Prism: Everybody Was in on the Act

Pivotfarm's picture

Follow ZeroHedge in Real-Time

Looks like everybody was in on the act with complying with the National Security Agency’s spying around the world according to secret files. The Guardian newspaper of the UK has just obtained secret fails from Edward Snowden detailing the full extent of the affair. The affair was revealed just about a month ago now, but it now seems that Prism had everybody doing their dirty work.

Prism: NSA

Prism: NSA

Microsoft aided and abetted the National Security Agency to get around the problem of intercepting web chats via the portal, adding that they stated that they had no option to opt out of the affair. Pre-encryption access was already enabled via the same portal and in particular via Hotmail. The FBI was working closely with the NSA and Microsoft to gain access to 250 million users worldwide in the new storage service called SkyDrive. After Microsoft acquired Skype in July 2012, the number of calls being collected and monitored by Prism was multiplied by three! Apparently all information that was collected by the NSA via this means was then shared both with the FBI and the CIA. Skype has about 663 million users in the world alone. Up until last July, monitoring of audio calls was possible by Prism on Skype. After that date, it was also possible to access video via Skype and not just eavesdrop but see what was going on in the conversations. Skype had always prided itself on the fact that it was impossible to tap into the system and listen in on conversations. Obviously, people should never have believed that. Remember impossible is nothing, apparently.

Obama is coming in for increasing slack and criticism regarding the Prism program since companies that have been involved in the shady monitoring of private individuals around the world are being questioned by users as to the protection of their privacy today. Those companies wish to be able to reveal the full extent of their dealings with the NSA and the Prism program so that they can allay fears of their users. Microsoft stated that they only passed on information and data "in response to government demands and we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers". Seems like somebody is trying to either pass the buck, or downplay their full role in the whole affair. We only have to look back at the latest Microsoft slogan which is “Your privacy is our priority”. Yeah, right! Did they get wind of something coming or knowledge that all was to be revealed?

The companies that have been revealed as playing a major role in the Prism program are those that are used daily by billions around the world: Google, Microsoft, Apple, Skype and Facebook amongst others.

This information is revealed at a crucial time when Edward Snowden has issued a statement saying that he will remain in Russia, seeking help from human rights organizations to gain a safe passage to Latin America. He has been grounded at Sheremetyevo airport since June 23rd and has made numerous requests to countries around the world for political asylum. All have been refused for the present time except one: Venezuela. Nobody will allow Snowden safe passage out of Moscow airport since he no longer has any travel documents as the US administration cancelled his passport almost immediately in the wake of the whistleblowing scandal. Why can’t they just do like anybody else and rustle up a passport like they do for exiled wealthy people that are evading taxation in their country of origin?

Just last week, countries such as France and Spain as well as Portugal refused to allow Evo Morales, President ofBolivia, to fly over their territories forcing the Presidential plane to land in Vienna, where he was stranded for 13 hours, under the belief that he had Snowden on board. That in itself was pretty rich from a country like France that prides itself at having (in their opinion) invented human rights during the French Revolution and when we consider thatPresident François Hollande went into great theatrics over the discovery that France had been spied on, vociferating that he wanted to call off the US-EU trade deal talks (at least for a cooling-off period of two weeks).  Snowden stated that: "Never before in history have states conspired to force to the ground a sovereign president's plane to effect a search for a political refugee. This dangerous escalation represents a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America or my own personal security, but to the basic right shared by every living person to live free from persecution”. Here, here! Where did the freedom of speech go and where did the right to live in a society that protects its citizens? Can we call Snowden’s revelations an act of treason?

Snowden has accused the US of carrying out an “unlawful campaign” and denying him his right to asylum. He went on to add that “the scale of threatening behavior is without precedent”, which certainly would leave one to surmise that what he has revealed already is not a patch on the information that he actually has. But, despite accusations that Snowden has revealed secret information to the world, and in particular to the enemies of the US, the man is not a traitor. Surely, he has done everything that anyone should do. The right to a private life and to privacy in society is a fundamental principle on which the nations that are shouting the loudest have built their democracies, isn’t it? Where did the Bill of Rights go? What happened to the habeas corpus? Why did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights get written at all?

Prism: the right to privacy?

Prism: the right to privacy?

Just a few things to muse over:

  • Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. Snowden has been subjected to that.

  • Article 12

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”. Millions have had this article overlooked by the NSA.

  • Article 13

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State”.

“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. Snowden has had that right revoked.

  • Article 14

“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. Except Edward Snowden, perhaps?

  • Article 15

“Everyone has the right to a nationality”.

“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”. Edward Snowden has been deprived of that nationality that went with his passport being cancelled.

Where are the defenders of the Declarations that we were proud of signing now?

Whatever happens, it looks like Edward Snowden is a man on the run, or at least he would very much like to be able to start a gentle jog somewhere.

Originally posted: Prism: Everybody was in on the Act

Follow ZeroHedge in Real-Time

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Lady Heather...UNCLE's picture

 Prism is a software programme designed by an outfit in Palo Alto. The company's name ? : PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC ( palantirs, (for  non Middle-Earthers) are the communication medium  between that  novel's dark forces)  And btw, we use it here in New Zealand

Trampy's picture

Wake up, zombies.  Snowden has told us absolutely nothing new.  See


Bruce Schneier

      The FBI's New Wiretapping Plan Is Great News for Criminals

By Bruce Schneier
Foreign Policy
May 29, 2013

The FBI wants a new law that will make it easier to wiretap the Internet. Although its claim is that the new law will only maintain the status quo, it's really much worse than that. This law will result in less-secure Internet products and create a foreign industry in more-secure alternatives. It will impose costly burdens on affected companies. It will assist totalitarian governments in spying on their own citizens. And it won't do much to hinder actual criminals and terrorists.

As the FBI sees it, the problem is that people are moving away from traditional communication systems like telephones onto computer systems like Skype. Eavesdropping on telephones used to be easy. The FBI would call the phone company, which would bring agents into a switching room and allow them to literally tap the wires with a pair of alligator clips and a tape recorder. In the 1990s, the government forced phone companies to provide an analogous capability on digital switches; but today, more and more communications happens over the Internet.

What the FBI wants is the ability to eavesdrop on everything. Depending on the system, this ranges from easy to impossible. E-mail systems like Gmail are easy. The mail resides in Google's servers, and the company has an office full of people who respond to requests for lawful access to individual accounts from governments all over the world. Encrypted voice systems like Silent Circle are impossible to eavesdrop on—the calls are encrypted from one computer to the other, and there's no central node to eavesdrop from. In those cases, the only way to make the system eavesdroppable is to add a backdoor to the user software. This is precisely the FBI's proposal. Companies that refuse to comply would be fined $25,000 a day.

The FBI believes it can have it both ways: that it can open systems to its eavesdropping, but keep them secure from anyone else's eavesdropping. That's just not possible. It's impossible to build a communications system that allows the FBI surreptitious access but doesn't allow similar access by others. When it comes to security, we have two options: We can build our systems to be as secure as possible from eavesdropping, or we can deliberately weaken their security. We have to choose one or the other.

This is an old debate, and one we've been through many times. The NSA even has a name for it: the equities issue. In the 1980s, the equities debate was about export control of cryptography. The government deliberately weakened U.S. cryptography products because it didn't want foreign groups to have access to secure systems. Two things resulted: fewer Internet products with cryptography, to the insecurity of everybody, and a vibrant foreign security industry based on the unofficial slogan "Don't buy the U.S. stuff—it's lousy."

In 1993, the debate was about the Clipper Chip. This was another deliberately weakened security product, an encrypted telephone. The FBI convinced AT&T to add a backdoor that allowed for surreptitious wiretapping. The product was a complete failure. Again, why would anyone buy a deliberately weakened security system?

In 1994, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act mandated that U.S. companies build eavesdropping capabilities into phone switches. These were sold internationally; some countries liked having the ability to spy on their citizens. Of course, so did criminals, and there were public scandals in Greece (2005) and Italy (2006) as a result.

In 2012, we learned that every phone switch sold to the Department of Defense had security vulnerabilities in its surveillance system. And just this May, we learned that Chinese hackers breached Google's system for providing surveillance data for the FBI.

The new FBI proposal will fail in all these ways and more. The bad guys will be able to get around the eavesdropping capability, either by building their own security systems—not very difficult—or buying the more-secure foreign products that will inevitably be made available. Most of the good guys, who don't understand the risks or the technology, will not know enough to bother and will be less secure. The eavesdropping functions will 1) result in more obscure—and less secure—product designs, and 2) be vulnerable to exploitation by criminals, spies, and everyone else. U.S. companies will be forced to compete at a disadvantage; smart customers won't buy the substandard stuff when there are more-secure foreign alternatives. Even worse, there are lots of foreign governments who want to use these sorts of systems to spy on their own citizens. Do we really want to be exporting surveillance technology to the likes of China, Syria, and Saudi Arabia?

The FBI's short-sighted agenda also works against the parts of the government that are still working to secure the Internet for everyone. Initiatives within the NSA, the DOD, and DHS to do everything from securing computer operating systems to enabling anonymous web browsing will all be harmed by this.

What to do, then? The FBI claims that the Internet is "going dark," and that it's simply trying to maintain the status quo of being able to eavesdrop. This characterization is disingenuous at best. We are entering a golden age of surveillance; there's more electronic communications available for eavesdropping than ever before, including whole new classes of information: location tracking, financial tracking, and vast databases of historical communications such as e-mails and text messages. The FBI's surveillance department has it better than ever. With regard to voice communications, yes, software phone calls will be harder to eavesdrop upon. (Although there are questions about Skype's security.) That's just part of the evolution of technology, and one that on balance is a positive thing.

Think of it this way: We don't hand the government copies of our house keys and safe combinations. If agents want access, they get a warrant and then pick the locks or bust open the doors, just as a criminal would do. A similar system would work on computers. The FBI, with its increasingly non-transparent procedures and systems, has failed to make the case that this isn't good enough.

Finally there's a general principle at work that's worth explicitly stating. All tools can be used by the good guys and the bad guys. Cars have enormous societal value, even though bank robbers can use them as getaway cars. Cash is no different. Both good guys and bad guys send e-mails, use Skype, and eat at all-night restaurants. But because society consists overwhelmingly of good guys, the good uses of these dual-use technologies greatly outweigh the bad uses. Strong Internet security makes us all safer, even though it helps the bad guys as well. And it makes no sense to harm all of us in an attempt to harm a small subset of us.

earlier essay: It's Smart Politics to Exaggerate Terrorist Threats
later essay: What We Don't Know About Spying on Citizens: Scarier Than What We Know
categories: Laws and Regulations, Privacy and Surveillance
back to Essays and Op Eds is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT.

honestann's picture

More and more we see that a huge percentage of what have been called "conspiracy theories" have in fact been correct.  This is no surprise to many of us here in ZH, I suspect, because we know how to read and integrate tea leaves (hints, bits of evidence, obvious motives, etc).

Two observations.

People say widespread conspiracies cannot be hidden.  Well, this is one of many proofs that this claim is pure nonsense.  Sure, there have been plenty of claims about this mass corporate cooperation with NSA before the Snowden leaks, even from a couple NSA insider whistleblowers, but not re-inforced by copies of internal documents like this.  Therefore, this claim that large conspiracies can't be hidden is now so obviously false that anyone making this rationalization has to start looking very stupid.

I also have to wonder whether "conspiracy theories" have a net negative effect.  I'm not saying people shouldn't report bad actions, but... consider the "boiling frog" problem here.  We can take the current NSA example to illustrate.

Which would have a bigger shock and impact?  The current situation in which many people hear the supposed "conspiracy theories", followed by a couple warnings from former NSA insiders, followed by the Snowden confirmation... OR... all this information released when "nobody expected".

My worry here is "boiling frog" problem.  It is just human (and frog) nature that vastly fewer individuals will take serious, effective, dramatic action if their perception of the change is slower.  So a major shock, all at once, has more chance of effectiveness.

The predators-that-be obviously know this.  Which makes me wonder whether they purposely leak bits and pieces of information about these egregious operations to purposely create the "boiling frog" situation, which has the effect of preventing the pot from blowing up in their faces someday.

I do not propose anyone hold back damaging information.  Just the opposite.  But this thought certainly is annoying.

honestann's picture

Universal Declaration of Reality


10.  A fictitious entity is a fiction, and does not exist.

11.  All organizations are fictitious entities, including governments, corporations, central banks, societies, clubs and so forth.

12.  Every individual is fully responsible and liable for his own actions without exception.

13.  Every individual who orders another individual to take actions is equally responsible and liable for those actions.

14.  Any action an individual takes that causes no harm or loss to any other individual or their property may be considered cause for detention or other action against that individual, even though that action may have theoretically endangered other individuals and their property.  It is, of course, perfectly acceptable and appropriate to notify individuals who take actions that endanger others that their actions are dangerous and reckless.  However, the principle sometimes called "no harm no foul" must be the standard of ethics.  Exception: if an individual is taking actions with the clear intent to harm other individuals or property, then actions to stop that individual are ethical.  Example: if an individual is shooting at you, or your cattle on your own property, an individual can take actions to stop that aggressive individual (shoot his horse, or shoot him if necessary).

15.  Any action that is unethical for an individual to take is equally unethical for an individual to take "on behalf of" a fictitious entity (government, corporation, etc).  Every so-called "title", "position" and "authority" is also fiction, and has zero bearing on whether an action is ethical or unethical.  Note: an action that is ethical for one individual to take may be temporarily assigned to other individuals in order to further justice.  For example, if a thief grabs your purse and runs, you can ethically request others to "grab him" or "shoot him".

16.  The only individuals who can be ethically or legitimately obligated or controlled in any way, directly or indirectly, by any document are those individuals who voluntarily signed that document without any pressure or coersion.


Just of few of many.

The whole premise of stating human rights is fundamentally and inherently backwards.  I hate to adopt the word "right", because that's a dangerous fiction, but to formulate the following statement I will adopt that term to make it more clear to most people.

Every individual has the "right" to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER... except harm or destroy other individuals or their property without their permission. ***

The notion that the default situation is "individuals have no right to do anything", and need to be granted "rights" to do certain things is completely backwards, obscene, and extremely dangerous.  Look at virtually all laws, acts, rulings, statutes and regulations to see why.


*** That "without their permission" part is crucial, otherwise surgeons would be guilty of atrocious harm when they slice up your body to save your life (remove bullets or diseased organs) or otherwise perform desired actions.  The surgeon most certainly causes harm cutting your body, but that harm is intended to be less than the harm he prevents.  Plus, he has your permission, which is the only point that matters (as long as he does what you ask, which would normally be "try to save my life, or help me as best you can").


Winston Smith 2009's picture

George Carlin - You have no rights

I agree with everything he says here with the exception of his closing comment.

blindman's picture

@.." no rights."
then you have no basis for action in relationship.
it is a doomed premise, maybe de facto true at times
but it is a doomed premise. that is why the (usa)
initiated a revolution. to establish an enumeration
of rights and a healthy degree of independence from
the tyrants of the day. that is why George carlin
became a stand up comedian, it wasn't just for the
free drinks, smokes and groupies. just a guess

Overdrawn's picture

Dystopian Novel, The Water Thief, Imagines the Corporate-Controlled Future of America. With the government increasingly protecting corporations instead of people, as with Citizens United, it won't be long before corporations become more important than people - if they aren't already.

Soutter writes: "The only real check against corruption is vigilance. That was the death of republics: they thought the system was enough to protect them, that they didn't need to be involved. Citizens let go of the rope, nobody voted, nobody got educated on the complexities of governing. And the corporations moved in.  That section is eerily similar to our situation today. Voting turnout has been steadily declining since the 1960s, or people are being prevented from voting, and our citizens are losing their agency in the process. From Bush's signing of the PATRIOT Act to Obama's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), citizens have been losing their constitutional rights one at a time.

Soutter does an excellent job of crafting this dystopian world and those who inhabit it. He isn't afraid to point out the truths of being ruled by corporations and writes, "Like a person, the corporation only [does] what was in its own interest, only without the burden of consequences or conscience."

Though this book takes place in the future, it bears a terrifying resemblance to our past. People are bought and sold as slaves. But instead of working on a plantation, they're owned by corporations.



Downtoolong's picture

But, Dianne Feinstein has oversight of this activity, and I just know she wouldn’t let anything bad happen to us Toto.

world_debt_slave's picture

I remember when Feinstein and Boxer were elected to the Senate from CA in the early 90's, proclaimed the year of the woman. I knew at that time it would be another act that would be the downfall of this country.

Hobbleknee's picture

-10 points for referencing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

The technique of creating bigger and bigger haystacks is at best a welfare system for defence contractors.  Next will be the ability and need to sift through all that hay.


What the hay???

Zer0head's picture

why is the title of the above article in the past tense?


and what's this hidden link to some mediocre news feed

if you want to Follow ZeroHedge in Real-Time this is probably the best way

rwe2late's picture

 Why so many wiretaps? Who wants them?

It's not just for government.  It's for profit.

And not only by sharing insider info with select corporations.

Communications companies make money charging for each wiretap.

Some $500 or so per tap.




bunnyswanson's picture

Obama before and after election - addressing preemptive arrests for those who plan to attack USA. 

Who exactly is the enemy?  Now that the banks have a garotte around the economy, and the banks have shown what they do to countries when a debt is owed and lending is required to maintain their structure, we have to ask, are the anti-banksters who he is talking about?


NaN's picture

There is always money being made as a side effect of the surveillance state, but that is not a causative effect. Nevertheless, those payments create an incentive for a permanent situation, like the prison guards union of CA lobbying for a 3-strikes law or defense contractors putting factories in most states.

The reason for the wide net is simple, after a true believer puts the state above individual rights. If the NSA can get away with it, and they have the storage to save a complete history, why not? They promise to not abuse it, but there are no penalties for doing so.

The Nazi's had a slogan, "the state above all else". Nowadays it is too crass to say that explicitly, but the federal gov. certainly acts like it. Anything that helps the superorganism is then justified.


BattlegroundEurope2011's picture

Exactly.  The US Administration has the audacity to say they are not spying on commercial info just state info is fucking BS.


BattlegroundEurope2011's picture

I wonder how much a typical NSA Agent charges for some juicy info?


blindman's picture

if there is evidence of high treason we all have a right
to that data and evidence.
it is "ours".

Burticus's picture

Yes, put the CIA/DOD/NSA's data mining centers' contraptions to good use, by making every video, audio & electronic communication ever made by every member of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the United State_ gubbermint available on line.  Then, let the wolves feed and the Grand Juries proceed from the top down.

After freeing 1.5 million prisoners who have never hurt anyone (except maybe themselves), there will be plenty of room for those whose crimes aren't worthy of the gallows.

blindman's picture

Interview with NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice
The Bernanke Conundrum
EconMatters's by EconMatters on 07/13/2013
"The Conundrum
The catch 22 is that they cannot exit now without markets and asset classes freefalling back to natural sustainable levels, yet markets are at hundred year highs! The real problem is that if they cannot exit now, then they push markets and asset classes even higher artificially to even more unsustainable levels! The drop becomes even more pronounced a la the Tech bubble where stocks trading in the 100`s dropped to zero, silicon valley had their fire sale for property as all the business built up around unsustainable market valuations came crashing back to reality.
This is because asset prices have been inflated for five consecutive years. This has never been done in the history of financial markets. The fed has outdone every previous bubble they have ever created, and as all asset classes are inter-related, leverage is used, and the correlation of asset classes in greater than ever before in markets. There is no possible exit without causing massive money flow disruptions in financial markets. Every asset class is based upon and relies on the fed stimulus each month like a financial market crack addict." ...e.m.

" Both the written Idiom and Money, per se, are measures of humanity. (to measure is a qualitative verbe).

Both have been weighed, measured and found wanting (Daniel)
...The bottom-line is that the USA as we have known it as the great Light of Freedom and Liberty for all has been captured and is being destroyed from the inside; nothing new here. The final moments are already in play; you are now experiencing the Fall of Rome; today is the continuation of the 1917 Bolsehivek Revolution..
..The War now is of the individual against the "Collective". But there is a larger "collective" in the room (there always is) but this "collective" respects the individual and that is known as humanity; the creation of God." aquarius

gaoptimize's picture

This morning, after ~20 years of a Sunday morning ritual, I will no longer be watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.  I never knew the full extent of their statist bias/agenda until this morning.  There is no mainstream media on the side of the Constitution and the people any longer.

Kina's picture

[The right to a private life and to privacy in society is a fundamental principle on which the nations that are shouting the loudest have built their democracies, isn’t it? Where did the Bill of Rights go? What happened to the habeas corpus? Why did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights get written at all?]


According the Bankster Elite the rest of the US and the world are just a bunch of fucking peasant nobodies, and only a handful of their own kind, and their servants have rights.


Need not be surprised when the CFTC doesn't prosecute blatant in your face corruption, or the SEC, or why Corzine is not getting his daily prison arse rapes he so richly desrves. while some $2 theif gets a year.


The American politician, the paid for servants of a handful if self appointed world Kings, and their specially selected judges, secret grand juries, secret decisions (secret dictatorship), authorised torture, authorised arrest and dissapearing of American and other citizens, authorised murder of US citizens and others by drone. Evidence, charges not required...extra judicial murder the new rule. AND no rule of law applying to the financial world as it affects a handful of the elite.





Loose Caboose's picture

The American politician, the paid for servants of a handful if self appointed world Kings, and their specially selected judges, secret grand juries, secret decisions (secret dictatorship), authorised torture, authorised arrest and dissapearing of American and other citizens, authorised murder of US citizens and others by drone. Evidence, charges not required...extra judicial murder the new rule. AND no rule of law applying to the financial world as it affects a handful of the elite.

I agree with everything you say but especially that.  So, if this is the situation, how can it be changed?  Can it be changed at all?  That is what I carry around in my brain 24/7 for the last five years.  It has fundamentally altered who I am and those around me aren't interested in knowing the truth about things.  It's lonely and frustrating as hell. 

It seems to me that even a revolution and overthrow of the present government will not change anything for the better.  As you say, they are only the hand servants.  Any hope of change has to focus on the elite themselves, to penetrate that wall of secrecy and shine a light on the creepy fuckers for all the world to see what they really are. It's the head of the snake, people.  The head has to go.  But how?

I think a lot of us here on ZH and other similar venues are reaching a point where the frustration is getting to us and the anger and helpless feeling of not being able to make a change is too much to carry any more.  Some will abandon sll efforts to disseminate the truth, others will become depressed and hopeless.

Have they won?  Is the NWO here now - game over?  It appears that way to me, more and more, everyday.  There are no countries or nationalities anymore when you come right down to it.  It's all an elaborate game to keep the masses separated while those at the top are one tiny corrupt global conglomerate fucking with our basic existence.  They would piss on any flag other than one with the family seal upon it.  We are the pawns on their chess board.  That is all.

I don't mean to sound dramatic but holy hell, if there was ever a time in history to get serious and fear for the future, it's now.

I wish I could go back to sleep because I'm not smart or charismatic enough to lead or make a difference. 


Trampy's picture

Have they won?  Is the NWO here now - game over?  It appears that way to me, more and more, everyday.

Yes, the NWO was implemented on 9/11/2001.  It's been over for a very long time.  Unless you're willing to engage in armed struggle, the only thing you can do about it is try to educate and enlighten those around you.

This knowledge became clear as day to me after reading Zarembka (2006), which cost over $100 to get the first edition hardcover:


Skateboarder's picture

There, there, everything will be alright. *hug*

Well, that's the best I could do. Heh.

Winston Churchill's picture

A fallacious line of reasoning.

The Bill of Rights was never intended for the hoi poloi in the first place.

It was designed to protect the rights of the white ,landed and wealthy

individual.Coincidentally the same  as the Founders.

So maybe this is a reversion to norm,just as retirement was always

a fiction except for a lucky few during human history..

I'm not advocating for it,just injecting some realism into a belief in a

far better yesteryear.Sure it was if you were in the elite.


Widowmaker's picture

When is Tyler going to tie this to the big banks??

Afterall, they get all the data, too - in front of everyone else.

It's big business, and how big is infuckincredible.

Your privacy bought and sold only to fuck you in the ass with it.

It's all a conspiracy alright.

Skin666's picture

Cheers Bank Guy!

Very interesting...

+ 1

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Funny Freudian-type slip in original version of article above

« secret fails from Edward Snowden »

Ha !

PivotFarm reflecting the huge suspicions about this media-pumped affair, Snowden's strange support framework (media, Brzezinskis, Rothschilds), his improbable CV, his goofy behaviour re Russia / Latin America ... and how what Snowden has said so far has basically been known from previous whistleblowers not media-pumped like Snowden, people like Russell Tice who said much worse things than Snowden (blackmail of all US politicians, judges, media)

Certainly anyone in Snowden's role deserves safety, and the European abuse of Morales and his airplane was shocking ... but there are still nagging questions here


No doubt all will be revealed later

In the very exciting upcoming Snowy - Leakies

Starring lawyer-writer Glenn Greenwald, usually too frightened to cover US judge corruption cases ... but somehow very brave with Snowden

And the Rothschild-dominated UK Guardian ... known for sometimes printing fake 'news' for the CIA ... but perhaps the Rothschild family now giving 'news that is best for you' ... that we all can trust, ha !


UK Guardian pumping Edward Snowden, is a 'news source' of the Rothschilds, the wealthiest family in the world

« The Guardian is controlled by Guardian Media Group, whose chairman is Paul Myners, a past employee of N M Rothschild & Sons Limited. Guardian Media Group is owned by the Scott Trust, which became a limited private company in 2008, with all trustees becoming directors of the Scott Trust. Anthony Salz was appointed as a trustee of the Scott Trust in 2009; he is currently executive vice-chairman of the investment bank Rothschild. »

The Rothschild family is estimated by mainstream sources (Forbes etc) to have a wealth in excess of US $ 400 billion ($.4 trillion !), but they spread it among numerous family members and thus can avoid the 'top billionaires' lists.

One of the oddest things the ultra-Zionist Rothschilds have done, is their funding, design and construction of the extremely spooky Israeli Supreme Court building with Masonic and pagan symbols ... Very creepy and satanic-seeming, story covered by radical Israeli journalist Barry Chamish. Photos of that weird structure here -

john39's picture

Interesting interview with Jon Rappoport regarding the snowden psy-op:

IEVI's picture

Thanks for posting that link.

old naughty's picture

Why would I not be surprised that a Rothschild controlled paper leak the leaker's "fails"?