ICWATCH is a project to collect and analyze resumes of people working in the intelligence community. People working for intelligence contractors, the military, and intelligence agencies frequently mention secret codewords and surveillance programs in public resumes. These resumes are useful for uncovering new surveillance programs, learning more about known codewords, identifying which companies help with which surveillance programs, examining trends in the intelligence community, and more.

https://transparencytoolkit.org/project/icwatch/

The use of armed drones by the United States, both within the conflict zones of Iraq and Syria, and further afield in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, continues to be characterized by minimal public transparency, as the recent report, “Out of the Shadows,” released by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic and the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies, makes clear. While a limited amount of information was finally disclosed at the very end of the Obama administration, the legal and policy rules governing the program remain opaque. Detail on individual strikes and casualty figures is lacking, internal CIA decision-making remains highly secretive, and the coverage of accountability procedures in place to respond to unlawful strikes is patchy at best.

The report is a salutary reminder that, despite the wide-ranging armed drone campaign having been in place for well over a decade, and having greatly grown in scope since the rise of ISIL/Daesh, fundamental questions remain as to how strikes are legally justified and how rigorous the U.S. government’s monitoring of these lethal activities really is.

But this lack of transparency regarding the legal and practical considerations underpinning the use of drones is hardly confined to the U.S. The United Kingdom’s participation in drone warfare, both through its own strikes carried out by the U.K.’s Royal Air Force (RAF) and through the U.K.’s involvement in the U.S. program, is also largely hidden from the public.

https://www.justsecurity.org/42935/hidden-public-united-kingdoms-drone-warfare/

The NYPD is notorious for flouting the New York State Freedom of Information Law for even the most routine requests about police activity, contracts, and policies. Regarding surveillance technology, the department has been or is being sued for refusing to release information about facial recognition software, its use of predictive policing software, controversial X-ray vans, and the “mosque raking” program that placed the city’s Muslim communities under mass surveillance. Most recently, the local news channel NY1 sued the NYPD for footage from officers’ body-worn cameras, which are being introduced to precincts throughout the city this year. The police demanded $36,000 to release the footage.

The NYPD also recently invoked the Glomar response — the FBI’s famous “we cannot confirm or deny” construction — in response to requests for public records. It represents a bold new frontier in opacity for New York state’s open records laws, which are supposed to require affirmative or negative responses.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/nypd-surveillance-post-act-lies-misinformation-transparency/

Earlier today journalist Matthew Chayes reported that NYPD Deputy Commissioner John Miller called the department “the most transparent municipal police department in the world” in testimony before New York City Council.

In light of this rather bold claim regarding an agency routinely ranked among the worst in the state regarding openness and access, we thought we’d dig up some examples of the NYPD’s rather unique take on transparency over the years.

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/jun/14/five-examples-nypd-transparency/



var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

In the final days and weeks of the Obama Administration, intelligence officials took steps to promote increased transparency and made several noteworthy disclosures of intelligence policy records.

By Steven Aftergood Secrecy News 1-22-17

On January 9, DNI James Clapper signed a new version of Intelligence Community Directive 208, now titled “Maximizing the Utility of Analytic Products.” The revised directive notably incorporates new instructions to include transparency as a consideration in preparing intelligence analyses.

Thus, one way of “maximizing utility,” the directive said, is to “Demonstrate Transparency”:

Read more »

var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Last month, Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, arguably the leading authority on the Clinton administration’s dalliance with UFOs in the Nineties, condensed his research into an ebook called The Clinton UFO Storybook: ET Politics in The White House. It’s gotten a little buzz here and there, The Washington Times, Coast to Coast AM, nothing major, despite the fact that big-media outfits like The New York Times and The Washington Post weren’t shy about rehashing the two-decade old story earlier this year. “In the end nothing much changed,” states Cameron in an email to De

By Billy Cox De Void 7-28-16

Void, reflecting on the tepid critical feedback. “People are still busy chasing stories about the latest light in the sky. I thought it might take off but not too surprised it didn’t.”

As Hillary Clinton prepares to accept the Democratic nomination for POTUS tonight, however, Cameron looks back on his long investigation – an investigation that ultimately provided the backdrop for informed queries into HRC’s curiosity about UFOs – with at least a measure of satisfaction. “The biggest thrill of the whole thing was the incident that got me to do the book,” he notes. “That was the statement that Hillary made to (New Hampshire newspaper reporter Draymond) Steer in 2007 telling him that the most requested FOIA item at the Clinton Library was UFOs. At that point I had actually given all my Clinton documents away thinking that waiting for a break from the White House was a big waste of time. When she referenced my FOIAs I thought, ‘Wow they are actually paying attention.’”

Anyhow, given the imminent history-making occasion in Philadelphia, De Void can’t help but flash back to a weird and futile email exchange, beginning in 2012, with the man President Clinton dispatched to prowl around for UFO records 20 years ago. Like some Kung Fu zenmaster, former associate Attorney General Webb Hubbell resisted De Void’s email quest for details with an enigmatic reply: “The answers to all your questions will be revealed.” (???) He batted back all subsequent questions with indifference.

Well, a few weeks ago, looking to promote his latest murder-mystery thriller, Hubbell discharged yet another email blast to media outlets. And with all the enthusiasm of his Confederate ancestors’ assault on Cemetery Ridge, De Void decided to make one more last-gasp pass at the sphinx.

To Webb Hubbell, 7/28/16, 10:29 a.m.: OK, just for the sake of due diligence, I’ll be happy to promote your book if you’ll tell me about your attempts to learn more about UFOs under the Clinton administration. Thanks (again) for your consideration. Regards, bcox

To Billy Cox, 7/28/16, 10:52 a.m.: When Hillary is elected she says she will reveal all I discovered. Your answers are near. W.

To Webb Hubbell, 7/28/16, 11:01 a.m.: I’m not entirely certain she actually said that. Is this something you know for a fact, or just something you believe to be true?

To Billy Cox, 7/28/2016, 11:07 a.m.: Only what I have read. W.

To Webb Hubbell, 7/28/16, 11:11 a.m.: No desire to go on record to see if it will square with what she ultimately delivers? It would make a great yardstick.

To Billy Cox, 7/28/16, 11:13 a.m.: They have the right to decide first. I’ll decide what to do after the election. W.

To Webb Hubbell, 7/28/16, 11:15 a.m.: Well, OK, appreciate the feedback. Keep me in mind when/if you decide to go into detail. Thanks.

To Billy Cox, 7/28/16, 11:19 a.m.: Will do. W.

And the check’s in the mail, the only TV I watch is PBS, I can get another 20 miles on empty, we’ll get right on it, he’s never bitten anyone before, it’s supposed to make that noise, we can still be good friends, etc. etc.
Read more »

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Seriously, man, what does John Podesta know about the national character that we don’t? The Clinton machine has opened a massive lead over Bernie Sanders and is steamrolling toward the Democratic nomination. No reason to go off-topic, no reason to tweak the game plan, and certainly no reason to give political adversaries additional targets, not with the Justice Department and the FBI poring over Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails in search of illegalities. This is when you coast on autopilot and stick with the talking points.

By Billy Cox De Void 4-4-16

And yet, this week, HRC’s campaign manager went and did it again. Little green men, space aliens, beam me up – Podesta didn’t say any of those things but that’s the funhouse door he opened when he went on record, once more, about bringing transparency to federal UFO records. Granted, he gave the interview to KLAS-TV in Las Vegas, where George Knapp is the only investigative mainstream broadcast reporter in America who’s got their *#@! together when it comes to covering The Great Taboo. And Podesta took responsibility/blame for the remarks Clinton made in December about wanting to “get to the bottom” of the UFO mystery

“I think I’ve convinced her,” Podesta said in an interview that aired Tuesday, “that we need an effort to kind of go look at that and to declassify as much as we can so that more people can have their legitimate questions answered. And more attention and more discussion about unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people who are in public life, who are serious about this, being ridiculed.”

Podesta’s UFO offensive is so unprecedented and counterintuitive that De Void can’t even come up with an analogy. There’s no demographic constituency here, no political capital, certainly no way to monetize this elephant in the room. The only parallel that comes to mind is hypothetical, like if, say, Walter Mondale had campaigned for legalized weed in 1984 against Mr. Morning in America. But even weed had a libertarian constituency during the notorious prison-swelling Just Say No era. And the last time De Void bothered to look, the free-marketplace-of-ideas Cato Institute ran like a firehosed monkey when confronted with the prospect of treating UFOs as a legitimate political issue.

The dialogue Podesta advocates is so revolutionary, in fact, its realization might even challenge the anthropocentric conceits we use to define ourselves. In the groundbreaking 2008 Political Theory journal essay “Sovereignty and the UFO,” Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall argue that such a sober reassessment could prove more subversive than anyone predicts.

“The ontological threat is that even if the ETs were benign, their confirmed presence would create tremendous pressure for a unified human response, or world government,” they write. “The sovereign identity of the modern state is partly constituted in and through its difference from other such states, which gives modern sovereignty its plural character. Any exteriority that required subsuming this difference into a global sovereignty would threaten what the modern state is, quite apart from the risk of physical destruction.”

Well now, there’s an image. And a remote one, at this point. On the other hand, maybe Podesta understands more about our capacity to manage new ideas than we’ve been allowed to demonstrate. Maybe smearing someone as a “UFO believer” doesn’t reap the same dividends it used to; curiously, no one has tried to weaponize Podesta’s agenda against HRC. At least, not yet. Which is weird, because that’s the obvious play here. Maybe the GOP is too busy fussing over the size of Donald Trump’s schlong to unleash the Little Green Men noise right now.

Either way, a veteran political strategist has given the press a license to ask questions without fear of stigma. But whether the media has the smarts for it – that’s like giving a cigarette lighter to a 7-year-old and telling him to act responsibly.
Read more »

Tweet!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

De Void’s UFO psychodrama with President Clinton’s former associate Attorney General Webster “Webb” Hubbell briefly defied rigor mortis last week in yet another round of pointless emails. For latecomers to this adventure of the mind, here’s the cheat sheet first: Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Little Rock mayor, and Rose Law Firm partner with Hillary Clinton in the 1970s, Hubbell joined the Clinton Justice Department in 1993. The erstwhile Razorback offensive tackle resigned in 1994 during a tax fraud investigation, which produced an indictment and a conviction. After pulling time in the clanger, Hubbell in his 1997 autobiography Friends In High Places dropped a weird little teaser about how No. 42 assigned him to gather previously undisclosed information about UFOs and the JFK assassination. Webb wrote he didn’t have any luck, and he let it go at that. But his claims begged for elucidation.

By Billy Cox De Void 2-26-16

In 2012, with a former CIA agent stating he discovered a smoking-gun cache of Roswell evidence in the Agency’s archives in 1995, De Void contacted Hubbell for a response. What followed was a protracted and bizarre exchange that – fshhzzt! – simply fizzled out like a little party balloon. Still, De Void continued to receive Webb’s email blasts because he’s writing books now, nonfiction this time, thrillers evidently. Earlier this month, I got another one touting the upcoming release of quote “the next Jack Patterson Thriller, A Game of Inches, which comes out in May.”

So what the hell, right?

To Webb Hubbell, 2/17/16, 4:18 p.m.: How about a comment or two on the Hillary/Podesta advocacy for transparency on UFOs?

Two minutes later …

To Billy Cox, 2/17/16, 4:20 p.m.: That’s a good idea. W

WTF?

To Webb Hubbell, 2/17/16, 4:21 p.m.: Seriously, it could help promote your book.

To Billy Cox, 2/17/16, 5:19 p.m.: I’m serious. good idea. W

OK dude. Don’t blow it. Don’t come off all lovesick and craven. Let him sleep on it.

To Webb Hubbell, 2/18/16, 9:13 a.m. Great. Should we do a phoner, or would you prefer a list of email questions?

No reply. But it’s Thursday. Give him the weekend to climb into the attic and lug down all those boxloads of notes.

The weekend comes and goes. Monday comes and goes. Now it’s Tuesday.

To Webb Hubbell, 2/23/16, 10:00 a.m.: Cold feet? I get that. Still – it’s time this country had the long overdue adult conversation. I hope you’ll be a part of it.

To Billy Cox, 2/23/16, 10:13 a.m.: Don’t have cold feet. Its not March yet. W.

Hunh? Doesn’t the weather start to warm up in March? Maybe he’s in the Southern Hemisphere. Either way, screw it, the bobber’s still twitching.

To Webb Hubbell, 2/23/16, 1:26 p.m.: OK, here goes: Was there any context for your assignment to look for UFO records? In other words, were you aware of any longstanding interest by the Clintons in the phenomenon before they got to the White House? Did you ask why President was interested in this subject?

Do you remember exactly when President Clinton initially contacted you about researching UFOs/JFK? Was the assignment a surprise to you, or had you sort of been expecting it? Personally, I might’ve thought someone with military or intelligence credentials would be better positioned to dig for this stuff.

Did you ask for an intelligence briefing on the subject? If so, who did that for you and what were you told? How much time did you devote to your research? Was it just you or did you have staffers helping out? With what agencies or individuals did you consult? Did you check in with John Gibbons at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy? How much did you know about Laurance Rockefeller’s lobbying efforts to bring transparency to this issue? Any interaction with John Podesta on UFOs during this period? When you stated you didn’t find anything, was it because there was nothing there, or was it because you ran into a wall of classification? Were you satisfied with the access you got? When and why did you conclude your search? And how surprised are you today that Podesta and Hillary aren’t afraid to talk about an issue that most politicians wouldn’t touch without strapping themselves into hazmat suits?

Evidently the Clinton library has released more than 7,000 pages of files on the JFK assassination. Were you surprised by anything you discovered on that end?

Again, I’ll be happy to mention your book.

No reply. He’s probably deliriously ecstatic about having his literary endeavors promoted in De Void. I’ll give him a night to steady his nerves. He’ll probably have something waiting for me in my inbox first thing in the morning.

To Webb Hubbell, 2/24/16, 3:05 p.m.: OK, just for the sake of clarity, you were just pulling my chain, right?

The day goes by. Then another day. And another. This is soooo not the way to get De Void to rave about the next Jack Patterson Thriller.
Read more »

Google's new tool displays the number of "user requests" that Google received from various governments from July to December 2009. According to the tool, the company received thousands of such requests from the U.S. government during that period — thousands of requests digging into the intimate details of individual lives that are captured in emails, search histories, reading and viewing logs, and the like. And if Google is receiving thousands of requests every six months, how many more are going out to Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook and the thousands of other online services that we use every day?

But that number may understate the actual case for three reasons. First, Google's tool only tracks requests that are received as part of an official criminal investigation — which would exclude, for example, the infamous DOJ subpoena asking for millions of users' search queries, something that was not part of an official criminal investigation. Second, Google's tool only counts the number of requests it receives, not the number of user records that were requested. So that single DOJ subpoena seeking millions of records would only counts as a single request! Finally, Google is barred by law from disclosing the number of requests it receives pursuant to National Security Letters, although we know that upwards of 50,000 of these secret government requests are issued every year. All told, the requests that show up in Google's tool are just the tip of the iceberg.

Read full article »»

Government requests directed to Google and YouTube »»

It's no mystery that money has become a key factor in American politics. But until now it's been difficult to show voters just how closely politicians hew to the interests of their political patrons and campaign donors.

MAPLight.org, a non-partisan web site, hopes to change that. The site uses three data sets to illustrate money's influence over elected officials: campaign contributions, voting records, and the supporting and opposing interests of a bill.

Read full article »»

MAPLight.org »»

By Wayne Madsen

WMR has learned from a veteran member of the White House Press Corps that the Obama administration has made it known through White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and other White House Communications officials that certain questions posed by the reporters who cover the White House are definitely off-limits. On the banned list are any questions about Obama’s post-Columbia University employment with Business International Corporation (BIC), a global financial and political information company that WMR previously reported was a front for the CIA.

Read full article »»

The Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal secret identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. In August, a federal judge ordered that the information be released, responding to a request by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

Read full article »»

President Obama will maintain a lid of secrecy on millions of pages of military and intelligence documents that were scheduled to be declassified by the end of the year, according to administration officials.

The missed deadline spells trouble for the White House’s promises to introduce an era of government openness, say advocates, who believe that releasing historical information enforces a key check on government behavior. They cite as an example the abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Cold War, including domestic spying and assassinations of foreign officials, that were publicly outlined in a set of agency documents known as the “family jewels.’’

Read full article »»

Transparency International has just released its 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index, the preeminent, annual study of governmental corruption levels around the world.

Read full article »»

Corruption Perceptions Index 2009 »»

After nearly a quarter century of uncovering government secrets, the National Security Archive today opens its virtual doors with a new behind-the-scenes blog, Unredacted: The National Security Archive, Unedited and Uncensored. The Archive’s own experience with thousands of Freedom of Information Act and Mandatory Declassification Review requests provides a wealth of data and fundamental lessons that we hope to share with you.

Read full article »»

Unredacted: The National Security Archive, Unedited and Uncensored»»

In an affidavit, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta defended the classification of records describing the contents of the 92 videotapes, their destruction by the CIA in 2005 and what he called "sensitive operational information" about the interrogations.

The forced disclosure of such material to the American Civil Liberties Union "could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security by informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed," Panetta argued.

Although Panetta's statement is in keeping with his previous opposition to the disclosure of other information about the CIA's interrogation policies and practices during George W. Bush's presidency, it represents a new assertion by the Obama administration that the CIA should be allowed to keep such information secret. Bush's critics have long hoped that disclosure would pinpoint responsibility for actions they contend were abusive or illegal.

Washington Post:CIA Urges Judge To Keep Bush-Era Documents Sealed »»