Monthly Archives: January 2015

U.S. generals accuse Obama of actually ‘switching sides’

Military experts are making an explosive new claim about Barack Obama.

And what they’re revealing now could blow the lid off a scandal many would call TREASON …

Probe of military experts finds U.S. ‘switched sides’ in terror war
obama-hillary-coffins-benghazi

NEW YORK – The Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Moammar Gadhafi from power, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi concluded in its interim report.

In WND interviews, several members of the commission have disclosed their finding that the mission of Christopher Stevens, prior to the fall of Gadhafi and during Stevens’ time as U.S. ambassador, was the management of a secret gun-running program operated out of the Benghazi compound.

The Obama administration’s gun-running project in Libya, much like the “fast and furious” program under Eric Holder’s Justice Department, operated without seeking or obtaining authorization by Congress.

WND reported Monday that in exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission, it is clear that while the CCB is still enthusiastic to work with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and hopeful that Boehner is serious about the investigation, various members of the CCB, speaking on their own behalf and not as spokesmen for the commission, are expressing concerns, wanting to make sure the Gowdy investigation is not compromised by elements within the GOP.

The Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi’s interim report, in a paragraph titled “Changing sides in the War on Terror,” alleges “the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the Al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion.”

The report asserted the jihadist agenda of AQIM, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.

“The rebels made no secret of their Al Qaeda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad, according to author John Rosenthal and multiple media reports,” the interim report said. “And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress Al Qaeda.”

The report concluded: “The result in Libya, across much of North Africa, and beyond has been utter chaos, disruption of Libya’s oil industry, the spread of dangerous weapons (including surface-to-air missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Christopher Stevens: ’1st U.S. envoy to al-Qaida’

In the WND interviews, several members of the citizens’ commission, speaking for themselves, not for the commission, added important background to the interim report’s conclusion.

“In early 2011, before Gadhafi was deposed, Christopher Stevens came to Benghazi in a cargo ship, and his title at the time was envoy to the Libyan rebels,’ which basically means Christopher Stevens was America’s very first envoy to al-Qaida,” explained Clare Lopez, a member of the commission who served as a career operations officer with the CIA and current is vice president for research at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

“At that time, Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-related militia in Libya,” Lopez continued. “The weapons were produced at factories in Eastern Europe and shipped to a logistics hub in Qatar. The weapons were financed by the UAE and delivered via Qatar mostly on ships, with some possibly on airplanes, for delivery to Benghazi. The weapons were small arms, including Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and lots of ammunition.”

Lopez further explained that during the period of time when Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-affiliated militia in Libya, he was living in the facility that was later designated the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi.

“This was about weapons going into Libya, and Stevens is coordinating with Abdelhakim Belhadj, the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, other al-Qaida-affiliated militia leaders and leaders of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood that directed the rebellion against Qadhafi as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said. “Many of the individual members of the al-Qaida-related militias, including the LIFG, and the groups that would later become Ansar Al-Sharia, were Muslim Brotherhood members first.”

According to the interim report, as detailed by Lopez, a delegation from the UAE traveled to Libya after the fall of Gadhafi to collect payment for the weapons the UAE had financed and that Qatar had delivered to the Transitional National Council in Libya during the war.

The UAE delegation was seeking $1 billion it claimed was owed,” the interim report noted. “During their visit to Tripoli, the UAE officials discovered that half of the $1 billion worth of weapons it had financed for the rebels had, in fact, been diverted by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Muslim Brotherhood head of the Libyan TNC, and sold to Qaddafi.”

According to information discovered during the UAE visit to Tripoli, when Jalil learned that Maj. Gen. Abdel Fatah Younis, Gadhafi’s former minister of the interior before his late February 2011 defection to the rebel forces, had found out about the weapons diversion and the $500 million payment from Gadhafi, Jalil ordered Abu Salim Abu Khattala, leader of the Abu Obeida Bin al-Jarrah brigade to kill Younis.

“Abu Khattala, later identified as a Ansar al- Shariah commander who participated in the 11 September 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, accepted the orders and directed the killing of Gen. Younis in July 2011,” the interim report noted.

Abu Khattala is currently in custody in New York awaiting trial under a Department of Justice-sealed indictment, after U.S. Delta Force special operations personnel captured him over the weekend of June 14-15, 2014, in a covert mission in Libya. Abu Khattala’s brigade merged into Ansar al-Shariah in 2012, and he was positively identified to the FBI in a cell phone photo from the scene of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

The language of the interim report made clear why the sequence of events is important.

“The key significance of this episode is the demonstration of a military chain-of-command relationship between the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood leadership of the TNC and the Al Qaeda-affiliated militia (Ansar al-Shariah) that has been named responsible for the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” the interim Rreport concluded.

“What we have here is the Muslim Brotherhood leadership of the revolution giving a kill order to a Muslim militia affiliated with al-Qaida, which then carried it out,” Lopez summarized. “This chain-of-command link is important even though it has not yet received enough attention in the media.

A big ‘oh no’ moment

“After Gadhafi is deposed and Stevens was appointed U.S. ambassador to Libya, the flow of weapons reverses,” Lopez noted. “Now Stevens has the job of overseeing the shipment of arms from Libya to Syria to arm the rebels fighting Assad, some of whom ultimately become al-Nusra in Syria and some become ISIS.”

Lopez distinguished that “al-Nusra in Syria still claims allegiance to al-Qaida, while ISIS has broken away from al-Qaida, not because ISIS is too violent, but out of insubordination, after Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, wanted to run his own show inside Syria as well as Iraq, thereby disobeying orders from al-Qaida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”

She noted that in this period of time, after the fall of Gadhafi and before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound, Stevens was working with Turkey to ship weapons out of Libya into Syria for the use of the rebels fighting Assad.

According to the authors of the bestselling book “13 Hours,” on Sept. 11, 2012, before the attack on the Benghazi compound started, Stevens had dinner with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Stevens reportedly escorted the Turkish diplomat outside the main gate of the Benghazi compound to say good-bye to Akin at approximately 7:40 p.m. local time, before he returned to Villa C to retire for the evening.

Kevin Shipp, a former CIA counterintelligence expert who worked on the seventh floor at Langley as protective staff to then-CIA Director William Casey, again speaking for himself in his interview with WND, agreed with Lopez that the gun-running operation Stevens managed is a secret the Obama White House and Clinton State Department have sought to suppress from the public.

“The shocking part, maybe even a violation of international law that the Obama administration has been terrified to have fully revealed, is that Stevens as part of his duties as a State Department employee was assisting in the shipment of arms first into Libya for the al-Qaida-affiliated militia, with the weapons shipped subsequently out of Libya into Syria for use by the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels fighting Assad,” Shipp told WND.

“Very possibly, these gun-running activities could be looked at even as treasonable offenses,” he said.

Shipp further noted that in gun-running operations in which the CIA wants deniability, the CIA generally involves a third party.

“The way the CIA works is through a ‘cut-out,’ in that you get Qatar to transport the weapons and you facilitate the transport. So now the third party is to blame,” he explained.

“Qatar probably would have been able to pull this off without any attribution to the CIA if the Benghazi attack had not happened. The attack basically shed the light on this operation the White House, the State Department and the CIA were trying to keep quiet,” he said.

“The attack on Benghazi was a big ‘oh no’ moment.”

Source:

The Fed & SDR Denominated Derivatives

Derivatives

46 Comments

Many for so long have proclaimed the end of the dollar and a collapse of the USD system. Though the dollar will be adjusted downward at some point in the initial implementation of a multilateral system, its sustainability in a broader monetary framework will be a fundamental corner stone to correcting the imbalances which originated from the USD system itself.

The USD monetary system is based on using the domestic currency of the United States as the global reserve unit of account.  This arrangement has created systemic imbalances in the international financial framework which has lead to inherent risks in all segments of the system, such as trade, credit, exchange rates, inflation/deflation, commodities, capital flows, and geopolitical power shifts.

Some of these imbalances have been extremely prominent in the last days as oil continues its dramatic depreciation, the Swiss removed the francs peg to the euro, (as the euro was depreciating against the appreciating dollar), Russia converting a portion of its foreign reserves into rubles, and geopolitically Russia has diverted natural gas flows into Europe from the transit points in Ukraine to transit points in Turkey.

On a more macro level, the Bank of China (Hong Kong) has stated that the inclusion of the RMB into the SDR basket of currencies will accelerate international monetary reform which will help build stability in the system.  This stability will be constructed around using the SDR as the global unit of account in place of the USD.

We have covered the importance of the RMB to the SDR supra-sovereign reserve system, along with the BRICS Development Bank, in the post The SDR Purpose of BRICS.

One of the least understood segments of the USD imbalances are the derivative trades.  These trades are a method of hedging against the risk which is inherent in the USD system.  As in all trades or exchanges, there are two ends, a gain end and a lose end.  The derivatives are meant to take the risk out of trade for trans-border businesses and other financial institutions, along with large private investors.

Each trade needs to be cleared though a clearing house and the risk of systemic failure because of the potential loses are building.  The current policies and institutions handling the clearing process are incapable of dealing with this systemic risk.

Supra-sovereign and trans-border institutions and entities such as banks and hedge funds, which are structured around national and domestic frameworks, cannot provide the international policy changes required to address the risk associated with derivatives.

As such, a single and unified international policy is required.

The development and implementation of the multilateral monetary framework is capable of addressing this risk more effectively than the USD system.  By denominating derivatives in SDR, both virtual aspects of the unit of account and derivatives will align, allowing for a more unified policy response to the risk.

SDR denominated derivatives will fundamentally reduce the exposure by functioning above the constraints of national fiat currencies, which are heavily influenced by the multi-trillion dollar non-sovereign dominated Forex markets.  The SDR, held by sovereign central banks, will help stabilize the international supra-sovereign response required to reduce the derivatives risks and enact the unified policies.

The clearing of derivatives will also have to be handled in a broader multilateral framework as well.  The establishment of clearing entities, or banks, perhaps with only one or two acting as the mandated clearing houses, can facilitate the reduction of systemic risk to the international monetary framework.

Derivative contracts that are considered high risk can be fragmented into clearable (low risk) and unclearable (high risk) segments.  This disaggregation of illiquid derivative contracts will ensure the overall credit risk, or exposure, is reduced or eliminated on the cleared portion of the contract, while the risk associated with the uncleared portion is reduced in the markets.

The clearing house, in this case the Federal Reserve, will be accountable to provide liquidity for the uncleared “high risk” segments at valuations which are compatible with the margins of the defaulting members and contracts.  This process would reduce the chances of default with the least amount of systemic risk to the broader international monetary structure.

There are many moving pieces to the transition from the USD structured system to the multilateral SDR framework.  The risk associated with derivative clearing is one of the more important factors which will require a unified policy framework which operates above the limited policies which exist at the national and domestic level.

The USD will not collapse and the SDR will be implemented as the international unit of account.  No one currency or country has the ability or policy framework to deal with the challenges presented in correcting the imbalances which have developed from the USD system.  China, Russia, or any other grouping of countries, are not interesting in replacing the USD as the international unit of account.  The response to the systemic imbalances which exist will require the unified approach to policies and procedures which only the multilateral framework can provide.

Anyone pumping and promoting the collapse of the dollar does not fully understand the multilateral framework or the trans-border nature of the associated risks inherent in the USD system. – JC

http://philosophyofmetrics.com/2015/01/15/the-fed-sdr-denominated-derivatives/#more-2035

Will China Pull a “Switzerland” on the U.S. Dollar?

January 16, 2015

Peter Schiff tells it like it is.  Guess who his father was.

Fw: Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassinated by Government According to Landmark Civil Trial Censored By Media

Watch the short video first to see explanation of the trial and pictures etc. of the crime scene.

www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/martin_luther_king_jr_mlk_assassination_video

Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination Civil Trial

Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil Trial
MLK Civil Trial Finds US Government Guilty of Assassination

“We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience.”
— Coretta Scott King, King Family Press Conference, Dec. 9, 1999.

Dear friends,

The following is a summary of documentation from the 1999 King Family civil trial in Memphis, in which a jury of six white and six black jurors took only one hour to find the U.S. government guilty for the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr

The lack of coverage of this landmark trial and its astonishing verdict is a prime example of how crucial news is suppressed. The fact that you don’t know about this trial, at which 70 witnesses testified over a period of nearly a month, is proof of a major cover-up by both the media and government.

For the best concise summary of this eye-opening trial, watch the six-minute video below of a Canadian public television broadcast on the deafening silence around this major event, and then read the facts of the case below.

www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/martin_luther_king_jr_mlk_assassination_video

Here’s a list of just some of the overwhelming evidence of government complicity introduced in this trial and validated in the jury’s guilty verdict:

  • Usual special body guards provided by the Memphis police were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
  • Regular and constant police protection was removed from Dr. King an hour before the assassination.
  • Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
  • US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
  • The 20th Special Forces Group had an eight-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
  • Memphis police ordered the bushes multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down shortly after the assassination.
  • Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned the standard investigative procedure of interviewing witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
  • The rifle James Earl Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

The King family believes the government’s motivation to assassinate Dr. King was to prevent his imminent effort to camp in and occupy Washington, D.C. until the Vietnam War was ended and the war’s resources were redirected to end poverty and invest in US infrastructure. This is consistent with the belief of many top leaders that war is a racket which is used to line the pockets of the mega-corporations and bankers who support them. Read this essay by one of the most highly decorated generals in U.S. history laying it all out with incredible bluntness.

Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and personal friend and attorney, William F. Pepper, was the lawyer representing the King family in this civil trial. The trial, titled King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King Center website fully documents the entire case with a full trial transcript. The U.S. government also denied the King family’s requests for independent investigation of the assassination.

US corporate media did not cover the trial or interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. Respected journalist and author James Douglass:

“Apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect, scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?””

Though the New York Times did include mention of this trial in a revealing article, it was buried inside the paper and never received the front page headlines it deserved. A CNN video aired in 2008 raised further questions on King’s assassination, but still amazingly little of all of this has been reported. A powerful two-page summary reveals the stories of many award-winning journalists who had huge stories like this harshly suppressed by top corporate media ownership.

To honor this great man who was silenced by forces which weren’t ready for the kind of transformation Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated, read some of his most inspiring speeches and quote on this webpage. Great individuals like King, Gandhi, and JFK can be assassinated, but the spirit which revealed their greatness will never die. Each of us can carry this spirit forward within us as we courageously work to reveal truth and do our part in building a brighter future for all of us.

With best wishes for a transformed world,
Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
Former White House interpreter and whistleblower

Important Note: This essay was based on an original article by my friend Carl Herman. Much of the essay is direct excerpts from Carl’s article. To better understand how the media fails to report some of the most important news stories ever, read this two-page summary. And don’t miss a concise, inspiring essay on how this happens and what we can do about it.

Fw: Sky News: “You Can See the Blood on the Ground, Which Has Been Put There”

Dear Andy,  
This evening’s clip is a corollary
to the one broadcast this morning,
captured by the TV channel,
France 24, in which we see that
the Charlie Hebdo “terrorist” either
shot a blank at the cop, who was on
the ground, allegedly wounded and 
defenseless on his back, to receive
the bullet that was aimed at his head, 
at point blank range, to be coldly
“finished off.”
There’s what looks to me an outside
possibility that a real bullet was shot;
but that it missed and bounced off the
sidewalk. However, due to the lack of
any damage to the sidewalk, to say
nothing of the lack of any damage to
the cop’s head, which would have
exploded like a watermelon, from a 
7.32x09mm round shot at point blank 
range and the lack of any sign of blood
produced by the shot, at the time
of the attack, per the footage, after
which the “terrorist” went running back
to the escape vehicle, it appears to me
more likely that the “terrorist’s” AK-47
was loaded with blanks.
(A magazine or more of blanks used in
the Charlie Hebdo incident could raise
questions about the status of the rest of
this shooter’s victims. But we’ll leave
that aside, for now).
In this Sky News broadcast, the presenter
makes a Freudian Slip, when he says: “You 
can see the blood on the ground, which 
has been put there…” The reporter then
corrects his story, “Because of the blood that
was shed there yesterday.”
I’d go with A) “Put there” because we didn’t
see any B) “Blood…shed there,” during the
shooting, wjhich we saw in this morning’s video.
Not a drop.
The intrepid reporter continues, “The spot
where he fell, has already been marked by
candles, by some flowers, which have been
laid here. This area was largely cordoned of
f last night.”
What? So, after a murder, the cops allow
everyone to pass through the area where
a fellow cop was murdered, in cold blood
allowing contamination of the crime scene?
My two cents say that when the cameras
were gone, blood was ladled out upon the
Parisian sidewalk, in order for the mainstream
story to coagulate…
Video (2 mins):

Now We Know The Plan: More Surveillance and a Patriot Act For Europe

hebdo480-photo-Chtfn-cc

Mac Slavo
January 15th, 2015
SHTFplan.com

The irony is almost worse than 9/11.

Then, President Bush responded by stating, with bravado, that they attacked us because they hate our freedoms.

This time, the attack against the publication of satirical Mohammed cartoon, was not only an act of terrorism, but an attack on the spirit of free speech.

And the government response this time? After staging a photo op of world leaders, various heads of state have proposed new waves of surveillance and repressive attempts to ban encryption and violate the freedom of speech in communication devices through new spy policies and laws.

On Sunday, as more than 3 million people flooded the streets of Paris in support of the free speech principles that Charlie Hebdo embodied, a group of 12 European ministers issued a joint statement calling for internet service providers to more swiftly report and remove online material “that aims to incite hatred and terror.”

Establishing a framework to enhance police work and intelligence sharing concerning the actions of alleged terrorists and extremists, the joint statement from 12 European ministers and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder declares the intent to: “counter violent extremism” and “fight against radicalization, notably on the Internet,” in part through the “swift reporting [and removal] of material that aims to incite hatred and terror.” Meanwhile, it aims to beef European border control, “step up the detection and screening of travel movements” and enhance law enforcement, particularly in “working to reduce the supply of illegal firearms throughout Europe.”

Although the statement takes a vow of respect and “scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law,” it doesn’t hold much water with the focus on new surveillance and police powers to chill free speech in the name of fighting radicalization. It seems the terrorists have once again won before the fight has even begun.

The irony should be perfectly palpable, but instead leaders in Europe and the U.S. seem oblivious to the fact that they are, pound for pound, violating many more rights than the terrorists ever could… yet they are not exactly stopping and catching terrorist either. (As a side note, in case the Europeans don’t know, Eric Holder is a pretty poor partner in the effort to reduce the supply of illegal firearms, since he was caught deliberately arming Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious scandal).

The spirit of freedom is hardly embodied by the leaders of the so-called “free world.”

As Ron Paul noted:

The mainstream media immediately decided that the shooting was an attack on free speech. Many in the US preferred this version of “they hate us because we are free,” which is the claim that President Bush made after 9/11. They expressed solidarity with the French and vowed to fight for free speech. But have these people not noticed that the First Amendment is routinely violated by the US government?

“Another lesson from the attack is that the surveillance state that has arisen since 9/11 is very good at following, listening to, and harassing the rest of us–but is not very good at stopping terrorists.”

Specifically, France has already proposed new terrorism-surveillance laws – despite have just passed legislation for new powers in November – while the Anglo power are meeting to ramp up security and UK Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed ridiculous and draconian powers to breach encrypted communications.

Unfortunately, it is par for the course. Problem-reaction-solution.

Quite often, when attacks happen, fear sets in, and forces antithetical to freedom set in, attempting to control and ‘protect’ society, failing profoundly while trampling over society’s most cherished values. America lived through an entire decade of this nightmare after 9/11.  Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, commented:

“Nearly every major terrorist attack in the past couple of decades has been followed by new legislation of some kind. France just pushed through new anti-terror regulations in November, and the [prime minister] is already saying that more will be necessary. Where does it stop? These politicians haven’t demonstrated the need for more surveillance, yet it’s always their go-to ‘solution.’”

Mass surveillance doesn’t only infringe on our privacy, but also our ability to speak freely. The knowledge, or even the perception of surveillance, can prompt writers to think twice before touching upon a given issue.”

It seems that, egged on by the horror of terrorism, all the governments are capable of doing is more spying, surveillance, invasion of privacy and repression – even though it clearly doesn’t work. From the Verge:

“[I]nstead of trying to address problems with the existing expansive surveillance powers, governments merely see these crises and fearful times as an opportunity to simply to ask for more,” Mike Rispoli, spokesman for the London-based watchdog Privacy International, wrote in a blog post Tuesday. “Short of creating a society in which thoughts themselves are monitored and controlled by the State, no amount of surveillance powers endowed upon our governments can ensure that all acts of fanaticism and violence can be predicted and prevented.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron actually proposed banning encryption as a response to the Hebdo Charlie attacks – and caught a wave
of criticism from the tech savvy who now run the consumer and computing world.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government should be allowed to read encrypted messages on smartphone apps like WhatsApp and Snapchat, adding that the Paris attacks proved the need for greater government access. Experts say an outright ban on these apps wouldn’t be wise or even feasible, but privacy advocates say Cameron’s comments speak to larger, more troubling trends.

Chastised as being both ‘draconian’ and ‘dim-witted,’ Cameron’s proposed policy is noted as both “ill-thought out and scary” at the same time – a true governement mix of “idiocy” and “draconian.” Cameron stated in his speech:

“In extremis, it has been possible to read someone’s letter, to listen to someone’s call, to mobile communications,” Cameron said. “The question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications where it simply is not possible to do that? My answer to that question is: no, we must not.”

As the Guardian reported:

Independent computer security expert Graham Cluley said: “It’s crazy. Cameron is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that this is a sensible idea, and no it wouldn’t be possible to implement properly.”

Encryption is the backbone of security that allows modern banking, commerce and communication in the digital world.

Encryption is what protects your private details when you send your bank details to a server. It’s required for governments and companies when they store customer information, to protect it from hackers and others. And it’s built right in to whole hosts of messaging applications, including iMessage and WhatsApp.

Tech firms are obviously not going to do business without encryption, so they are instead making preparations to leave the UK if this becomes policy, or likewise, to stop doing business in the UK if British laws would keep global firms from operating as usual.

Eris Industries, which uses open-source cryptography, has said it is already making plans to leave the UK if the Conservative party is re-elected with this policy in its programme.

It is true that terrorists use encryption, much as in real life they use bank accounts, locks, money transfer services and public transport. If the presence of terrorists on a given service is reason enough to shut it down, we’ll find there’s really no form of civil society left to defend.

“We must avoid knee jerk reactions,” said Graham. “In particular, I am concerned about any compromising of effective encryption for consumers of online services.”

Citizens, businesses, and nation states need to protect themselves. Internet companies are understandably offering their customers online services that are better encrypted following recent security incidents,” said Graham.

The Open Rights Group stated:

“Cameron’s plans appear dangerous, ill-thought out and scary,” said Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group. “Having the power to undermine encryption will have consequences for everyone’s personal security. It could affect not only our personal communications but also the security of sensitive information such as bank records, making us all more vulnerable to criminal attacks.

Wow… that is some civil liberties blowback. Enough to take us back a few notches in the Internet era and make a visit to the dark ages.

And so it goes………….

Conservative News Today