Snowden Swiped Password From NSA Coworker

NBC News.com

By Michael Isikoff

A civilian NSA employee recently resigned after being stripped of his security clearance for allowing former agency contractor Edward Snowden to use his personal log-in credentials to access classified information, according to an agency memo obtained by NBC News.

In addition, an active duty member of the U.S. military and a contractor have been barred from accessing National Security Agency facilities after they were “implicated” in actions that may have aided Snowden, the memo states. Their status is now being reviewed by their employers, the memo says.

The Feb. 10 memo, sent to congressional intelligence and judiciary committees this week, provides the first official account of a sweeping NSA internal inquiry aimed at identifying intelligence officials and contractors who may been responsible for one of the biggest security breaches in U.S. history. The memo is unclassified but labeled “for official use only.”

"Unbeknownst to the civilian, Mr. Snowden was able to capture the password, allowing him even greater access to classified information.”

While the memo’s account is sketchy, it suggests that, contrary to Snowden’s statements, he used an element of trickery to retrieve his trove of tens of thousands of classified documents: “At Snowden’s request,” the civilian NSA employee, who is not identified by name, entered his password onto Snowden’s computer terminal, the memo states.

“Unbeknownst to the civilian, Mr. Snowden was able to capture the password, allowing him even greater access to classified information,” the memo states.

The memo states that the civilian employee was unaware that Snowden “intended to unlawfully disclose classified information.” Nevertheless, by sharing with Snowden his personal “public key infrastructure” certificate -- a system of highly secure credentials that provided greater access to NSA’s internal computer system -- the employee “failed to comply with security obligations,” the memo states. As a result, the employee’s security clearance was revoked in November and the NSA has notified the Justice Department that he recently resigned. (A public key infrastructure certificate is a highly secure system of password and log-in exchanges designed to protect against unauthorized access to sensitive computer networks.)

The memo does not explain what actions the U.S. military member and the contractor took that caused them to lose their access to NSA facilities.

"Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?”

The Feb. 10 memo was signed by Ethan Bauman, the NSA’s director of legislative affairs. It was sent to the congressional committees after repeated questions from senior members about whether the NSA intended to hold any of its employees accountable for the security lapses that enable Snowden to gain access to massive volumes of classified documents that he later leaked to the news media

“Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at a Dec. 11 hearing. Alexander at the time replied that the agency had three “cases” that “we’re currently reviewing.” (An NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines declined comment Wednesday night, writing in an email: “I don’t have anything for your story.”)

The question of how Snowden was able to obtain as much classified material as he did while working at a remote NSA station in Hawaii has been the subject of intensive investigation by the U.S. intelligence community for months.

Reuters reporters Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel reported in November that Snowden used login credential and passwords provided “unwittingly” by colleagues at the Hawaii spy base. The Reuters report said Snowden “may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers” to give him their passwords. But the NSA never publicly commented on that report and Snowden appeared to deny it during a public Google chat on Jan. 23.

“Was the privacy of your co-workers considered while you were stealing their log-in and password information?” Snowden was asked during the chat.

“With all due respect to Mark Hosenball, the Reuters report that put this out there was simply wrong,” Snowden replied. “I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers.”

Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the ACLU who represents Snowden, did not immediately respond to phone and email requests for comment.

DHS Insider: Obama’s cyber warriors & preparing for collapse

canadafreepress

www.theatlantic.com

By Doug Hagmann

The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts (here and here). I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where part II left off. At the request of this source and for the sake of continuity, the following combines the information withheld and the information from our most recent contact on 4 February 2013.

DH: Do I have your permission to record this conversation?

RB: Please do.

DH: We’ve spoken at different times since the information you gave me was published. You have since given me additional information on top of the information you asked me to withhold until after the inauguration. First, what was the reason for asking me to wait to publish the remainder of our discussion until after the inauguration?

RB: This bunch, top level DHS brass, is clamping down on leaks. One way they are finding leakers is to put out false information specific to certain individuals. They can trace the information directly to the leaker due to the nature and specificity of the information. It was part self-preservation, part vetting one of my closest and most important contacts. It was a test to assure that I am not being used for disinformation purposes or being targeted as a leaker. It was something I felt I had to do, and I’m glad I did. I feel more comfortable now about my sources.

DH: So, if I understand you correctly, your sources “passed” whatever test you were performing?

RB: Yes.

DH: And you still have access to information, I mean, whistleblower type information?

RB: I know what you mean, so I guess that’s one way to put it. Okay.

DH: For continuity and to refresh your memory, I’m going to play the remainder of our recorded interview from our contact last month.

[At this point, we listened to the dialogue previously recorded. After the recording concluded, this DHS source suggested that we combine new information with the previously recorded information to avoid unnecessary repetition. It was agreed and the recorder was turned back on with his consent].

DH: Just to be clear, let me hit this again. The main reason you asked me to wait to publish your previous statements had more to do with you, your sources and well, your own self preservation than the content of our discussion.

RB: I guess you could say that. But the information is still valid and becomes even more important when combined with the latest information I have for you.

DH: Okay, we can get on with it, then.

RB: First of all, two days after the inauguration, at exactly 7:00 a.m. on January 23, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. I heard about this the week after the election, but only saw a hardcopy draft in late December. From what I was told, I believe this is a project that is being paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama, I believe it’s called. I can’t be sure, but that’s what I was told.

At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two dozen supervisors who make substantially more.

Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.

It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” had a list of religious web sites, web sites I recognized as Christian. Another section was a listing of conservative Internet sites. There was another tab with the label “problem sites” that seemed quite extensive. I looked at that section, and it was broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few.

There was also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC, you know. Numerous e-mail addresses were conspicuous under each news organization, which also included Fox… [unintelligible]. I figured you were going to ask.

The first page of the binder had bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There was also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions were typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated.

DH: Where did you see this? I mean, was it at DHS?

RB: Yes, and that’s as much as I can say on the location.

DH: What’s the magic behind the number 3,575?

RB: I asked the person showing me [the binder] that question. Supposedly, it has to do with their budget, or the project funding.

DH: Go on.

RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.

There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.

Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.

It was surreal, to say the least.

Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.” Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.

There were also motivational statements on various pages, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” which I thought was an odd characterization.

But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.

DH: Do you know if these “team members” have their own copies of the binder you saw?

RB: No. I was told that these people were hired through the campaign offices located throughout the country, and that training meetings were held at various locations. The binders were for instructional purposes, not to hand out. Although I think the people have, or were given, a list of web sites.

I don’t know any more on the actual mechanics of the project.

DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?

RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.

DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?

RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.

DH: And you are getting this from your current intelligence sources? Frankly, I’m not sure I completely understand the connection between DHS and what’s going on with the economy. Seems like it should be separate.

RB: What’s not to understand? The economic devastation that will take place is an attack, a planned attack on the U.S. Just look at it that way. This “regime” already knows the outcome, which is the debasement of our national currency. Like I said, it’s been in the works most recently since the 1990s. A collapse does not happen without a lot of pain -people losing everything in their retirement accounts, savings and so on. Don’t you think that will cause one hell of a national security problem? And who is running our national or domestic security? DHS.

Oh, and one of the reasons I wanted to include more recent information into our discussion relates to something you did last month, after our talk. I know you said you did not want to source your own work, but there was one important radio program you did that caused a very angry response inside DHS.

DH: How so?

RB: You had a financial insider on your program who went by some letter, like the first or last letter of his name.

DH: Yes, that was “V” who is a source for Steve Quayle. We did a program at the beginning of January, I think - I’d have to look. [Edited to add that the actual program was 11 January 2013.]

RB: Yeah, that was it. If you ask your network, I think you’ll find a request was made for the transcript of that program by DHS. The information given by that source was protected, or confidential, especially regarding the actions of big bankers here in the U.S. and the foreign markets. These international bankers are playing a big role in killing the U.S., and although they’re bold, they still don’t want certain things disclosed before their time.

DH: But that information had nothing to do with national security. I mean, how would this relate to DHS?

RB: Now you’re giving me a headache [laughter]. Let me spell it out for you, and this is the crux of everything. We have Obama (or whatever his real name is) in the Oval Office. You’ve said it before, that America is a “captured operation.” Well, it is, and every top level operative at DHS and Justice knows it. They have his dossier.

Think about Obama’s mother working in microfinance with Timothy Geithner’s father. What are the odds? And that’s just one “coincidence.”

A lot of people won’t get this until it’s too late, or maybe never get it. But take a good look at Obama and the people who surround him. Look at the 2008 economic crisis under Bush. Look at the run up to where we’re at today. The orchestrated boom of the 1990s. The GLB Act signed into law under Clinton that changed the complexion of our domestic economy. Look at the people who are still around, the architects of this. It’s a big lie! It’s all been rigged, and the insiders know this! Look at the continuity of agenda since “Bush senior.”

Now listen to what I am telling you. This is a continuing operation that involves many of the same people on both sides of the aisle in Washington. This is one of the reasons why no one wants to talk about Obama’s past. He is the product of a continuing intelligence operation, put in power to oversee the dismantling of the U.S., with the economy being the lynchpin of our destruction. Obama, Jarrett, and the Clintons are in constant contact with all high level operatives inside the DHS. Perhaps not directly in all cases but through their contacts. They are working together to see to it that the U.S. economy is brought down, robbing the people of their wealth and then blaming partisan politics for the crash.

For the first time in recent history, you’re going to see people hungry and out in the streets. Those unprepared or those thinking this is all [expletive deleted], desperate and begging for food. Think Katrina, but on a national scale. That’s what is being planned for Americans, and few people are willing to see what’s happening, or willing to believe it. Now here’s where DHS, my sources and information comes in.

Everybody is looking at the gun “problem” in America. Fights over the Second Amendment. State laws that go against the Constitution. Blame it on Sandy Hook or Colorado. Tell people we need to be disarmed because it’s for the children. It’s all [expletive deleted]. Most people know it’s all [expletive deleted], but that’s where their rational assessment stops. Why do you think the people in power want to -no - need to disarm the public? It’s because they are planning an economic collapse, and an armed and informed populace is a danger to their plan.

DH: Wait, wouldn’t it make sense to let the guns stay in the hands of the people and have the people shoot it out among themselves? Wouldn’t this fit in with their desire for chaos, and make it easier for Martial Law to be implemented?

RB: In a way, but you’re still not thinking big enough. The way this is being planned includes that scenario, but they are very afraid that once total chaos breaks out, they will become the targets. So to a point you’re right, but then a crackdown must take place.

DH: But the elected ones are well protected.

RB: Yeah, but you are not thinking like them. There are several scenarios or models they have commissioned. They exist in printed form and have been given to Obama and Jarrett specifically. It’s war gaming with the American people. That caused some mid-level military people with a conscience to ask what the hell is going on, and some even refused to take part in these exercises. By the way, Napolitano is the go-to person for these models.

Anyway, there is a fear that their own people won’t be loyal to them when everything begins to implode. You’ve been seeing purges lately. Remember what Jarrett supposedly said about being “hell to pay” after the re-election? That process has started.

DH: Those who have been “purged” - why haven’t we seen anyone speak out about what’s going on?

RB: They’ve been threatened. Some were not worth even being threatened and became “examples.”

DH: Like who?

RB: Oh c’mon, look at the recent mysterious deaths. Pick one.

DH: Okay, but wouldn’t they be safer by speaking out, by telling everything they know? Some ordinary people might call them cowards. Why not just go public[interrupted/over talk]

RB: Yeah, how’d that work out so far? And go public to who? CNN? They are in real danger, and so are their families. Anyone close to them. Even if one or two would go public, how do you think that would work out for them? I’ll tell you how. They would make [Senator] McCarthy look like an American hero, which he was, but that’s… They’ve made it so that no one will be able to make any real difference to their agenda. They know that.

DH: So no one is going to say anything - ever?

RB: That’s not what I said. Some will talk when the time is right. Some have “insurance policies” that will be used at the right time, when they will make the most difference.

DH: I feel like we’re getting off point. So, what is being planned?

RB: The DHS will oversee the domestic crackdown that will happen when the perfect storm bears down on us. And the perfect storm is the economy, meaning the U.S. dollar collapse and hyperinflation, racial or class riots sparked by a high-profile incident, and another mass causality event involving guns. Watch for these three things to happen all at once, or in close succession.

The polarization caused by these events will be sufficient to cause a second civil war.

DH: When? How soon will all of this happen?

RB: I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have seen various reports referencing unprecedented “drills” to take place in later March and April. I’ll mention this because I know a lot of people on the inside at DHS have seen this. A document called “Operation Thunderdome.” It’s maybe 50 or 60 pages, I’m not certain. It describes an economic collapse in the U.S., followed by an attack on the government by “a made-up patriotic group.” It combines gun owners, Constitutionalists, and even Christians into an enemy group that pulls off an attack in Washington.

But don’t fall into the trap of trying to pick the time of these events. Their plans are flexible, but their objectives are carved in stone.

DH: Sounds like a Reichstag type event- sometime.

RB: Exactly. Maybe not just one. They have plans and back-up plans and back-ups for the back-ups. And in spite of the warnings, and history, enough people will be outraged and side with the government. This brings me to my final point. What do you think all of the prepositioning of paramilitary assets, caches of ammunition, and the opening of non-descript buildings owned or leased by the federal government are for?

It’s for you and people like you. It’s for those who are turned in by their neighbors, friends, co-workers, and others who are hungry, broke and broken. What we are about to experience will be like it was during the Civil War, only worse. People will be outgunned, surveillance will be everywhere, and it will be much more difficult to hide and fight back. Not impossible, but more difficult.

DH: So you’re painting a picture of a Mad Max scenario, hence the reference to Thunderdome?

RB: Believe it or not, part of the model, or at least one of them, includes the depiction of a somewhat “normal” society, at least after the initial “hostilities.” People will be controlled by the national government, centralized - in order to escape the chaos. Think of it this way. You want food and medical care? You will not be able to own a gun, period. The current federal legislation is all window dressing - a distraction. No one expects anything meaningful to pass. It won’t have to. States, yes, but those states are lining up for federal money. The elected leaders are of the same ideology as Obama, but aside from those, we’ll see many people turning in their weapons for food, shelter, medical care, and false guarantees of safety. That’s what the new normal will look like.

As I said, you’ve got to think bigger - much bigger. The lies are bigger than most people can imagine. The people at the top are laughing at us. Think about that. They are laughing at us because it’s right in front of our noses. And you know, the bigger the lie…

DH: Yes, the more people will fall for it.

RB: Right. I think we’re done here for now. I’ve given you as much information as I know, as I have seen. Watch the economy - the indicators. Watch for a false flag. We are being baited. Let people pooh-pooh this information, seek information through FOI requests. Not gonna happen. We’re talking about an operation so black and so big, and one that has to be done in the next few years, under Obama.

This is something that is international in scope. The plan is international, and is dedicated to the dismantling or destruction of America. It’s happening right in front of us, but too few can actually see it.

DH: I’m sure you, well… We’ll be accused of scaring people without citable evidence.

RB: People need to wake up. Believe me or don’t. It’s their choice.

DH: Wait, one more thing. What should we be looking for next?

RB: Look around. You’re seeing it. We’ll talk again. Please shut off the recorder.

Aaron Swartz's Death And There Are Some Questions That Need To Be Answered

businessinsider

Flickr/Creative Commoners

Henry Blodget 

I didn't know anything about Aaron Swartz until he killed himself two days ago.

Since then, thanks to the outpouring of emotion over his death, I've learned a lot.

I've learned enough to know that Swartz's death is a big loss not just to those who knew him and loved him but to the community at large. The number of amazing things that Swartz was involved in during his short life—RSS, Reddit, campaigns against the Internet censorship bills SOPA and PIPA, et al—suggests that he might have gone on to do much, much more.

I've also learned enough to know that some serious questions need to be answered about the legal situation that Swartz was involved in.

After his death, Swartz's family and friends said the behavior of the U.S. Attorney, who was prosecuting Swartz for an alleged criminal hacking incident, contributed to his suicide.

That's a serious charge, one that would weigh heavily on the conscience of any fair person involved in the prosecution. So for the sake of both sides, it needs to be investigated.

(To be fair, there's no way that the prosecutors bear the full responsibility here, no matter how they behaved. Life isn't fair. And millions of people have gotten through tougher situations than the one Swartz was facing.)

Lawrence Lessig, the noted Harvard professor and legal scholar, concurs with Swartz's family, saying that Swartz was a victim of prosecutorial "bullying," in which a prosecutor was taking what appears to have been a relatively minor transgression and using it to brand Swartz as a "criminal felon" and force him to plead guilty to multiple felonies.

Other writers, such as Jonathan Blanks, have already cited the case as another instance of prosecutorial overreach and described the reality that prosecutors are endowed with an extraordinary amount of power but are not incented to use that power to be fair and reasonable. Rather, they are incented to prosecute those whom they, in their sole discretion, regard as criminals—and get convictions. And this incentive system leads some prosecutors to overreach—bring cases they shouldn't, or use their power too harshly—without having enough respect for the lives of those they prosecute.

After reading these essays, I read the prosecutor's indictment of Swartz.

In 2011, Swartz was charged with multiple felonies after downloading millions of academic papers from the online repository JSTOR—a service that aggregates these papers and makes them available for a modest fee to institutions and individuals. Based on the prosecutors' description of this incident—a description that has not yet been established as fact—there's no question that Swartz did something unethical and, probably, illegal.  He accessed a network he was not entitled to access, hid his real identity, changed his digital identity multiple times once his actions were discovered and blocked, and knew he was doing something wrong.  But there's a far cry between "unethical" and "13 felonies" punishable by a long prison sentence, especially when the items that Swartz downloaded were mostly freely available academic papers.

This is where prosecutorial discretion comes in.

And that's where we enter a part of our legal process that is often unfamiliar to those who haven't had firsthand experience with it.

Our legal system is a so-called "adversarial system." It pits one side, prosecutors, against the other side, defendants. If a case goes to trial, each side has an opportunity to make its case. And then a neutral party, a judge or jury, decides who is right.

Our legal system is a good system. If you haven't taken a moment to appreciate the fact that, in America, you 1) have the right to "have your day in court" and 2) your day in court has a reasonable chance of being a relatively fair hearing, you should do so now. People in many countries do not have these things. And the amount of injustice that is dispensed in these countries would make any fair person cringe.

But just because our system is good doesn't mean it is perfect.

Our system does not always "get it right." (No system does.)  And our system can be unfair in ways that are not always obvious to those who haven't been through the process.

When a prosecutor decides to charge someone with a crime, the prosecutor immediately puts that person's normal life on hold. The prosecutor also forces the person to either 1) cut a deal, or 2) defend him or herself in court.

If you are guilty of the prosecutors' charges, this decision is easy: You plead guilty and cut a deal.

If you are not guilty, however, or guilty of much less serious infractions, you find yourself in an extraordinarily stressful and, to some extent, no-win situation.

Defending yourself in court is an extremely stressful, expensive, time-consuming, and risky proposition. Unless you choose to use a public defender, even small trials can cost astronomical amounts of money and take years to prepare for. (Lawrence Lessig tossed off the remark that Swartz's trial would be a "million-dollar" trial that had already depleted Swartz's modest wealth.)  Even if you win, you don't get your money, time, or reputation back. So it will be a Pyrrhic victory, regardless.

If you defend yourself and lose, meanwhile, your sentence is likely to be far more punitive than it would have been if you had just "taken responsibility for your actions" and cut a deal. For obvious reasons, judges and prosecutors look favorably on defendants who save the government money and time by not defending themselves. And these folks usually get a better deal.

All of this is logical. 

And if a fair-minded prosecutor who is completely convinced of a defendant's guilt brings fair charges and offers a reasonable deal prior to trial, then the system is working as it should.

The trouble comes when the prosecutor is not fair-minded. Or not certain of a defendant's guilt. Or does not bring fair charges. Or does not offer a reasonable deal.

In these cases, a defendant faces an even tougher choice:

• Either plead guilty to a crime(s) you didn't commit and/or accept a punishment that you know you don't deserve,

OR

• Defend yourself at the cost of immense stress, money, and time and risk losing and getting an even harsher punishment

The reality of our justice system, in other words, is that prosecutors don't just have the power to act as "adversaries." To a certain extent, by being able to bring major pressure to try to force a plea deal, they also have the power to act as judge and jury.

In Aaron Swartz's case, the U.S. Attorney had charged Swartz with 13 criminal felonies, including wire fraud,and the usual kitchen-sink crimes that seem to get tossed into any computer-related case.

If Swartz were to have been convicted of even some of these felonies, he would likely have faced many years in prison.

So his downside risk was huge.

If Swartz had considered himself to have committed these 13 felonies, he would likely have pleaded guilty and cut a deal.

So it seems safe to assume that Swartz did not believe he was guilty of 13 felonies. And it also seems safe to assume that he was not offered a plea deal that he could live with—either because the prosecutor was demanding that he plead guilty to crimes he didn't think he had committed and/or because the prosecutor was offering a sentence that Swartz thought was too harsh.

So the key questions that need to be answered are these:

• Were the allegations and charges brought against Swartz reasonable in light of what he actually did?
• Did the prosecutor offer a reasonable plea deal to Swartz?

Or, as Lessig and others suggest, was this a case in which a prosecutor decided to make an example of Swartz in hopes of claiming a high-profile scalp and furthering his own career?

(It would also be helpful to know what Swartz's motivations were in downloading the academic papers. He wasn't going to make a personal financial gain, clearly, so the action appears to have been motivated by an idealistic view that "information should be free and freely available" or some other philosophy that is common in some parts of the tech community, especially among younger people.)

Regardless of the answers to these questions, Aaron Swartz's death is a tragedy, and nothing that happens in the future will change that. And no matter how he was treated by prosecutors, there is no way that they deserve all of the blame for what happened. (Life isn't fair, and many people have survived far greater unfairness and injustice than this—if that's indeed what happened here.)

But especially because Swartz is no longer here to defend himself, and because the U.S. Attorney is being partially blamed for his death, we need to get the answers to these questions.

We owe both sides that.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/aaron-swartzs-death-questions-2013-1#ixzz2HuSPefCv

Family of web activist Swartz blasts prosecutors over his death

nbcnews

Michael Francis Mcelroy / Zuma Press

Aaron Swartz, a noted Internet freedom ''hacktivist,'' died Friday at his apartment. He was 26. He was due to begin a federal trial next month on charges he downloaded millions of academic papers and meant to distribute them for free.

By Isolde Raftery, Staff Writer, NBC News

In the 24 hours since Aaron Swartz, a prodigy programmer turned Internet folk hero, hanged himself in his New York apartment, his family and a close friend and mentor have not only expressed devastation – they have been angry.

“Aaron's death is not simply a personal tragedy,” his family wrote in a statement. “It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.”

Swartz, who helped to create RSS at age 14, was indicted in 2011 on charges alleging he improperly downloaded more than four million articles from JSTOR, an online system for archiving academic journals. Swartz argued for transparency -- JSTOR costs more than $50,000 for an annual university subscription -- but court records show that the federal government believed he had, among other felonies, committed wire fraud and computer fraud and unlawfully obtained information from a protected computer.

JSTOR ultimately backed Swartz. But his family’s statement was unflinchingly critical of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Cambridge, Mass., university where Swartz had allegedly registered a ghost computer to download the records:

Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney's office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney's office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron and its own community's most cherished principles.

JSTOR paid tribute to Swartz in a statement on its front page, saying it regretted being drawn into the case because the organization's "mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of scholarly knowledge."

"At the same time, as one of the largest archives of scholarly literature in the world, we must be careful stewards of the information entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that content," the statement said. "To that end, Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled any civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011."  

Swartz’s family described him as entirely committed to social justice. He helped to defeat an Internet censorship bill and “he used his prodigious skills as a programmer and technologist not to enrich himself but to make the Internet and the world a fairer, better place.”

Swartz, 26, hanged himself in his New York apartment on Friday, his family confirmed. 

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor who described himself as a mentor and close friend to Swartz, took to Tumblr to express his own raw emotions. He wrote that Swartz's actions may not have been ethical, but the government's response was overly aggressive:

From the beginning, the government worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way. The “property” Aaron had “stolen,” we were told, was worth “millions of dollars” — with the hint, and then the suggestion, that his aim must have been to profit from his crime. But anyone who says that there is money to be made in a stash of ACADEMIC ARTICLES is either an idiot or a liar. It was clear what this was not, yet our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office told Reuters that officials wanted to respect the family's privacy and did "not feel it is appropriate to comment on the case at this time." Reuters and The Associated Press reported that they could not reach MIT for comment.

Lessig described Swartz as brilliant, funny, “a soul, a conscience, the source of a question I have asked myself a million times: What would Aaron think?”

He concluded his piece: “We need to get beyond the ‘I’m right so I’m right to nuke you’ ethics that dominates our time. That begins with one word: Shame.”

La crisis de la información y la crisis de la manipulación de la información

eichikawa

Emilio Ichikawa

Julian Assange es más potable para la sensiblería mediática de izquierda que para la política de izquierda. Tiene cierta “onda” contestataria y púber, pero siempre ha estado demasiado protegido y los revolucionarios le guardan sospecha. Sobre todo los revolucionarios en el poder. En su serie “Diálogos con Julian Assange”, que realizó para la agencia informativa transnacional RUSSIA TODAY (ya con oficinas en Miami y La Habana), tiene un capítulo muy plástico, el número 8, que realiza a un trío de “Cypherpunks” (lo traducen como “Criptopunks”), un movimiento que él considera derivado de su propio proyecto de Wikileaks. En el esquema mental de Assange no existe una lucha entre clases, ni entre norte y sur, ni entre ricos y pobres… Su versión de Buenos Vs. Malos la formula de esta manera: “Se está librando una guerra furiosa por el futuro de la sociedad. Es invisible para la mayoría de la gente. Por un lado están las redes de gobiernos y corporaciones, por otro lado están los Cypherpunks…” (que se les oponen en Internet).

Los invitados de Assange son tres jóvenes relajados que muestran harta confianza ante las cámaras. Uno viene de Alemania, otro de Francia y el último de los EEUU. Con un magnifico humor, se dedican a contar algunas de las travesuras que han hecho a gobiernos dictatoriales del mundo; entre ellas, el cambio de horario a una guardia palaciega que provocó que actuaran con impuntualidad. No hay ideas ni proyecto, pero sí una conciencia de superioridad por tener la capacidad de “utilizar” (consumir) tecnología con una destreza por encima de la media de usuarios; cosa que les permite alterar estructuras de la “vida real” allí donde esta “vida real” empata con ellos a través de la red.

Este es un buen ejemplo para ilustrar que en el activismo político actual es obsoleto el uso de Internet como un medio para exponer e intercambiar información, ideas e investigaciones historiográficas y sociológicas que a mediano plazo lesionen la ideología del rival. La llamada “batalla de ideas” en la red es un eufemismo como nombre y una táctica depreciada como arma cuando se compara con las acciones de las “ciberguerrillas” o “cibercomandos”, que tienen como “tarea” distorsionar y “burlar” lo real. De ahí su carácter simpático o “gracioso”. Es decir, para la confrontación ideológica, a corto plazo (que es lo que interesa al auditor), no se trata por ejemplo de crear plataformas como WIKIPEDIA o ECURED que divulguen investigaciones de los intelectuales orgánicos de sus respectivos bandos; es cuestión de falsear el contenido, bloquear la red, hackear los correos de los colaboradores, privar de servicio, etc.

Ni siquiera se trata ya de propiciar una información falsa o semi-veraz en el lugar de los hechos y luego amplificarla en una familia de webs, blogs, twitters, emisoras de radio y TV; es demasiado lento y por demás caro. Como se hizo en el caso de la enfermedad de Hugo Chávez (o de Clinton), antes de multiplicar un “twiit” creado en La Habana (o en Yew York) se opta por duplicar un sitio en las redes sociales en nombre de algún familiar y dar un parte sobre su salud que después multiplicarán en la red una decena de sitios debidamente seleccionados. Realmente no hay que tener un médico infiltrado en el CIMEQ ni un General infiltrado en el Pentágono, ni un agente en un grupo de Miami u otro en Palmarito de Cauto para “activar” opiniones.

Ya no hace falta crear una información falsa cuando se puede crear un falso informador. La información falsa del periodista real puede desmentirse al confrontarla con la realidad. Frente al irreal periodista virtual toda información, por muy falsa que sea, acaba siendo verdadera en su efecto.

--------------------
-ILUSTRACION: “Equilibrium”, by Karoll William: karollvisualarts.wordpress

Aaron Swartz, Reddit founder and Internet activist, 26, commits suicide

cnn

pbs.org

Aaron Swartz, the Internet political activist who co-wrote the initial specification for RSS, has committed suicide, a relative told CNN Saturday. He was 26.

"Great minds carry heavy burdens," wrote one user on Reddit, a popular social media website that Swartz helped develop and popularize following a merger in 2006.

Swartz also co-founded Demand Progress, a political action group that campaigns against Internet censorship.

A young prodigy, his passion pushed limits and landed him in legal troubles in recent years.

In 2011, he was arrested in Boston for alleged computer fraud and illegally obtaining documents from protected computers. He was later indicted from an incident in which he allegedly stole millions of online documents from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He pleaded not guilty in September, according to MIT's "The Tech" newspaper.

Two years earlier, the FBI investigated him after he released millions of U.S. federal court documents online. No charges were filed in that case.

Swartz, who completed a fellowship at Harvard's Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption, frequently blogged about his life, success and personal struggles. In some instances, he wrote about death.

"There is a moment, immediately before life becomes no longer worth living, when the world appears to slow down and all its myriad details suddenly become brightly, achingly apparent," he wrote in a 2007 post entitled "A Moment Before Dying."

'Hacktivist' group Anonymous defends hacking activity

Anonymous, or Anon, is a movement made up of a number of nameless internet activists from around the world. For many, the 'hacktivist' group has become the face of the new cyber-war against oppressive governments and all-powerful corporates. Others say the group's actions are reckless. Describing itself as "the freedom of speech, the freedom of information and the freedom of expression taken to a logical extreme," Anon says it breaks laws, but only for the greater good.

Al Jazeera's Scott Heidler reports.

Anonymous and the global correction

No corporate or government-owned cyberspace is immune from attack by the vast nebula of Anonymous, the non-hierarchichal online activist network bent on disrupting the websites and communication facilities of oppressive regimes, the hackers' group claims. Note: Pictured are gamers enjoying Berlin's Computer Games museum, not members of Anonymous [GALLO/GETTY]

The tendency to relate past events to what is possible in the present becomes more difficult as the scope of the geopolitical environment changes. It is a useful thing, then, to ask every once in a while if the environment has recently undergone any particular severe changes, thereby expanding our options for the future.

I hope they care of Castro's regime internet regime as well.

Full story

Anonymous and the global correction - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Entrevista a Joel García: Por el Levantamiento Popular en Cuba

Entrevista exclusiva a Joel García, creador de la página de Facebook: Por el Levantamiento popular en Cuba.(video)

A lesson from Egipt to Cubans ciber-activists/ Egypt Leaders Found ‘Off’ Switch for Internet

Epitaphs for the Mubarak government all note that the mobilizing power of the Internet was one of the Egyptian opposition’s most potent weapons. But quickly lost in the swirl of revolution was the government’s ferocious counterattack, a dark achievement that many had thought impossible in the age of global connectedness. In a span of minutes just after midnight on Jan. 28, a technologically advanced, densely wired country with more than 20 million people online was essentially severed from the global Internet.

Full story
Egypt Leaders Found ‘Off’ Switch for Internet

Las nuevas guerras cibernéticas del neocastrismo/ Eugenio Yáñez

Un trabajo que pone el tema en sus reales coordenadas.
___________________________________
Las nuevas guerras cibernéticas del neocastrismo
Eugenio Yáñez/ Cubanálisis-El Think-Tank

Para quien guste de las versiones heroicas o las películas de James Bond, creer que un video de una conferencia a altos oficiales del Ministerio del Interior cubano sobre las nuevas tecnologías de información y las redes sociales, realizada a mediados del año pasado, puede conocerse ahora gracias a supuestos duendes libertarios que lograron sustraerlo para darlo a conocer al mundo, es gratificante y entretenido.

Sin embargo, si vamos a pensar en cómo funcionan muchos de estos eventos en términos de realpolitik y trabajo operativo secreto, no puede descartarse que haya sido filtrada precisamente por el aparato, con intenciones nada inocentes.

Los que quieran jugar a Wikileaks para interpretar esta situación pueden hacerlo, pero no deberían olvidar que al eventual Julian Assange cubano que sorprendieran en un jueguito de tal naturaleza de seguro no lo van a acusar de sexo sin condón ni le van a fijar fianza para que pueda dormir en su casa. Porque se trata de Cuba, no de Inglaterra.

¿Paranoia de nuestra parte? Tal vez. Aunque en análisis de este tipo resulta mucha más virtud la contingente paranoia que los pecados mortales de ingenuidad o ignorancia que atenazan a tantos cuando comentan temas cubanos. Sobre todo cuando, con mentalidad de estrategas políticos del Parque del Dominó, pretenden analizar al régimen y su élite segurosa como una colección de idiotas, para quienes la represión se reduce al golpe y la gritería, como si se tratara de un vulgar servicio de inteligencia militar en una república bananera de América Latina o África.

Para quienes no se hayan enterado a estas alturas, el conferencista en el video exhibido en Internet, del cual ya se ha podido conocer su nombre y algunos datos generales de su perfil –lo cual no tiene la más mínima importancia en este análisis- no es un “agente”, sino un oficial de la seguridad especializado en las modernas tecnologías y redes sociales. No es lo mismo un agente que un oficial, pero éste no es lugar ni momento para explicarlo ahora.

Y tal vez con la rápida “identificación” del conferencista, los tan famosos ciber-contra-policías que pululan en la red le pueden haber hecho un gran favor a ese señor, pues tras haber sido “quemado” tan abiertamente podría solicitar que le asignaran sin demora una nueva vivienda en un barrio menos “conflictivo” o “peligroso” que San Miguel del Padrón, digamos Miramar o Nuevo Vedado, no Guanabacoa ni Arroyo Naranjo.

Tampoco la conferencia es una actividad de “los órganos de inteligencia” del régimen, sino de los órganos de contra-inteligencia, que no es lo mismo, aunque en idioma inglés todas estas actividades se identifiquen genéricamente como temas de “inteligencia”, y mucha prensa en español traduzca literalmente el embrollo sin detenerse a pensar. ¿Para qué pensar? Pero tampoco es éste ni momento ni lugar para dilucidar estos asuntos.

La conferencia fue video-grabada en un salón del Ministerio del Interior, con todas las reglas de seguridad establecidas para estos casos. Los camarógrafos no son free-lancers contratados el día anterior, ni cuentapropistas, sino segurosos confiables de la dirección técnica del aparato, que son sometidos a rigurosos controles y verificaciones continuos, y que con toda seguridad han filmado anteriormente bastantes eventos de este tipo, pero mucho más complejos y secretos que la conferencia de marras.

Por otra parte, esos videos no se guardan en la mochila para verlos en la casa cuando un recluta sale de pase, sino se mantienen convenientemente controlados en diversos locales sometidos a las reglas del trabajo operativo secreto, y para acceder a ellos hay que seguir numerosos controles.

Hoy en día, con las modernas tecnologías, es verdad que un video como ese que habría sido supuestamente “filtrado” por un James Bond tropical puede pasarse a un flash-drive y sacarse en un bolsillo, si alguien se decide a correr el riesgo y, además, se dan las condiciones para hacerlo. ¿Imposible? No.

Pero de ahí a aceptar esa única versión heroica como la fuente de tal video hay un gran trecho. Y quien intente una aventura de ese tipo debería saber, antes de hacerlo, que más temprano que tarde la pista llegará hasta él o ella, y que las consecuencias no van a ser nada convenientes para su salud.

Sin embargo, también vale preguntarse: ¿por qué este video habría sido filtrado intencionalmente por el aparato de seguridad cubano?

Varias razones podrían explicarlo:

·        En primer lugar, hay un mensaje muy claro: hacer saber a los eventuales contestatarios en el ciberespacio que “Big Brother” no solamente los vigila, sino que sabe como operan o pretenden operar

·        En segundo lugar, decirles que si piensan que con estas cosas escapan al control, deben saber que no pueden: quizás su mensaje electrónico no pueda ser controlado en algún momento, pero bastaría con saber que comunican con “el enemigo” para operar contra ellos

·        Y en tercer lugar, plantearles que si creen que los americanos son “los bárbaros que se las saben todas”, deberían enterarse de una vez por todas que también los que vigilan saben lo suficiente para enfrentarlos a ambos, y derrotarlos.

El conferencista del video presenta las cosas como si todo fuera el maligno designio del “enemigo imperialista”, cuando no se trata más que de natural evolución de la tecnología en la sociedad de la información, pero ello no se debe, como creen y enseguida declaran los ingenuos, a una supuesta ignorancia de los represores, sino al muy serio enfoque que realizan de la “situación operativa”.

Al fin y al cabo, para ellos la libertad de información no es un derecho humano básico, sino “una maniobra imperialista contra el poder del pueblo y para destruir a la revolución”. Por consiguiente, no logran ver las redes sociales como lo que realmente son, sino como redes ideológicas únicamente. En definitiva, para ellos “la historia de la humanidad hasta nuestros días es la historia de la lucha de clases”, como enseña el Manifiesto Comunista. Y si las redes son ideológicas, entonces son y tienen que ser parte de “la batalla”.

Por ello, el conferencista señala que toda esta estrategia comenzó en tiempos de George W Bush en el 2008 y se ha incrementado con Barack Obama posteriormente. En su paranoico esquema mental, los represores juegan con el “efecto Pigmalión”, la profecía autorrealizada. Tanto lo anuncian, y después lo “analizan”, que llegan a “demostrarlo”.

Si pudieran entender que la revolución tecnológica contemporánea coincide en el tiempo con la decadencia total del régimen, entrampado en un absoluto fracaso, y sin estrategias de modernización, no estarían actualmente dentro del aparato de la seguridad cubana, sino formando parte de la disidencia, el exilio, los indiferentes, los silenciosos, o la larga lista de prisioneros políticos o fusilados.

Pero su relativa incultura política no equivale a incompetencia o ineptitud para el desarrollo del trabajo operativo secreto,  como afirman quienes siguen considerando al aparato represivo cubano como una cohorte de incapaces o inmorales, sin motivaciones ideológicas. Por el contrario, han demostrado ser altamente sofisticados y efectivos.

Los altos mandos represivos saben que ya no tiene sentido ni razón pintar letreros contra el régimen en baños públicos, o reproducir llamamientos en mimeógrafo, cuando un blog, o un mensaje en twitter o facebook globalizan la información en segundos, de manera que las salvajadas de las brigadas de respuesta rápida contra las Damas de Blanco se ven en Australia o Noruega casi en tiempo real.

Dice el conferencista en el video que “el enemigo” incluye a los bloggers como categoría específica de la “contrarrevolución”, pero hay muchos que no se han dado cuenta de que en realidad es todo lo contrario: es el régimen totalitario quien los tiene que definir como “contrarrevolucionarios”, y se preocupa bastante, porque todavía no tiene la capacidad efectiva de controlarlos totalmente.

Por eso es que el video “filtrado” envía el mensaje muy claramente a blogueros actuando o en ciernes: los consideramos contrarrevolucionarios, y actuaremos en consecuencia.

Si los jenízaros del régimen fueran un poco más ecuánimes y menos emocionalmente obcecados en sus análisis podrían comprender que una parte de esos blogueros, lamentablemente, escriben continuamente tantas barrabasadas, que en vez de pretender silenciarlos o destruirlos tal vez deberían estimularlos a que continuaran por ese camino, pero quizás eso sería mucho pedirle al aparato. Su sofisticación no llega a tanto.

¿Por qué precisamente es ahora, en estos momentos, que se “filtra” ese video, que fue grabado aparentemente a mediados del año 2010? Curiosamente, cuando se anuncia que el norteamericano Alan Gross, detenido en Cuba desde hace catorce meses, será sometido a juicio y la fiscalía solicita veinte años de prisión. Y el señor Gross propiciaba el desarrollo de la internet y las redes sociales entre los cubanos.

Mientras los tunecinos despidieron al dictador Ben Alí, y cuando los egipcios intentan lo mismo con Hosni Mubarak, aunque en este caso no les ha resultado tan fácil, a pesar de los alborotos de El País en España, mientras yemenitas, marroquíes, jordanos, argelinos y sirios pretenden hacer lo mismo, las alarmas ya estaban activadas en Punto Uno y La Rinconada.

Sin embargo, no se dispararon ahora por temor a la eventualidad de un casi imposible “efecto contagio” en una Cuba sin árabes ni musulmanes, pues ya lo estaban desde mucho antes, porque el régimen sabe que las brutales medidas económicas de choque que está imponiendo para tratar de evitar el evidente naufragio pueden desencadenar en Cuba un huracán categoría cinco, de incalculables consecuencias.

Cuba no es un país propicio para que un Muhammad Al Bouazizi cubano vaya a decidir incinerarse en protesta por cualquier arbitrariedad policial, pero si en un ómnibus repleto de pasajeros en La Habana una mujer se queja de que “este tipo” que está a su lado la está “jamoneando”, un policía que viaja en el ómnibus decide intervenir, y hay un forcejeo o un galletazo, nadie sabe como puede terminar un incidente como ese.

De ese detonante, equivalente a un Timisoara tropical (la pequeña aldea rumana donde se desencadenó la caída de Ceasescu al tratar de detener al cura de la iglesia), podría quizás derivar hasta un verdadero “maleconazo”, más complejo e imprevisible que las versiones fantasiosas del de 1994 que cuentan algunos en Miami, porque la distancia y tiempo entre detonante y explosión en las actuales condiciones es insignificante.

No es que el régimen se preocupe seriamente por un peregrino llamado twittero desde la comodidad de la vieja Europa para que se produzca un levantamiento popular en Cuba, como pueden pensar algunos que definen el mundo a partir de su propio ombligo, pero sí le preocupa en serio que el eventual galletazo en la guagua y el tumulto posterior que se desate se puedan conocer en Vladivostok, Campinas, Constantine, Bamako, Colombo, Boston, Barcelona, San Pedro de Sula o Jatinonico en cuestión de minutos.

Porque de todas las tonterías que escribió Mao Zedong durante muchos años, quizás la más trascendente en estos momentos, al menos para la situación de Cuba, es que “una chispa puede incendiar toda la pradera”.

Por eso, lo que para casi todo el mundo sería no mucho más que una simple noticia sin demasiada importancia (una bronca en la guagua), para el régimen es un parte de guerra, guerra para la cual se ha preparado concienzudamente, y ya ha situado todas sus tropas en el ciberteatro de operaciones militares y trabajo operativo, desde la Universidad de Ciencias Informáticas (UCI) hasta cientos de blogueros y twitteros a su servicio dispersos por todo el país y en el extranjero.

No puede subestimarse al régimen en la guerra mediática, para la que siempre dispone de todos los recursos necesarios: ha logrado ganar la batalla de la opinión mundial contra “el criminal bloqueo imperialista”, y en estos momentos avanza significativamente en la otra batalla por la excarcelación de los cinco espías de la Red Avispa, disfrazados de héroes anti-terroristas. Aunque esta fría evaluación no resulte demasiado simpática a algunas personas.

Naturalmente, los altos oficiales que recibieron la conferencia no necesariamente deberán twittear o colgar posts en diferentes blogs, pero tienen que saber claramente que cualquier imberbe en cualquier momento con un teléfono celular puede ser hoy más dañino para el régimen que alguien que se enfrente a puñetazos con un represor de las brigadas de respuesta rápida.

Y aunque ellos directamente hace tiempo que no detienen personalmente a nadie, pues las estrellas en sus charreteras demuestran que todos son altos oficiales, algo así como la flor y nata de la contra-inteligencia cubana, están obligados a estar bien informados sobre las fuerzas, medios y recursos “del enemigo”, para poder dirigir a sus subordinados en la dirección correcta.

La “situación operativa” es muy compleja para el régimen en estos momentos:

§         Las medidas de ajuste económico tienen alto contenido explosivo y repercuten muy fuertemente en las posibilidades de subsistencia de la población, principalmente por el despido masivo de medio millón de trabajadores en tres meses, y otro más de medio millón en la cola, esperando, así como por la virtual eliminación de la libreta de abastecimientos

§         La relativa liberalización de las remesas desde Estados Unidos, que fue autorizada recientemente, se convierte en poderosa herramienta en manos de muchos cubanos que no tendrían que depender del régimen para subsistir

§         La corrupción generalizada a lo largo y ancho de todo el aparato de poder es cada vez más conocida y repudiada por la población

§         El aparato productivo está totalmente colapsado, las reservas financieras y el crédito disponible son raquíticos, aunque recientemente aparecieron “milagrosamente” 500 millones de dólares en efectivo para pagar a los italianos por su parte de acciones y lograr el control total de la compañía de telecomunicaciones ETECSA, porque el régimen considera las comunicaciones como factor estratégico de mantenimiento y conservación del poder

§         Los cubanos no sienten demasiada motivación ni confianza con relación a un régimen que promete demasiado y cumple poco, y continúan viendo en la salida definitiva del país, por cualquier medio, la vía de escape más expedita y confiable

§         Las posibilidades inmediatas o a mediano plazo de una distensión con Estados Unidos acaban de irse al piso con el anuncio del próximo juicio al norteamericano Alan Gross y la petición fiscal de veinte años de cárcel, maniobra más propia de Fidel Castro que del neocastrismo

§         La situación y estabilidad de Hugo Chávez en Venezuela, principal sostén económico del régimen, es cada vez más compleja y confusa, y existe el peligro latente de quedarse “colgados de la brocha” en cualquier momento si un gobierno alternativo en Venezuela decidiera retirar la escalera.

Con tan sombrías perspectivas, y una gerontocracia en el poder con más de setenta años de edad y cincuenta en ejercicio del totalitarismo, con resultados reales absolutamente desastrosos y una ineptitud colosal, e incapaz generacionalmente de entender el potencial de las nuevas tecnologías y las redes sociales, un solo post en un blog fuera de control, o un simple mensaje en twitter, a pesar de que se limite a 140 caracteres, son vistos como una amenaza demasiado peligrosa.

Y este enfoque del acontecimiento del video de la conferencia que ahora puede conocerse parece ser mucho más realista que cualquier versión demasiado romántica o heroica de un wikileaks cubano, con un suicida tropical filtrando tal video a riesgo de su vida y de su seguridad personal.

Los excesivamente románticos no necesitan aceptar esta versión nuestra: tienen todo su derecho a continuar soñando y jugando video-juegos. Al fin y al cabo, la realpolitik no debería ser ampliamente reconocida y aceptada: si lo fuera, muchos blogs y páginas web sobre Cuba sobrarían.

Quienes discrepen seriamente de este análisis están invitados desde siempre a expresar sus puntos de vista diferentes en estas mismas páginas, respetuosa y profesionalmente.

No nos consideramos iluminados. Sencillamente, pretendemos establecer una diferencia entre reproducir noticias y analizar información.

Nada más.

Los límites de la ciberdisidencia/ Ernesto Hernandez Busto

Los límites de la ciberdisidencia

Infiltrado Kaos en la red con exposicion de Posada Carriles

Lo siguiente se lo colaron a Kaos en la red en su seccion principal, y los cretinos todavia no lo han tumbado. Seguramente lo borraran ahorita pero uno nunca sabe si pueden leerlo al menos 10 o quiza 1000 personas. Granito a Granito iran nuestras realidades
--------------------------------------------------------

Destacadisimo Patriota Antifascista y Pintor Libre Expone su Obra en Miami

Muchas decadas luchando contra el fascismo implantado en la Patria de Todos expone y subasta parte de su obra artistica en la segunda patria de los cubanos y primera en sostener la economia de la isla

Patriota Martiano | Capital Cubana Libre | Hoy a las 22:29 | 41 lecturas | 3 comentarios

www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/destacadisimo-patriota-antifascista-pintor-libre-expone-obra-miami

El Destacado Patriota y Pintor Cubano

Posada Carriles suelto y sin vacunar: Expondrá sus “pinturas” en la Calle 8. Segun el Minrex
El destacado artista y patriotico luchador por las libertades y los derechos en la Patria de Todos expone nuevamente el 15 y 16 de enero de 2010.
http://embacu.cubaminrex.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=14599
6 Octubre 2009

El terrorista Luis Posada Carriles inaugurará este jueves en Miami una exposición-venta, con carácter privado, de sus supuestas “pinturas” en la galería CubaOcho, de Miami.

El objetivo es recaudar dinero para financiar los gastos en la ciudad del terrorista, libre en Miami, a pesar de la solicitud de extradición a Venezuela que pesa en su contra por ser el autor intelectual del sabotaje contra un avión civil, que se precipitó al mar frente a las costas de Barbadas el 6 de octubre de 1976, con 73 personas a bordo. No hubo sobrevivientes.

La galería que expondrá las “obras” hace llamar “CubaOcho, Art and Research Center”. Está ubicada en la 1465 SW de la Calle 8, de Miami, y es dirigida por un cubano, Roberto Ramos, de 44 años, ex campeón de karate, que sustrajo de Cuba valiosas obras de arte en 1992, año en que salió clandestinamente del país.

En una nota que publica el St. Petersburg Times, Ramos comenta que en diciembre de 2008, abrió CubaOcho, un centro cultural al cruzar la calle del parque del dominó en la Calle 8. “Mi meta es recuperar la época de glamour de Cuba”, le dijo al St. Petersburg Times en mayo de este año.

La pregunta que se cae de la mata, como se dice en buen cubano, qué entenderá este supuesto coleccionista por “glamour”. ¿Esas pintura de principiante con Parkinson o el olor a C-4 que acompaña al “pintor” y a sus socios terroristas?

Más información:

América Latina

Antifascismo

Cuba

Venezuela

Comentarios (3)

de los comentarios

#1.- Asi Veo Las Cosas de Nuestra Patria

Viva Cuba Libre|15-01-2010 22:43

Mi admiracion y solidaridad con este patriota y pintor tan destacado y sin embargo tan vilipendiado y atacado por la dictadura que destruye a Cuba

Valoración: 0 | Avisar provocación

#2.- Ser Libre Me Permite Valorar la Realidad

Cubano-Español Libre|15-01-2010 22:45

Sin dudas es uno de los luchadores mas destacados por la libertad y contra el fascismo monarquico kaxtrizta imperante por medio siglo.

Valoración: 0 | Avisar provocación

#3.- esto es libertad !!! q asesinos se pasen por el mundo

jajaj|15-01-2010 23:47

esta jente asusta muchacho tremendo terrorista !!!!!!!

Valoración: 0 | Avisar provocación