Sunday, June 25, 2017


by -
Susan Rice wishes upon a spy satellite: "I want to be a real spy"

Barack Obama’s National Security Advisory, Susan Rice, has been outed by reporters as being behind the order to “unmask” Trump campaign staffers.

The spying operation goes as far back as July of 2016 and picked up pace following Donald Trump’s win on Election Day.

Rice previously denied involvement saying she “knew nothing” about the spying.

Rice also told the public that the attack of a United States embassy in Benghazi was instigated by a “heinous and offensive video.”

That turned out to be a lie.

But Susan Rice is REALLY good at lying.

Days before she was exposed as the source behind the spying order, the former Ambassador to the United Nations (yes this woman represented us in the UN), penned a piece in the Washington Post lambasting Trump’s “utterly ridiculous” insinuation that the British spied on the campaign.

Susan Rice went on to write in a serious tone:

The foundation of the United States’ unrivaled global leadership rests only in part on our military might, the strength of our economy and the power of our ideals. It is also grounded in the perception that the United States is steady, rational and fact-based. To lead effectively, the United States must maintain respect and trust. So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America’s global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.

Candidly, either this crazy chick likely believes what she’s writing or is so devoid of principles that lying is so commonplace to her, that she thought nothing of her words.

But to write this op/ed in a prominent publication was brazen.

It’s comparable to John Wayne Gacy writing a column to say that bi-sexual clowns make the best friends . . . just before they found bodies in his crawl space.

Susan Rice’s lack of any ethical foundation sends a very clear message that Trump and other leaders appear to ignore: No one can be trusted with this power.

While Congressional leaders talk about “tightening procedures” on who can be “unmasked” the only real solution is to do this: STOP SPYING ON AMERICANS!

No matter who is in power, the power to spy on Americans will be abused in some manner . . . whether legally or illegally.

The only way to prevent future abuses is to adhere to the Fourth Amendment and conduct “searches” only with probable cause that is supported by a true Court of Law (not a secret FISA court).

Otherwise, while it’s Susan Rice today, tomorrow it could be some Trump official.

If that doesn’t get you scratching your head, imagine California’s Jerry Brown being sworn in on January 20, 2021. Could his administration be trusted?

Stranger things have happened.

Please add your comments below.

by -

When Fox News Contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano stated that, “He [Obama] used GCHQ . . . the initials for the British spying agency . . . they have 24 hour access to the NSA database . . . and there’s no American fingerprints” he ended up being sidelined by his corporate bosses.

Napolitano was referring to FISA in the interview on Fox & Friends, however, what he really meant was an agreement known as “Project ECHELON.”

When the Judge was just a 21 year-old, a government project named ECHELON, was formerly established.

ECHELON is a spying agreement between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The 46 year-old program allows nations that cannot spy on their own people and companies, per their own laws and constitutions to, well . . . spy on their own people and companies.

While the United States government cannot legally spy on citizens without cause and procedure, Australia, Canada, etc., can spy on Americans without any laws stopping them.

In turn, the United States can spy on all of the other nations.

When any of those nations, known as the FIVE, need information on their own people, they simply “share” data.

Project ECHELON, which was investigated by the European Parliament in 2000, and finally acknowledge in 2015 with the release of information by Edward Snowden.

The massive, worldwide spying program is not that big of a secret. Heck, even Hollywood made a movie loosely based on it . . . and even named the film the “Echelon Conspiracy.”

According to the Snowden documents, the program is run through “intercept stations” around the world managed by the NSA, CIA, Air Force, GCHQ (Britain), GCSB (New Zealand), ASD (Australia), and BND (German). As with many other international agreements, Canada doesn’t pull its own weight and does not operate an intercept station.

Germany, while not a member of the original “FIVE” operates an intercept station in Munich with the NSA as support.

Of the 16 known intercept stations, 11 have an NSA presence.

While Andrew Napolitano may have seemed like a conspiracy theorist to Fox News executives when he brought up the possibility that Donald Trump was spied on by the UK, in reality, those executives are simply ignorant of the history and depth of spying by our own government . . . and others.

Of course the UK would respond with “outrageous” when accused of spying on a presidential candidate at the request of a sitting United States President.

Their response is no different in force when the UK was investigating ECHELON in 2001. European investigators flew into the United States to meet with officials with the CIA and NSA.

When it was revealed that the purpose of the meetings were to discuss Project ECHELON, the meetings were cancelled and the delegation was forced to fly home.

Sixteen years later, the program rolls on, but if you dare talk about it like Judge Napolitano did, you may be out of a job.

Comment below.

by -
Trump said what?

Judge Andrew Napolitano was just "sidelined" from Fox News after explaining that the British government could have spied on then candidate Donald Trump.  However, it is known that since 1971, five allied nations spied on each other as part of "Project ECHELON." While the program exists, we do not know if a specific request came from President Obama as President Trump alleges. What do you think?

by -
Welcome to the Geek Squad, how may I report you?

Having computer problems? You may want to think twice before picking up the phone to call for a repair. According to recent court documents filed in federal court in California, a simple hard drive replacement could lead to your arrest.

It may sound far-fetched, but the Federal Bureau of Investigations is being forced to explain an uncomfortably cozy relationship between its agents, and those of Best Buy’s electronics servicing team, Geek Squad. Specifically at issue is evidence that the FBI actively worked with Geek Squad employees to train them on how to identify and report suspicious computer files during service calls; going so far as to allegedly offering a bonus of $500 for evidence leading to criminal charges against a customer. In some cases, this snooping by private contractors had nothing to do with the original repair requests; amounting to a clear invasion of privacy and breach of trust, with the full blessing – if not encouragement – by law enforcement officials.

The damning article about the case, USA v. Mark Rettenmaier, by OC Weekly reporter R. Scott Moxley, notes that Geek Squad employees worked “under the direction and control of the FBI,” and that the FBI sought “training of the Geek Squad Facility technicians” to help them better sniff out illegal material in the course of servicing computers and other technology, including the use of “highly specialized computer-intrusion tools” that would appear to be less for repairs than outright spying on customers they were supposedly there to help. However, even without such devices, a search through one’s personal files by a trained computer technician would be almost impossible to detect, or notice, without standing directly over their shoulder the entire time.

Given Geek Squad’s massive, nationwide footprint of more than 20,000 employees, and its (once solid) reputation of trust among consumers, it is easy to see why this private “Peek Squad” would be an enticing ally for federal law enforcement. With unfettered access not just to its customers’ homes, but computer hard drives containing huge amounts of highly personal and often sensitive data, Geek Squad employees and others like them have an unprecedented opportunity to surreptitiously mine this data (or copy it for later inspection) for suspected wrongdoing; all without having to worry about the pesky hindrances of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition against such unreasonable searches and seizures.

Certainly, and as Best Buy has emphasized in defending itself against these accusations, private contractors have an obligation to report illegal material found during the normal course of their service requests. Such reports have been allowed by courts if the private entity “happens to have found” evidence and turns it over to law enforcement. It becomes a completely different matter, however, when the government is doing more than passively receiving evidence of a possible criminal offense from an outside source; as here for example, if law enforcement is directing or training these individuals to operate as de facto agents. In such circumstances, courts have held that the outside workers, such as computer repair technicians, are serving in effect as government agents and are subject to Fourth Amendment search and seizure provisions.

This is not the first time federal law enforcement has attempted to enlist outside, “Fourth Amendment proof” agents for surveillance. A decade ago, it was revealed the Department of Homeland Security wanted to train firefighters and utility workers in surveillance; taking advantage of their expanded ability to enter homes without warrants. However, the use of computer repair employees demonstrates an entirely different level of disregard for the rule of law.

Consequently, Best Buy, which should have seen the blowback suffered by Verizon four years ago for similar allegations of dubious collusion with government spooks as reason for stopping this partnership with the FBI dead in its tracks, now faces a devastating hit to one of its few remaining competitive advantages in the marketplace. Though, if its perilous relationship with the FBI proves to be every bit as disturbing as painted by the OC Weekly, such a blow would be entirely justified, and, hopefully, would serve as an example to others that ethics is not to be sacrificed just because the FBI gives them a pat on the back and a check in their wallet.

Not only does side-stepping the Fourth Amendment threaten innocent people with false accusations of wrongdoing (can Geek Squad employees tell the difference between a parent’s photo of their children from genuine child pornography?), the use of private citizens to surveil their fellow citizens completely guts one of the last remaining vestiges of personal privacy in today’s society. Americans should nothave to worry that that the computer repair person with whom they contract may be a secret spy for the government.

If the government receives a green light from the courts to continue this practice, it may very well be the event horizon into total State control, which no “reboot” or “reformatting” will ever fix.

by -
Time to end government spying on Americans.

In the months following the 9-11 terror attacks, as America’s intelligence agencies struggled to explain how they missed connecting the dots leading to the attacks, there began a major push both inside and outside government to ensure such a lapse never occurred again. The focal point of this push was the intelligence community’s ability to access what it determined to be critical information — emails, text messages, phone calls, and any other digital communication — necessary for collecting and analyzing to find “suspicious” activity. The result of this fervor was one of the biggest expansions of government power in American history, with the only privacy protections being promises that this newfound power would only be used in pursuing terrorists.

As one might guess, such assurances would quickly ring hollow. In the years since 9-11, startling reports have emerged showing these powers used increasingly for non-terrorism related crimes, and the data of innocent Americans collected by these agencies is regularly mishandled and misused; sometimes even against individuals for purely political purposes, such as targeting concealed carry permit holders. To make matters worse, even with virtually its every wish for more power granted, the intelligence community still missed a number of deadly terror attacks on U.S. soil.

The tide against such broad and unfettered spying powers, and their questionable results, began to shift in May 2015, with Rand Paul’s filibuster against the renewal of some sections of the USA PATRIOT Act; a law previously renewed time and again with no real debate despite its glaring constitutional problems. Paul’s initiative, however, did result a short time later with the passing of the USA Freedom Act – a limited but significant first step towards more comprehensive reform.

However, if such desperately needed reform is to happen anytime soon, we must continue to fight for privacy rights under the new administration of Donald Trump.

There actually are some hopeful signs such reforms may be on the not-too-distant horizon. For example, an onerous component of the Intelligence Authorization Act, which would have allowed the FBI to access email and browsing histories without a warrant, was stripped from the bill last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. On the crucial victory for privacy rights, Democratic committee member Sen. Ron Wyden commented that “spying on a person’s browsing history is incredibly invasive – almost like a window into their thoughts”; he added, “our Founding Fathers rightly argued that such intrusive searches should be approved by independent judges.” Additionally, the popular, bipartisan Email Privacy Act was reintroduced in Congress earlier this month, and seeks to close a loophole that, according to the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), “allows law enforcement to access emails and other communications that have been stored on a server for more than 180 days.”

Though not sweeping reforms by any means, these steps signal an important change in how some members of Congress view privacy rights that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Of course, there are challenges as well, such as this week’s confirmation of noted surveillance hawk Mike Pompeo as CIA Director. Pompeo is on record calling for “re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.” At the helm of the CIA, with direct access to Trump’s ear, he will be a formidable obstacle to meaningful surveillance reform.

Pompeo and others in the intelligence community are sure to point to the recent terror attacks in Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando, and San Bernardino as examples of why these spying powers are essential to keeping America safe. Yet, ISIS’ changing tactics — focusing on lone-wolf attacks rather than complex plans like 9-11 — make such broad surveillance powers even less relevant to today’s War on Terror. Instead of “networks of terror” colluding together across the globe, recent terrorists are radicalized discretely via the internet and social media. Moreover, many of these terrorists were already on the FBI’s radar, making a warranted search of digital records possible without the need for unnecessary and unconstitutional legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act, and FISA.

This makes Congress’ role in seeking to revive personal privacy in America all the more crucial, whether passing its own reforms, or resisting pressure from the Executive Branch for more power.

Fortunately, for all his tough talk, Trump seems open to policy recommendations from all sides as he marches into his first 100 days. Furthermore, the anti-Washington, pro-citizen message outlined in his Inaugural address is more in line with privacy reforms than further increasing the power of intelligence agencies to spy on innocent Americans. This could create a golden opportunity for change if Congress takes the lead in working with the Executive on a roadmap for reform that strikes a real balance between national security needs, and restoring personal privacy rights lost in the last 15 years.

by -
Government Spying Fusion Centers

Earlier this month, I wrote about a case out of Maryland involving a Florida resident who was pulled-over by Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) police, and subjected to harassment and intimidation, all because the driver was the holder of a Florida concealed carry permit. The incident raised serious questions about the clear bias against firearm owners in a state with a reputation for being notoriously anti-Second Amendment. More troubling, is the still–unanswered question about how MDTA police even knew of an individual concealed carry permit issued outside of their state.

As egregious as are the circumstances surrounding the Maryland incident, it is just one of a growing number of examples of how information about individuals exercising their constitutional rights, is being data-based and shared by law enforcement databases as “suspicious activity.”

Following its investigation of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the 9/11 Commission cited a lack of cooperation and information-sharing among law enforcement agencies, as a major vulnerability in America’s national security. One of byproducts of the Commission’s recommendations was the creation of more than 40 state and urban area fusion centers. These were designed to serve as localized clearinghouses for the “receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information” from partners within law enforcement, public safety, and even the private sector.

The selling point for the states (in addition to money) was that access to such a national network of “suspicious activity” data, would improve the safety of local law enforcement, and make them more effective at stopping crime. For the Feds, the collection and analysis of localized threat assessments, and a far larger flow of information from local law enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security, was the driving force. Thus the DHS (in effect, the entire federal government) gained unprecedented access to a vast data trove on private citizens that goes far beyond anything relating to criminal activity, much less terrorism.

Furthermore, by tapping into a “national” exchange of information that is, in part, contributed to by partners in the private sector, the DHS also found a way to circumvent privacy restrictions in the Privacy Act of 1974. Now, DHS can use the efficiency and flexibility of the private sector to mine and analyze data that, by law, it is prohibited from collecting and maintaining on its own. Moreover, national crime database systems such as the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISSnet) are federally funded, but controlled by state and local level law enforcement entities; adding even more insulation from oversight despite its “critical” role in the overall Information Sharing Environment — the federal nexus of information sharing through which all of this data eventually flows.

The original goal may have been to improve communication between levels of law enforcement, but instead law enforcement has created one enormous Cloud of data on private citizens, that is breathtaking in its scope. This vast database is subject to virtually no oversight or accountability as to what information is collected, who is able to access the data, or how the data is used in “fighting crime.” In essence, this “fusion” has created the same type of shadowy “DarkNet” for law enforcement information sharing for which the federal government has demonized (and prosecuted) the private sector. The end result leaves local law enforcement with resources once only available to federal agencies, and federal agencies with access to surveillance capabilities previously available only to local law enforcement.

The only privacy protections afforded to citizens within the ISE are the same hollow promises of respecting “civil liberties” made by those who reject any hint of greater civil liberties oversight, or state and local law enforcement refusing to participate in this information sharing – something not likely to happen given the clear trends of over-criminalization and over-militarization. Ultimately, it is the lack of privacy protections or civil liberties oversight that allows law enforcement to turn completely legal activities, like owning a gun or supporting third-party candidates, into actionable intelligence based on some vague notion of “suspicious activity.”

Given the vastness of these networks, and collusion between private sector and law enforcement officials at the local, state and federal levels, only Congress has the necessary leverage to penetrate the shield that for so long has protected this law enforcement “DarkNet” from scrutiny. Its task however, will not be easy. Despite serious deficiencies in the fusion centers system documented in a two-year, bipartisan investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations the system remains, in the view of the respected Electronic Frontier Foundation, completely immune from oversight.

Now that Republicans, led by pro-privacy leaders such as Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Justin Amash, have regained control over the House and the Senate, GOP officials should, at a minimum, immediately call for hearings. The value of such hearings lies in uncovering what exactly is being shared among law enforcement agencies about private citizens on these networks; and then to legislate safeguards to ensure the constitutional rights respected in one state are not used against law-abiding citizens in another. Otherwise, the type of abuse against a lawful Florida concealed-carry permit holder by Maryland traffic police, will become even more commonplace in states where freedom is trumped by “security.”

by -
Government Surveilance

In 1964, Ayn Rand wrote that American society was quickly heading toward what she called “the stage of ultimate inversion,” in which “the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.” Rand, who came to America to escape the tyranny of the Soviet Union, saw in mid-20th Century America a country following a similar course as the one she escaped; in which government ruled by “brute force” and increased its power as it eroded individual rights.

Now, more than three decades after her death, and with the age of the Internet in full swing, Rand’s fears of government “inversion” have become truer than ever. Last week’s bipartisan congressional passage of the FY 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act is clear proof of how far we have travelled down the road Rand predicted.

Since the mid-1990s, when anti-terror initiatives championed initially by the Clinton Administration and GOP leaders in the Congress provided the foundation for the massive federal surveillance apparatus in which we now live, privacy watchdogs have warned about the mission creep of federal authority deemed necessary to “protect us.” However, it was not until the 2013 leaks by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald, exposing the breadth and technological sophistication of the government’s surveillance programs, that the public finally recognized what the blank check of “trust us” was really costing us.

As it does with every scandal it faces, the Obama Administration defended against the allegations with the usual gobbledygook, masked as promises of reform. Compounding the problem, the refusal by Republicans in Congress to so much as even debate limiting domestic spying, ensured that in spite of the overwhelming public outcry to the contrary, nothing would be done to limit the abuses. In fact, as last week’s vote on the FY 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act demonstrates, the only actions Congress and the Administration favor are those that expand government surveillance powers.

Buried in Section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 are — for the first time in “public” statute — procedures for how federal agencies can retain “incidentally acquired communications” obtained through domestic surveillance programs, including communications known to be between U.S. citizens with absolutely no ties to “terrorism’ (which had served as the justification for the initial authority). As Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) explained in a Facebook message detailing the truly odious nature of the bill’s expedited passage, it was only after he quickly organized his legislative staff for a review that anyone noticed “one of the most egregious sections of law [Amash] encountered during [his] time as a representative.”

For years, the government’s ability to surreptitiously collect, analyze, store, and disseminate the private communications of U.S. citizens not suspected of violating any laws was based on dubious legal memos, classified decisions of the secret FISA courts, assumed powers in Executive Actions, and “plausible denials” concocted by federal officials responsible for conducting the very actions they were defending.

Congress’ most recent and feeble attempt at “reforming” that process in fact has enshrined in law those powers that, until now, existed in legal limbo. Any attempt at actual reform through court challenges now has been rendered even more difficult.

On the surface, Section 309 may appear an attempt to place a finite limit on how long government can retain the records of digital communications of U.S. citizens obtained without warrants or court orders. However, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Exceptions to the five-year limit carved out in the procedures, such as for communications “reasonably believed to have a secret meaning” or — a government favorite — communications “necessary to protect the national security of the United States,” renders moot any meaningful limitations.

But perhaps the most problematic language in Section 309 is the exception made for communications “reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency,” which provides the legal authority to continue creating a digital rap sheet on virtually any U.S. citizen spanning federal, state and local governments, without any real consideration as to whether a crime has been committed.

Last week in this column, I explained how the government’s over-criminalization serves as a mechanism to control the citizenry. The government leverages minor, impossible-to-avoid criminal offenses to ensure cooperation when it so desires for either regulatory control or financial gain. The erosion of personal privacy through powers such as those found in the Intelligence Authorization Act serves only as a “multiplier” — moving us as at an accelerating rate toward that inversion state against which Ayn Rand warned us many decades ago.

by -

Last weekend, America moved yet another step closer to fulfilling Orwell’s vision for the future

Photo courtesy of Michael Fleshman

“Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever,” George Orwell wrote in 1984, describing the “Newspeak” term for any crime that was evidence of disloyalty. “You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.” Though written more than six decades ago in 1949, Orwell’s dystopian fiction has been hauntingly prophetic in its accuracy describing the nature of totalitarian societies, particularly the frightening methods for exacting control over the population.

Orwell’s omnipresent “Thought Police,” who penetrated every facet of civilian life, were replicated for decades until the fall of the Berlin Wall by the feared East German “Stasi”; and until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, by the KGB. Russian citizens today, under Vladimir Putin, himself a former KGB official, reportedly suffer similar “Big Brother-ism.”

Even in the United States, we see eerie similarities developing within and among the myriad federal agencies that are either directly or indirectly involved in gathering, processing, disseminating, and data-basing information on and about the citizenry. This is no longer a concern that should be directed only at those agencies historically tasked with such activities – the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA primarily. Virtually every federal agency has now become part of the problem.

The Transportation Safety Administration employs “behavior detection officers” to scan facial expressions in order to identify would-be terrorists. DNA is harvested at roadblocks on public highways. The US Postal Service conducts hundreds of thousands of “mail covers” each year, “come rain, shine or dead of night.”

But it is the arena of electronic communications data gathering that has provided the most abundant – and scary – harvest of personal information a la George Orwell.

Owing largely to the actions of Edward Snowden and reporter Glenn Greenwald, we know that any digital communication in which a person participates can be, and likely is, recorded, stored and analyzed by the NSA. The Department of Justice even uses fake cell phone towers on Cessna airplanes to surreptitiously collect cell phone data from American citizens.

Last weekend, however, America moved yet another step closer to fulfilling Orwell’s vision for the future under a totalitarian state as the New York Times revealed that a disturbing number of federal agencies are now using costly, and largely unsupervised, “undercover” investigations to conduct surveillance. These “Secret Police” pose as “business people, welfare recipients, political protesters and even doctors or ministers” in order to catch suspects, or whomever else may fall within the ever-expanding registry of federal criminal offenses (now approaching 5,000 in number).

For years privacy advocates have warned about the steady expansion of virtually unchecked powers both granted to, and assumed by, federal law enforcement and clandestine services agencies. The situation is made far worse by virtue of the fact that many of these activities now are undertaken “in the shadows,” with minimal or no real oversight by the President, agency heads or even congressional overseers. The agencies thus are left largely free to carry on as nearly autonomous entities, guided only by the vague, if not meaningless principle, that they are “protecting us” — whatever the financial or legal costs.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the notion of “Saving America” is now more of a rote mantra used to justify whatever actions government agencies or individual employees decide to undertake so long as such actions can be shoe-horned into the box labeled “homeland security.” The mammoth mechanism of the federal government has transmogrified from an entity designed to protect liberty, into an opaque and self-justifying Praetorian Guard made almost impenetrable to the citizenry through the double-edged sword of modern technology.

This now-galloping mission creep once was relegated primarily to the major federal law enforcement and spy agencies. No longer is this the case. Last weekend’s New York Times revelations illustrates clearly how this toxic mentality has infected virtually every facet of the federal government. Like financial institutions that believed themselves “too big to fail,” the federal government now considers itself “too important to restrain.” Each department, agency, or office has a mission it considers absolutely essential to protecting America from crime, corruption and terrorism — where even discussion about limits to their extra-legal exploits is taboo.

The tangible threats posed by this paradigm are fundamental and widespread. If someone with the I.R.S. can pose as an attorney to catch criminals, how are citizens supposed to trust in the integrity of the right to defend themselves against government charges? If a special agent with the FBI can pretend to be an AP reporter, is any media product free from suspicion? And, if an employee of the DEA can steal content and photos from citizens to use in sting operations, how are we to trust that even our friends’ and family’s online communications are not the product of government snoops?

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment,” Orwell wrote 65 years ago.“You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” Sadly, the ubiquity of home computers, smart phones, iPads, and other information-sharing devices – all susceptible to government GPS tracking – have make Orwell’s society, in which at least the dark of night provided some relief from government’s prying eyes and ears, a quaint relic of a bygone day.


Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...