Here’s Why Giving the CIA Backdoor Surveillance Will Not Stop ISIS


Susanne.Posel-Headline.News.Official- paris.attack.john.brennan.edward.snowden.surviellance.isis.islamic.state_occuoycorporatismSusanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals
November 17, 2015

 

Since the attack on Paris, the call for more surveillance has been spearheaded in the US by John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan explained how the Islamic State must have planned the attack for several months and “anticipates that this is not the only operation [they] have in the pipeline.”

Brennan also took an opportunity to blame Edward Snowden for enabling the Islamic State. He said : “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability, collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging.”

And in order to stay ahead of the terrorist, tech companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are being added to the mix via the use of encrypted messaging systems (EMS).

According to the media, the Islamic State used EMS to communicate and coordinate the scene in Paris a week ago. To deal with this threat, heads of state are expected to demand tech corporations hand over their encryption keys so governmental intelligence agencies can get in and “prevent” these attacks from happening again.

Tim Cook, chief executive officer for Apple, vehemently stands against giving the CIA his company’s EMS. He said : “A backdoor is a backdoor for everyone. Everybody wants to crack down on terrorists. Everybody wants to be secure. The question is how.”

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, the French government approved a surveillance law that gave intelligence agencies the ability to listen in on calls and read emails without obtaining a warrant.

This law has been compared to the US Patriot Act by tech companies and privacy advocacy groups.

But despite opposition from French citizens and civil liberty groups, the legislation was pass through an overwhelming majority of the MPs from the Socialist and right-wing parties.

Under this all-encompassing law, government authorities can spy on digital and cellular phone communications if the suspect is “linked to a terrorist”. This law also forces internet service providers (ISPs) to hand over any and all data requested regardless of the provision of a warrant.

When it comes to personal privacy, French intelligence can install cameras and other recording devices directly into homes while using key logger devices to track keystrokes on computers in real time.

Records and profile metadata amassed from this surveillance can be held up to 5 years because this data is used to analyze “potentially suspicious behavior”.

Should the metadata prove useful, intelligence agencies could invoke an independent panel to inquire about “deeper surveillance” that could produce the identity of the user.

Another part of their surveillance arsenal is the “black box” algorithms that ISPs must use in order to gain a “succession of suspect behavioral patterns online” by monitoring keywords used, sites visited, and contacts made online.

In the end, the Constitutional Council in France “struck down” the provisions within the law that:

• Allowed the government to intercept any communications sent or received overseas
• Allowed intelligence agencies to carry out unauthorized surveillance with faced with “urgent threats”

And yet as of 2014, the French government was monitoring over 1,200 Islamists and nearly 200 people who returned to the nation after having fought with militant groups in Iraq and Syria.

With all the surveillance capabilities, the French government was unable to stop the Islamic State from carrying out the attack on Paris.

Brennan should take a lesson from France, not use it to justify the installation of surveillance that encroaches on privacy rights because it is clear within the example of France that this type of monitoring does not prevent terrorist attacks.





Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OccupyCorporatism/~3/ykoidHMTmr0/

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes