposes was to provide a means of communication that could not be destroyed by ‘enemies of the state’.

“Additionally, given that ARPA was an agency of the Defense Department, part of the motivation was related to the desire of the U.S. Military to develop a survivable communication structure in the event of nuclear attack, (though this was not the primary motivating factor that it is often emphasized to be.) After a decade of remaining a closed computer network ARPANET transformed into the openly networked Internet of the modern age. “ ~ http://www.newmedia.org/history-of-the-internet.html

Of course, the key here is how one interprets what the state is and who it’s enemies are. According to the US Constitution, the state is, ‘We, the People’ and the constitution governs and regulates the behavior of those the people entrust to govern them. So, it recognizes the potential for internal enemies to use or become the government. While violations of the Constitution are not legally considered sedition in the US, they should be because sedition is a crime against the government which is required by the Constitution to represent the people.

“In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.” ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

The ‘powers that be’ currently, do not define the state in these terms. According to them, the state is the government and the government represents the segments of corporatocracy that lines the pockets of the representatives elected by the people at any given point in time.

So, the purpose of the large ‘think tanks’, like the Council on Foreign Relations, that are funded to the tune of billions of dollars world-wide by the Corporacrats, is to coordinate projects which come up with proposals and rationales that will help tighten the grip of the corporatocracy on governance and other social, economic, political, and technological structures in order enable them to maximize their profits through influencing and thereby controlling those structures.

The Council on Foreign Relations, is a US-based think tank which collaborates with think tanks in countries around the world, to document, analyze, and present recommendations on various global projects. The Council of Councils’ Reports are just one of the projects implemented and backed by the Council on Foreign Relations.

In recent years there has been a concerted move by governments influenced by the Corporatocracy to establish various types of controls over the Internet. However, the very nature of the Internet and it’s core, fundamental structure, as well the freedom experienced by Internet users (many of whom are reluctant to give up the freedoms they are experiencing) has created stop gaps to that process. There are always ways and means to bypass the attempts to create controls which are unacceptable to those Internet users.

The most recent developments in the process have been the creation of flawed concepts like ‘cybergovernance’ and ‘cyberwarfare’.

The Council of Councils’ reflect this trend in the section of their 2015 Report Card on International Cooperation, which grades ‘Managing Cybergovernance‘. The entire segment is based on the fundamentally flawed concept that governments are in a position to control access, content, and uses of the Internet.

“Two competing visions of cyber governance have traditionally pitted a group of countries led by the United States—which supports a multistakeholder model including governments, businesses, civil society, and technical experts—against countries (including China and Russia) that champion sovereign control (though a number of countries remain in the middle). Negotiations heated up in 2014 as world leaders devoted unprecedented attention to cyber governance in the wake of the revelations of spying by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Despite concern that tensions would lead to the balkanization of the Internet, however, a slew of international meetings fostered productive discussions.” ~2015 Report Card on International Cooperation

While Balkanization could be disruptive and therefore should be a concern, it and any other form of cybergovernance will be a rather difficult task …

“The first is sovereignty: by definition, a boundary-less system flouts geography and challenges the power of nation-states. The second is piracy and intellectual property: information wants to be free, as the hoary saying goes, but rights-holders want to be paid and protected. The third is privacy: online anonymity allows for creativity and political dissent, but it also gives cover to disruptive and criminal behavior — and much of what Internet users believe they do anonymously online can be tracked and tied to people’s real-world identities. The fourth is security: free access to an open Internet makes users vulnerable to various kinds of hacking, including corporate and government espionage, personal surveillance, the hijacking of Web traffic, and remote manipulation of computer-controlled military and industrial processes.” ~The Battle for Internet Governance

As stated before, the reality is that the Internet is designed from it’s core to survive and remain functional irrespective of any restrictions placed on it. The technology itself considers restrictions an attack and there are numerous ways to bypass them.

It is, by it’s very nature an open, free and egalitarian structure and like all open, free, egalitarian structures can be abused. That doesn’t mean that the solution is to restrict the structure itself.

There is absolutely no reason why real world laws can’t be applied to cybercrimes. It might be a little more complicated and countries may need to improve existing real world laws to allow them to address the issue of international rings of cybercriminals.

What countries do not need to do is create a bureaucracy of cybergovernance to address these issues. If it’s illegal in the real world, it’s illegal in the cyberworld. It really is that simple.

The same approach can be applied to cyberwarfare which includes cyberespionage. However, reinterpreting acts of war and attempting to add corporate espionage to the definition, is simply a self-serving act by the corporatocracy to use taxpayer funds to protect and defend their interest. The fact that our politicians accept this is just an indication of how corrupt our political system has become and how much influence the corporatocracy has over real world governance. Corporate spying may have been done in real world by intelligence agencies, but it has never been part of their official mandate until recently and as part of the recent move into cyberwarfare.

While the following is true, the reason that it’s true, is that our governments are actively acting in the best interests of the corporatocracy (and not the people they are supposed to be representing).

“As major powers increasingly rely on digital networks for critical services, the number of plausible network attacks, accidents, or failures that could trigger or exacerbate an international crisis will increase. The likelihood and severity of such a destabilizing event will also grow as long as norms of appropriate behavior in cyberspace are underdeveloped, timely and convincing attribution of attacks remains difficult, and the number of cyber-capable actors increases.” ~Strategic Risks of Ambiguity in Cyberspace, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 24 (Council on Foreign Relations)

Fear is created by statements like the one above to justify the acts of major powers like the US, Russia, and China, who are using their own intelligence agencies (US-NSA, Russia-FSB, China-PLA Unit 61398) to engage in ‘cyberwarfare’ which consists mostly of corporate spying on other countries like Brazil and Sweden.

No doubt the acts of corporate espionage will indeed escalate to political, governmental, infrastructural cyberwar sabotage in the same way and on the same grounds that real life warfare occurs.

The reality is that the problems that the ‘powers that be’ are allegedly trying to solve by incorporating cybergovernance and rules for cyberwarfare can only lead to balkanization of the Internet since the entire purpose of governance and warfare is to establish control over regions, economies, industries, etc.

Balkanization, Definition:
Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a pejorative geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with one another.

As responsible Netizens, we need to protect the Internet from such balkanization and the corruption and abuses of power that it will inevitably lead to.

In order to do that, we need to understand what the enemy within is doing by enforcing transparency which allows us to analyze the corruption and abuses of power, bring them into the light of day so that accountability and justice can be demanded and invoked through cyberprotests, cyberactivism, and boots on the ground action.

Written by Kitty Hundal

Enforced Transparency 5: Crowdsourcing Independent Journalism

HAXpopart_400x400ENFORCED TRANSPARENCY by way of investigative journalism

In our first article, we explained that when governments deny their citizens transparency and start to do bad things. We need to employ new tools to safeguard our democracy.

This article, will focus on Independent Journalism and how to achieve that very independence. We will cover three examples of this, where journalists have achieved financing of their projects independent of mainstream media – usually curbed by corporate interests. An example of this is the recent scandal involving Peter Oborne, the former chief political commentator of The Telegraph – link here

THE TOOLS OF Enforced Transparency ARE

  1. Hacking
  2. Whistleblowing
  3. Leaking
  4. Independent Journalism
  5. FOIA request (coincidentally  “invented” in Sweden)

DemokratiHenrik Alexandersson is one those of independent voices seeking to tell a story, enforcing transparency, by financing a book. By way of crowdsourcing – completely devoid of pressure from corporate influence.

We call him / HAX and know him well for his crystal clear libertarian voice attacking mass surveillance and several other important causes . A watchdog this blog would wish there were more of.
His aim is to finance a book called “Demokratifabriken – EU från insidan”. Loosely translated as “The Democracy Factory – EU from the inside“. We were lucky enough to be able to ask him some questions about his crowdsourcing campaign. His hope is to raise 7,000 EUR. At publication his campaign stand at 1,793 EUR with 26 days left.

Q: Henrik Alexandersson, can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

I’m a Swedish libertarian, blogger and human rights activist. In the fight against Swedish mass surveillance i came in contact with the Pirate Party. As I was living in Brussels and blogging about the EU, they gave me a job as assistant to their first MEP, Christian Engström. I worked there for five years, we didn’t get re-elected and now I’m a freelance writer and digital nomad, kind of.

SQUACHQ: Demokratifabriken, your crowd funded project, seems to be an attempt to make sure that the public gets a peak behind the curtains in Brussels. Is that correct or would you like to explain it to us in your own words?

The EU is a centralized project, saturated with bureaucracy, incompetence and corporatism. It is turning into a central planned system with a huge democratic deficit and little transparency. Power is moving from the people to politics, from member states to Brussels and from democratic institutions to non-elected bureaucrats. I think the EU should be more de-centralised and focused om free movement (people, goods, services and money) and civil rights.

Pluralism once made Europe great. Some harmonisation might be in order to have a common market. But must everything be the same everywhere? What is the point of free movement then?

Q: It seems you are close to reaching your goal of 7k EUR. Is that enough money to actually achieve what you set out to do?

Well, it’s 5,000 EUR as minimum level for me taking the time to write and produce a book. If we reach 7,000 EUR, there will also be an audio book. If the campaign raises more money it will be used for a Swedish lecturing tour. If we don’t reach 5,000 EUR, the fundraising company will return the money to the contributors, and there will be no book.

Of course, I could do with more money. But I need to be realistic. Raising some money at the start of the campaign is one thing, but now we enter the difficult phase – to keep the interest up and spreading the word in wider circles. To start a crowd funding campaign is one thing, but you need to keep it up for weeks and weeks, finding new channels and people to ask for money. And I hate asking people for money…

Q: How important would you say Transparency is to save what is left of Privacy and Democracy?

9958-cybercri_articleIt is essential. People must be able to trust that the authorities just point surveillance against people suspected for criminal activities. And we need to be sure that what is being labeled as ”criminal” really is criminal. Today we are not allowed to know what is going on. And the laws seem to allow more than was expected.

Henrik concludes with this statement: Well, I’m happy if I reach my primary goal. But people can fund the campaign as much as they want for 26 more days.

<<< This is the link to his campaign: >>>     ♣ FundedByMe

The team behind this project consists of Brit Stakston, Author and Media Strategist and Digital Advisor and Martin Schibbye, Freelance Journalist. And quite a few others.

Their project raised 122,777 EUR with close to 2,000 backers. They describe their successful efforts like this:

“The crisis in journalism must be met with something new. We are a group of reporters who have decided to take matters into our own hands. Together we want to write the stories that don’t get covered.

Blank Spot Project is a digital platform for storytelling journalism, reporting from around the world. We want to show more of the world and write the stories that do not get written. When the journalist Martin Schibbye was released from an Ethiopian prison after 438 days in captivity, a fellow prisoner whispered “Tell the world what you have seen.” We are now a number of editors, photo editors, photographers, investigative journalists, digital developers and reporters, including Martin Schibbye, who together have decided to do just that: Tell what the world outside Sweden looks like.”

<<< This is the link to their campaign: >>>     ♣ FundedByMe

Recently they participated in a Panel discussion organized by Julia Reda in Brussels with other notables like Cory Doctorow, Director Lexi Alexander and among others award-winning Creative Commons photographer Jonathan Worth.

icij-main-marquee-no-luxleaks_1ICIJ’s Luxembourg Leaks investigation is based on a confidential cache of secret tax agreements approved by Luxembourg authorities, that provide tax-relief for more than 350 companies around the world. These private deals are legal in Luxembourg.

In this interactive application ICIJ has created a visual and searchable database of 548 tax rulings that have been approved by Luxembourg officials with a stamped and signed confirmation letter. In addition, ICIJ is publishing 16 other documents — such as corporate tax returns — related to companies in Luxembourg.

|| hacktivist culture || could not write this article without a *tipshat* to The Intercept and Glenn Greenwald. A prime example of how to do independent investigative journalism.

TFCIn addition we would like to thank The Fifth Column for their work on Free Trade Agreements. Recently they published “Hackers and Journalists Partner for Enforced Transparency 3” – greetz to Alex Freeman

Articles are written by Kitty Hundal and Raymond Johansen, feel free to share in any way you like. And thanks for your precious time.


Enforced Transparency 1 – when hacking becomes necessary
Enforced Transparency 2 – when hacking becomes imperative
Hackers and journalists partner for Enforced Transparency 3
Enforced Transparency 4 – The Whistleblowers Bravery


Hackers and Journalists Partner for Enforced Transparency 3 | The Fifth Column


9958-cybercri_articleHacking: The Transparency Grenade
Hacking, whistleblowing and journalism are very effective tools in this regard. That is why we call it #EnforcedTransparency. In the image above you will see some of the most prominent enforcers the world has seen.  They are early innovators and should be hailed as heroes – not jailed as criminals.

via Hackers and Journalists Partner for Enforced Transparency | The Fifth Column.

The Sony hack and the line between transparency and retribution – The Washington Post

read it here The Sony hack and the line between transparency and retribution – The Washington Post.

“But while the leaks are fundamentally different, there is a better question Apatow might have posed: how do we define the difference between a leak that offers us transparency, and one that feels more like retribution?”

The concept of transparency is simple, if governments practice it – we as a people – will be able to spot misuse of power, corruption and safeguard our democracy. When transparency becomes just a word, a smokescreen, and governments around the world use it as well as the alleged need for secrecy to keep us in the dark, something has to be done.

Hacking: The Transparency Grenade
Hacking, whistleblowing and journalism are very effective tools in this regard. That is why we call it #EnforcedTransparency.