William Binney, NSA Whistleblower - National Security Agency (NSA)
NSA Whistleblower William Binney has repeatedly reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) places surveillance on almost all American citizens. Further, NSA Whistleblower William Binney reported on March 10, 2017 that the secret intelligence agencies work with the local police to spy on citizens and conduct corruption. NSA Whistleblower’s exact words are:
Video 4:37 minute mark
“When you marry the intelligence agencies – the secret intelligence agencies - with the police – which is what they’re doing – you end up with a police state and a secret police and that’s exactly what we got.”
Carpenter v. United States No. 16-402, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
OPINION: It has been reported this 2018 decision is the most important Fourth Amendment ruling of the 21st century. And that
is not taking into account that these cell towers are likely being used for abusive and criminal purposes against innocent
Targeted Individuals. Or, as the ruling was a significant break from earlier decisions, did Chief Justice John Roberts take that
The United States Supreme Court on June 22, 2018 ruled in a landmark decision that the police and federal authorities cannot use Cell Tower data, unless they get a warrant, overturning the unchallenged precedent, now requiring probable cause of criminal activity instead of the government showing of mere “reasonable grounds.”
It should be noted the fact that it was the liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan that voted to protect privacy and make law enforcement get a warrant to use these cell towers. The court's four conservative justices — Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — adamantly dissented, each writing separately to indicate their strong disagreement. The Chief Justice joined the four liberal justices for a 5-4 decision. Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that cellphone location information is a "near perfect" tool for government surveillance, analogous to an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet.” “We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information,”
The Constitution must take account of vast technological changes, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, noting that digital data can provide a comprehensive, detailed — and intrusive — overview of private affairs that would have been impossible to imagine not long ago. Chief Roberts continued, “its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.”
Jewel v. National Security Agency, et al., 08-cv-04373
United States District Court For The Northern District of California, Oakland Division
Edward Snowden Declaration - 31 October 2018
I, Edward J. Snowden, do hereby declare:
1. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the following.
2. From approximately 2009 to 2013, I was employed by Dell, and thereafter in 2013 by Booz Allen Hamilton.
3. In the course of my employment by Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, I worked on project for the National Security agency (NSA).
4. During the course of my employment by Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, I worked at NSA facilities. I had access to NSA files and I
became familiar with various NSA documents. One of the NSA documents I became familiar with is entitled ST-09-0002
Working Draft, Office of The Inspector General, National Security Agency, dated March 24, 2009. I read its contents carefully
during my employment. I have a specific and strong recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the
government had been conducting illegal surveillance.
= = = = =
The case was initially dismissed in federal district court for lack of standing and was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and sent the case back to the Northern District of California. To show standing at this stage, the plaintiffs need NSA data to show that their communications were collected as part of the surveillance programs they are challenging—the data that the restraining order covered.
= = = = =
In July 2013, the court rejected the government’s “state secrets” argument, ruling that any properly classified details can be litigated under the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court did dismiss some of our statutory claims, but the other claims, including that the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, continue.
NSA Contractor Edward Snowden's statement transcript, via WikiLeaks, at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport. July 12, 2013
Snowden reiterated his view that U.S. cyber programs are "illegal" and "immoral," framing his leaks as a "moral decision." He also repeated a 1946 finding of the Nuremburg Tribunal, which tried war criminals from Nazi Germany and established principles of international law:
Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.
It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.
I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.
That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.
Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.
This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.
If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.