Feed on
Posts
Comments



Interesting

How can they tell? I mean, lots of producers lie about whether they’re selling GMO products. Will they check? Stay tuned:

Super store giant, Target, has announced they will be adding a new brand to their shelves—one that is made with natural health in mind. Called Simply Balanced, the brand will be on shelves soon and will phase out genetically modified ingredients by the end of 2014.

According to a press release on the Target official website, the initial roll-out will include a selection of foods that are 40% organic and the majority of them will not contain GMOs. GMOs will be completely absent from the ingredients within the next year and a half.

This, they say, is in an effort to align with the “increasing demand for healthy food products at a great price.” The Simply Balanced brand will also exclude other harmful ingredients while striving to provide consumers with a natural and affordable store-brand option.

Via DUI attorney Kush Arora.

Bleg

UPDATE: Thanks for the help, everyone. I just paid it.

I just got my yearly web hosting bill for the site, due immediately and I’m really, really short this month, due to several unexpected expenses. If you can throw a few bucks in the till to keep the lights on, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks for any help!

Memory lane

Here’s Sy Hersh back in 2006, telling us the NSA was listening to our actual phone calls:

Last December, the Times reported that the N.S.A. was listening in on calls between people in the United States and people in other countries, and a few weeks ago USA Today reported that the agency was collecting information on millions of private domestic calls. A security consultant working with a major telecommunications carrier told me that his client set up a top-secret high-speed circuit between its main computer complex and Quantico, Virginia, the site of a government-intelligence computer center. This link provided direct access to the carrier’s network core—the critical area of its system, where all its data are stored. “What the companies are doing is worse than turning over records,” the consultant said. “They’re providing total access to all the data.”

“This is not about getting a cardboard box of monthly phone bills in alphabetical order,” a former senior intelligence official said. The Administration’s goal after September 11th was to find suspected terrorists and target them for capture or, in some cases, air strikes. “The N.S.A. is getting real-time actionable intelligence,” the former official said.

The N.S.A. also programmed computers to map the connections between telephone numbers in the United States and suspect numbers abroad, sometimes focussing on a geographic area, rather than on a specific person—for example, a region of Pakistan. Such calls often triggered a process, known as “chaining,” in which subsequent calls to and from the American number were monitored and linked. The way it worked, one high-level Bush Administration intelligence official told me, was for the agency “to take the first number out to two, three, or more levels of separation, and see if one of them comes back”—if, say, someone down the chain was also calling the original, suspect number. As the chain grew longer, more and more Americans inevitably were drawn in.

FISA requires the government to get a warrant from a special court if it wants to eavesdrop on calls made or received by Americans. (It is generally legal for the government to wiretap a call if it is purely foreign.) The legal implications of chaining are less clear. Two people who worked on the N.S.A. call-tracking program told me they believed that, in its early stages, it did not violate the law. “We were not listening to an individual’s conversation,” a defense contractor said. “We were gathering data on the incidence of calls made to and from his phone by people associated with him and others.” Similarly, the Administration intelligence official said that no warrant was needed, because “there’s no personal identifier involved, other than the metadata from a call being placed.”

But the point, obviously, was to identify terrorists. “After you hit something, you have to figure out what to do with it,” the Administration intelligence official told me. The next step, theoretically, could have been to get a suspect’s name and go to the FISA court for a warrant to listen in. One problem, however, was the volume and the ambiguity of the data that had already been generated. (“There’s too many calls and not enough judges in the world,” the former senior intelligence official said.) The agency would also have had to reveal how far it had gone, and how many Americans were involved. And there was a risk that the court could shut down the program.
Continue Reading »

Playing games

Via Talking Points Memo. They don’t even want you to know the definitions, because then you’ll know how they’re misleading you:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has taken the unusual step of actively blocking a former committee aide from talking to TPM about congressional oversight of the intelligence community. At issue isn’t classified sources and methods of intelligence gathering but general information about how the committee functions — and how it should function. The committee’s refusal to allow former general counsel Vicki Divoll to disclose unclassified information to a reporter was the first and only time it has sought to block her from making public comments, based on her experience as one of its most senior aides, since she left Capitol Hill in 2003.

The committee’s decision comes amid fallout from leaks of classified National Security Agency documents by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In light of the Snowden revelations about the country’s secret surveillance programs, TPM was reporting a story based on interviews with members of Congress and current and former aides about the successes and pitfalls of intelligence oversight on Capitol Hill. The goal was to answer some basic questions for readers: How does a classified process differ from public oversight? What challenges do the combination of government secrecy, classified briefings, and strict committee protocols present to legislators trying to control the nation’s sprawling intelligence apparatus?

Occupy Brazil

It sure seems contagious, doesn’t it? Everywhere but here:

SÃO PAULO, Brazil — Protesters showed up by the thousands in Brazil’s largest cities on Monday night in a remarkable display of strength for an agitation that had begun with small protests against bus-fare increases, then evolved into a broader movement by groups and individuals irate over a range of issues including the country’s high cost of living and lavish new stadium projects.

The growing protests rank among the largest and most resonant since the nation’s military dictatorship ended in 1985, with demonstrators numbering into the tens of thousands gathered here in São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city, and other large protests unfolding in cities like Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, Curitiba, Belém and Brasília, the capital, where marchers made their way to the roof of Congress.

Sharing a parallel with the antigovernment protests in Turkey, the demonstrations in Brazil intensified after a harsh police crackdown last week stunned many citizens. In images shared widely on social media, the police here were seen beating unarmed protesters with batons and dispersing crowds by firing rubber bullets and tear gas into their midst.

“The violence has come from the government,” said Mariana Toledo, 27, a graduate student at the University of São Paulo who was among the protesters on Monday. “Such violent acts by the police instill fear, and at the same time the need to keep protesting.”

ROFLMAO

Funny or Die does Michele Bachmann’s retirement:

Rand and the stoners

Dude, he thinks you’re a bunch of slackers!

And in related news, Florida just banned bongs.

(Via medical malpractice attorney John Yannone.)

See?

Microsoft really IS evil.

(Thanks to Karin Porter.)

Yep

Time to turn the spies back into government employees.

Taking a stand!

Hey, pretend he’s a bank!

Barack Obama addressed what he described as the public “ruckus” over the leaked National Security Agency surveillance documents on Monday, indicating that the US authorities would pursue extradition from Hong Kong of the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In his first public comments in 10 days about the NSA disclosures, Obama also said he had set an oversight board made up of independent citizens and the ordered the declassification of documents relating to surveillance to allow the public to see the broader context.

The president, who is attending the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, was speaking on PBS’s Charlie Rose programme. Asked about Snowden, who remains free in Hong Kong and who took part in an online Guardian Q&A on Monday, the president said: “The case has been referred to the DOJ for criminal investigation … and possible extradition. I will leave it up to them to answer those questions.”

Thanks, Ed Tayter.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

eXTReMe Tracker