FBI Phone Surveillance in Australia?

Yes I have seen it.  Let’s have a look at the world of surveillance.  I smile when I think of this as how futile it is to try and control the whole world or sift for potential enemies. I am with Patch Adams, let’s sift for friendship.  If all the money that was put into fear based technologies was funding peace education, peace building, cross cultural understanding, critical inquiry, education, food distribution, adventure, shared understanding – imagine the world. It would not need intelligence communities as we would work together as one family in one world. However, today they are still believing that control is power and power is knowledge. It is in awareness that true power arises.

I recall  having 80 hits to my website years ago by FBI counter-terrorism. I am a peace maker.  How is a counter-terrorism unit coming to me.Well I published two interviews – one was Major Douglas Rokke who was a whistle blower heading the Depleted Uranium Project in the Pentagon. He was speaking out about the spreading of depleted uranium in munitions, how it impacted troops, locals and was highly toxic. He was letting people know.  Somehow this was a threat rather than an opportunity to face the damage of uranium and as a responsible global citizen clean it up for future generations.  This is part of REAL HOPE – Responsibility.  The second was Scott Ritter the senior weapons inspector in Iraq at the time who was a whistle blower on illegal wars of aggression e.g. Iraq. Of course anyone exploring this now can see how Dick Cheney’s company Halliburton made a lot of money out of security companies protecting interests and various other profit making deals.  There are issues of those at the highest levels having relationships with others to make money outside of official governance.  There were vested interests in destroying Iraq (and its people), issues of oil and profits, destabilisation of uncooperative regimes (is this democratic?).  Nothing about freedom and democracy in reality for these look like friendship and shared power and the vote. This is not to say that Saddam was not brutal, he was but we cannot create peace through war.  We can only find peace when we ourselves (as nation states) are at peace with ourselves rather than fearfully looking for the next threat, this is hard work!

So what is the FBI doing on a foreign nationals website?  I did write to Robert Mueller a decade ago (still in the job I note), but he didn’t respond.  I told him to contact me.  I am over the secrecy issue, I wish people would get on the phone, stop staring/monitoring, analysing people without their permission from afar but choose to actually start dialogue and work out differences and embrace what you fear with courage instead of suppressing what is perceived as threatening. This is a military strategy and in fact it actually was encouraged in the Cold War so both sides knew what the other was doing. there was an understanding that they did need to know so they didn’t make mistakes.  So visibility was actually safety.  However, this is not the same wartime situation when we are talking about civilians and privacy laws, as the Senator in the US has wisely raised.  I myself have been surveilled and I know that the intelligence gathered on me was wrong as a negative situation arose out of it.  I was not given any opportunity to defend myself or explain anything, instead my rights were revoked.  This was done in a civilian context with impunity.  So I am all for openness, visibility, dialogue and community consultation if we seriously are in a democracy.  If we are not then make it clear we are not so we know we have no rights rather than the facade of rights that are ignored. I am sure I speak for American citizens here.  Although some will believe the rhetoric that the world is unsafe but I would say as a peacemaker there is much confusion, misinformation, propaganda and ignorance around who the ‘other’ is.  It is better to educate yourself and get to know that ‘other’ in order to find common ground, that is the work of peace. The work of war is to find an enemy, recognise they threaten something, these days it is business interests as business uses government and military to further its own agenda and access to markets. So things are not what they appear on the surface, much manipulation, marketing and deception in service of specific interests not the mass of the population who are increasingly being targeted as an enemy if they raise their voice in opposition or protest.  I have come to recognise the wolf in sheep’s clothing speaking of peace, security and safety but in actual fact living in fear, control and intolerance.  We need to have public discussions about all the things that concern and affect us in order to make wise decisions.  This is democracy.  The military, the intelligence community, the government all have to be visible as secrecy when protected enables abuses to flourish. How do we know what the ethics of the head of an agency is? how did he or she get there?  Who are the faceless faces behind this person?  Disclosure, visibility these are democratic principles not secrecy without accountability. These are the questions for the NSA and FBI and the various other agencies that are involved.  I will append a video to this blog which makes clear what the clandestine community are doing and we need to start a conversation, as they are reaching beyond their own shores to other countries. If our government is compliant then citizens are not protected here.

The Law of Attraction is something to consider if we want peace, harmony, progress and infinite innovation to explore not only our own planet but beyond.  We need to be freed from constriction to be able to live to our full potential as a global citizenry.  They want artificial intelligence to replace labour, so what will citizens do in its stead? Do we create a global basic income so talents are unlocked, inequality removed and potential actions so we can start to solve the most pressing problems that besiege us, including conflict.  Thus, what you think about you bring about, if you keep seeing enemies you keep seeing enemies, if you look for peace you will find it. which costs more?  The military is approximately 1 trillion worldwide, the US spends the majority of that amount around $800 billion, Australia has announced $200 billion which is not debated here yet it is a massive amount of money justified by terrorism.  Is the terrorism a bigger threat than poverty?  Then housing prices?  Then the price of food?  Then pollution?  Then employment? Then education (slowly corporatized as government winds back spending).  These questions drive to the heart of the cost/effectiveness of public spending and whether that is occurring to benefit foreign multinationals or in service to the community?  Do we spend on fear or hope?  What is our wish?  Are governments seeing themselves as public servants or do they identify more with business interests under the banner of jobs growth rather than public goods, social welfare and progressive and advancing societies that are growing in wisdom and sophistication.  Or do they regress into compliant, isolated, anxious, impoverished, competitive communities that have lost their sense of belonging and purpose?  What do we choose? This is the global citizen decision to vote on what they want.  Governments, corporations and militaries are actioning strategies on the basis of interests, we have to be clear about whose interests?  Much depends on how we choose to see and what we believe we will indeed manifest.

So Dear Robert I note you believe you are safer through surveillance. Here are a few questions for you  to self reflect…

Is that true?

Can you be absolutely sure it is true?

How do you feel how do you react when you believe the thought that you (US) is safer through unchecked global surveillance?

Who would you be, what would you see without the thought that the US would be safer? If you were to look at the world without the story of surveillance, what arises? What do you see, a world just doing what it has always done. People go to work, people come home, the same issues come up, the same voices speak up, things keep ticking over.  Think of the world before surveillance was it safer? Does surveillance make them safe or does nonviolence, peace education and gross national happiness create that safety?

So let’s play with the turnarounds.  This is inquiry you and I are in right now.  It comes from Byron Katie www.thework.com (I recommend you meet her and learn this).

Turn to the opposite, the other and the self.

So the US is safer turns around to.. The US is not safer (opposite) find 3 reasons that is true?  Let me jump in and answer as it is fun to try.

Ok the US is not safer through surveillance as people become paranoid and shut themselves down, fears arise and they become suspicious (they do not feel safer when watched).

The US is not safer as others surveil, including the community (Snowden, Assange) exposing their secrets more (the world is a mirror what you put out returns to you – universal law). We literally create what we fear through our focus. Change the focus and the will change as life is energetic and connected.

The US is not safer through surveillance as surveillance captures more and more problems and the viewpoint becomes distorted as it seeks out enemies, they show up.  What you focus on you attract, what you think about you bring about.  Do you understand.  You will believe the world is not safe the more you focus on what is wrong, you see more of it.  If you focus on it being safer, then you will see that it has become safer, you focus on technology, education, changes from 100 years ago, prosperity etc. Yes indeed the world is already safer, murder and crime has actually decreased.  But if we keep revving it up then it expands. So we then talk about vested interests in violence?  Who are they? What money do they make?  Their interest is power? Does this make the US safer if we expand militarism – Look at Iraq, Afghanistan – think of the money spent there, did that improve the world, make it safer or did it destabilise countries and create more of a backlash against the US whose real power was actually anchored in the statement of life, liberty and happiness.  It was the freedoms of the US that inspired the world, this is why many wanted to immigrate there. They saw how successful US citizens were, they seemed happy, they watched Hollywood, they actually admired the United States. When the US allowed its intelligence and military to be co-opted by interests not supportive of US citizens it started to lose power, lose respect, lose credibility – think of Trump today – how is he seen worldwide? He represents the business man. So is the US safer through surveillance or is it more fearful? Is it losing its power? Does it believe that its security is through force and power rather than democracy on which its principles were founded?  What is true power? This is a fundamental question for you Robert.  From a peace perspective it is love.  You will say is that true? Okay let me have a go.

Is it true that love is the real power? Yes

Can I be absolutely sure that love is the true power? Yep

How do I feel how do I react when I believe love is the true power?  I feel REAL HOPE, I feel I love Robert Mueller (don’t get excited, I mean universally), love I know is the real power, I trust that somehow we will find ourselves return to love after we see what doesn’t work.  I rely on this love to determine my decisions. Love has me sit here writing this post to Robert Meuller as I see him as myself.  Where do I feel I have to surveil? What do I fear? When do I feel insecure?  This brings me closer as I stand in your shoes with empathy. Is it being vigilant or intrusive? So I start to explore why Robert may be right as I open my mind to just rest in Roberts viewpoint. Perhaps it can be tested to just be aware.  As the Senator said ‘what is the balance between surveillance and civil liberties.?’ So I find myself making space for his view but at the same time justice arises within me and I seek the fairness, I seek the truth of the matter, I seek to understand both sides.  This is where love takes me Robert, this is democracy.  Dictatorship is rigid, it thinks it is right, it demands obedience, that is how we know we move away from love, sharing, caring, revealing and healing. Love is all these things.  So that is how I can live in this world with you and fear you not. Wouldn’t it be good to stand in a cyber forum and actually open our minds to other views in order to expand the pie rather than restrict it. As you control you attract those who will want to be free from surveillance. They are not rebellious they are simply responding to what is unwanted. They need to hear your voice, they need to ask questions, they need to hear other voices who disagree with you. This is called deliberative democracy and it provides information from both sides in a balanced way so people can make decisions or come up with ideas that move the US towards being ‘safe’. We all want the US to be safe because if it is not then it impacts other parts of the world, look at Trump and North Korea, if he doesn’t feel safe he becomes dangerous in the eyes of the world. That is why we are out to help you not hurt you.  Can you see?  differently? This is the change we want to see in the world.  We want to see change.

For me I do not see the world as a dangerous place. I travelled the world and I saw how incredible ordinary people were. Admittedly I am not looking for problems I am teaching peace as I move around.  I saw nothing but potential possibilities in adults and children.  Thus I see the world in a different light (cup half full or overflowing actually). I had to be dressed as a clown to be able to see through a different spectrum. If I dressed as a soldier I would see it differently again.  In a world where people learn to perceive that the cup is half empty or that others are on the ‘take’ and surveillance is everywhere, then I believe people become more paranoid and shut down their voices if they believe the are not safe, not private, vulnerable.

My friend had FBI surveillance (see below) come up in the wireless listing on her phone and she is an innocent citizen committed to love. The question is – what does the FBI fear? What right do they have surveilling foreigners who have committed no crime? What does the Australian Government think of this or is this done in collaboration? Do they want to be surveilled?’

fbi

This person is not political, she is kind hearted, peaceful and a great citizen always thinking of others and helping the elderly.  How does she feel talking to family to know someone can listen? how would the other surveilling feel if the roles were reversed?  So what right does the FBI have to surveil citizens who are non violent and innocent? Where is the line drawn?  I checked the phone a few days later and another surveillance one was there.  What do you think? Why do you believe information is security? What if you surveilled for shared interests? A win/win? What if you listened for wisdom, ideas and possibilities?  What if you collected data on solutions to affect climate change and generate real peace?

If we did a poll would the people agree to surveillance of their private calls? If you asked Australians they would absolutely say no. US citizens would say no as it makes them feel unsafe?  Do you see the reality from a different perspective?

The core principle of the US and Australian democracy is government of the people by the people.

Is the FBI democratic?  The more you are secret the more people will not trust you, the more people will speak up.  There are questions around Kennedy not answered.

The intelligence community is now in the light, people want to know what they do? They want to feel safe? Just as you assert? But if the FBI makes people feel unsafe and insecure, surveilled, under suspicion, then is it possible to make the US safe?  Can you put the case to the people in public forums and let them decide if this serves their interests or others interests? Whose interests are served? I say this with love and peace in my heart for you.   If I had a vote here in Australia I’d say no to surveillance but yes to democracy. Let the people decide what is in their interests.

As for stopping terrorism perhaps the idea of not funding them might work. The Saudi relationship with the US must be explored. The drug trade. The belief in armed force. The profiteering from arms trades. The interference in foreign countries and deposing leaders is another point. You have to look within yourself for those answers if you seriously want to stop terrorism. You have to explore where the US causes it and feels terror, for the root is fear not love.  So I return to my point before is love the power?  I feel so. I send the US love and peace, I send the intelligence community love and peace.  May we all realise our true interests is in owning our own shadow and learning inner peace for outer peace to truly emerge. This is what I now know. Then we can use those resources to deal with climate change and global peace.

So this article is about the FBI and its surveillance.  Below is the video by an intelligence officer offering another worldview – is he the enemy or is this democracy? Your call? May I tap into your record.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2042430/fbi-director-defends-phone-surveillance-program.html

FBI director defends phone surveillance progra

By

Senior Editor, IDG News Service| Jun 19, 2013 12:15 PM PT

U.S. Capitol

A telephone records surveillance program run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency raises serious privacy concerns and should be reined in, some U.S. senators said Wednesday.

Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed for changes to the surveillance program that allows the two agencies to broadly collect telephone call records from U.S. carriers, with some lawmakers calling for the records to remain with carriers until the agencies have a suspicion of a telephone number’s ties to terrorist activity.

“I remain concerned that, as a country, we’ve yet to strike the right balance between intelligence gathering into the FBI and the civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, during a hearing on oversight of the FBI. “The American people deserve to know how broad investigative laws … are being interpreted and used to conduct electronic surveillance.”

Also asked if the FBI uses drone aircraft to track suspects in the U.S. Mueller said the agency has, but it’s been “very seldom.”

But Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he will introduce a bill this week that would limit what records the FBI and NSA can collect.

Earlier this month, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information about two surveillance programs, including the one used by the FBI and NSA to collect all phone records from Verizon Communications. The second program allows the NSA to collect information about emails and other Internet communications.

The phone records program is legal and is overseen by Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Mueller said. In many of the 50 cases, the phone records have been “one dot among many dots” of information used by investigators, but in other cases, the phone records have been “instrumental,” Mueller said.

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI and NSA have collected “billions of phone numbers,” Leahy said. He asked if the agencies could still conduct the terrorism investigations with “good police work” to connect the dots if they didn’t collect the phone records.

“You never know which dot is going to be key,” Mueller said. “What you want is as many dots as you can [collect]. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field.”

Officials with the FBI and NSA faced a largely friendly audience before the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Tuesday, but several senators at Wednesday’s hearing raised concerns about the two agencies collecting U.S. phone records.

Other senators praised Mueller and the surveillance program, saying it has helped keep the U.S. safe.

Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, asked whether it would be more appropriate for telephone carriers to keep their records, with the FBI requesting access when the agency sees evidence of a crime or terrorist plot.

Such a system would be unworkable now, Mueller said. Many carriers don’t keep their business records for more than 18 months, and some cases, the FBI would have to request business records from several carriers after it sees evidence of terrorist activity, he said.

“It would take an awful long time,” he said. “When you’re trying to prevent terrorist attacks, what you want is that information … almost instantaneously so you can prevent that attack. You cannot wait three months, six months, a year to get that information.”

Senator Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, said he believes the collection of phone records is legal and there are “reasonable safeguards” in place, but he called for more transparency about the process. U.S. residents need to “understand the protections that are in place,” he said. “The American people have the right to know what’s going on, to the extend that it’s consistent with national security.”

But public transparency comes with a cost, Mueller said. “You are going to be giving signals to our adversaries as to what our capabilities are,” he said. “There is a price to be paid for that transparency.”

It’s up to Congress to decide where the line between transparency and security is drawn, he said.

Mohandas Gandhi

“Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances.”

Archives
Categories