ADOBE-PRISM.opml

Clip from former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
  Ray McGovern's Bio
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:19
    Dear Web Site Friends,
    Please pardon the formal tone of what follows. I had toprepare a bio for an upcoming speaking engagement, soI thought I would MIRV what I came up with. (MIRV:Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicle). I'llfix it up later.
    Ray McGovern leads the ''Speaking Truth to Power''section of Tell the Word, an expression of the ecumenicalChurch of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He alsoteaches at its Servant Leadership School.
    Ray came from his native New York to Washington in theearly Sixties as an Army infantry/intelligence officer andthen served as a CIA analyst from the administration ofJohn F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. Ray'sduties included chairing National Intelligence Estimatesand preparing the President's Daily Brief, which hebriefed one-on-one to President Ronald Reagan's mostsenior national security advisers from 1981 to 1985.
    In January 2003, Ray helped create Veteran IntelligenceProfessionals for Sanity (VIPS) to expose the wayintelligence was being falsified to ''justify'' war on Iraq. Onthe afternoon of the day (Feb. 5, 2003) Secretary of StateColin Powell misled the UN Security Council on Iraq,VIPS sent an urgent memorandum to President GeorgeW. Bush, in which we gave Powell a C minus for content.We ended the memo with this:
    ''No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable [as Powell had claimed]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond '... the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.''
    Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, after a five-year study by his committee, described the intelligence used to ''justify'' war on Iraq as ''unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.''
    As an act of conscience, on March 2, 2006 Ray returned the Intelligence Commendation Medallion given him at retirement for ''especially meritorious service,'' explaining, ''I do not want to be associated, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture.'' He returned it to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R, Michigan), then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman.
    Hoekstra then added to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY'07 (HR5020) a provision that could have enabled the government to strip intelligence veterans of their government pensions. HR5020 passed the full House, but Congress opted instead for a continuing resolution. Thus, Ray was spared from having to go back to driving part-time for Red Top Cab.
    On May 4, 2006, in Atlanta, Ray made national news by confronting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on live TV with pointed questions like: ''Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties?'' (The impromptu, four-minute mini-debate that followed is still receiving hits on You Tube.)
    Ray's opinion pieces have appeared in many leading newspapers here and abroad. His website writings are posted first on consortiumnews.com, and are usually carried on other websites as well. He has debated at the Oxford Forum and appeared on Charlie Rose, The Newshour, CNN, and numerous other TV & radio programs and documentaries. Ray has lectured to a wide variety of audiences here and abroad.
    Ray studied theology and philosophy (as well as his major, Russian) at Fordham University, from which he holds two degrees. He also holds a Certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University. A Catholic, Mr. McGovern has been worshipping for over a decade with the ecumenical Church of the Saviour and teaching at its Servant Leadership School. He was co-director of the school from 1998 to 2004.
    He has been invited to lecture at various interfaith and ecumenical events, and has given the sermon at a number of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. He is particularly fond of the ''substitute teaching'' he has been invited to do at universities and colleges.
    Fluent in Russian, German, and Spanish, Ray holds an M.A. in Russian from Fordham University and a Certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown. He is also a graduate of Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program. He and his wife have been married for 50 years; they have five children and eight grandchildren.
    Ray on 9.18.11 before a talk in Charlottesville, VA
  Doubting Obama's Resolve to Do Right | Consortiumnews
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 09:10
    Exclusive: In his counterterrorism speech, President Obama ruminated about the moral and legal dilemma of balancing the safety of the American people against the use of targeted killings abroad. But Obama's handwringing did not sit well with some critics including ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
    By Ray McGovern
    An article in the Washington Post on July 6, 2010, reported me standing before the White House, announcing a new epithet for President Barack Obama: ''Wuss '' a person who will not stand up for what he knows is right.''
    The report is correct '' and so, I believe, is the epithet. And after the sleight-of-tongue speech given by the President of the United States at the National Defense University on May 23, I feel I can rest my case. (Caution: my wife insists that I mention at the outset that I've been angry since I listened to the speech.)
    President Barack Obama participates in a Memorial Day wreath laying at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, May 27, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
    The day after Obama's speech I found myself struck by Scott Wilson's article on the front page of the Post, in which he highlighted the ''unusual ambivalence from a commander-in-chief over the morality of his administration's counterterrorism policies.''
    And someone at the Post also had the courage that day to insert into a more reportorial article by Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller a hitting-the-nail-right-on-the-head quote from Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at Brookings: ''To put it crassly, the President sought to rebuke his own administration for taking the positions it has '' but also to make sure that it could continue to do so.''
    Call me na¯ve for putting the wish before the thought, but two days later my hopes zoomed when I saw that page A5 of the Post was dominated by a long article by Glenn Kessler, the Post's normally soporific ''fact checker.'' After the first seven words of the banner headline '' ''Red herrings, dissemblance and misleading statements '...'' '' Kessler had me, so to speak.
    You will understand my disappointment, then, when I read the rest of the headline: '''... from the IRS's Lerner,'' not from Obama.
    And so I read Obama's speech again, initially with the thought of doing Kessler's job for him. But the lies, half-truths and pettifoggery are legion and the task truly Herculean. Besides, many readers will decipher Obama's new ''transparency'' as transparently self-serving, without any help from me.
    Hooray! Obama 'Gets It'
    Some progressive pundits have noted, correctly, that Obama's speech shows that he does ''get it'' when it comes to the many constitutional problems with his preferred violent approach to meeting external threats and his infringement on civil rights at home.
    But it seems to me that this now-open sensitivity-to-the-problem is to be applauded ONLY if he also summons the courage to change course. One gets the idea from Obama's words that he may indeed wish to, IF only this, or IF only that. '... Have we not tired of applauding Obama in the subjunctive mood? I certainly have.
    He has now been unusually candid about the dilemmas he faces. But lacking is any real sign '' there is just hope '' that he will change character. From his speech we know that he understands he needs to change course in order to discharge his duty to ''take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''
    But I, for one, see little basis for hope that he will go beyond the carefully crafted all-things-to-all-people rhetoric in his speech. In my view, this makes him even more culpable '' an even more transparent flouter of his oath to defend the Constitution.
    Ah, but what about the oft-expressed hope that Obama will be freer to act more responsibly in his second term? The four months we have witnessed thus far in his second term bring to mind Samuel Johnson's quip that a second marriage is ''the triumph of hope over experience.''
    We have had four years and four months of experience with Obama. Those of us who care about the Constitution and rule of law now need to be guided by experience and to stop cutting him still more slack.
    Presidential Whining
    The whiny tone of Obama's speech offended me as much as his faux transparency and disingenuous words. I asked myself, are we supposed to find reassurance that, while our President is a wimp, he is an empathetic one?; that from time to time he experiences a pang or two of conscience when ordering people killed by drone?; that he claims that being responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians will haunt him for as long as he lives? Can we feel his pain?
    ''I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States,'' the President reminded us. ''I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen '' with a drone or a shotgun '' without due process,'' says he '' the day after the Attorney General admitted that this is precisely what happened to New Mexico-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
    Could it be that the commander-in-chief has a trace of PTSD? He seems to be appealing for our understanding about how conflicted he is about ordering people killed, entreating us to imagine his anguish, to appreciate how hard it is for him '' a constitutional lawyer, no less '' to do these terrible things anyway.
    And then the kicker: ''Remember,'' he adds, ''that the terrorists we are after target civilians.'' (Whatever happened to the ''But we are better than that.'')
    On Guantanamo, Obama expressed regret over how the prison ''has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law'' (and in the very next sentence trivializes this, lamenting only that ''our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO).''
    Again regarding Guantanamo, he asks, ''Is that who we are? '... Is that the America we want to leave to our children?'' And he notes disapprovingly that ''we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike.''
    And so I keep asking myself, who is this ''we?'' Does the President style himself as some sort of extraterrestrial creature looking from afar on the abomination of Guantanamo? Has he forfeited his role as the leader of ''we?'' What kind of leadership is this, anyway?
    History of Leadership
    In a speech on March 21, second-term Obama gave us a big clue regarding his concept of leadership '' one that is marked primarily by political risk-avoidance and a penchant for ''leading from behind'': ''Speaking as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do. You must create the change that you want to see.''
    John Kennedy was willing to take huge risks in reaching out to the USSR and ending the war in Vietnam. That willingness to take risks may have gotten him assassinated, as James Douglass argues in his masterful JFK and the Unspeakable.
    Martin Luther King, Jr., also took great risks and met the same end. There is more than just surmise that this weighs heavily on Barack Obama's mind. Last year, pressed by progressive donors at a dinner party to act more like the progressive they thought he was, Obama responded sharply, ''Don't you remember what happened to Dr. King?''
    It is not as though Obama had no tutors. He entered Harvard Law School 113 years after one of its most distinguished alumni, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, began to study there. I find myself wondering if Brandeis has been redacted out of the lectures at Harvard Law.
    Slick lawyers have done an effective job over the past dozen years trying, in effect, to render one of Brandeis's most penetrating remarks ''quaint'' and ''obsolete.'' Following is a paragraph, acutely relevant to today's circumstances; Brandeis wrote it to warn us all about how the government sets a key example on respect for the law:
    ''The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means '-- to declare that the government may commit crimes '-- would bring terrible retribution.''
    Protesting Too Much
    Let me provide a couple of examples from Obama's speech that illustrate the value of Brandeis's warning:
    One could easily infer that the President is protesting too much (four times in the speech) in claiming that his ''preference'' is to capture terrorists rather than kill them. Clearly, though, Obama has made targeted killing his tactic of choice. What do former insiders say? The lawyer who drew up the initial White House policy on lethal drone strikes has accused the Obama administration of overusing them because of its reluctance to capture prisoners. Holding prisoners is such a nuisance.
    John Bellinger, who was a lawyer on George W. Bush's National Security Council and worked on the legal framework for both detention of suspected terrorists and targeted drone killings, said on May 1 at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington: ''This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida, they are going to kill them.''
    It should be noted that Bellinger is not opposed to targeted killings and argues that they are not only lawful but ''can be good.'' He said the big issue was not the administration's claimed legality of targeted killings but rather international acceptance of Washington's so-called global war on terrorism:
    ''The issue really here '... is that there is a fundamental disagreement around the world, which I experienced when I was the legal adviser, as to whether the United States really is in a war at all. And we are about the only country in the world that really thinks that we are in an armed conflict with al-Qaida.''
    But Obama said, four times, that his preference is capture over killing. Someone is not telling the truth.
    Here's how Spencer Ackerman posed the question in a recent piece for Wired: ''Obama turned more than a few heads by declaring his 'strong preference' for 'the detention and prosecution of terrorists' over sending an armed robot to end their lives. It's hard to know what to make of that. The simplest interpretation is that it's a lie. Whatever Obama's preferences are, he has killed exponentially more people than he has detained and prosecuted.''
    Guantanamo Prison
    Over 100 hunger strikers in the Guantanamo prison are being force-fed to prevent them from the only method of release they see open to them '' death. In this part of his speech, too, Obama keeps giving a bad name to hypocrisy. His handwringing sounds as though he were some kind of liberal pundit on MSNBC; as though he were powerless to do anything; as though his hands are tied by Congress. He said:
    ''Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees'... . Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children.''
    Interrupting Obama, Code Pink's Medea Benjamin appealed to the President to ''release those 86 prisoners'' (more than half of the 166 prisoners still held at Guantanamo) already cleared for release. On Jan. 22, 2010, those 86 were pronounced cleared after a year-long investigation of their individual cases by an interagency task force of officials at the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security and others.
    But Congress has tied the President's hands, you may be thinking. Congress, to be sure, has posed legal obstacles, but is not the only fly in the ointment. Congress has also given Obama considerable leeway; but he has not had the courage to take advantage of it. One of Congress's most powerful members, Sen. Carl Levin, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, sent the White House a letter on May 6 reminding the President that, thanks to the efforts of Levin and others, Obama can release the 86 without further delay.
    In other words, Medea Benjamin was right, though you would never know it from the mainstream media. Referring to congressional restrictions on detainee transfers, Levin reminded Obama: ''I successfully fought for a national security waiver that provides a clear route for transfer of detainees to third countries in appropriate cases; i.e., to make sure the certification requirements do not constitute an effective prohibition.''
    Moreover, Obama did say that he will lift the restrictions he himself imposed on sending detainees to Yemen. After Obama's speech, attorney Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Paul Jay of the Real News Network:
    ''All that has to happen is for the President to certify, as he is required to do by law, and send the detainees to Yemen. But then he [the President] says, ''I'm going to do this on a case-by-case basis. They have already been cleared on a case-by-case basis. So Obama is going to go back through it?
    ''The proof will be in the pudding even on Yemen. Will he actually do it? How slowly will he do it? You know, what he should actually do is just do it and get it done and then move on to the next thing. So we'll have to see'...''
    Summing Up: An Epochal Speech
    Benjamin Wittes of Brookings (quoted above) is hardly alone in characterizing Obama's May 23 speech as a rebuke to his own administration for taking the positions it has and then a defense of its intention to continue to do so.
    Here's what Norman Pollack had to say about all this, in an article he titled ''Obama's Militarism-Imperialism Lite'':
    ''A tissue of lies? No, the whole Kleenex box '' one tissue interleaved with all the others. Obama is fortunate to be presiding over a country steeped in false consciousness on essentials (war, sacrifice of the social safety net for the glories of militarism, and '... authoritarian submission, a political-cultural disposition to strong leadership reinforced by appeals to patriotism and pressures toward conformity). '...
    ''His May 23rd address therefore fell on receptive national ears, a desperate will to believe that immorality is moral, illegality, legal, and war, the necessary defense of Homeland in its centuries'-old quest for peace, honor, the rule of law. How comforting!
    ''Liberals and progressives especially have taken heart in POTUS's rhetoric that a new day in American foreign policy is dawning '-- has already dawned, by the simple fact of self-declaration that the United States is always bound by the constraints of the rule of law. '... All else is enemy propaganda.
    ''With that as background (and a solid phalanx of flags as his backdrop) Obama spoke with becoming assurance '-- to me, arrogance '-- as the leader of the Enlightened World in its struggle against the forces of ignorance, darkness, covetousness, wholly oblivious to America's moral sense and good intentions. Such a masterful speech (as judged by the New York Times and mainstream media opinion) deserves a closer look '-- but not too close, lest the luster wear off.''
    My gratitude to those who have read down this far. And my apologies for not coming across Pollack's article earlier. It's pretty much what I wanted to say all along; and he says it better '' and shorter.
    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A former CIA analyst, he has been dissecting speeches of foreign leaders for 50 years, and of American presidents for the past 12. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
    Tags:Barack Obama, Drone Wars, George W. Bush, Global War on Terror, Ray McGovern
  Obama told friends he reneged on progressive promises out of fear of MLK's fate -- former CIA analyst says
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 09:07
    Obama has abandoned progressive principles, such as stopping drone attacks and shutting down Guantanamo, because he is afraid of being assassinated, telling friends, "Don't you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?" retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern said today.
    He's afraid of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. And I know from a good friend who was there when it happened, that at a small dinner with progressive supporters '' after these progressive supporters were banging on Obama before the election, Why don't you do the things we thought you stood for? Obama turned sharply and said, "Don't you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?" That's a quote, and that's a very revealing quote.
    McGovern spoke on WBAI's show Law and Disorder this morning. He was talking about his recent article calling Obama "a wuss" and speculated that Obama had also placed John Brennan as head of the CIA out of fear that the CIA might turn on him, as it had on John Kennedy.
    I'm pretty convinced the President of the United States is afraid of the CIA. That's why he got John Brennan in place. He thinks John Brennan owes more personal loyalty to him than all those other thugs out there who did the torture and so forth. That's a questionable thing. But Obama thinks that. And that's why he fought so hard so that Brennan would be in place.
    During his CIA career, Ray McGovern prepared daily briefings for the president and chaired the National Intelligence Estimates. He is now a leading antiwar activist.
    The crucial segment of the interview begins at about 48 minutes. Hosts Michael Smith and Michael Ratner, both lawyers with long careers in civil and human rights, ask McGovern about the Obama drones speech. McGovern marveled that the Senate granted to Obama "the power to release 86 prisoners" from Guantanamo. "Why doesn't he do that?" He could release them ''at the snap of his finger.''
    Ratner then said, "I represent Guantanamo people. I thought the biggest lie in the speech was'--'I have tried to close Guantanamo.'" There are half a dozen ways in which Obama "has actually sabotaged the closing of Guantanamo. Straight lie."
    McGovern responded:
    Which leads to the question, why would he do all these things? Why would he be afraid for example, to take the drones away from the CIA? Well, I've come to the conclusion that he's afraid. Number one, he's afraid of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. And I know from a good friend who was there when it happened, that at a small dinner with progressive supporters '' after these progressive supporters were banging on Obama before the election, "Why don't you do the things we thought you stood for?" Obama turned sharply and said, "Don't you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?" That's a quote, and that's a very revealing quote.
    The other thing is, I've always been kind of shocked that when he came into office, not only did he not prosecute the torturers, the kidnapers, the people with the black [unintelligible], even the people who violated our Fourth Amendment rights, but he left them all in place. I suspected at the time, now I'm pretty convinced the president of the United States is afraid of the CIA. That's why he got John Brennan in place. He thinks John Brennan owes more personal loyalty to him than all those other thugs out there who did the torture and so forth. That's a questionable thing. But Obama thinks that. And that's why he fought so hard so that Brennan would be in place.
    Now does he have any reason to fear the CIA? Well he sure as heck does. For those of your listeners who have not read James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable, you need to read that, because it's coming up on 50 years. The mystery has not been solved in the mainstream press. After reading James Douglass, who took advantage of all the previous studies, plus all the more recent information released by Congress, I'm convinced that John Kennedy was assassinated largely by Allan Dulles whom he cashiered as the head of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, and a coterie of joint chiefs of staff, FBI, even some Secret Service folks who thought that JFK was being soft on Communism by back channel communications with Krushchev, that he was playing games with Fidel Castro'...to repair the relationship, and worst of all he was giving Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now is there evidence for this? There sure as heck is. John Kennedy signed two executive orders just a month or so before he was killed. One of them said we're pulling out 1000 troops out of South Vietnam by the end of the year, the year being 1963. The other said we're going to pull out the bulk of the troops by 1965, we're finished in Vietnam. That's a matter of record. Was that a unanimous decision? Well if you say the president makes a one person decision, you know it's unanimous. Everybody else thought he was crazy, especially the joint chiefs of staff.
    So you need to read this book, and then you need to reflect on Obama. If he is sort of a wuss or a wimp or a person who just has no real principles but is rather a politician through and through-- and he's got two small kids and he doesn't want to get killed. I have to say I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it is the only logical explanation for why he is so afraid, unless you say the man is a through and through charlatan, that he actually is acting on behalf of these forces of darkness. I don't believe the latter. I think he's just afraid and he shouldn't have run for president if he was going to be this much of a wuss.
    Host Michael Smith, who's read the Douglass book and found it convincing, agreed with McGovern. Ratner demurred somewhat. "I just think Obama is an accommodator. He's shown that from the very beginning. The guy is just an incredible accommodator." Smith said he doesn't see McGovern's idea and Ratner's as contradictory.
    Smith and Ratner interviewed James Douglass here.
In his Article about Obama he writes how he believes the CIA is sending hecklers to show just how close they can get to him
This goes against our original theory of heckling
Does confirm our CIA runs everythig theory
CIA also hate any other intel org, including NSA
Now we get to PRISM
  This is a hit, on the adnministration and the NSA
  But it is ALSO distracting us from the REAL program of surveillance and the true BAD ACTOR
We ALL know about Google's NSA program
  2010 The Google-NSA Alliance: Questions and Answers | PCWorld
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:42
    Google's facing a gaggle of questions over reports that it's working with the National Security Agency. According to a story first published by The Washington Post on Thursday, Google's enlisting the help of the NSA to better secure its electronic assets. The partnership is reportedly a response to the recent attack on Google's networks -- you know, the one that led to the whole "we're leaving China" debacle.
    The news, not surprisingly, is generating a wave of reaction on the Web: Is this normal? Is our information still secure? Is Google really evil after all? And has the NSA been writing those crazy Google interview questions all along?
    I'll leave those last two in your hands to decide. As for the rest, I spent some time sifting through the facts to find some answers.
    Is the Google-NSA alliance really happening?On the record, no one is saying much. The original story in The Post cites "sources with knowledge of the arrangement " for its information. A follow-up story by The New York Times refers to details provided by "a person with direct knowledge of the agreement."
    An NSA spokesperson told me the following:
    "NSA is not able to comment on specific relationships we may or may not have with U.S. companies. We can say as a general matter, however, that ... [the] NSA works with a broad range of commercial partners and research associates."
    A Google spokesperson also declined to comment specifically on the claims, though he did point to the company's original blog posting about the cyberattacks. The blog states that Google is "working with the relevant U.S. authorities."
    What would be the point of a Google-NSA partnership?In theory, the NSA could help Google defend its systems (and thus your information) from future attacks. The newspapers' reports describe the arrangement as providing a kind of "technical assistance" that'd allow Google to better understand who breached its network and how they managed to pull it off.
    Would the government gain access to my personal information?Thus far, most signs point to no. Sources from both The Post and The Times say Google would not share user search data or e-mail information as part of the NSA partnership.
    Why would Google work with the NSA instead of the Department of Homeland Security?This is an interesting point: The Department of Homeland Security apparently has the legal authority to investigate criminal acts in America, while the NSA does not. The report in The New York Times suggests this distinction shows Google is trying to "avoid having its search engine, e-mail and other Web services regulated as part of the nation's 'critical infrastructure.'"
    Has the NSA worked with Google before?According to the anonymous sources, this would mark the first time Google has teamed up with the NSA for any type of "formal information-sharing relationship."
    What about the NSA and other tech companies?Back in 2006, reports suggested that the NSA used information provided by AT&T to secretly build detailed records of phone calls made by tens of millions of Americans.
    "The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans, most of whom aren't suspected of any crime," USA Todayreported at the time. "The spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity."
    So is there cause for concern now?Both sources who provided the Google-NSA information say this arrangement isn't about sharing user data, but rather analyzing Google's networks and the apparent weaknesses that were exploited. Google would more likely be sharing details about the attacks and the malicious code that was detected, the sources say.
    Still, privacy advocates are expressing concern. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the NSA to try to obtain records about the organization's relationship with Google.
    "We would like to see Google develop stronger security standards and safeguards for protecting themselves," EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg told PCWorld sister publication Computerworld. "But everyone knows the NSA has two missions. One is to ensure security and the other is to enable surveillance."
    Where can I read more?Since neither Google nor the NSA is formally acknowledging any partnership as of now, official information is tough to come by. You can, however, read Google's original blog post about the attacks and its relationship with China. You can also check out the NSA's Information Assurance Web site, which talks about the agency's focus on protecting information systems.
    JR Raphael is a PCWorld contributing editor and the co-founder of eSarcasm. He's on Facebook: facebook.com/The.JR.Raphael
    Subscribe to the Security Watch NewsletterThank you for sharing this page.
    Sorry! There was an error emailing this page
  Court Upholds Google-NSA Relationship Secrecy | Threat Level | Wired.com
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:39
    A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the National Security Agency's decision to withhold from the public documents confirming or denying any relationship it has with Google concerning encryption and cybersecurity.
    That's despite the fact that Google itself admitted it turned to ''U.S. authorities,'' which obviously includes the NSA, after the search giant's Chinese operation was deeply hacked. Former NSA chief Mike McConnell told the Washington Post that collaboration between the NSA and private companies like Google was ''inevitable.''
    The Electronic Privacy Information Center, invoking the Freedom of Information Act, had sought such documents following the January 2010 cyberattack on Google that targeted the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The attack was among the considerations that prompted Google to consider abandoning China, and Google announced that it was ''working with the relevant U.S. authorities.''
    The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post followed up, saying Google had contacted the NSA following the attack.
    EPIC sought documents seeking to know what type of collaboration there was between Google and the NSA and, among other things, records of communication between the NSA and Google concerning Google's e-mail service Gmail.
    In response, the NSA invoked a so-called ''Glomar'' response, in which the agency neither confirmed nor denied the existence of records on the topic at all. EPIC sued and lost in the lower courts.
    On appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the NSA's conclusion that admitting the existence of relevant documents would harm national security (.pdf).
    Judge Janice Rogers Brown, in a 3-0 opinion, sided with the government's contention that acknowledging any records ''might reveal whether the NSA investigated the threat,'' or ''deemed the threat a concern to the security of the U.S. government.''
    If we removed all the legalese, the appellate court upheld the government's often-said contention that, ''if we told you, we'd have to kill you.''
    Photo: DonkeyHotey/Flickr
  And After 180 days the government can read your email anyway!
    When Can The Government Read Your Email - Business Insider
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:31
      The revelation that the National Security Agencycan monitor your every move onlineshouldn't come as a total shock. A1986 lawlets the Fedsread emailsthat have been stored on a server for at least six months.The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was enacted long before everybody had email, but the government says the law lets it access 180-day old email without a warrant. Here's the relevant text of the law:
      A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.
      In May, the ACLU got its hands on the government's justification for using this law to gather six-month-old emails. Here's the justification from the 2012 Version of FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, which the ACLU got through a FOIA request:
      In enacting the ECPA, Congress concluded that customers may not retain a ''reasonable expectation of privacy'' in information sent to network providers. . . [I]f the contents of an unopened message are kept beyond six months or stored on behalf of the customer after the e-mail has been received or opened, it should be treated the same as a business record in the hands of a third party, such as an accountant or attorney. In that case, the government may subpoena the records from the third party without running afoul of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment.
      The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and often requires police to get search warrants before encroaching on your privacy. Americans should be appalled that the government can snoop into their old emails without such a warrant.
      President Obama said today that "nobody's listening to the content of people's phone calls." However, the Feds might be reading a very private six-month-old email '-- and they don't even need permission from a judge to do so.
      There is a bright spot, though. In May, Eric Holder testified that he thinks the government should have to get a warrant before it accesses any email regardless of its age.
      The Justice Department submitted this statement to Congress in March:
      Many have noted and we agree that some of the lines drawn by the SCA that may have made sense in the past have failed to keep up with the development of technology, and the ways in which individuals and companies use, and increasingly rely on, electronic and stored communications. We agree, for example, that there is no principled basis to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old.
And about Facebook's InQTel VC funding and the TIME magazine where Mueller just 'pops' in
  Mark Zuckerberg - Person of the Year 2010 - TIME
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:05
    The door opened, and a distinguished-looking gray-haired man burst in '-- it's the only way to describe his entrance '-- trailed by a couple of deputies. He was both the oldest person in the room by 20 years and the only one wearing a suit. He was in the building, he explained with the delighted air of a man about to secure ironclad bragging rights forever, and he just had to stop in and introduce himself to Zuckerberg: Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, pleased to meet you.
    By Lev GrossmanWednesday, Dec. 15, 2010
    Martin Schoeller for TIMEOn the afternoon of Nov. 16, 2010, Mark Zuckerberg was leading a meeting in the Aquarium, one of Facebook's conference rooms, so named because it's in the middle of a huge work space and has glass walls on three sides so everybody can see in. Conference rooms are a big deal at Facebook because they're the only places anybody has any privacy at all, even the bare minimum of privacy the Aquarium gets you. Otherwise the space is open plan: no cubicles, no offices, no walls, just a rolling tundra of office furniture. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's COO, who used to be Lawrence Summers' chief of staff at the Treasury Department, doesn't have an office. Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO and co-founder and presiding visionary, doesn't have an office.
    The team was going over the launch of Facebook's revamped Messages service, which had happened the day before and gone off without a hitch or rather without more than the usual number of hitches. Zuckerberg kept the meeting on track, pushing briskly through his points '-- no notes or whiteboard, just talking with his hands '-- but the tone was relaxed. Much has been made of Zuckerberg's legendarily awkward social manner, but in a room like this, he's the Silicon Valley equivalent of George Plimpton. He bantered with Andrew "Boz" Bosworth, a director of engineering who ran the project. (Boz was Zuckerberg's instructor in a course on artificial intelligence when they were at Harvard. He says his future boss didn't do very well. Though, in fairness, Zuckerberg did invent Facebook that semester.) Apart from a journalist sitting in the corner, no one in the room looked over 30, and apart from the journalist's public relations escort, it was boys only. (See pictures of Mark Zuckerberg's inner circle.)
    The door opened, and a distinguished-looking gray-haired man burst in '-- it's the only way to describe his entrance '-- trailed by a couple of deputies. He was both the oldest person in the room by 20 years and the only one wearing a suit. He was in the building, he explained with the delighted air of a man about to secure ironclad bragging rights forever, and he just had to stop in and introduce himself to Zuckerberg: Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, pleased to meet you.
    They shook hands and chatted about nothing for a couple of minutes, and then Mueller left. There was a giddy silence while everybody just looked at one another as if to say, What the hell just happened?
    It's a fair question. Almost seven years ago, in February 2004, when Zuckerberg was a 19-year-old sophomore at Harvard, he started a Web service from his dorm. It was called Thefacebook.com, and it was billed as "an online directory that connects people through social networks at colleges." This year, Facebook '-- now minus the the '-- added its 550 millionth member. One out of every dozen people on the planet has a Facebook account. They speak 75 languages and collectively lavish more than 700 billion minutes on Facebook every month. Last month the site accounted for 1 out of 4 American page views. Its membership is currently growing at a rate of about 700,000 people a day. (See a Zuckerberg family photo album.)
    What just happened? In less than seven years, Zuckerberg wired together a twelfth of humanity into a single network, thereby creating a social entity almost twice as large as the U.S. If Facebook were a country it would be the third largest, behind only China and India. It started out as a lark, a diversion, but it has turned into something real, something that has changed the way human beings relate to one another on a species-wide scale. We are now running our social lives through a for-profit network that, on paper at least, has made Zuckerberg a billionaire six times over.
    Facebook has merged with the social fabric of American life, and not just American but human life: nearly half of all Americans have a Facebook account, but 70% of Facebook users live outside the U.S. It's a permanent fact of our global social reality. We have entered the Facebook age, and Mark Zuckerberg is the man who brought us here. (See pictures of Facebook's overseas offices.)
    Zuckerberg is part of the last generation of human beings who will remember life before the Internet, though only just. He was born in 1984 and grew up in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., the son of a dentist '-- Painless Dr. Z's slogan was, and is, "We cater to cowards." Mark has three sisters, the eldest of whom, Randi, is now Facebook's head of consumer marketing and social-good initiatives. It was a supportive household that produced confident children. The young Mark was "strong-willed and relentless," according to his father Ed. "For some kids, their questions could be answered with a simple yes or no," he says. "For Mark, if he asked for something, yes by itself would work, but no required much more. If you were going to say no to him, you had better be prepared with a strong argument backed by facts, experiences, logic, reasons. We envisioned him becoming a lawyer one day, with a near 100% success rate of convincing juries."
    Learn more about the extended version of this article, available exclusively on Amazon Kindle.
    Picture yourself as TIME's Person of the Year. Create and share your TIME Person of the Year cover.
    NextOnly Connect
So NO surprises, but they are all freaked out and are PROTESTING the accusations
But I believe the true PRSIM OPS are NOT on the list of companies
Lets face it, NSA needs some new powerpoint skills
  Interesting to note Apple was 'added' to the program 6 months after Steve Jobs died
We get a lot of stuff from Alphabet Agencies, NSA challenge coins etc. Never anything THIS GOOD
Why Glenn Greenwald? Who is he, lets follow him
  Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:12
    Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. He has been a columnist for the US edition of The Guardian since August 2012.[1][2] Prior to that he was a columnist for Salon.com and an occasional contributor to The Guardian.[3][4][5]
    Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator before becoming a contributor (columnist and blogger) to Salon.com, where he focused on political and legal topics.[6] He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times,[7][8][9] the Los Angeles Times,[10]The American Conservative,[11]The National Interest,[12] and In These Times.[13][14]
    Greenwald has written four books, three of which have been New York Times bestsellers: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006); A Tragic Legacy (2007), and With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, released in October 2011. He also wrote Great American Hypocrites (2008).
    Greenwald has received awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism, in 2009,[15] and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary.[16] Greenwald is a frequent speaker on college campuses, including Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, UCLA School of Law, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Maryland and others. He also appears on various radio and television programs as a guest political pundit.
    Early life[edit]Greenwald was born on March 6, 1967, in Queens, New York City, the son of Arlene and Daniel Greenwald.[17] Shortly after his birth Greenwald moved with his family to South Florida.[6][18] He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1990 and a J.D. from New York University Law School in 1994.[6]
    Litigation attorney[edit]Greenwald practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (1994''1995); in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland (later renamed Greenwald Christoph PC), where he litigated cases concerning issues of U.S. constitutional law and civil rights.[6][18] According to Greenwald, "I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing."[18]
    Unclaimed Territory[edit]Greenwald started his blogUnclaimed Territory in October 2005, focusing on the investigation pertaining to the Valerie Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, the federal indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. In April 2006, Unclaimed Territory received the 2005 Koufax Award for "Best New Blog".[6]
    Salon[edit]In February 2007, Greenwald became a contributing writer at Salon.com, and the new column and blog superseded Unclaimed Territory, though Salon.com prominently features hyperlinks to it in Greenwald's dedicated biographical section.[19][20]
    Among the frequent topics of his Salon articles were the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and the candidacy of former CIA official John O. Brennan for the jobs of either Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) or the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI) after the election of Barack Obama. Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for the post after opposition centered in liberal blogs and led by Greenwald.[21][22][23][23][24][25]
    Greenwald's criticism of the conditions in which U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, was being held ultimately led to a formal investigation by the U.N. high official on torture,[26][27] denunciations by Amnesty International,[28] and the resignation of State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley after he publicly criticized Manning's detention conditions.[29] Since then, Greenwald has been a strong supporter of Manning. He calls Manning "a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives", and "a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg."[30]
    The Guardian[edit]Greenwald left Salon.com on August 20, 2012 for The Guardian, citing "the opportunity to reach a new audience, to further internationalize my readership, and to be re-invigorated by a different environment" as reasons for the move.[31]
    Guest appearances[edit]Greenwald has appeared as a 'round table' guest on ABC's Sunday morning news show "This Week", HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher", Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report", NPR's "All Things Considered", as well as numerous times on C-SPAN's Washington Journal; Pacifica Radio's syndicated series Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman;[32] on Public Radio International's To the Point; MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, "Morning Joe", The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Up with Chris Hayes, and Dylan Ratigan's "Morning Meeting"; Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume;[33]. Greenwald has been a regular guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show (and was a friend and favorite guest of Hewitt's frequent guest host, Dean Barnett) and on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal.[34][35][36]
    Accolades[edit]Greenwald has been placed on numerous 'top 50' and 'top 25' lists of columnists in the United States.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] In June, 2012, Newsweek magazine named him one of America's Top 10 Opinionists, saying that "a righteous, controlled, and razor-sharp fury runs through a great deal" of his writing, and: "His independent persuasion can make him a danger or an asset to both sides of the aisle."[46]
    Personal life[edit]Greenwald is gay, and lives most of the time in Rio de Janeiro, the hometown of his Brazilian partner, David Michael Miranda.[18][47][48][49][50] In a profile in Out magazine, Greenwald explained that his residence in Brazil is due to the fact that American law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), bars the federal recognition of same-sex marriages and thus prevents his partner from obtaining immigration rights in the US.[51]
    Greenwald and his partner have 11 dogs, all rescued from the street,[52][53], and he frequently picks up dogs from the street and uses his platforms to find homes for them.[54][55][56]
    Greenwald's first book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, was published by Working Assets in 2006. It was a New York Times bestseller,[57] and ranked #1 on Amazon.com both before its publication (due to pre-orders based on attention from 'UT' readers and other bloggers) and for several days after its release, ending its first week at #293.[58]
    A Tragic Legacy, his second book, examines the presidency of George W. Bush "with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions)."[59] Published in hardback by Crown (a division of Random House) on June 26, 2007 and reprinted in a paperback edition by Three Rivers Press on April 8, 2008, it too was a New York Times Best Seller, also ranking #1 for a day on Amazon.com's Non-Fiction Best Seller List and #2 the next day (also due to heavy "discussions and promotions by blogs'--a campaign catalyzed by Jane Hamsher [at FireDogLake]", according to Greenwald).[60]
    His third book, entitled Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, was published by Random House in April 2008, the same month that Three Rivers Press reissued A Tragic Legacy in paperback.[61][62]
    His fourth book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, was released by Metropolitan Books (of Henry Holt and Company) in October 2011.
    Political views[edit]Greenwald is critical of actions jointly supported by Democrats and Republicans, writing: "the worst and most tyrannical government actions in Washington are equally supported on a fully bipartisan basis."[63] In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald opens with some of his own personal political history, describing his 'pre-political' self as neither liberal nor conservative as a whole, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals (indeed, not voting at all).[64]
    Bush's ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency "changed" Greenwald's previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process "completely":
    Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding"; for, "the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering'--fear of terrorists, specifically'--means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American."[64]
    Believing that "It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is", he stresses: "I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary."[64]
    Resistant to applying ideological labels to himself, he emphasizes repeatedly that he is a strong advocate for U.S. constitutional "balance of powers"[14] and for constitutionally-protected civil and political rights in his writings and public appearances.[6]
    Throughout his work he has relentlessly criticized the policies of the George W. Bushadministration and those who support or enable it, arguing that most of the American "Corporate News Media" excuse Bush's policies and echo administration talking points rather than asking hard questions.[49][32]
    Regarding civil liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said, "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."[65] He did, however, raise money for Russ Feingold's 2010 Senate re-election bid,[66] Bill Halter's 2010 primary challenge to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln [67] as well as several Congressional candidates in 2012 he described as "unique".[68]
    Greenwald has been criticized regarding his positions which are critical of Israel's foreign policy and influence on U.S. politics.[69][70][71][72][73]
    ^Greenwald, Glenn (2012-07-19). "Glenn Greenwald Moves From Salon to Guardian U.S.". New York Times. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2012-07-19). "I'll be writing in a new venue beginning next month". Salon.com. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2011-12-14). "Bradley Manning deserves a medal". The Guardian (London). ^Greenwald, Glenn (2011-07-21). "Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party". The Guardian (London). ^Greenwald, Glenn (2011-10-07). "The CIA's impunity on 'torture tapes'". The Guardian (London). ^ abcdef"Glenn Greenwald". Salon.com. Retrieved 2008-12-13. ^"What Kind of Democrat Will Specter Be?". The New York Times. 2009-04-28. Retrieved 2009-04-28. ^"Does Bipartisanship Matter?". The New York Times. 2009-02-23. Retrieved 2009-02-23. ^"When Bonus Contracts Can Be Broken". The New York Times. 2009-03-17. Retrieved 2009-03-17. ^"Bush's final days". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-01-14. ^"Author Search: Glenn Greenwald". The American Conservative. Retrieved 2008-12-14. The Search facility (which times out after linking) lists 4 articles when "Glenn Greenwald" is provided as a search term selecting the "author" field: (1) "Madness of Crowds" ("Loyalty to Bush is the criterion for conservatism."); (2) "Selective Amnesia" ("Being a pro-war pundit means never having to say you're wrong."); (3) "Watching the Detectives" (a review of State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, by James Risen); and (4) "Authoritarian Temptation" ("In an age of expansive executive power, the take-no-prisoners style that made Giuliani a respected mayor might be taken literally.")^Greenwald, Glenn (2008-04-25). "The Perilous Punditocracy". The National Interest. The Nixon Center. Retrieved 2008-12-14. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2006-07-21). "Author Profile:Glenn Greenwald". In These Times. Retrieved 2008-12-14. ^ abGreenwald, Glenn (2006-07-21). "Rechecking the Balance of Powers". In These Times30 (8). Retrieved 2008-12-14. ^"Glenn Greenwald And Amy Goodman Share Inaugural Izzy Award For Independent Media". Ithaca News Release. Ithaca College. 2009-03-05. Retrieved 2009-03-12. ^"Online Journalism Awards, 2010". Online Journalism Awards. 2010-10-31. Retrieved 2010-10-31. ^Stein, Gary (1985-03-13). "At 18, Future Holds Promise". Sun Sentinel. ^ abcdGreenwald, Glenn (2006-07-20). "Response to Right-wing Personal Attacks: My Law Practice; My Sexual Orientation; Where I Live". Unclaimed Territory. Retrieved 2007-02-02. In the entry, he describes and sets the record straight about his legal career and related professional and personal matters.^Greenwald, Glenn (2007-02-01). "Blog News". Unclaimed Territory. Glenn Greenwald. Retrieved 2007-02-02. ^Singal, Jesse (2007-09-17). "Glenn Greenwald: On Terrorism, Civil Rights, and Building a Blog". Campus Progress (Blog). Retrieved 2008-04-05. ^Ambinder, Marc (2008-11-20). "Brennan, Harding Slated for Top Intelligence Jobs". The Atlantic Monthly. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2008-11-16). "John Brennan and Bush's interrogation/detention policies". Salon.com. Retrieved 2008-12-12. ^ abSullivan, Andrew (2008-11-21). "No Way. No How. No Brennan". The Daily Dish of No Party or Clique (Blog). Theatlantic.com. Retrieved 2008-12-12. ^"Brennan Out Of Running for Top Intelligence Post". International Herald Tribune (The New York Times Company). 2008-11-25. Retrieved 2008-12-15. ^Hamsher, Jane (2008-11-25). "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Tuesday November 25, 2008: Transcript". The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-12-12. "I think as Atrios said, 'Behold the power of Glenn Greenwald.' ... Glenn, writing at Salon.com, had made a singular case against Brennan and said really, 'this is unacceptable.'" ^Greenwald, Glenn (2010-12-15). "The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention". Salon.com. Retrieved 2011-03-20. ^MacAskill, Ewen (2010-12-23). "UN to investigate treatment of jailed leaks suspect Bradley Manningx". guardian.co.uk (London). Retrieved 2010-12-23. ^"Amnesty International condemns 'inhumane' treatment of Bradley Manning". The Raw Story. Raw Story. 2011-01-24. ^"Amnesty International condemns 'inhumane' treatment of Bradley Manning". Politiconewspaper. Politico. 2011-03-13. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2010-06-18). "The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks". Salon.com. Retrieved 2011-03-20. ^Byers, Dylan (19 July 2012). "Glenn Greenwald to move to The Guardian". Politico. Retrieved 21 July 2012. ^ abGoodman, Amy (2008-04-18). "Great American Hypocrites: Glenn Greenwald on the Corporate Media's Failures in the 2008 Race". Democracy Now!. Pacifica Radio. Retrieved 2008-12-12. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2008-12-23). "Some observations after being involved in a Fox News report". Salon.com. Retrieved 2008-12-23. ^"Glenn Greenwald on the High Cost of Government Secrecy". Bill Moyers & Company. 2013-04-26. Retrieved 2013-04-26. ^"Interview with Glenn Greenwald". Bill Moyers' Journal. 2008-12-12. Retrieved 2008-12-12. ^Moyers, Bill (2009-04-03). "Independent Journalism". PBS. Retrieved 2009-04-03. ^Tunku Varadarajan; Elisabeth Eaves; Hana R. Alberts (2009-01-22). "25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media". Forbes. Retrieved 2009-08-18. ^"Who's left? The top 20 US progressives". Newstatesman.com. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^Amira, Dan (2008-08-24). "Intelligencer:Conventional Wisdom". New York (News & Features). Retrieved 2008-12-12. "Who's the most popular? We developed a highly [sic] scientific formula to measure their star power, counting blog, newspaper, magazine, and TV-news mentions so far this year, Google hits, and how many presidential debates (in the primaries or planned for the general election) they moderated. Then, each pundit's popularity in each category was calculated as a percentage of the highest score, and those five percentages were averaged. (So, theoretically, a dominating pundit who topped each tally would end up with a popularity score of 100.) Here's the top 40. ..." ^"Power Grid: Print/Online Columnists". Mediaite. Retrieved 2009-07-06. ^"Food for Thought". Paul Krugman, NYT. 2009-07-09. Retrieved 2009-07-09. ^"Top 100 Blogs". Technorati. Retrieved 2008-12-16. ^"What Is Authority?". Support at Technorati. Archived from the original on 2008-04-30. Retrieved 2008-12-15. ^"The Atlantic 50". Retrieved 2009-12-16. ^"The Politix 50: Here Are The Only Pundits You Need To Pay Attention To Between Now And The Election". Business Insider. 2011-11-30. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^"Digital Power Index: Opinionists '' Newsweek and The Daily Beast". Thedailybeast.com. 2012-06-24. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^"Glenn Greenwald: Life Beyond Borders | Out Magazine". Out.com. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^"Glenn Greenwald interview '' Books". The Listener. 2012-02-04. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^ abSilverstein, Ken (2008-02-21). "Six Questions for Glenn Greenwald on Campaign Coverage". Harper's Magazine. Retrieved 2008-12-15. ^Art of The Possible (2006-01-16). "Interview with Glenn Greenwald". Art of the Possible Blog. Retrieved 2008-12-13. ^"Glenn Greenwald: Life Beyond Borders | Out Magazine". Out.com. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^"Glenn Greenwald interview". New Zealand Listener. 2012-02-04. Retrieved 2012-04-12. ^"Glenn Greenwald: Life Beyond Borders | Out Magazine". Out.com. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2012-12-09. ^"Insight into one of DU's most loved/hated personalities, Glenn Greenwald". Democratic Underground. 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2011-08-27. ^"We are the proud parents of a Glenn Greenwald puppy...she was born early this morning". Democratic Underground. 2011-09-01. Retrieved 2011-09-01. ^"Glenn Greenwald: War crimes and puppies". Citizens Radio. 2011-09-01. Retrieved 2011-09-01. ^"The New York Times Book Review Best Sellers". The New York Times Book Review. The New York Times Company. 2006-06-11. Archived from the original on 2007-12-01. Retrieved 2008-12-12. ^Garofoli, Joe (2006-05-12). "Book Tops Charts Before It's Published". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-12-12. "There's been no advertising for "How Would a Patriot Act." Didn't need any. It was more important to get love from a handful of key bloggers, who plugged the 144-page book on their sites, leading to a virtually overnight advance sales bump this week'--and a second printing of 20,000 copies. "Patriot" remained at the peak of the Amazon charts for days. ... While "Patriot" parachuted to 293rd place by week's end after hitting No. 1, the book's publisher, the San Francisco phone company and liberal benefactor Working Assets, has been encouraged to continue its fledgling program of plucking sharp bloggers to write politically pointed books." ^Greenwald, Glenn (2006-11-09). "Untitled Comments: #54519". Comments Forum (HaloScan). Retrieved 2007-12-12. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2007-06-27). "Blogs and the establishment media". Salon.com. Retrieved 2008-12-12. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2008-03-09). "Various items". Salon.com. Retrieved 2000-12-12. ^Hamm, Theodore (May 2008). "A Party of Frauds? Glenn Greenwald in conversation with Theodore Hamm". The Brooklyn Rail. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2010-12-14). "Attempts to prosecute WikiLeaks endanger press freedoms". Salon.com. Retrieved 2011-03-20. ^ abcGreenwald, Glenn. "Preface". How Would a Patriot Act?. San Francisco: Working Assets, 2006. pp. 1''2. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2008-12-14. ^Greenwald, Glenn (2011-07-03). "Civil liberties under Obama". International Socialist Organization. Retrieved 2011-07-07. ^http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/feingold_7/^Hamsher, Jane (2010-05-01). "Accountability Recruits First Candidate for 2010: Bill Halter". Huffington Post. ^http://www.salon.com/2012/03/29/3_congressional_challengers_very_worth_supporting/^"AKUS 'dares' to criticize Glenn Greenwald". CIFWatch. Retrieved 2012-09-27. ^Jeffrey Goldberg (2012-01-26). "More on Glenn Greenwald, 'Israel-Firsters,' and Idiot Editors (Updated)". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2012-10-26. ^Adam Levick (2012-07-25). "The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald: The anti-imperialism of fools". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2012-10-26. ^David Bernstein (2010-11-06). "Greenwald: Israel has a "Higher Standard of Living" than the U.S.". The Volokhh Conspiracy. Retrieved 2012-10-26. ^David Bernstein (2012-01-28). "Glenn Greenwald and the Neocons". The Volokhh Conspiracy. Retrieved 2012-10-26. References[edit]"Glenn Greenwald Exposes Frank Gaffney". Crooks and Liars, February 16, 2007. [Includes 3-part MP3 clip of radio interview broadcast on the Alan Colmes Show, on Fox News Radio, during which Greenwald debates Frank Gaffney.]"Glenn Greenwald on Joe Klein, Dave Tomlin on Bilal Hussein". Counterspin, November 30, 2007 '' December 6, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2008. MP3 clips hosted on Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).]Bernstein, Fred A., "Glenn Greenwald: Life Beyond Borders". Out magazine, April 19, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2011.Goodman, Amy."Great American Hypocrites: Glenn Greenwald on the Corporate Media's Failures in the 2008 Race. Democracy Now!, Pacifica Radio, April 18, 2008. Accessed December 12, 2008. ("We speak with Glenn Greenwald, author of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. [includes rush transcript].")''''''. "Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Debates Glenn Greenwald". Democracy Now!, Pacifica Radio, July 22, 2008. Accessed December 13, 2008. (Includes rush transcript.)Greenwald, Glenn. "Book Forum: A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency". Cato Institute, August 7, 2007. [Panel discussion featuring Greenwald, "with comments by Lee Casey, Partner, Baker Hostetler." (Hyperlinked MP3 podcast and RealVideo formats.)]''''''. "Media: Glenn Greenwald at YearlyKos". Salon.com, August 7, 2007. Accessed December 13, 2008. [Video segment from Glenn Greenwald's panel at YearlyKos 2007, "where he stresses the continued need for adversarial, skeptical reporting." ("VideoDog" format.)]Pitney, Nico. "A Secure America: Video: Glenn Greenwald Debates Spying Program On C-Span". Online posting of clip of program broadcast on C-SPAN, February 6, 2006. ThinkProgress.com, February 6, 2006. Accessed December 12, 2008. [Greenwald debates University of Virginia law professor Robert Turner.]Silverstein, Ken. "Six Questions for Glenn Greenwald on Campaign Coverage". Harper's Magazine, February 21, 2008. Accessed December 12, 2008.Singal, Jesse, and Glenn Greenwald. "On Terrorism, Civil Rights, and Building a Blog". Campus Progress, September 17, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2008. [Interview.]Greenwald, Glenn. "Civil liberties under Obama". International Socialist Organization, July 3, 2011. Accessed July 7, 2011. [Video.]Bibliography[edit]External links[edit]PersondataNameGreenwald, GlennAlternative namesShort descriptionAmerican political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and authorDate of birth1967-03-06Place of birthNew York CityDate of deathPlace of death
  Former Lawyer
  Lives in Brazil with boyfriend
  Worked at Salon magazine since 2007 before a high profile move to Guardian USA less than a year ago
  Hates Obama
  LOVES Patreus
    Obama Picks John Brennan as CIA Chief
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:30
      John Brennan's name was first floated in 2008 to head the CIA'--and now he's back. Eli Lake reports on Obama's latest nomination. Plus, Daniel Klaidman profiles Brennan.
      For John Brennan, President Obama's choice to be the next CIA director, the second time is a charm. Brennan's name was first floated for the job after Obama's historic 2008 election. But that time the Democratic Party's progressive base opposed the nomination, claiming Brennan was a senior official at the agency as it developed an interrogation regime its critics have called torture.
      John Brennan. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
      Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer and popular blogger for TheGuardianwrote Brennan's appointment ''is to cross multiple lines that no Obama supporter should sanction.''
      Obama backed off of the pressure and ended up appointing Leon Panetta to the post. Brennan instead became the White House czar for counter-terrorism and homeland security, a job where he built a fiefdom inside the old executive office building near the White House. From that perch, Brennan and his staff would approve the specific targets in the secret drone war in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.
      With Brennan going to the CIA, that authority will likely go with him to the agency. Indeed, U.S. intelligence officials said David Petraeus, who helmed the CIA until he resigned in scandal last year over an adulterous affair with his biographer, often fought with Brennan over the future of the drone program and who would have the authority to make the targeting decisions.
      In Obama's first term, Brennan earned the trust of the president for some of the biggest tasks in national security. He briefed the press, for example, after the near terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009. He later briefed the press on the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But Brennan in that briefing said the al Qaeda leader died in a firefight, a claim the White House later retracted.
      In choosing Brennan, Obama has also passed over for now Michael Morell, the acting director of the CIA who played a key role in supporting the initial intelligence that found bin Laden's location.
      Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
      Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush's axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
      For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
    FBI's abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:37
      That the stars of America's national security establishment are being devoured by out-of-control surveillance is a form of sweet justice
      General John Allen, the US's leading military commander in Afghanistan, is being investigated over his 'communications' with Jill Kelley. Photograph: Jalil Rezayee/EPA
      The Petraeus scandal is receiving intense media scrutiny obviously due to its salacious aspects, leaving one, as always, to fantasize about what a stellar press corps we would have if they devoted a tiny fraction of this energy to dissecting non-sex political scandals (this unintentionally amusing New York Times headline from this morning - "Concern Grows Over Top Military Officers' Ethics" - illustrates that point: with all the crimes committed by the US military over the last decade and long before, it's only adultery that causes "concern" over their "ethics"). Nonetheless, several of the emerging revelations are genuinely valuable, particularly those involving the conduct of the FBI and the reach of the US surveillance state.
      As is now widely reported, the FBI investigation began when Jill Kelley - a Tampa socialite friendly with Petraeus (and apparently very friendly with Gen. John Allen, the four-star U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan) - received a half-dozen or so anonymous emails that she found vaguely threatening. She then informed a friend of hers who was an FBI agent, and a major FBI investigation was then launched that set out to determine the identity of the anonymous emailer.
      That is the first disturbing fact: it appears that the FBI not only devoted substantial resources, but also engaged in highly invasive surveillance, for no reason other than to do a personal favor for a friend of one of its agents, to find out who was very mildly harassing her by email. The emails Kelley received were, as the Daily Beast reports, quite banal and clearly not an event that warranted an FBI investigation:
      "The emails that Jill Kelley showed an FBI friend near the start of last summer were not jealous lover warnings like 'stay away from my man', a knowledgeable source tells The Daily Beast. . . .
      "'More like, 'Who do you think you are? . . .You parade around the base . . . You need to take it down a notch,'" according to the source, who was until recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community and prefers not to be identified by name.
      "The source reports that the emails did make one reference to Gen. David Petraeus, but it was oblique and offered no manifest suggestion of a personal relationship or even that he was central to the sender's spite. . . .
      "When the FBI friend showed the emails to the cyber squad in the Tampa field office, her fellow agents noted the absence of any overt threats.
      "No, 'I'll kill you' or 'I'll burn your house down,'' the source says. 'It doesn't seem really that bad.'
      "The squad was not even sure the case was worth pursuing, the source says.
      "'What does this mean? There's no threat there. This is against the law?' the agents asked themselves by the source's account.
      "At most the messages were harassing. The cyber squad had to consult the statute books in its effort to determine whether there was adequate legal cause to open a case.
      "'It was a close call,' the source says.
      "What tipped it may have been Kelley's friendship with the agent."
      That this deeply personal motive was what spawned the FBI investigation is bolstered by the fact that the initial investigating agent "was barred from taking part in the case over the summer due to superiors' concerns that he was personally involved in the case" - indeed, "supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter" - and was found to have "allegedly sent shirtless photos" to Kelley, and "is now under investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the internal-affairs arm of the FBI".
      [The New York Times this morning reports that the FBI claims the emails contained references to parts of Petraeus' schedule that were not publicly disclosed, though as Marcy Wheeler documents, the way the investigation proceeded strongly suggests that at least the initial impetus behind it was a desire to settle personal scores.]
      What is most striking is how sweeping, probing and invasive the FBI's investigation then became, all without any evidence of any actual crime - or the need for any search warrant:
      "Because the sender's account had been registered anonymously, investigators had to use forensic techniques - including a check of what other e-mail accounts had been accessed from the same computer address - to identify who was writing the e-mails.
      "Eventually they identified Ms. Broadwell as a prime suspect and obtained access to her regular e-mail account. In its in-box, they discovered intimate and sexually explicit e-mails from another account that also was not immediately identifiable. Investigators eventually ascertained that it belonged to Mr. Petraeus and studied the possibility that someone had hacked into Mr. Petraeus's account or was posing as him to send the explicit messages."
      So all based on a handful of rather unremarkable emails sent to a woman fortunate enough to have a friend at the FBI, the FBI traced all of Broadwell's physical locations, learned of all the accounts she uses, ended up reading all of her emails, investigated the identity of her anonymous lover (who turned out to be Petraeus), and then possibly read his emails as well. They dug around in all of this without any evidence of any real crime - at most, they had a case of "cyber-harassment" more benign than what regularly appears in my email inbox and that of countless of other people - and, in large part, without the need for any warrant from a court.
      But that isn't all the FBI learned. It was revealed this morning that they also discovered "alleged inappropriate communication" to Kelley from Gen. Allen, who is not only the top commander in Afghanistan but was also just nominated by President Obama to be the Commander of US European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (a nomination now "on hold"). Here, according to Reuters, is what the snooping FBI agents obtained about that [emphasis added]:
      "The U.S. official said the FBI uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of communications - mostly emails spanning from 2010 to 2012 - between Allen and Jill Kelley . . . .
      "Asked whether there was concern about the disclosure of classified information, the official said, on condition of anonymity: 'We are concerned about inappropriate communications. We are not going to speculate as to what is contained in these documents.'"
      So not only did the FBI - again, all without any real evidence of a crime - trace the locations and identity of Broadwell and Petreaus, and read through Broadwell's emails (and possibly Petraeus'), but they also got their hands on and read through 20,000-30,000 pages of emails between Gen. Allen and Kelley.
      This is a surveillance state run amok. It also highlights how any remnants of internet anonymity have been all but obliterated by the union between the state and technology companies.
      But, as unwarranted and invasive as this all is, there is some sweet justice in having the stars of America's national security state destroyed by the very surveillance system which they implemented and over which they preside. As Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this morning: "Who knew the key to stopping the Surveillance State was to just wait until it got so big that it ate itself?"
      It is usually the case that abuses of state power become a source for concern and opposition only when they begin to subsume the elites who are responsible for those abuses. Recall how former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman - one of the most outspoken defenders of the illegal Bush National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless eavesdropping program - suddenly began sounding like an irate, life-long ACLU privacy activist when it was revealed that the NSA had eavesdropped on her private communications with a suspected Israeli agent over alleged attempts to intervene on behalf of AIPAC officials accused of espionage. Overnight, one of the Surveillance State's chief assets, the former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, transformed into a vocal privacy proponent because now it was her activities, rather than those of powerless citizens, which were invaded.
      With the private, intimate activities of America's most revered military and intelligence officials being smeared all over newspapers and televisions for no good reason, perhaps similar conversions are possible. Put another way, having the career of the beloved CIA Director and the commanding general in Afghanistan instantly destroyed due to highly invasive and unwarranted electronic surveillance is almost enough to make one believe not only that there is a god, but that he is an ardent civil libertarian.
      The US operates a sprawling, unaccountable Surveillance State that - in violent breach of the core guarantees of the Fourth Amendment - monitors and records virtually everything even the most law-abiding citizens do. Just to get a flavor for how pervasive it is, recall that the Washington Post, in its 2010 three-part "Top Secret America" series, reported: "Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications."
      Equally vivid is this 2007 chart from Privacy International, a group that monitors the surveillance policies of nations around the world. Each color represents the level of the nation's privacy and surveillance policies, with black being the most invasive and abusive ("Endemic Surveillance Societies") and blue being the least ("Consistently upholds human rights standards"):
      And the Obama administration has spent the last four years aggressively seeking to expand that Surveillance State, including by agitating for Congressional action to amend the Patriot Act to include Internet and browsing data among the records obtainable by the FBI without court approval and demanding legislation requiring that all Internet communications contain a government "backdoor" of surveillance.
      Based on what is known, what is most disturbing about the whole Petraeus scandal is not the sexual activities that it revealed, but the wildly out-of-control government surveillance powers which enabled these revelations. What requires investigation here is not Petraeus and Allen and their various sexual partners but the FBI and the whole sprawling, unaccountable surveillance system that has been built.
      (1) One of the claims made over the last week was that Broadwell, in public comments about the Benghazi attack, referenced non-public information - including that the CIA was holding prisoners in Benghazi and that this motivated the attack - suggesting that someone gave her classified information. About those claims, a national security reporter for Fox reported:
      "that a well-placed Washington source confirms that Libyan militiamen were being held at the CIA annex and may have been a possible reason for the attack. Multiple intelligence sources, she also reported, said 'there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.'"
      Though the CIA denies that "the agency is still in the detention business", it certainly should be investigated to determine whether the CIA is maintaining off-the-books detention facilities in Libya.
      (2) I've long noted that Michael Hastings is one of the nation's best and most valuable journalists; to see why that is so, please watch the amazing 8-minute clip from last night's Piers Morgan Show on CNN embedded below, when he appeared with two Petraeus-defending military officials (via the Atlantic's Adam Clark Estes). When you're done watching that, contrast that with the remarkably candid confession this week from Wired's national security reporter Spencer Ackerman on how he, along with so many other journalists, hypnotically joined what he aptly calls the "Cult of David Petraeus".
      (3) I gave a 40-minute speech this summer on the Surveillance State and the reasons it is so destructive, which can be viewed on the video below; Alternet transcribed the speech here:
    DN!
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:34
      NERMEENSHAIKH: We turn now to the latest developments in the scandal that has brought down CIA director David Petraeus and ensnared General John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The Pentagon says the FBI has uncovered thousands of, quote, "potentially inappropriate" emails between Allen and Jill Kelley, the woman who complained of harassment from Petraeus's lover, Paula Broadwell. Kelley's complaint to the FBI led to the discovery of Broadwell and Petraeus's relationship, prompting Petraeus's resignation on Friday. Allen succeeded Petraeus in Afghanistan last year. The Pentagon says Allen will remain the U.S. commander in Afghanistan for now, but that plans to nominate him to become NATO's Supreme Allied Commander are on hold pending the outcome of the investigation. Responding to the revelations, White House spokesperson Jay Carney reaffirmed on Tuesday President Obama's faith in General Allen.
      JAYCARNEY: I can tell you that the president thinks very highly of General Allen and his service to his country, as well as the job he has done in Afghanistan. At the request of the secretary of defense, the president has put on hold General Allen's nomination as Supreme Allied Commander Europe, pending the investigation of General Allen's conduct by the Department of Defense.
      AMYGOODMAN: To talk more about the significance of this inquiry and much more, we're joined now by Glenn Greenwald, columnist and blogger for The Guardian, author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. His most recent piece in The Guardian is called "FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation."
      Glenn Greenwald, welcome back to Democracy Now! Elaborate.
      GLENNGREENWALD: I think there is a lot of media focus on the salacious aspects of this case for reasons that are obvious, which is that the media loves sex scandals. But there are real issues arising from this of genuine importance and substance, beginning with the fact that the FBI, based on really no evidence of any actual crime, engaged in this massive surveillance effort of, first, obtaining all kinds of intimate and private information about two women, one of whom complained, one of whom was the target of the complaint, Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley; learned the locations and email accounts of Paula Broadwell, who was the subject of this fairly innocuous complaint; read through all of her emails; learned the identity of her anonymous lover, David Petraeus; likely read'--certainly read through all of her emails, probably read through his; and then, in the process, as well, learned about an affair between the complainant, Jill Kelley'--or not an affair, but inappropriate communications, as they're calling it, and the four-star general in Afghanistan, General Allen; and then obtained 20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails between them, as well.
      So you're talking about a massively invasive investigation without any of their knowledge, obtaining their most private and intimate communications'--all without evidence of any predicate crime, really without the need, except in a few cases, for judicial view or oversight. And, to me, it really illustrates how'--how invasive and sprawling this unaccountable surveillance state has become. This happens all the time, just generally to people less powerful and influential than the two generals in question here. And so we can really learn lessons, I hope, about what we've allowed the government to do in terms of its investigative powers.
      AMYGOODMAN: Earlier this year, Paula Broadwell discussed her book on General David Petraeus'--oh, because, we should explain, Paula Broadwell is David Petraeus's biographer'--with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show.
      JONSTEWART: People in these books very rarely'--they always think, I'll be the one to outsmart the'--I'll be the one to outsmart'--I'll give the access'--and it never'--but in this'--I mean, the most controversial thing is'--I would say the real controversy here is, is he awesome or incredibly awesome? It's very'--it's a nice portrait.
      PAULABROADWELL: I have a detail to share with you.
      JONSTEWART: All right.
      PAULABROADWELL: He can turn water into bottled water.
      JONSTEWART: What?
      PAULABROADWELL: Isn't that your line?
      JONSTEWART: One thing we did find out is his nickname is Peaches.
      PAULABROADWELL: Was'--it was Peaches when he was in'--he was in high school, and it followed him to West Point and has stuck a little bit.
      AMYGOODMAN: In a separate interview, Paula Broadwell explained why she admires and respects General David Petraeus.
      PAULABROADWELL: When I realized the opportunity I had to tell this message, to present this portrait of strategic leadership'--you know, it's not'--it's not a hagiography; I'm not in love with David Petraeus. But I think he does present a terrific role model for young people, for executives, for men and women. No matter what, there's a great role model there who is'--who is values-oriented, who speaks the truth to power.
      AMYGOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald?
      GLENNGREENWALD: One of the things that I think is so interesting is that what she was saying in those interviews and in her book fit very comfortably into the general media narrative about David Petraeus. She may have had a deeply personal relationship with him, but the affection that she had for him was shared by most of the people in the media who were covering and discussing him. And one of the national security reporters for Wired magazine, Spencer Ackerman, actually wrote a commendably candid piece this week confessing that he had essentially hypnotically joined what he called "the cult of David Petraeus," along with most of the'--his colleagues in the national media who cover national security. And I think it really evinces this sort of reverence for all things military, and specifically for General Petraeus.
      NERMEENSHAIKH: You actually, Glenn, spoke in one of your most recent pieces about how popular the military is in the U.S. In fact, it is the single most popular and affirmed institution: 78 percent of Americans profess, quote, a "great deal" or a lot of confidence in the military, according to a Gallup poll. One of the few journalists, apart from yourself, who's expressed some skepticism about General David Petraeus is Michael Hastings. He's a reporter for BuzzFeed and Rolling Stone, and he recently appeared on CNNPiers Morgan Tonight and said there are many reasons Petraeus should have resigned, reasons that have nothing to do with his affair with Paula Broadwell.
      MICHAELHASTINGS: I mean, I think's many other reasons Petraeus should have resigned besides who he's sleeping with that's not his wife. But I just want to make a point here. The larger point that I've been making is that essentially the media has played a role in protecting David Petraeus and promoting David Petraeus and mythologizing David Petraeus. And we saw it here tonight. General Kimmitt, who was a spokesperson in Baghdad, who was a roommate of Petraeus, who was involved in one of the biggest debacles in recent foreign policy history, is on TV, you know, defending David Petraeus without actually addressing the real problems with David Petraeus's record. And those are the fact that he manipulated the White House into escalating in Afghanistan; he ran a campaign in Iraq that was brutally savage, included arming the worst of the worst, Shiite death squads, Sunni militiamen; and then you go back to the training of the Iraqi army program that also had similar problems. So, for me, all the while, he's going around the country talking about honor and integrity.
      NERMEENSHAIKH: That was Michael Hastings speaking on CNN's Piers Morgan [Tonight]. Glenn Greenwald, your response?
      GLENNGREENWALD: Well, I think Michael Hastings is a fascinating case. If you recall, he's the reporter who wrote the Rolling Stone cover story about General McChrystal who ended General McChrystal's, Stanley McChrystal's, career, who at the time was the commander of the war in Afghanistan. And what was amazing about that was, nobody doubted the authenticity of the quotes that he included in his article, and yet huge numbers of the most prominent media figures who cover the war in Afghanistan attacked Michael Hastings viciously'--John Burns at the New York Times, Lara Logan at CBS.
      And what they were essentially accusing him of doing was violating the trust of the general, not because he had reported things that were supposed to be off the record, but because they said that you develop a bond with these generals. John Burns talked about how you end up sleeping in the same tent with them, flying over war zones in Afghanistan, and that they really have an expectation that you should honor, as a reporter, to protect and shield them and their reputation. And that's what these journalists see themselves as doing, as serving as spokespeople for these military figures, and that's why they were so angry at Michael Hastings.
      He was attacked again because of that CNN interview. There's an article in Politico essentially describing him as'--as this sort of unhinged person who, as they put it'--this is a quote'--is "muddying" the "sacred waters" of journalism through his, quote-unquote, "advocacy." And so, what you really see is there's'--there's a perception that there's no national religion in the United States. Christianity is not the state religion'--that's true. But the national religion in the United States is worship of all things military. And journalists are its high priests.
      AMYGOODMAN: So now what does this mean for Afghanistan, for the CIA? First of all, you had this general, a military general, becoming head of the CIA. Now David Petraeus is out. And then you have whatever is going to happen to John Allen happen. What does this mean?
      GLENNGREENWALD: I'm not sure it really means anything for the policies of the national security state. The national security state seems to endure no matter what happens to its particular figureheads. I think they'll simply be replaced. I'm not sure, actually, that General Allen is going anywhere. Certainly, David Petraeus was an important person in the sense that he was so revered, almost as a religious figure, that he shielded the CIA and other military institutions from any kind of criticism. But I think you'll see most of that enduring.
      AMYGOODMAN: And has been pushing for an expansion of the drone war.
      GLENNGREENWALD: Right. But, of course, President Obama, who's the commander-in-chief and his boss, is very much on board with an expansion, not just of a drone war, but of the conversion of the CIA into even more of a paramilitary organization than it has ever been before. Obama is enamored of this idea, and I think that will continue fully apace, so whoever steps in will be fully on board with that.
  Says The leak, he said, came from ''a reader of mine'' who was comfortable working with him. The source, Mr. Greenwald said, ''knew the views that I had and had an expectation of how I would display them.''
So lets find out about Greenwald's history
  Salon magazine is a ODG
  SLNM Income Statement | SALON MEDIA GRP Stock - Yahoo! Finance
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:19
    SLNM Income Statement | SALON MEDIA GRP Stock - Yahoo! FinanceMore On SLNM
    QuotesChartsNews & InfoCompanyAnalyst CoverageOwnershipFinancialsSalon Media Group Inc. (SLNM)-OTC Markets
    0.110.00(0.00%)May 31, 1:04PM EDT
    View: Annual Data | Quarterly DataAll numbers in thousandsPeriod EndingDec 30, 2012Sep 29, 2012Jun 29, 2012Mar 30, 2012Total Revenue1,032 853 836 1,113 Cost of Revenue(627)627 - - Gross Profit1,659 226 836 1,113 Operating ExpensesResearch Development- - - - Selling General and Administrative2,393 1,059 2,300 2,485 Non Recurring- - - - Others- - - - Total Operating Expenses- - - - Operating Income or Loss(734)(833)(1,464)(1,372)Income from Continuing OperationsTotal Other Income/Expenses Net- - - - Earnings Before Interest And Taxes(934)(833)(1,464)(1,174)Interest Expense(128)69 59 332 Income Before Tax(806)(902)(1,523)(1,506)Income Tax Expense- - - - Minority Interest- - - - Net Income From Continuing Ops(806)(902)(1,523)(1,506)Non-recurring EventsDiscontinued Operations- 242 (9)(51)Extraordinary Items- - - - Effect Of Accounting Changes- - - - Other Items- - - - Net Income(806)(660)(1,532)(1,557)Preferred Stock And Other Adjustments- - - - Net Income Applicable To Common Shares(806)(660)(1,532)(1,557)Currency in USD.
    95941440
    95941440
    {"yrb_token" : "YFT_MARKET_CLOSED", "tt" : "1370748115", "s" : "slnm", "k" : "a00,a50,b00,b60,c10,c63,c64,c85,c86,g00,g53,h00,h53,l10,l84,l85,l86,p20,p43,p44,t10,t53,t54,v00,v53", "o" : "^dji,^ixic", "j" : "c10,l10,p20,t10", "version" : "1.0", "market" : {"NAME" : "U.S.", "ID" : "us_market", "TZ" : "EDT", "TZOFFSET" : "-14400", "open" : "", "close" : "", "flags" : {}} , "market_status_yrb" : "YFT_MARKET_CLOSED" , "portfolio" : { "fd" : { "txns" : [ ]},"dd" : "","pc" : "","pcs" : ""}, "STREAMER_SERVER" : "http://streamerapi.finance.yahoo.com", "DOC_DOMAIN" : "finance.yahoo.com", "localize" : "0" , "throttleInterval" : "1000" , "arrowAsChangeSign" : "true" , "up_arrow_icon" : "http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/fi/03rd/up_g.gif" , "down_arrow_icon" : "http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/fi/03rd/down_r.gif" , "up_color" : "green" , "down_color" : "red" , "pass_market_id" : "0" , "mu" : "1" , "lang" : "en-US" , "region" : "US" }1
    SLNM Income Statement | SALON MEDIA GRP Stock - Yahoo! FinanceMore On SLNM
    QuotesChartsNews & InfoCompanyAnalyst CoverageOwnershipFinancialsSalon Media Group Inc. (SLNM)-OTC Markets
    0.110.00(0.00%)May 31, 1:04PM EDT
    View: Annual Data | Quarterly DataAll numbers in thousandsPeriod EndingDec 30, 2012Sep 29, 2012Jun 29, 2012Mar 30, 2012Total Revenue1,032 853 836 1,113 Cost of Revenue(627)627 - - Gross Profit1,659 226 836 1,113 Operating ExpensesResearch Development- - - - Selling General and Administrative2,393 1,059 2,300 2,485 Non Recurring- - - - Others- - - - Total Operating Expenses- - - - Operating Income or Loss(734)(833)(1,464)(1,372)Income from Continuing OperationsTotal Other Income/Expenses Net- - - - Earnings Before Interest And Taxes(934)(833)(1,464)(1,174)Interest Expense(128)69 59 332 Income Before Tax(806)(902)(1,523)(1,506)Income Tax Expense- - - - Minority Interest- - - - Net Income From Continuing Ops(806)(902)(1,523)(1,506)Non-recurring EventsDiscontinued Operations- 242 (9)(51)Extraordinary Items- - - - Effect Of Accounting Changes- - - - Other Items- - - - Net Income(806)(660)(1,532)(1,557)Preferred Stock And Other Adjustments- - - - Net Income Applicable To Common Shares(806)(660)(1,532)(1,557)Currency in USD.
    95941440
    95941440
    {"yrb_token" : "YFT_MARKET_CLOSED", "tt" : "1370748115", "s" : "slnm", "k" : "a00,a50,b00,b60,c10,c63,c64,c85,c86,g00,g53,h00,h53,l10,l84,l85,l86,p20,p43,p44,t10,t53,t54,v00,v53", "o" : "^dji,^ixic", "j" : "c10,l10,p20,t10", "version" : "1.0", "market" : {"NAME" : "U.S.", "ID" : "us_market", "TZ" : "EDT", "TZOFFSET" : "-14400", "open" : "", "close" : "", "flags" : {}} , "market_status_yrb" : "YFT_MARKET_CLOSED" , "portfolio" : { "fd" : { "txns" : [ ]},"dd" : "","pc" : "","pcs" : ""}, "STREAMER_SERVER" : "http://streamerapi.finance.yahoo.com", "DOC_DOMAIN" : "finance.yahoo.com", "localize" : "0" , "throttleInterval" : "1000" , "arrowAsChangeSign" : "true" , "up_arrow_icon" : "http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/fi/03rd/up_g.gif" , "down_arrow_icon" : "http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/fi/03rd/down_r.gif" , "up_color" : "green" , "down_color" : "red" , "pass_market_id" : "0" , "mu" : "1" , "lang" : "en-US" , "region" : "US" }1
  $0.11/share? Losing $1mm a year? $3mm a year being pumped in?
  Salon (website) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:23
    Salon is a news website created by David Talbot in 1995 and part of Salon Media Group (OTCQB: SLNM). It focuses on U.S. politics and current affairs, and on reviews and articles about music, books and films.[1][2][3]
    Salon's headquarters is located west of downtown San Francisco, California.[4] As of November 2010, its editor-in-chief is Kerry Lauerman. His predecessor Joan Walsh stepped down from that position in November 2010 but remained as editor at large.[5]
    Content and coverage[edit]Salon magazine covers a variety of topics. It has reviews and articles about music, books, and films.[4] It also has articles about "modern life", including relationships, friendships and human sexual behavior. It covers technology, with a particular focus on the free software/open source movement.
    In 2008, Salon launched the interactive initiative Open Salon, a social content site/blog network for its readers.
    Responding to the question, "How far do you go with the tabloid sensibility to get readers?", former Salon.com editor-in-chief David Talbot said:
    Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid. If by tabloid what you mean is you're trying to reach a popular audience, trying to write topics that are viscerally important to a readership, whether it's the story about the mother in Houston who drowned her five children or the story on the missing intern in Washington, Chandra Levy.
    Staff and contributors[edit]Regular contributors include the political opinion writer Alex Pareene; political analyst Steve Kornacki and David Sirota; critics Laura Miller and Andrew O'Hehir; pop-culture columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams; aviation columnist Patrick Smith; Tracy Clark-Flory writing on feminist and gender topics; advice columnist Cary Tennis; and economics writer Andrew Leonard.
    David Talbot is founder and original editor-in-chief. He has served several stints as CEO,[7] most recently replacing Richard Gingras who left to join Google as head of news products in July 2011.[8] The company's current CEO is Cynthia Jeffers.[9] Kerry Lauerman is the editor-in-chief, Gail Williams manages The WELL, and Norman Blashka is the CFO and VP of Operations.
    In April 2010 Salon hired Alex Pareene, a writer for Gawker Media, to write about politics.[10] Pareene composes the site's Hack 30: The Worst Pundits in America, a list of people described as "the most predictable, banal, intellectually dishonest and all-around hacky newspaper columnists, cable news shouting heads and political opinion-mongers working today."[11][12]
    History[edit]Salon was founded by David Talbot[13] and was first published in 1995. It purchased the virtual communityThe WELL in April 1999, and made its initial public offering of Salon.com on the NASDAQ stock exchange on June 22 of that year.
    Salon Premium, a pay-to-view (online) content subscription was introduced on April 25, 2001. The service signed over 130,000 subscribers and staved off discontinuation of services. However, less than two years later, in November 2002, the company announced it had accumulated cash and non-cash losses of $80 million, and by February 2003 it was having difficulty paying its rent, and made an appeal for donations to keep the company running.
    On October 9, 2003, Michael O'Donnell, the chief executive and president of Salon Media Group, said he was leaving the company after seven years because it was "time for a change." When he left, Salon.com had accrued $83.6 million in losses since its inception, and its stock traded for 5 on the OTC Bulletin Board. David Talbot, Salon's chairman and editor-in-chief at the time, became the new chief executive. Elizabeth "Betsy" Hambrecht, then Salon's chief financial officer, became the president.
    In July 2008, Salon launched Open Salon, a "social content site" and "curated blog network".[14] It was nominated for a 2009 National Magazine Award.[15] in the category "best interactive feature."
    On June 10, 2011, Salon closed its online chat board Table Talk. Salon.com has not given an official reason for ending that section of its site.[16]
    On July 16, 2012, Salon announced that it will be featuring content from Mondoweiss.[17]
    In September 2012, Salon Media Group sold The WELL to the group of members.[18]
    Business model and operations[edit]Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history. Since 2007, the company has been dependent on ongoing cash injections from board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht. During the nine months ended December 31, 2012, these cash contributions amounted to $3.4 million, compared to revenue in the same period of $2.7 million.[19]
    Aspects of the Salon.com site offerings, ordered by advancing date:
    Free content, around 15 new articles posted per-day, revenues wholly derived from in-page advertisements.Per-day new content was reduced for a time.Salon Premium subscription. Approximately 20 percent of new content made available to subscribers only. Other subscription benefits included free magazines and ad-free viewing. Larger, more conspicuous ad units introduced for non-subscribers.A hybrid subscription model. Readers now can read content by viewing a 15-second full screen advertisement to earn a "day pass" or gain access by subscribing to Salon Premium.After Salon Premium subscriptions declined from about 100,000 to 10,000, it was rebranded in 2011 as Salon Core subscriptions featuring a different mix of benefits.[7]Salon Book Awards and What To Read Awards[edit]From 1996 to 2011, the Salon Book Awards were an annual literary award given by the editors of Salon.com to fiction and nonfiction books published the previous year. The editors' criteria for winning books are:
    "..the books we'd wholeheartedly recommend to our friends, books we'd clear our social calendar to finish, books we returned to eagerly even when we could barely focus our eyes on a page. They remind us of why we fell in love with reading and why we keep at it in a world that's simultaneously cluttered with mediocre books and increasingly indifferent to the written word."[20]In 2012, a new award was established called What To Read Awards after the Salon column "What to Read", although Laura Miller continued to maintain a separate Best Books of the Year top-10 list. The What to Read Awards were chosen as follows:
    "we surveyed our favorite book critics, both print and online, from high-profile publications to the hottest literary blogs. We asked for their top-10 books of 2012, and then tabulated the winners by assigning 10 points for a No. 1 selection, 9 for No. 2, all the way to 1 point for No. 10."[21]What To Read Awards winners[edit]2012
    New award established as "What To Read Awards" with books chosen by a system of points from an array of other journalists top-10 lists.[21] See also Laura Miller's top-10 picks.[22]
    Katherine Boo, Behind the Beautiful ForeversHilary Mantel, Bring Up the BodiesBen Fountain, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime WalkZadie Smith, NW, and Andrew Solomon, Far From the Tree (co-winners)Sheila Heti, How Should a Person BeGillian Flynn, Gone GirlLauren Groff, ArcadiaJess Walter, Beautiful RuinsSarah Manguso, The GuardiansSalon Book Awards winners[edit]1996
    1997
    1998
    1999
    2000
    2001
    2002
    No awards were given for the year of 2002.
    2003
    2004
    2005
    2006
    2007
    2008
    2009
    2010
    Published by Laura Miller December 7, 2010.[23]
    2011
    Published by Laura Miller December 8, 2011.[24]
    See also[edit]References[edit]^New York Times^New York Times^Los Angeles Times^ abSalon: About Salon^Joan Walsh (November 8, 2010). "I'm not leaving Salon!". Retrieved December 12, 2010.^"Interview with Salon.com's David Talbot". JournalismJobs.com. June 2001. Retrieved April 22, 2010. ^ abCalderone, Michael (September 27, 2011). "Salon CEO Calls For 'American Spring' With Site's Relaunch". Huffington Post. Retrieved October 4, 2011. ^"Form 8-K, Salon Media Group, Inc". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. July 7, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ^[1]^Alex Pareene Leaving Gawker to Join Salon, John Koblin, The New York Observer, April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 7, 2012^Meet Salon's ''Hack 30'": ''The Worst Pundits In America'', Hillary Busis, Mediaite, November 22, 2010. Retrieved June 7, 2012^Introducing the Hack 30, Alex Pareene, Salon, November 22, 2010^Herhold, Scott (December 28, 1997). "Net magazine Salon epitomizes fate of mind over matter". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on February 21, 1999. Retrieved 2011-07-07. ^Lauerman, Kerry (July 28, 2008). "Welcome to our public beta". Opensalon.com. Retrieved April 21, 2010. ^Lauerman, Kerry (March 18, 2009). "Congratulations! You've just been nominated...". Opensalon.com. Retrieved April 21, 2010. ^Salon.com June 10, 2011 "Requiem for Table Talk"^Salon:Mondoweiss^Salon Media Group Sells The WELL to The Well Group^http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1084332/000143774913001586/smg_10q-123112.htm^Salon Book Awards, December 1996, inaugural year.^ abDavid Daley (December 23, 2012). "The What To Read Awards: Top 10 Books of 2012". [[Salon (website)|]]. Retrieved December 24, 2012. ^Laura Miller (December 22, 2012). "Laura Miller's best books of 2012". Salon. Retrieved December 24, 2012. ^Laura Miller. "The best nonfiction books of 2010", "The best fiction of 2010" '' Salon, Dec 7, 2010.^Laura Miller. "The best fiction of 2011", "The best nonfiction of 2011" '' Salon, Dec 8, 2011.External links[edit]
  Who do we see on the board?
    Business model and operations[edit]Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history. Since 2007, the company has been dependent on ongoing cash injections from board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht. During the nine months ended December 31, 2012, these cash contributions amounted to $3.4 million, compared to revenue in the same period of $2.7 million.[19]
  Bill Hambrecht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:26
    William R. "Bill" Hambrecht (born 1935) is an Americaninvestment banker and chairman of WR Hambrecht + Co which he founded in 1998. He helped persuade Google to use an Internet-based auction for their initial public offering (IPO) in 2004, instead of a more traditional method using banks and other financial companies to find buyers. He is credited with popularizing this "OpenIPO" model, using Dutch auctions to allow anyone, not just investing insiders, to buy stock in an IPO, potentially raising more money for startups. Some of the companies he has helped have an IPO like this include Overstock.com, Ravenswood Winery, Andover.net and Salon.com.[1][2]
    Hambrecht is also credited as one of the first major investors to recognize the value of technology and biotech companies, helping to take Apple Computer, Genentech and Adobe Systems public in the 1980s with his earlier San Francisco-based company Hambrecht & Quist, which he founded in 1968 and which also backed the IPOs of Netscape, MP3.com, and Amazon.com. The firm was bought by Chase Manhattan in 1999.[3] In 1997, he sponsored the foundation of BOOM Securities (H.K.) Limited.[4]
    Hambrect is a 1957 graduate of Princeton University.[5] He has been listed as one of the top political donors in the country, giving mostly to Democratic candidates, and credits Nancy Pelosi, whom he met in the 1970s, with inspiring him to get involved in politics.[6]
    William Hambrecht is on the Board of Trustees of the American University of Beirut,[7]Lebanon.[8] He was on the Motorola Board of Directors from 2008 - 2011 and the AOL Inc. Board of Directors from Dec. 2010 to Feb. 2011.[9]
    In the 1980s Hambrecht was a minority investor in the Oakland Invaders, a charter member of the failed United States Football League.[2]
    In 2007 Hambrect was again in the news for planning a professional football league, the United Football League. Along with AOLCEOTim Armstrong, Hambrecht pledged $2 million to start the league up and arranged its original owners. On August 11, 2009, Hambrecht stepped forward to be the owner of the Las Vegas Locomotives franchise. The league remains under his overall leadership and direction. [10] The William Hambrecht Trophy, awarded to the winner of the UFL Championship Game, is named in his honor.
    ^"2006 Fast 50". fastcompany.com. Retrieved 2007-05-30. ^ abYoung, Eric (2007-05-30). "Investment banker Hambrecht plans pro football league". San Francisco Business Times. ^Scherer, Michael (2001-03-05). "William R. Hambrecht (with Sally)". Mother Jones. ^"About BOOM, a Hong Kong Online Stock Broker". ^"Bill Hambrecht on NNDB". Retrieved 2007-05-30. ^McCormick, Erin and Sandalow, Marc (2006-04-03). "Pelosi mines 'California gold' for Dems nationwide". San Francisco Chronicle. ^http://www.aub.edu.lb/^Board of Trustees, AUB, Lebanon^Meet AOL's BOD: Tim Armstrong May Be Youthful, but His Directors-To-Be Aren't^"Football's new game in town Fortune magazine". October 8, 2010. Archived from the original on 11 October 2010. Retrieved September 4, 2010. PersondataNameHambrecht, BillAlternative namesHambrecht, WilliamShort descriptionDate of birth1935Place of birthDate of deathPlace of death
  John Warnock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:24
    John E. WarnockBorn(1940-10-06) October 6, 1940 (age 72)Salt Lake City, Utah, United StatesFieldsComputer ScienceInstitutionsUniversity of UtahAlma materUniversity of UtahDoctoral advisorDavid C. EvansIvan SutherlandKnown forAdobe SystemsPostScriptPortable Document Format (PDF)Notable awardsSoftware Systems Award (1989, Association for Computing Machinery); Edwin H. Land Medal (2000, Optical Society of America); Bodley Medal (2003, Bodleian Library at Oxford University); Lovelace Medal (2004, British Computer Society); Medal of Achievement (2006, AeA); Computer Entrepreneur Award (2008, IEEE Computer Society); United States National Medal of Technology and Innovation (2009), Marconi Prize (2010)John Edward Warnock (born October 6, 1940) is an American computer scientist best known as the co-founder with Charles Geschke of Adobe Systems Inc., the graphics and publishing software company. Dr. Warnock was President of Adobe for his first two years and Chairman and CEO for his remaining sixteen years at the company. Although retired as CEO in 2001, he still co-chairs the board with Geschke. Warnock has pioneered the development of graphics, publishing, Web and electronic document technologies that have revolutionized the field of publishing and visual communications.
    Biography[edit]Warnock was born in Salt Lake City, Utah and currently lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is married and has three children. Warnock has a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Philosophy, a Master of Science in Mathematics, a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering (Computer Science), and an honorary degree in Science, all from the University of Utah. At the University of Utah he was a member of the Gamma Beta Chapter of the Beta Theta Pi Fraternity.[1] He also has an honorary degree from the American Film Institute.
    In 1976, while Warnock worked at Evans & Sutherland, a Salt Lake City-based computer graphics company, the concepts of the PostScript language were seeded. Prior to co-founding Adobe, with Geschke and Putman, Warnock worked with Geschke at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC), where he had started in 1978. Unable to convince Xerox management of the approach to commercialize the InterPress graphics language for controlling printing, he, together with Geschke and Putman, left Xerox to start Adobe in 1982. At their new company, they developed an equivalent technology, PostScript, from scratch, and brought it to market for Apple's LaserWriter in 1984.
    Warnock's earliest publication and subject of his master's thesis, was his 1964 proof of a theorem solving the Jacobson radical for row-finite matrices,[2] which was originally posed by the American mathematician Nathan Jacobson in 1956.
    In his 1969 doctoral thesis, Warnock invented the Warnock algorithm for hidden surface determination in computer graphics.[3] It works by recursive subdivision of a scene until areas are obtained that are trivial to compute. It solves the problem of rendering a complicated image by avoiding the problem. If the scene is simple enough to compute then it is rendered; otherwise it is divided into smaller parts and the process is repeated.[4]
    In the Spring of 1991, Warnock outlined a system called "Camelot",[5] that evolved into the Portable Document Format (PDF) file-format. The goal of Camelot was to "effectively capture documents from any application, send electronic versions of these documents anywhere, and view and print these documents on any machines". Warnock's document contemplated, "Imagine if the IPS (Interchange PostScript) viewer is also equipped with text searching capabilities. In this case the user could find all documents that contain a certain word or phrase, and then view that word or phrase in context within the document. Entire libraries could be archived in electronic form..."
    One of Adobe's popular typefaces, Warnock, is named after him.
    Adobe's PostScript technology made it easier to print text and images from a computer, revolutionizing media and publishing in the 1980s.
    In 2003 Warnock and his wife donated 200,000 shares of Adobe Systems valued at over 5.7 million dollars[6] to the University of Utah as the main gift for a new engineering building. The John E. and Marva M. Warnock Engineering Building was completed in 2007 and houses the University of Utah College of Engineering.
    Dr. Warnock holds seven patents. In addition to Adobe Systems, he serves or has served on the board of directors at ebrary, Knight-Ridder, MongoNet, Netscape Communications and Salon Media Group. Warnock is a past Chairman of the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute.
    Hobbies include photography, skiing, Web development, painting, hiking, curation of rare scientific books and historical Native American objects.[7]
    A strong supporter of higher education, Warnock and his wife, Marva, have supported three presidential endowed chairs in computer science, mathematics and fine arts at the University of Utah and also an endowed chair in medical research at Stanford University.
    Recognition[edit]The recipient of numerous scientific and technical awards, Warnock won the Software Systems Award from the Association for Computing Machinery in 1989.[8] In 1995 Warnock received the University of Utah Distinguished Alumnus Award and in 1999 he was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery. Warnock was awarded the Edwin H. Land Medal from the Optical Society of America in 2000.[9] In 2002, he was made a Fellow of the Computer History Museum for "his accomplishments in the commercialization of desktop publishing with John Warnock and for innovations in scalable type, computer graphics and printing." Oxford University's Bodleian Library bestowed the Bodley Medal on Warnock in November, 2003.[10][11] In 2004, Warnock received the Lovelace Medal from the British Computer Society in London.[12] In October 2006, Warnock'--along with Adobe co-founder Charles Geschke'--received the American Electronics Association's Annual Medal of Achievement Award, being the first software executives to receive this award. In 2008, Warnock and Geschke received the Computer Entrepreneur Award from the IEEE Computer Society "for inventing PostScript and PDF and helping to launch the desktop publishing revolution and change the way people engage with information and entertainment".[13] In September 2009, Warnock and Geschke were chosen to receive the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, one of the nation's highest honors bestowed on scientists, engineers and inventors.[14][15] In 2010, Warnock and Geschke received the Marconi Prize, considered the highest honor specifically for contributions to information science and communications.[16]
    Warnock is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, the latter being America's oldest learned society.
    He has received Honorary Degrees from the University of Utah, American Film Institute and The University of Nottingham, UK.[17]
    See also[edit]References[edit]^http://utah-beta.org/?page_id=14^Sexauer NE and; Warnock, J. E (1969). "The Radical of the Row-Finite Matrices over an Arbitrary Ring". Transactions of the American Mathematical Society (American Mathematical Society) 139: 281''295. JSTOR 1995321. ^Warnock, John (1969). "A hidden surface algorithm for computer generated halftone pictures" (PDF). University of Utah. "The algorithm was Warnock's doctoral thesis." , 32 pages^Daintith, John; Wright, Edmund (2009). Oxford Dictionary of Computing. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923400-4. , 608 pages^Warnock, John (1991). "The Camelot Project" (PDF). PlanetPDF. "This document describes the base technology and ideas behind the project named ''Camelot.'' This project's goal is to solve a fundamental problem [...] there is no universal way to communicate and view ... printed information electronically." ^"U Receives Cornerstone Gift for New Engineering Building: President J. Bernard Machen Announces Plans for the John E. and Marva M. Warnock Engineering Building". University of Utah. 2003. Retrieved 2009-03-21. "The stock currently valued at over $5.7M is the cornerstone gift of a $13M capital campaign to construct a new engineering building dedicated to undergraduate instruction and emerging areas of research." [dead link]^Nagy C, et al (2009). Warnock J and Warnock M, ed. The Splendid Heritage:perspectives on American Indian art. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. p. 223. ISBN 0-87480-954-1 9780874809541 0874809606 9780874809602 . OCLC 294998662. ^"Software Systems Award Awardees List". Retrieved 2009-09-19. ^"Edwin H. Land Medal Winners List". Retrieved 2009-09-19. ^"Speech of welcome at the [[Bodleian Library]]'s San Francisco dinner, 13 November 2003". Retrieved 2009-09-18. "Speech by Bodleian Library's 23rd Librarian, Reg Carr" ^"Speech of welcome to the Bodley Medal Event". Retrieved 2009-09-19. "Bodleian Librarian Speech on History of the Bodley Medal" ^"[[Lovelace Medal]]". Retrieved 2008-12-10. "2004 winner, Dr John E Warnock, Chairman of the Board, Adobe Systems" ^Tyrus Manuel. "2008 Computer Entrepreneur Award: Charles M. Geschke and John E. Warnock". Retrieved 2009-09-19. ^Steve Johnson. "Adobe co-founders to receive national science award". Retrieved 2009-09-19. ^"The National Medal of Technology and Innovation". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved Sep. 20, 2009.^"Geschke and Warnock Revolutionized Industry-Standard Printing and Imaging Technology". The Marconi Society. 2010-10-15. Retrieved 2010-10-10. ^"Honorary Degree for John Warnock". University of Nottingham. 2010-07-20. External links[edit]PersondataNameWarnock, JohnAlternative namesShort descriptionAmerican computer programmerDate of birth1940-10-06Place of birthSalt Lake City, UtahDate of deathPlace of death
Which company has is TRULY inside ALL intelligence ops?
ADOBE
  F-Secure advises against using Adobe Reader - The H Security: News and Features
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:38
    On the periphery of the current RSA conference, Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer of Finnish anti-virus software vendor F-Secure, has recommended that, due to security problems with Adobe Reader, users should switch to an alternative program.
    Of the targeted attacks on managers, politicians and other high-ranking individuals registered this year, almost 50 per cent have exploited six security vulnerabilities in Adobe's PDF products. In 2008 it was Microsoft Word which proved the most popular target '' with 35 per cent '' for such attacks, although the number of vulnerabilities in Adobe Reader (19) was already exceeding the number in Word (15) by four. Hypponen notes that while the number of infected PDF files observed between January and April 2008 was just 128, over the same period this year it rose to more than 2300.
    The attacks involve criminals sending prepared documents to their victims in order to infect and spy on their PCs. The methods used by the recently reported spy network which infiltrated computers belonging to the Tibetan Government in Exile also included crafted PDF files. PDF and Flash browser plug-ins also present a risk.
    According to Hypponen, users often fail to update their applications and are not aware that important security updates have been released. Automatic update requests were also often ignored. In Hypponen's opinion, Adobe should establish a regular update cycle for its products in the same way as Microsoft.
    Hypponen did not mention specific alternative PDF viewers, but merely referred to the website PDFReaders.org, which lists a number of free readers. The Foxit-Reader is, however, absent from this list. However the list does include open source readers KPDF (for KDE) and Xpdf, which were also recently found to contain critical security vulnerabilities very similar to those found in Adobe's products. Foxit has also previously harboured a number of critical bugs. Users will have to decide for themselves whether switching to an alternative PDF reader, or the rapid installation of security updates, represents the more sensible solution.
    (dab)
    See also:
    (crve)
If you want to hide something, do it in plain sight:
We all know FLASH is a security risk
  The Dead Man Talks
    Thoughts on Flash
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:58
      Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe's founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers '' Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products '' but beyond that there are few joint interests.
      I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven '' they say we want to protect our App Store '' but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.
      First, there's ''Open''.
      Adobe's Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
      Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript '' all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.
      Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android's browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft's uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.
      Second, there's the ''full web''.
      Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access ''the full web'' because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web's video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren't missing much video.
      Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.
      Third, there's reliability, security and performance.
      Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don't want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.
      In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we're glad we didn't hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?
      Fourth, there's battery life.
      To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 '' an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.
      Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.
      When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
      Fifth, there's Touch.
      Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on ''rollovers'', which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?
      Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
      Sixth, the most important reason.
      Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn't support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.
      We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.
      This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.
      Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
      Our motivation is simple '' we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins '' we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.
      Conclusions.
      Flash was created during the PC era '' for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards '' all areas where Flash falls short.
      The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple's mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple's App Store proves that Flash isn't necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.
      New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.
      Steve JobsApril, 2010
    Third, there's reliability, security and performance.
    Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don't want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.
  Steve Jobs' death clears way for Adobe CTO defection ' The Register
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:01
    Free whitepaper '' What you need to know about cloud backup
    Long-standing chief technology officer Kevin Lynch has left Adobe, but why?
    Adobe has just announced first quarter 2013 results that were a little ahead of its target and show strong take-up of Creative Cloud - by which it offers up its cloudy software services for subscription rather than one-off purchase - roughly akin to an Office 265 for Creative Suite. There was more significant news though, noted in a form 8-K SEC filing:
    On March 18, 2013, Kevin Lynch resigned from his position as Executive Vice President, Chief Technology Officer, of Adobe Systems Incorporated, effective March 22, 2013, to pursue other opportunities.
    Adobe later issued a statement:
    Kevin Lynch, Adobe CTO, is leaving the company effective March 22 to take a position at Apple. We will not be replacing the CTO position; responsibility for technology development lies with our business unit heads under the leadership of Adobe Systems CEO Shantanu Narayen.
    The 46-year-old joined Adobe via its acquisition of Macromedia, the company which developed Flash, in December 2005. But Lynch had roots in Apple software development. ''I was a Mac software developer. I helped develop the first Mac release of FrameMaker and then led their core technology team,'' Lynch writes on his personal site.
    Later he joined General Magic, an Apple spin-off, where he worked on the user interface for a handheld device.
    He might have been expressing his love for the Mac, but it's Flash that Lynch has been closely associated with in recent years. And Steve Jobs barred Flash from all our futures by blocking it from the iPhone and iPad.
    That's making Lynch's hire as much a head-scratcher as a craw-sticker for the Apple faithful, none more so than fan blogger John Gruber who has spent years crowing about the inevitable brilliance of Apple's Jobsian way.
    Flash boom bangSo, why is Lynch leaving Adobe? The news comes in the context of turbulent change for the company.
    Adobe's product strategy was once built on Flash, a strategy that was killed by Apple which refused to allow it on the iPhone and iPad.
    ''Flash is a cross-platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross-platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms,'' said Steve Jobs in his Thoughts on Flash, in April 2010.
    Apple followed up with a change in its terms for developers, later withdrawn, that required iOS applications to be ''originally written in Objective-C, C, C++ or JavaScript''. It was a war against Flash, won by Apple.
    The impact on Adobe came to light gradually. In October 2011 the company acquired Nitobi and with it PhoneGap, technology to wrap HTML applications as native code for mobile devices. That was a sign of a new direction, yet the company's MAX conference that month was still more focused on Flash than HTML technology.
    Radical change followed. In November 2011 Adobe told financial analysts in New York that it was investing in HTML tooling, repositioning Flash to a lesser role, and focusing on digital media and marketing. That announcement marked the end of Flash as a strategic product for Adobe, taking many in the Adobe community by surprise. ''Leaving the Adobe MAX conference one month ago I felt reassured that the future of Flash and Flex were bright. Now I feel betrayed,'' said one signatory to an online petition in response.
    The move was nevertheless the right one for Adobe, which in the circumstances has managed a smooth transition, not only from Flash to HTML tooling, but also towards a business model based on subscriptions and cloud services. Lynch oversaw that transition, and most recently was working on linking Creative Cloud, based on Adobe's design software, with the Digital Marketing Suite, based on web analytics.
    Cloud Man?One interpretation is that Apple considers Lynch a strategic hire to assist with its own transition towards cloud services, and to realise the potential of iCloud, though according to CNBC Lynch will be reporting to hardware guy Bob Mansfield, senior veep of technologies. That said, Apple announced in June 2012 that Mansfield is retiring, with his role to be taken by another engineering vice president, Dan Riccio. It is not yet clear what Lynch will be doing at Apple.
    It is also possible that Lynch had become a poor fit at Adobe, following its transition to digital media and digital marketing.
    ''This news is pretty big, but bigger for Adobe than Apple,'' said RedMonk analyst James Governor. ''Since Shantanu was handed the reins to Omniture [web analytics] it hasn't been clear what exactly Lynch's role is. Kevin Lynch is a UX guy, not a Big Data/marketing analytics guy - but at Adobe the money is now in marketing analytics. So it's no surprise at all Lynch would leave for Apple.''
    Some observers consider that Lynch was too much wedded to Flash to be comfortable in the new Adobe. I have heard that he was opposed to the moves to cut back on Flash investment, placing him in an uncomfortable position once the deal was done. This part, at least, made Lynch a bad hire according to fan chief Gruber. ''I get that the guy worked for Adobe and had to play for the home team, but as CTO he backed a dying technology for years too long,'' the Fireball splutters.
    One thing is for sure: Apple is unlikely to have hired Lynch for his Flash expertise. ®
    Free whitepaper '' Cloud based data management
But flash just can't be dialing home all the time?
You need something people DONT CARE ABOUT!
  Advertising Networks
    Adobe Acquires Omniture: It's All About the Revenue Model
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:50
      PreviousNextAdobe is looking to stall falling sales and profit by entering into a new market: analytics. But rather looking to R&D, Adobe is instead coughing up $1.8 billion for analytics leader Omniture. This is the largest acquisition by Adobe since the purchase of Macromedia for $3 billion in 2005.
      The acquisition has puzzled many, since Adobe and Omniture products really have no natural cooperation. There have been comments about the measurement capabilities that Omniture will give to content built with Adobe products. But in the end the entire deal revolves around two words: recurring revenue. Adobe's quarterly earnings have fallen due to declining sales of software licenses, and the SaaS model of Omniture will bring the company a recurring stream of revenue.
      Omniture is a top dog in analytics. But even though it competes with just about everyone, including Google, in the measurement market, some industry analysts have pointed out that it's really run out of new ideas. In trying to explain the acquisition during an earnings call, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen asserted that buying Omniture was meeting customer needs.
      What we found is that as we've been talking to our customers, it's clear that they would like us to do a lot more. For example, the chief digital officers that we talk to at media companies have been telling us that they want to understand which content was performing the best so that they could feature it more prominently and increase their ad revenue.
      Advertisers and agencies were using Flash to produce rich ads but they were telling us that they really wanted to understand what the click-through rates of those ads were in real time, to be able to take more advantage of it.
      But few analysts have agreed that adding measurement power to content is really the core of this deal. Adobe announced the acquisition alongside a decrease in quarterly earnings. Even if Omniture is no longer at the forefront of innovation in analytics, its steady stream of revenue from SaaS subscriptions is a cash cow that Adobe can't afford to pass up right now.
      Tags:Steven Walling is a Writer for ReadWriteWeb based in Portland, Oregon. Having joined the team in June 2009, he's also a consultant for tech startups like AboutUs, Inc. and has written film and performing arts criticism in the past. In his spare time, he's an active volunteer for the free culture projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. You can contact Steven at steven@readwriteweb.com.Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
      comments powered by
    Omniture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:52
      Omniture was an online marketing and web analytics business unit in Orem, Utah that was acquired by Adobe Systems. The company operated until 2011 as a business unit within Adobe called the Omniture Business Unit, but as of 2012, Adobe began the process of retiring the Omniture name as former Omniture products were integrated into the Adobe Marketing Cloud.[2]
      History[edit]The company was founded in 1996 by Josh James and John Pestana and was backed by venture capitalists including Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, University Venture Fund, and Scale Venture Partners. During a period of rapid growth, the company was one of Inc. Magazine's 500 fastest-growing private companies. Omniture was listed on the NASDAQ as OMTR[3] in 2006.[4]
      Omniture bought behavioral targeting company Touch Clarity for $51.5 million.[5] In late 2007 the company acquired web analytics company Visual Sciences, Inc. (formerly WebSideStory) for $394 million,[6] and also purchased Offermatica for $65 million. In October, 2008 it agreed to acquire the Israeli e-commerce search solution provider Mercado for $6.5 million.[7]
      On September 15, 2009, Omniture, Inc. and Adobe Systems announced that Adobe would be acquiring Omniture for roughly $1.8 billion.[8] The deal was completed on October 23, 2009,[9] and is now joined by other Adobe acquisitions such as Day Software and Efficient Frontier, as the main components of Adobe's Digital Marketing Business Unit.[10][11]
      Adobe vacated the former Omniture offices in Orem, Utah in November, 2012, moving a large portion of its Digital Marketing Business Unit to a new facility in Lehi, Utah.
      Products[edit]SiteCatalyst, Omniture's software as a service application, offers web analytics (client-side analytics).SearchCenter+ assists with paid search and content network optimization in systems such as Google's AdWords, Yahoo! Search Marketing, Microsoft Ad Center, and Facebook Ads.DataWarehouse, data warehousing of SiteCatalyst data.Test&Target, A/B and MVT (multi-variate testing), derived from OffermaticaTest&Target 1:1, Omniture's main behavioural targeting solution, derived in part from Touch Clarity, drills down to the individual level of testing.Discover, an advanced segmentation tool.Insight, a multichannel segmentation tool (both client-side and server-side analytics). Formerly called Discover on Premise, it was derived from Omniture's Visual Sciences acquisition in 2007.Insight for Retail, an Insight offering geared toward multiple online and offline retail channels.Genesis, a third-party data integration tool (the majority of integrations work with SiteCatalyst).Recommendations offers automated product and content recommendations.SiteSearch, an on-demand enterprise search product.Merchandising, a search and navigation offering for online stores.Publish, for web content management.Survey, to gather visitor sentiment.DigitalPulse, a Web analytics code configuration monitoring tool.VISTA, server-side analytics.Omniture's latest offerings as of 2010 include some social media tracking capabilities. Major competitors are Rapleaf, WebTrends, Personyze and Eloqua.
      Criticism[edit]Critics have accused Omniture of attempting to hide the fact they are collecting data.[12] Critics claim they do this by sending the information to a domain name that looks and sounds similar to an IP address used to connect to devices on the local network and not the Internet. This has led to speculation that the domain name is used to trick users or firewall rules.[13] Omniture's SiteCatalyst and SearchCenter products use the 2o7.net domain name.[14]
      Omniture collects data from Apple[12] and Adobe, who use Omniture to collect usage statistics across their products.[13] It is possible to opt-out of the Omniture data-collection system, and to block the tracking.[14]
      References[edit][1] - Inc Article about Josh James, Founder, and John Pestana, CofounderExternal links[edit]
    Josh James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Link to Article
      Archived Version
      Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:54
      Josh James is an Americanentrepreneur and founder and CEO of Domo (formerly Corda[2]), a software-as-a-service (SaaS) company he started in 2010 to fix the fundamental problems he saw in the business intelligence market. He raised $63 million [3] in Series A funding from Benchmark Capital, IVP and a number of other high-profile Silicon Valley venture capital firms and angel investors.[4] He also is the founder of CEO.com, an online resource for CEO-related news and information.
      Prior, James co-founded and served as CEO of Omniture, a web analytics company. On his 33rd birthday, James rang the bell of the NYSE as Omniture went public in 2006[5] and later sold the company to Adobe in 2009 for USD $1.8 billion. From 2006 to 2009, the three years that Omniture was public, James was the youngest CEO of a Nasdaq or New York Stock Exchange-traded company.[6] Omniture was one of the top performing IPOs in 2006 and the number one returning venture investment out of 1,008 venture capital investments in 2004.[7] James served as Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Omniture Business Unit at Adobe until July 2010.
      In 2012, Mountain West Capital Network named James its Entrepreneur of the Year.[8] On June 27, 2012, James and Domo, Inc. received the Utah Valley Business Q "2012 UV50 TOP 10 Startups To Watch" award.[9] James was featured as #26 on Fortune 40 under 40 in 2009 and #1 on Fortune 40 under 40 "Ones to Watch" in 2011.[10][11][12] He received the 2006 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award and was named Technology Entrepreneur of the Decade by Brigham Young University. He was also recognized as Mountain West Capital's 2012 Entrepreneur of the Year. On November 30, 2012, James was inducted into the Utah Technology Hall of Fame along with Fred Lampropoulous, founder of Merit Medical Systems.[13]
      James maintains a list of entrepreneurial advice for startup companies.[14]
      He serves as a Young Global Leader with the World Economic Forum.[15] He also serves on the boards of Demand Media, a NYSE-traded company; Rakuten, a publicly traded, five billion dollar revenue company that is one of largest e-commerce companies in Japan; and Save the Children, the leading independent organization creating lasting change in the lives of children in need in the United States and around the world.
      Before co-founding Omniture James co-founded an interactive agency and two other businesses, which were subsequently sold to WebMediaBrands (formerly known as Jupitermedia) and Verisign. James founded Silicon Slopes, a private-sector initiative that promotes the interests of the high-tech industry in Utah. He attended Brigham Young University into his senior year but did not graduate.
      James is the oldest of six children. His father was an airline pilot and colonel in the Marines. He moved 17 times growing up. James served a two-year mission in Tokyo for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He had roles as a child actor, which included appearing in episodes of Touched by an Angel and in a Kellogg's Honey Smacks commercial.[16][17][18] He is the brother of Zach James, co-founder of MovieClips [19]
      External links[edit]References[edit]PersondataNameJames, JoshAlternative namesShort descriptionEntrepreneur, Co-founder of Omniture, CEO of DomoDate of birth1973Place of birthDate of deathPlace of death
    MORMON DATABASE
And how do we trick apple and everyone else into using it?
  Adobe acquires video ad platform Auditude for $120M (updated) | VentureBeat
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:19
    July 9-10, 2013San Francisco, CA
    Tickets On Sale NowAdobe has acquired video advertising platform Auditude, the companies announced today. [Update: While financial terms of the deal were not publicly disclosed, Adobe is said to have paid close to $120 million (mostly in cash) for the startup, according to sources familiar with the matter.]
    Auditude allows its clients to manage and monetize advertising around premium video content. Its service lets publishers and media companies create high-quality advertising experiences across multiple platforms and devices. The company's clients include Comcast, Sony Music and Universal Music Group.
    ''We felt that Auditude was really a market leader, not only from a technology perspective, but also in the way that they look at the market,'' said Adobe Vice President and General Manager of Media Solutions Todd Teresi in an interview with VentureBeat. ''Auditude is not only focused on video, but alternative devices as well '... connected devices like tablets, smartphones, gaming consoles.''
    ''At Adobe, we really see those devices as the future of video growth and premium content,'' Teresi said in response to a question about what makes Auditude stand out over other video ad platforms.
    The acquisition will allow Adobe to provide a complete ''end-to-end'' experience, meaning its clients will be able to create, publish, monetize and optimize videos from one place. The company said it plans to integrate Auditude with its other products, such as Adobe Digital Marketing Suite, Adobe Flash Media Server and Adobe Pass. The integration is tentatively scheduled to begin rolling out in early 2012, according to Teresi.
    Founded in 2007, the Palo Alto-based startup previously raised a total of $38 million in funding to date from Redpoint Ventures and Greylock Partners.
  Video advertising | Adobe Auditude '' Adobe.com
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:20
    Adobe Auditude now offers turnkey integration with Adobe SiteCatalyst®, a leading web analytics system, allowing for a holistic view across content and ad performance, wherever video is viewed.
    The integration between Auditude and SiteCatalyst provides a deeper understanding of content and ad performance to arrive at a single "engagement ROI" metric '-- data on how engagement translates directly to revenue '-- and allows for targeting of individual site visitors. Discovery and targeting mechanisms help ensure that video publishers serve relevant and meaningful ads at premium CPMs to high-value visitors. The integration offers automatic alignment and association of Auditude ad data with SiteCatalyst content data, without the need for custom integrations.
    Generate more revenueFrom live broadcasts to video on demand (VOD), Adobe Auditude provides premium TV-like commercial breaks supported by robust tools and services to drive the highest volume of advertising demand from direct and indirect sales.
    Enhance ad experiencesDeliver relevant, targeted advertising with full control over ad quality and sequencing. Viewers get an enjoyable TV-like commercial experience, which attracts investment from major brand advertisers.
    Reach virtually every deviceAn open architecture and interoperability across Internet-enabled devices allow seamless ad insertion across Android' and iOS devices, set-top boxes, game consoles, and more.
    Simplify workflowsA unified solution creates a more efficient and cost-effective workflow to help reduce operational costs and drive revenue higher.
    Auditude smoothly integrates into Adobe's end-to-end video technology solution. With compatible technologies from start to finish, Project Primetime is a unified video platform that helps you achieve broadcast audience reach, lower operating costs, and boost revenue from ad sales.
  Adobe Photoshop Touch for iPad, Plus iOS-Friendly Video Ad Platform - Lauren Goode - News
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:13
    You might already be aware of this, but Adobe and Apple haven't always had a warm and fuzzy relationship.
    Now, Adobe is bringing Photoshop Touch to the iPad as part of a suite of creative apps for Apple's iOS. The app was previously only available for Android devices.
    Photoshop Touch lets users layer images, touch up photos and use ''paint'' tools, with a few swipes on the iPad. It also includes a Scribble Selection Tool for removing objects from photos, the ability to search for images through Google Image search, and a quick-sharing option through Facebook.
    The app costs $9.99 and currently works only on iPad 2. Adobe already has an iPad app available for photo touch-ups '-- Adobe Photoshop Express '-- but it's a much more limited version of Photoshop.
    Adobe plans to introduce a handful of other creative apps for iPad 2 later this year, including Adobe Collage, Adobe Ideas and Adobe Proto, for Web site and mobile-app prototyping. These apps will all work with Adobe's Creative Cloud services.
    The new Adobe apps for iPad show not only that companies are increasingly viewing tablets as devices for content creation '-- just a few weeks ago, Avid introduced a full video-editing app for iPad '-- but also signals the importance of getting aboard the iOS boat.
    Back in 2010, Apple CEO Steve Jobs likened Adobe's Flash technology to floppy disks and serial ports, when he explained why Apple wouldn't support Adobe's flagship Flash product on its mobile devices. Then, in June of last year, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen said that the Flash argument between Adobe and Apple was over. In November, Adobe said it would no longer develop Flash for mobile devices, and would instead focus on HTML5, seen by many as a concession in the war between Apple and Adobe over the future of Flash technology.
    Now, in addition to the iPad apps, Adobe is also introducing a video ad service, codenamed Project Primetime, for producing and publishing ads that will work across Apple iOS and Google Android devices, desktops operating systems, and ''smart'' (Internet-connected) TVs, including Samsung TVs.
    Adobe will support a few different video formats in Primetime, including H.264 and MPEG-DASH as well as Adobe's standard Flash-based video protocol, but Adobe says it hopes to reduce fragmentation in the video technology market. Essentially, it's doing so by introducing more non-Flash solutions.
    Its Adobe Access 4 software, for example, formerly known as Adobe Flash Access, will now support iOS apps, and is expected to be available to broadcast and media companies in spring of this year.
  Adobe announces Project Primetime video platform, Highlights available now for iPad (update: video)
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:11
    Adobe Announces Integrated Video Publishing, Advertisingand Analytics PlatformProject "Primetime", the Industry's first Integrated Video Content and Ad Service Across Devices, Promises to Accelerate Advertising Revenue
    MIAMI, Florida and BARCELONA, Spain - Feb. 27, 2012 - At the IAB Annual Leadership Summit and Mobile World Congress, Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq: ADBE) today unveiled the industry's first fully integrated video technology platform, code named Project Primetime, to enable smooth, TV-like experiences for ad-supported videos across Web-connected devices. This new platform delivers premium video and ad content consistently across all major platforms,including Apple iOS, Google Android, desktop operating systems and connected TVs. Shown for the first time at these two major industry events, elements of Primetime will be available throughout 2012.
    Primetime creates a single, end-to-end workflow that interconnects Adobe streaming technologies, content protection, analytics and optimization with the recently acquired Auditude video advertising platform. This integration enables premium video providers to give customers a superior viewing experience through seamless dynamic ad insertion into any content type, whetherlinear, live or on-demand across Web-connected devices. Adobe Digital Marketing Suite is integral to Primetime, ensuring that media companies are able to combine consumption and revenue data to personalize their content and ads.
    "Adobe's new video technology platform is transforming the way video content and ads are being served and consumed," said David Wadhwani, senior vice president, Digital Media Business, Adobe. "Project Primetime gives media companies one solution to deliver and monetize their content seamlessly across tablets, mobile phones, TVs and PCs while delivering better consumer experiences over IP."
    As part of the first phase of bringing the platform to market, Adobe is making "Primetime Highlights" available today. The new video publishing offering integrates a Web-based video clip editor with the Adobe Auditude ad platform enabling the industry's first single workflow for creating and monetizing live video clips in real time. Video publishers are able to deliver ad supported clips that are instantly available '' even while an event is still ongoing '' making content more timely and less expensive to produce. Clips can be delivered via an Adobe-provided video player within an existing mobile application or embedded in a web site. Primetime Highlights enables a viewing experience that is smooth and comparable to traditional TV broadcasts with seamless content and ad transitions. Video publishers can start publishing and monetizing video clips to the iPad today. Other platforms are expected to be supported in 2012.
    Expanded support for standards; Industry certificationAdobe Auditude has received the Media Rating Council's (MRC) accreditation of the Digital Video Ad Impression Statistics for ads delivered by its ad management and monetization platform. With this accreditation, customers can be assured that Adobe's methods for generating ad impression statistics are in accordance with industry-established guidelines published by the MRC.
    Adobe Access 4 software will support native iOS apps, extending its existing support for desktop operating systems, Android apps and connected TVs. With added support for content using the HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) protocol for iOS devices, Adobe Access now enables premium video publishers to reach the broadest possible audience across devices with a single content protection workflow and infrastructure. Adobe Access, formerly known as Adobe Flash Access, already protects videos delivered across browsers and applications using RTMP and HDS (HTTP Dynamic Streaming) protocols.
    Adobe streaming technologies will support MPEG-DASH, a set of emerging standards for streaming multimedia content over the Web that will help reduce technology fragmentation. Support for MPEG-DASH, which is expected to become a profile of HDS, comes as Adobe continues to collaborate in this area with a large number of industry partners. At the same time, Adobe will continue to innovate and develop its HTTP streaming protocol, HTTP Dynamic Streaming (HDS), which is used by major broadcasters worldwide.
    AvailabilityPrimetime is being showcased to broadcasters and media companies starting today and is expected to be available in 2012 with support for Windows, Mac OS, Apple iOS, Google Android, Samsung SmartTVs and other platforms. The individual products and technologies of the platform continue to be available as separate offerings. Adobe Access support for iOS is expected to ship in spring 2012. For more information and a demo video visit the Digital Media blog.
    Major components of Primetime- Adobe Auditude provides an ad management and monetization platform for high-quality advertising experiences, allowing publishers and media companies to increase the value of their content across connected devices, while also lowering operational costs.
    - The Adobe Digital Marketing Suite is an integrated portfolio of analytics and optimization products that provide insight into the performance of digital marketing initiatives and allow marketers to personalize those initiatives for greater relevance and engagement.
    - Adobe Access helps content owners, distributors and advertisers content protect premium videos and more securely deliver them to connected devices.
    - Adobe streaming technologies serve rich media content across platforms including Apple iOS with a choice of powerful protocols that help save significant bandwidth costs and lighten network load.
    - Adobe Pass verifies a user's entitlement to content in a manner that is both simple and secure.
    - Primetime Highlights, Adobe's new video publishing offering, integrates a Web-based video clip editor with Adobe Auditude, enabling a single workflow for creating and monetizing live video clips on the fly.
  Adobe Primetime works on iOS
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:23
    Adobe® Primetime lets content programmers and distributors profit from video on every connected screen. It eliminates the complexity of reaching, monetizing, and activating global audiences across devices by providing a modular platform for video publishing, advertising, and analytics. The results? Greater revenue from ad sales and subscriptions, lower operating costs, and audiences that are more engaged. Read the Primetime overview 'º
What did Steve know? What Elite$ die from cancer these days?