Plum City – (AbelDanger.net). United States Marine Field McConnell has linked the apparent collection of PRISM/IMDb* metadata by pedophile feminist (pedo-fem) associates of Amazon director Jamie ‘The Wall’ Gorelick, to a “Wag the Dog” script, allegedly developed by former Sidley Austin IP lawyer Michelle Obama to camouflage main stream media (MSM) news of the contract killing of 20 children and 6 adults at/near the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn., on December 14, 2012.
PRISM = Profile Replacement for Internet Spliced Movies allegedly integrated with Nortel JABS
IMDb = Gorelick’s Internet Movie Database, allegedly back-doored by PRISM at GCHQ Cheltenham
McConnell suggests that the Gorelick and Obama pedo-fems revealed a common Wag the Dog M.O. during the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook massacres which indicates they are long in ferocity but short in sagacity and he therefore encourages his fellow Americans to heed the words of Thomas Jefferson.
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
The incident is the second deadliest mass shooting by a single person in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is the second deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the 1927 Bath School bombings in Michigan.
The shootings prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.”
“Massacre at Virginia Tech (TV 2008) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216494/[Bristol based IMDb – 5+ million personalities and 2.5+ million titles or scripts – owned by Gorelick’s Amazon since 1998]
THE N.S.A.’S PRISM REMAINS OPAQUE [Not to Abel Danger; the PRISM system is allegedly used by Gorelick’s pedo-fem associates to collect metadata on online visits to and navigation at Amazon’s Internet Movie Database servers operated out of Bristol, about 40 miles from the GCHQ co-developers of PRISM and erstwhile employers of the late and murdered hacker Gareth Williams. The Gorelick metadata gives IP lawyer Michelle Obama the metrics to develop a compelling Wag the Dog story]
A week after the exposure of mass-surveillance programs built and managed by the National Security Agency, we know that the leaker is a twenty-nine-year-old contract I.T. worker named Edward Snowden. We know his past online identity, TheTrueHOOHA, and the details of his personal life and political beliefs posted with that alias—he appears as a sort of techno-libertarian agnostic, a common archetype of Internet forums. We know about his girlfriend, a photogenic dancer. We even have reports that he smuggled the documents he leaked to theGuardian and the Washington Post out of the Hawaiian base where he worked on a thumb drive—or maybe on four laptops, or both. But we still know distressingly little about the programs Snowden sought to expose.
Snowden’s actions revealed a few distinct, though interrelated, N.S.A. programs. The first, of which we have the clearest picture—largely because government officials have acknowledged and defended the program—collects the records of nearly every call placed within the United States. Snowden leaked to the Guardian a secret court order demanding that Verizon Business turn over the records—“telephony metadata”—of calls within, to, and from the United States that cross its network. It then emerged that the N.S.A. has been collecting such records for seven years, from every major carrier in the country. The President and others in the Administration emphasized, in response, that the N.S.A. wasn’t listening to actual conversations. But the vast database of records the N.S.A. collects can say far more than a phone conversation. Metadata, which can include caller and location information, is fairly talkative. (Senator Dianne Feinstein has stated that the N.S.A. does not require a court order to search its database of call logs; it needs only “reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group.”)
Meanwhile, the program called Prism, which aims to collect digital intelligence about foreign targets, remains frustratingly opaque. The leaked slides of the PowerPoint presentation that formed the basis for the news—its intended audience within the N.S.A. remains unclear—claim that nine leading tech companies participate in Prism, permitting the N.S.A. to gather data like e-mails, chat records, photos, videos, file transfers, and more. An additional slide published by the Guardian states that Prism features “collection directly from the servers” of those tech companies. The Post wrote that the N.S.A. and F.B.I. “are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies.”
But it increasingly appears that the technical descriptions in the Post and the Guardian may have been imprecise. This would be unfortunate, whether it resulted from the limited knowledge of the reporters and their editors, or simply from flawed claims in the internal documents. The technical details of Prism matter; they carry implications in terms of the nature of the program itself and the extent of tech companies’ coöperation. While the Times, citing “people briefed on the negotiations” between the government and the companies, has described Prism as functioning like a “locked mailbox” to which the government has the key, the Post has reported that, according to anonymous “intelligence community” sources, “government employees cleared for PRISM access may ‘task’ the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s staff.” It added that “companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises.”
The office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said in a statement that the “government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers.” (Though we do not know what “unilaterally” means in this context, and Clapper falsely told the Senate, before the leaks, that the N.S.A. did not “wittingly” collect any sort of data on millions of Americans.) Google’s response to the allegations has also been aggressive. The company’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, wrote in a post, “We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media.” The company has publicly requested that the government allow it to disclose the number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act national-security requests it receives—which must currently be kept secret—because its “numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made.” (Microsoft and Facebook have followed suit.) What Google says is very different from what the N.S.A. documents that the Post and the Guardian have published allege. But it seems unlikely that Google would intentionally engage in even minor misdirection, given its high price: if Google were caught lying, it would lose users’ trust forever, which could actually destroy the company.
We also lack details about Blarney, a program mentioned in a slide as part of the N.S.A.’s “upstream” data-collection efforts, which a leaked slide describes as the “collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past.” The Post characterizes Blarney as collecting metadata about Internet communications—similar to the call-records program—possibly allowing the N.S.A. to build an index of Internet traffic and how devices and people connect. Blarney may be far more invasive than Prism, but it remains unclear. Two other presumably ongoing “upstream” data-collection programs remain unnamed, their titles redacted from the slide.
Snowden has also reportedly shown documents to the South China Morning Post that allege that the N.S.A. has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and China since 2009—including those belonging to civilian students and businesses. (Wired magazine, in a profile of N.S.A. Director Keith Alexander, reports on the development of a massive offensive apparatus within the Agency to conduct cyber-attacks.)
Alexander has said that the Agency will release more information about its surveillance programs, and it appears this information will largely concern its collecting of call data; the Timesreported that Alexander wanted, again, to dissuade the public from believing that “the N.S.A. is listening to Americans’ phone calls.” We may learn no more about Blarney or related data-collection programs, even if—especially if—they are the most invasive of all. But we will undoubtedly continue to hear more about Snowden.
Photograph, of James Clapper (center) at the United States Capitol, by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters.”