Editor of End the Lie

The Lulz Liberator (Image credit: Michael Guslick)

Despite the U.S. State Department’s crackdown on Defense Distributed and their “Liberator” 3D-printed gun, the development of weapons produced on 3D printers is rapidly evolving.

In the wake of the release of videos showing the Liberator in action, New York, California and Washington D.C. moved to ban 3D-printed guns but that hasn’t stopped people from developing cheaper and better performing weaponry.

Defense Distributed’s Liberator was printed using an $8,000 secondhand Stratasys Dimension SST. At the time of writing, a used 2004 Stratasys Dimension SST is being sold on eBay for $9,999.

The Lulz Liberator, on the other hand, was printed on a $1,725 Lulzbot AO-101 3D printer by a Wisconsin engineer calling himself “Joe,” who asked Andy Greenberg of Forbes not to reveal his name.

Joe successfully fired the Lulz Liberator nine times using .380 caliber rounds and a string for safety purposes, vastly beating out the durability of the Defense Distributed Liberator.

While the original Liberator was generally only fired once per printed barrel in testing, Joe’s model successfully fired eight rounds on one barrel before a new barrel was swapped out for the ninth round.

“The only reason we stopped firing is because the sun went down,” Joe said.

Aside from the improved durability, the Lulz Liberator is a significant step forward because it was printed over only 48 hours with just $25 of plastic on a desktop 3D printer available for consumer use.

“People think this takes an $8,000 machine and that it blows up on the first shot. I want to dispel that,” Joe said. “This does work, and I want that to be known.”

See the Lulz Liberator being tested below via Andy Greenberg:

Joe used generic Polylac PA-747 ABS plastic, the same type used in most consumer 3D printers, for the gun. He maintains that the plastic he used is actually stronger than the more costly ABS plastic used in the Stratasys printer employed by Defense Distributed.

However, Joe’s design also has more metal hardware than the original Liberator. For instance, Joe used hardware store screws to hold the hammer in the body instead of the printed plastic pins used in the original design.

The Lulz Liberator, like the original, uses a metal nail for a firing pin and according to Greenberg “includes a chunk of non-functional steel designed to make it detectable with a metal detector so that it complies with the Undetectable Firearms Act.”

Furthermore, Joe added rifling to the barrel in order to avoid falling under the National Firearms Act, which regulates weapons with smooth-bore barrels among other improvised weapons.

The rifling may also be a first in firearms manufacturing.

“I may be the first person in the history of mankind to fire a bullet through a plastic rifled barrel. It’s an interesting feeling,” Joe said. “I feel like Samuel Colt.”

Joe’s model still presented problems, according to Joe and Michael Guslick, a Wisonconsin engineer known for printing one of the first working lower receivers for an AR-15.

They said that during their testing the weapon misfired several times. Some screws and its firing pin had to be replaced during the test firing as well.

The ammunition cartridges also expanded enough that they needed to be pounded out with a hammer, according to the engineers.

“Other than that, it’s pretty much confirming that yes, Defense Distributed is correct that this functions,” Guslick said. “And it’s possible to make one on a much lower cost printer.”

Since the Liberator’s blueprints were put online this month, this much progress is indeed impressive, bugs included.

“It’s not yet clear if or when Joe or Guslick plans to release their modified blueprint for the Liberator online,” according to Greenberg.

If they do, they might get the same kind of treatment from the State Department enjoyed by Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson, a man who calls himself a crypto-anarchist and market anarchist.

“I’m trying to do the same thing Cody wants to do,” Joe said. “I’m not an anarchist, but I don’t like the idea that the government is telling us ‘You can’t have that.’ I agree with Cody’s idea that this is a perfect fusion of the first and second amendments.”

It will be fascinating to see if Joe puts the plans online and how the State Department reacts to that decision.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

• ebay wide format printers

Editor of End the Lie

Douglas Shulman (Image credit: CSPAN)

When former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman was pressed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Tuesday, Shulman refused to apologize for the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

Instead of apologizing, Shulman expressed regret and stated that the Inspector General report absolved him of any culpability for the agency’s conduct.

The IRS scandal has resulted in a surprising number of absurd situations similar to the interaction between Cornyn and Shulman.

On Sunday, an Obama aide attempted to defend the Obama administration in the face of multiple scandals, stating that the “law is irrelevant” when discussing the IRS scandal in particular.

Another particularly interesting claim made during a congressional hearing was that the United States tax system is in fact a voluntary one.

Cornyn pointed out that Steven Miller, former IRS acting commissioner, opened his testimony before the Senate with a clear apology but when he asked if Shulman would apologize for the IRS’ actions, Shulman avoided the question.

“Mr. Shulman, I wonder if you have any words of apology for my constituents and others who feel like the public trust has been violated by the IRS,” Cornyn said.

“You know, I’m deeply, deeply saddened by this whole set of events,” Shulman said. “I’ve read the [Inspector General’s] report and I very much regret that it happened and that it happened on my watch.”

“Is that an apology?” Cornyn asked.

“To your constituents? I don’t know the details of your constituents. I don’t know what happened to them, I didn’t look at particular constituent and taxpayer matters,” Shulman said.

Shulman went on to contend that as a general principle, as IRS commissioner between 2008 and 2012, he did not personally examine individual cases. He also said that he had nothing to do with cases that involved political activity.

“So if I knew the details of it, I could give you an answer,” Shulman said.

“So it’s not your responsibility,” Cornyn said. “The buck doesn’t stop with you.”

“I certainly am not personally responsible for creating a list that had inappropriate criteria on it,” Shulman said. “What I know with the full facts that are out is – from the Inspector General’s report – which doesn’t say that I’m responsible for that.”

“With that said,” Shulman continued, “this happened on my watch and I very much regret that it happened on my watch.”

After a long pause, Cornyn said, “Well I don’t think that qualifies as an apology.”

“It qualifies as an expression of regret,” Cornyn said, “which I think is well deserved.”

Shulman similarly would not admit that he was personally responsible when questioned by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

Cornyn went on to ask Shulman if he is also concerned that “the IRS has deviated from its core function and should be reformed to focus on that core function and perhaps not be given these other additional responsibilities until it can get its house in order.”

Shulman said that the IRS is charged with administering the United States’ tax laws and those tax laws have been used for more and more things.

“I defer to Congress to decide what it wants to use the tax code for and whether it wants the IRS to do all of the functions in the tax code,” Shulman said. “As long as the IRS is given that responsibility I think the obligation of the agency is to do it to the best of its ability.”

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

The clip can be seen below via C-SPAN:

The first part of the full hearing can be seen here.

UPDATE: To make matters even more absurd, the Los Angeles Times and NBC News are now reporting that Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit which handled tax-exempt organizations will invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions. Lerner is scheduled to testify on Wednesday but according to a letter from her lawyer William W. Taylor 3rd, Lerner “won’t answer questions about what she knows about the improper screening of conservative groups or about why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress that such targeting was going on,” according to NBC.

Editor of End the Lie

(Image credit: chasingfun/Flickr)

Hidden amongst the reams of reports about the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal is one little gem: in his testimony, the outgoing IRS Commissioner Steve Miller said that America’s tax system is “voluntary.”

Now, whatever you do, don’t take that to mean that it is actually voluntary in the way that the word voluntary is normally used.

While you might think that voluntary means something which is “done without compulsion or obligation” or “done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one’s own accord or by free choice,” when it comes to America’s “voluntary” tax system, it’s quite the opposite.

If you freely choose not to voluntarily participate in the tax system, you will enjoy being raided by armed agents, prosecuted and sent to federal prison. Quite the voluntary system indeed.

Furthermore, there are some practices that are clearly in no way voluntary. When income taxes are withheld from paychecks, for example, there is nothing voluntary about it.

When Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said during the recent House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the IRS scandal that the U.S. tax system is “a voluntary system,” Stephen Miller said, “Agreed.”

In fact, Becerra said it is “a voluntary system” twice. Becerra said those exact words at one hour, twenty nine minutes and eight seconds and again at one hour, thirty minutes and thirty five seconds, according to the C-SPAN transcript.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the same thing in an interview with Jan Helfeld in 2008.

In the interview embedded below, Helfeld asked, “If the government is in the business of forcefully taking money from some people in order to provide welfare benefits to others, how will the people whose money is being taken feel about the government?”

“Well, I don’t accept your phraseology. I don’t think we force people,” Reid answered.

“Taxation is not forceful?” Helfeld asked.

“Well, no…” Reid said. “It’s voluntary?” Helfeld asked.

“Quite the contrary. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system,” Reid said.

“If you don’t want to pay your taxes, you don’t have to?” Helfeld asked, to which Reid said, “Of course you have to pay your taxes.”

Intuit, the makers of TurboTax, wrote an article (note: it heavily promotes TurboTax) about what “voluntary compliance” really means. It has nothing to do with the payment of the taxes. That is not voluntary. Instead, it speaks to “the manner in which people submit their own taxes.”

The voluntary part only speaks to the fact that you “are responsible as an individual taxpayer to calculate what you owe. You’re expected to voluntarily comply with the tax code by reporting what you owe to the government and paying the entire amount that you owe under the law.”

“Although the U.S. tax system is voluntary, failure to comply carries stiff penalties,” they note. “The IRS also has the power to levy your bank accounts, garnish your wages and place a lien on your property if you don’t voluntarily pay what you owe. In serious cases, you may even face criminal charges.”

Lysander Spooner, in “No Treason” written from 1967-1870, writes of the notion of voluntary taxation, “this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: ‘Your money, or your life.’ And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.”

Calling taxation voluntary in the United States is like calling a prison sentence voluntary: you can voluntarily go to prison, or you can be hunted down like a dog and physically forced to go to prison.

If that’s what you consider a voluntary system, I have several beautiful bridges to sell you.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Editor of End the Lie

Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer (Image credit: screenshot from “Meet the Press”)

Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer made the talk show rounds today saying that the “law is irrelevant” when discussing the IRS scandal and that Obama’s location in the wake of the Benghazi attack is an “irrelevant fact.”

While some of Pfeiffer’s statements were downright absurd, one must commend him for making an effort in such a scandal-filled week.

“I can’t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant,” Pfeiffer said. Pfeiffer did admit, however, that “the activity was outrageous and inexcusable,” speaking of the IRS targeting specific groups.

See Pfeiffer make these comments on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” below:

On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Pfeiffer downplayed the IRS scandal and defended the way the Obama administration has handled it.

“What would be an actual real scandal in Washington would be if the president had been involved or had interfered in an IRS investigation,” Pfeiffer said, according to Politico.

“You do nothing to interfere with an independent investigation and you do nothing to offer the appearance of interfering with investigations,” Pfeiffer said, adding that administration officials responded after they had the facts.

He said that the White House is focused and will not allow Republicans to “drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations.”

Pfeiffer also appeared on Fox News Sunday defending Obama’s handling of the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012.

The host, Chris Wallace, reminded Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t actually talk with then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey that night.

“He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer maintained.

When Pfeiffer was asked if Obama entered the Situation Room that night, Pfeiffer said, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer later said that the host’s questions about Obama’s handling of Benghazi were “offensive.”

See Pfeiffer’s appearance below:

Pfeiffer also appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to defend the scandal surrounding the Justice Department spying on the Associated Press.

Pfeiffer said that the Obama administration has to balance “dangerous” national security leaks that “put the lives of our intelligence officers, our military at risk” with “freedom of the press.”

Of course, as Congressional critics have pointed out, the AP scandal has significant implications for press freedom, none of which are positive.

See a portion of Pfeiffer’s appearance on “Meet the Press” below:

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

• obama 3 crisis benghazi irs ap
• benghazi
• end the irs

Editor of End the Lie

(Image credit: tedeytan/Flickr)

Members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus are the latest to join the many people raising concerns about Google Glass in a letter to Google CEO and co-founder Larry Page in which they request answers to eight pointed questions.

Since the technology was introduced, Google Glass has been incredibly controversial, even leading former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to speak out against the technology.

Many venues have preemptively banned Glass including a Seattle bar, casinos and strip clubs in Las Vegas and the entire state of West Virginia is trying to ban wearing Glass while driving, according to the Independent.

“Respect our customers privacy as we’d expect them to respect yours,” stated Seattle’s Five Point Café, becoming the first to ban Glass, according to Reuters. Some movie theaters may also join the trend.

Yet Google figures have been quick to dismiss any and all concerns.

“Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society to it,” Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said during a talk at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in April.

Never mind the fact that Glass can easily be hacked and turned into a pervasive surveillance device. That’s just being afraid of change.

One of the questions posed by members of Congress in their letter concerned facial recognition capabilities.

Google claims that no facial recognition technology is built into the device and there are no plans to implement it “unless we have strong privacy protections in place.”

However, most readers are likely aware of the fact that the technology could indeed be rolled out silently or indeed built into the device without Google admitting it.

After all, we’re talking about the same company that knowingly stole private data from unsecured wireless networks with their Street View cars.

Even though Google was clearly guilty of massive invasions of privacy on a scale previously unimaginable, the FCC cleared the company of wrongdoing and contradicted a federal judge in doing so.

In March of this year, a report indicated that Google was going to pay $7 million to 30 states to settle an investigation into their Wi-Fi spying but such a sum for Google is nothing.

When Google can get out of an antitrust probe and investigations into theft of highly personal data with less than a slap on the wrist, why would we trust them to be honest about Glass?

Privacy and Google simply don’t mix. Google and the U.S. government, however, mix quite well.

The members of Congress point to Google’s horrific privacy track record and ask, “we would like to know how Google plans to prevent Google Glass from unintentionally collecting data about the user/non-user without consent?”

Some of the many other important questions asked include:

• What proactive steps is Google taking to protect the privacy of non-users when Google Glass is in use?
• Would Google place limits on the technology and what type of information it can reveal about another person?
• Given Google Glass’s sensory and processing capabilities, has Google considered making any additions or refinements to its privacy policy?
• Would Google Glass collect any data about the user without the user’s knowledge and consent?
• Is Google planning to make privacy a priority for future app developers?

“We request your responses to the above questions no later than Friday, June 14, 2013,” the members of Congress stated.

At a Google Glass event at the Google I/O conference, some of the questions were indirectly addressed.

“Privacy was top of mind as we designed the product,” Steve Lee, the product director for Glass, said.

“You’ll know when someone with Glass is paying attention to you. If you’re looking at Glass, you’re looking up,” Lee said, referring to the fact that the Glass display located right above the eye, according to ABC News.

“We are thinking very carefully about how we design Glass because new technology always raises new issues,” Google said in a statement. “Our Glass Explorer program, which reaches people from all walks of life, will ensure that our users become active participants in shaping the future of this technology.”

The future of the technology may not be all that bright.

“There are state wiretap laws that require consent of a user before they are recorded. Users may violate state wiretap laws while using Glass,” Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger, told ABC news.

It will be interesting to see if the members of Congress will publish Google’s specific answers to their probing and quite appropriate questions and concerns.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Editor of End the Lie

Chris Calabrese of the ACLU delivers his testimony (Image credit: Library of Congress)

Earlier today the House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing examining the privacy implications of allowing aerial drones into domestic airspace, setting the stage for potential legislation restricting the use of drones.

While drones are already used across the U.S. by more entities than we know, by 2015 the airspace will be opened up to much more widespread use. That said, local law enforcement agencies, Customs and Border Protection, National Guard units, U.S. Marshals, the military, private entities, colleges and many more have already flown or are planning to fly drones domestically.

During the hearing, the participants referred to H.R. 637 introduced by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas). Poe previously said that the Judiciary Committee could move to limit drone use and that is looking increasingly likely.

H.R. 637, or the “Preserving American Privacy Act of 2013” was introduced on February 13, 2013 and would place at least some restrictions on drone use at the federal level. Meanwhile, legislation is being considered in states across the country. Multiple municipalities have passed anti-drone resolutions as well.

During the hearing, individuals from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Brookings Institution, Boston University School of Law and Pepperdine University School of Law raised many concerns surrounding drone use.

Edit: since End the Lie has apparently been blocked from embedding the video, you can see it here or here.

You can watch the hearing below:

Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said that drones make it possible to track specific individuals with multiple drones and pose significant harms if left unchecked.

“Manned aircraft are expensive to purchase,” Calabrese said. “Drones’ low cost and flexibility erode that natural limit. Small hovering platforms can explore hidden spaces or peer in windows and large, static blimps enable continuous long-term monitoring, all for significantly less than the cost of a plane or helicopter.”

Current laws lag behind hat is needed and federal privacy protection is spotty, Calabrese said. As such, the ACLU is backing H.R. 637, he added.

“Weapons developed on the battlefield of Iraq and Afghanistan have no place in the United States,” Calabrese said. “There is a consensus forming on this issue. In fact, both the Heritage Foundation and the International Association of Chiefs of Police both support sharp limits on weaponized drones.”

At one point, Pepperdine University School of Law’s Gregory McNeal referenced ARGUS – technology which I covered in the past – in order to demonstrate how far drone-based technology has advanced.

Tracey Maclin, of the Boston University School of Law, also described surveillance cameras capable of thermal imaging, license plate reading, and facial recognition technology that can track individuals based on their height, age, gender or skin color.

Calabrese “concurred and took the argument one step further, explaining that such information can be tied to sensitive location data pinged from an individual’s cell phone – resulting in continuous, long-term monitoring,” as Sandra Fulton of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office pointed out.

The four experts were divided on what actions Congress should take to address the problems raised by drones, but as the Associated Press put it, “the four witnesses all agreed that drones raised new, often unprecedented questions about domestic surveillance.”

Many of the members of congress expressed serious concerns about how drones could be used in the future.

“At what point do you think it’s going to get to a point where we have to say what a reasonable expectation of privacy is?” asked Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.).

“It seems to me that Congress needs to set the standard, rather than wait and let the courts set the standard,” Poe said.

McNeal, however, believes that it would be a mistake for Congress just to act on drones. Instead, McNeal said that if they want to act, they should set borad standards for surveillance or what it means to have a realistic expectation of privacy.

“A technology-centered approach to privacy is the wrong approach,” McNeal said, drawing parallels to privacy concerns raised by the rapid development of the Internet in the 1990s.

Calabrese urged Congress to act fast and mark up H.R. 637. Many of the representatives who spoke seemed to be willing to act; it’s just a matter of how and when.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

• Survial Defense & anti Drone

Editor of End the Lie

(Image credit: United States Senate)

According to a report, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) is planning on proposing an amendment to the upcoming farm bill repealing the rider known as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

The rider quietly attached to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 resulted in a great deal of public outrage, leading to an apology from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). Now it seems Sen. Merkley is trying to reverse the legislation after the massive outcry.

The “Monsanto Protection Act” is incredibly controversial because it allows Monsanto and similar companies to sell genetically engineered seeds even if a court order is issued to stop it.

A Merkley aide told the Huffington Post that Merkley will be pushing to get a floor vote on his amendment when the farm bill is taken up by the Senate next week.

Monsanto has won some major victories lately, not the least of which was the Monsanto Protection Act. The agricultural giant recently had the Supreme Court side with them over a landmark patent lawsuit and as a result, backed their notorious licensing agreement.

Just two days ago, a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Monsanto actually lobbied on the American taxpayers’ dime, further inflaming anti-Monsanto sentiment.

Yet the rider was even opposed on the floor of the Senate itself by Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.).

“The United States Congress is telling the Agricultural Department that even if a court tells you that you’ve failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you must disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crop to be planted anyway,” Tester said.

Yet according to Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post, “the chamber is typically empty, and his objection was not enough to block it from passage.”

Surprisingly, Monsanto has had one recent setback. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced that they ordered additional environmental impact statements for Monsanto’s new herbicide-resistant crops.

In response to the increasingly massive popular opposition to Monsanto, the corporation’s chairman and CEO Hugh Grant claimed that the critics are guilty of “reverse elitism.”

If Grant is right, that would mean that the thousands of people in countries around the world participating in the March Against Monsanto on May 25 are all guilty of ruining the opportunity to feed the world.

“This place is getting busier and more crowded,” Grant said. “As long as you’ve got money in your back pocket and you drive your station wagon to the supermarket on weekends, then it’s out of sight out of mind, so far.”

Grim writes that the farm bill rider was actually in response to federal courts recently ruling “that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had failed to consider the potential harm some genetically engineered crops may have, and acted too hastily in approving their sale.”

“The industry fought back with the farm bill rider, preventing the enforcement of court rulings,” Grim wrote.

If Merkley is successful, that could be completely reversed and companies like Monsanto could indeed be held accountable.

Given the sheer size of the opposition to Monsanto, which appears to only be growing across the political spectrum, Merkley’s quest very well may be a winnable one.

You can contact Merkley to show your support by calling his Washington D.C. office at (202) 224-3753 or finding the numbers for his offices in Bend, Eugene, Medford, Pendleton, Portland and Salem on his website. You can also send a comment through this form but letter writing and calling tends to have a much greater impact.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Editor of End the Lie

(Image credit: herzogbr/Flickr)

As the Obama administration is hit by scandal after scandal, it was revealed that Verizon wireless handed over private data belonging to journalists with the Associated Press last year without any hesitation or questions asked.

Interestingly, the Associated Press said the decision to publish the article that reportedly sparked the investigation was only made after consulting the White House and the CIA.

This latest news came as congressional critics said the investigation damaged press freedom and the White House claimed they were ignorant of the investigation. The Justice Department acknowledged the surveillance of AP journalists earlier this week.

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that at least two AP reporters’ personal cellphone records “were provided to the government by Verizon Wireless without any attempt to obtain permission to tell them so the reporters could ask a court to quash the subpoena,” citing an AP employee.

This was no small probe. Indeed, it involved the seizure of over 20 separate phone lines assigned to AP staff in April and May of last year, according to the AP.

Ryan Gallagher of Future Tense points out that one of the most controversial aspects of this situation is that “the AP was not given advance notice of the seizure, which is considered the usual protocol when the government is seeking to obtain journalists’ records.”

While some companies like Dropbox and Twitter tell their users whenever possible that the government seeks access to their data.

Twitter even challenged a court order last year that required them to hand over data on one of their users.

“But Verizon—like AT&T, Facebook, and Comcast—has been criticized in the past for its lack of willingness to stand up for users’ privacy rights, which suggests its decision to hand over AP reporters’ records is true to form,” Gallagher writes.

In 2013, Verizon continued to get a horrible rating from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), receiving zero stars for helping protect user data from the government. Verizon also got zero stars in 2011 and 2012.

Unsurprisingly, Verizon Wireless would not comment on specific cases, including this one. Spokesman Debra Lewis said she was “not going to speculate on what may or may not happen in the future,” speaking of a possible change to the company’s policy on responding to government requests.

It is interesting to see how radically different the AP sees this probe compared to the White House and the Justice Department.

While the AP maintains that they only published the story after the government assured them that “The national security concerns had passed,” Eric Holder claimed, “It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole.”

“And trying to determine who was responsible for that, I think, required very aggressive action,” Holder said, apparently in reference to a May 7, 2012 article that claimed the CIA thwarted a bomb plot organized by a group related to al Qaeda in Yemen.

Of course, one of the most interesting aspects of that original story – one which is often left out when it is referred to now – is that the individual chosen by the terrorist group to carry out the bombing was actually an asset of the CIA and Saudi intelligence the entire time.

How the story actually put anyone in danger, even if the AP is lying about getting the story cleared by the government, is unclear.

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

• did verizon pass customers phone records to ap

Editor of End the Lie

One of the redacted pages (Image credit: End the Lie/ACLU)

Once again, the Obama administration has turned their claim to be the “most transparent administration in history” into a complete joke, this time by turning over documents on warrantless spying on text messages that are entirely redacted.

This isn’t the first time the Obama administration has turned over documents with all of the pertinent information entirely redacted but it’s especially ridiculous because Obama repeated the ludicrous transparency claim in February (see here).

These latest documents were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) when they were seeking more information on FBI documents which apparently claimed that the agency does not need a warrant to spy on emails and other private communications.

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Justice and in return they received 15 pages of entirely blacked out information.

The only information that can be gathered from the document is that it was sent to all United States Attorneys, all Criminal Chiefs and all Assistant United States Attorneys from Paul M. O’Brien, Director of the Office of Enforcement Operations of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice with the subject, “Guidance for the Minimization of Text Messages over Dual-Function Cellular Telephones.”

The rest is entirely blacked out, as you can see here, thanks to Reason.

If this is openness and transparency, I can’t even imagine what secrecy would be.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

• obama administration most transparently corrupt
• most transparent administration yet
• the most transparent administration in the history of the union
• the most transparent administration in history
• obams administration lie lie lie

Editor of End the Lie

A banner at an anti-Monsanto demonstration in 2012 (Image credit: nickbuxton/Flickr)

The Supreme Court unanimously backed patents on “self-replicating technology” like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans on Monday and along with it, backed the controversial licensing agreement preventing farmers from using seeds more than once.

This comes not even two months after Congress passed the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” which was later signed into law by Obama. One senator even apologized for the bill after public outcry.

This case, Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et al., specifically concerned Monsanto’s patented genetically modified soybeans but it very well might be extended to similar products like Monsanto’s popular Roundup Ready corn.

Yet when writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan made it clear that it does not address every self-replicating product.

“Our holding today is limited — addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product,” Kagan wrote.

“We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse,” Kagan continued. “In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.”

The Court ruled against 74-year-old Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman who signed contracts pledging to not save seeds from his crops, guaranteeing that he has to buy new seeds every year.

According to The New York Times, Bowman “bought seeds from a grain elevator filled with a mix of seeds in the reasonable hope that many of them contained Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready gene.”

While those seeds are usually sold for animal feed, industrial uses or food processing, Bowman planted them and sprayed the crops with Roundup.

When certain plaints survived, Bowman would save the seeds for further plantings, cutting into Monsanto’s profits.

Initially, a federal judge ordered Bowman to pay Monsanto over $84,000 for his violation and he fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

While Bowman claimed that a concept called patent exhaustion allowed him to use the products as he pleased since he obtained them legally, Kagan said it didn’t apply to the way he used Monsanto’s seeds.

“Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans himself or feed them to his animals,” Kagan wrote for the Court.

“But the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission, and that is precisely what Bowman did.” Kagan wrote.

“If simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention,” Kagan wrote. “The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years as the Patent Act promises, but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted.”

When the Obama administration – which has a tight relationship with Monsanto – wrote an amicus brief, the administration said that the Court shouldn’t worry about the fact that this decision could have troubling implications for traditional farming techniques.

Usually, farmers freely use parts of a previous harvest to produce the next but the Obama administration said that Congress is “better equipped than this court” to consider such issues.

The Court unequivocally sided with Monsanto in the case, protecting their business model from what the corporation claimed would mean its very doom.

“Without reasonable license restrictions prohibiting the replanting of second- and later-generation soybeans, Monsanto’s ability to protect its patented technology would effectively be lost as soon as the first generation of the product was introduced into the market,” Monsanto wrote in a filing.

“Practically, this issue affects every farmer in the country and the method of planting that farmers such as Mr. Bowman have used for generations,” Bowman’s attorneys said.

“Regardless of how unnatural the conditions may seem, the licensing agreement with farmers also forbids the seeds to be resold for commercial planting, and they cannot be used for research, crop breeding or seed production,” David Kravets wrote for Threat Level.

“Welcome to farming in the age of patented, genetically modified organisms,” he added.

Anti-Monsanto demonstrations part of the worldwide “March Against Monsanto” are going to occur later this month. Thus far, protests are planned in over 40 countries.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

• why must a patent be written such that it allows for replication