Snowden Document Reveals What the NSA
Knew About Previous Russian
2. The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview
Went Viral and Was Completely
3. Facing Possible Threats Under Trump, Internet Archive
to Build Server in Canada
4. Donald Trump’s New Nuclear Instability
5. Theresa May Seeks to Pull UK from European
Convention on Human Rights
is a Nederlog of Friday, December 30, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is
about the presumed Russian hacking that is presumed to have given the
victory to Trump: I think it is baloney, and so does Sam
Biddle, who wrote the article; item 2
is by Glenn Greenwald about The Guardian as the spreader of "Fake
News", and I think this is correct (though not realistic in its
expectations); item 3 is about the Internet Archive
that I like a lot; item 4 is about nuclear weapons
under Donald Trump, which I consider very frightening; and item 5 is about Theresa May who seeks to pull out from
the European Convention on Human Rights: I am ambiguous, for I
much dislike Theresa May but I also dislike the European
Convention on Human Rights, which is in fact not about human
rights but about the rights of the state's terrorists to spy on
everyone for any conceivable reason.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days and was so on most days in
But on 2.xii and 3.xii it was correct. Since then it mostly wasn't
(until and including 27.xii).
case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
In case you visit my
Danish site: This was so-so till 18.xi
and was correct since then (most or all days), but not on 25.xii: Then
it moved back to 2015 (!!).
I am very
sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
keep this introduction until I get three successive days
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen
for many months now.
Snowden Document Reveals What the NSA Knew About Previous Russian
The first item today is by Sam Biddle on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
To date, the only public evidence that
the Russian government was responsible for hacks of the DNC and key
Democratic figures has been circumstantial and far short of
conclusive, courtesy of private research firms with a financial stake
in such claims. Multiple federal agencies now claim certainty about the
Kremlin connection, but they have yet to make public the basis for
Yes indeed. And it is not only "[m]ultiple federal agencies" who do
so: There also are people like Robert Reich who repeat it as if it were
fact. (See here.)
There are various ways to refute or
undermine the story. Sam Biddle does it in part by considering the
story about the Russian journalist Anna
Politkovskaya, (<-Wikipedia) who was murdered in 2006 in Russia.
I think the case is a good one, but will
completely skip it: If you like to know more about it, click the above
Here is one conclusion:
Simply, the public evidence that
the Russian government hacked the Democrats isn’t convincing. Too much
of what’s been passed off to the public as proof of Kremlin involvement
is based on vague clues and educated guesses of what took place.
Yes indeed. (And incidentally: How many of
the journalists who write about hacking and internet spying are decent
programmers themselves? They never say anything, so I must
answer this by guessing: Few. )
Snowden did not accept "the
evidence" (which were mostly claims and not evidence) and
neither did the following persons:
Yes, indeed. I reviewed their article on December 14 and still see no
reason to doubt it, for they really know about spying by
internet, and they also really proved their independence from
the NSA. (And I know neither in any sense about nearly
all journalists: I do not know what they know about
programming and spying, and I do not know whether they are not somehow
funded, indirectly perhaps, by the NSA. And see the
next item for a specific case.)
The ex-U.S. intelligence personnel who
comprise the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,
including fellow high-profile NSA whistleblower William Binney, echoed
Snowden’s assessment earlier this month:
The bottom line is that the NSA would
know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other
servers were routed through the network. This process can
sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out
intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced
across the network.
Here is finally what is known about the gathering of intelligence by
means of the internet:
(..) But we know intelligence is
being gathered on a fine enough level to pin the breach of a single
inbox on the Russian government. If the NSA could use signals
intelligence to track a specific hack of an American email account in
2005, it’s not too much to assume that, 10 years later, the agency
possesses the same or better capability. And signals intelligence
is the type of evidence that the American people are owed from the
federal government today, as we contemplate a possible confrontation
with Russia for interfering in our most important of democratic
But to the best of my knowledge, there is no
evidence from signals intelligence that Russia successfully hacked the
internet and falsified the outcomes of the American elections.
Yet it is repeated by many as if it has all or most of the
evidence it needs, or it is simply asserted as if it is plain
fact. It is neither, and this is a recommended article.
Here is some more:
2. The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went
Viral and Was Completely False
The second item is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
Julian Assange is a deeply
polarizing figure. Many admire him and many despise him (into which
category one falls in any given year typically depends
on one’s feelings about the subject of his most recent
publication of leaked documents).
But one’s views of Assange are completely
irrelevant to this article, which is not about Assange. This
article, instead, is about a report published this week by
The Guardian that recklessly attributed to Assange comments
that he did not make. This article is about how those false claims —
fabrications, really — were spread all over the internet by
journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions)
to consume false news. The purpose of this article is to underscore,
yet again, that those who most flamboyantly denounce Fake News, and
want Facebook and other tech giants to suppress content in the name of
combating it, are often the most aggressive and self-serving
perpetrators of it.
Yes indeed. And this article of Greenwald
is mostly about The Guardian, on which I have radically changed
my opinions since 2013 (as may Glenn Greenwald have, though he doesn't speak
Here is what The Guardian did wrong (in
Glenn Greenwald's eyes, but these tend to be quite fair in my extensive
experience of Greenwald's articles):
The shoddy and misleading Guardian
article, written by Ben Jacobs, was
published on December 24. It made two primary claims — both of
which are demonstrably false. The first false claim was hyped in
the article’s headline: “Julian Assange gives guarded praise of
Trump and blasts Clinton in interview.”
The second claim was an even worse assault on basic journalism. Jacobs
set up this claim by asserting that Assange “long had a close
relationship with the Putin regime.” The only “evidence” offered for
this extraordinary claim was that Assange, in 2012, conducted eight
interviews that were broadcast
I take this for granted, and if you do
not, then you can click on the last of the above dotted articles to
Here is Greenwald's first conclusion after
his outlining of his case against Jacobs and The Guardian:
The people who should be most upset by
this deceit are exactly the ones who played the leading role in
spreading it: namely, those who most vocally claim that Fake News is a
serious menace. Nothing will discredit that cause faster or more
effectively than the perception that this crusade is really about a
selective desire to suppress news that undermines one’s political
agenda, masquerading as concern for journalistic accuracy and
integrity. Yet, as I’ve repeatedly
documented, the very same people most vocal about the need to
suppress Fake News are often those most
eager to disseminate it when doing so advances their agenda.
Yes, I agree and also like to put this a
All the sites that I have seen who are much against
"Fake News" in fact are
(i) mainstream media, that mostly lie and deceive in so far as
the real news is concerned, and (ii) that spread fake news
themselves as "true", or "credible" or "well supported" if it lines up
with their editorial policies.
And this also extends to the present The Guardian, that is now a
mainstream medium that gave up its earlier commitment to bringing
the news, and replaced it by a commitment to the
incomes of the - very often: Blairite - journalists who are
supposed to write it, and who made it very much more difficult
to copy them , and who these days force you to download at
whoever downloads it as it offers texts in their articles (which you
can't even copy anymore).
This article ends as follows:
By all means: Let’s confront and defeat
the menace of Fake News. But to do so, it’s critical that one not be
selective in which type one denounces, and it is particularly important
that one not sanction Fake News when it promotes one’s own political
objectives. Most important of all is that those who want to lead the
cause of denouncing Fake News not convert themselves into its most
prolific disseminators whenever the claims of a Fake News account are
pleasing or self-affirming.
That’s exactly what those who spread
this disgraceful Guardian article did. If they want credibility when
posing as Fake News opponents in the future, they ought to acknowledge
what they did and retract it — beginning with The Guardian.
Actually, I don't think any
of this is going to happen:
"Fake news" will continue to be spread,
especially by the mainstream media; The Guardian - which has totally
collapsed as a progressive newspaper that tries to bring the real news,
and which has converted to an eager bringer of mainstream news (with a
very vaguely "leftist" taste) - will continue to bring it; and The
Guardian will not acknowledge they spread fake news.
If I am mistaken in any of the three
claims in the last paragraph, I will admit it in Nederlog, but I think
the chances are small.
Facing Possible Threats
Under Trump, Internet Archive to Build Server in Canada
The third item is by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the following introduction:
In the wake of Trump’s election, the Internet Archive has
announced it will be moving a copy of its archive to Canada. The
archive is one of the world’s largest public digital libraries. Part of
the site includes the Wayback Machine, which preserves old websites,
allowing researchers to access pages deleted by politicians and others.
We speak to the founder of the Internet Archive, Brewster Kahle.
here is "my personal revelation" (well...): I like the Internet Archive
and am a member of it since quite a few years. In fact, I do not think
that is much
of a personal revelation, but it is true and may be a bit relevant.
Here is Brewster Kahle:
BREWSTER KAHLE: The Wayback Machine operates by
crawling the World Wide Web, and, actually, with many, many partners,
crawling the World Wide Web, and adding those into the Internet
Archive’s collections. And those collections become something that,
from Archive.org, you can type in a
URL or search to go and find a
website to be able to then see the web as it was and surf the web as it
was. You could see President-elect Trump’s 2008 and 2012 election
websites or Hillary Clinton’s old Senate websites. So these websites
are now available again as they were. But they’re just pictures of
webpages, so they’re not the services behind it.
Yes, indeed. Here are two specifications, which I make
mostly because I have read so many false statements to
the contrary, e.g. as "Nothing that's on the internet will ever
In fact, everything that is not paid for is
bound to disappear very quickly:
First, anybody who has done any serious internet searching will
know that very many things that are older than a few years,
including whole sites, may have completely disappeared.
Second, while the Internet Archive is one of the few sites
that tries to save the past, it can save specific pages and
specific sites, but it cannot also bring back the links
in the pages and sites it saved.
These are just the facts. Here is more on the motives of the
AMY GOODMAN: And this whole issue of climate
change and the Trump administration, Donald Trump a climate change
denier, what in particular are you doing? And if you can talk about
moving—well, not exactly moving, but mirroring Internet Archive in
Canada, why you’re doing that?
KAHLE: So, there are
groups that are collecting the web FTP sites
now. They’re going in and trying to do special scripts to go and
download all of the different data records that are in these databases.
There’s groups in Toronto. There’s going to be a hackathon at the
Internet Archive in—on January 7th to try to help tour through the
important parts of the federal record, that we can then make a record
outside of the government to make sure that it’s permanently available.
Then we need to do—beyond that, we need to move it to other countries,
because the history of libraries is one of loss. Usually libraries are
burned, like the Library of Alexandria in ancient times, and they’re
burned by governments. Just the new guys don’t want the old stuff
around. They’re often sorry about it tens or hundreds of years later.
But if you didn’t make a copy, then it’s just gone. So the idea of
having multiple copies keeps stuff safe.
I think that is wholly creditable
and very necessary,
for yes: The same applies to the sites of previous governments: If
there is no one who pays for their being there, they will completely
disappear (and so will all the promises and all the real
and unreal facts propounded by previous governments).
Donald Trump’s New
The fourth item today is by Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
President-elect Donald Trump exploded a
half-century of U.S. nuclear-arms policy in a single tweet last week:
“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear
capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding
nukes.” With that one vague message, Donald Trump, who hasn’t even
taken office yet, may have started a new arms race.
Trump’s statement set off alarms around the world, necessitating a
cadre of his inner circle to flood the airwaves with now-routine
attempts to explain what their boss “really meant.”
I should start this by saying that I did not
grow as panicky as some did, but then again this was mostly due to my
prior existing conviction that Donald Trump is basically a vain
braggart, a megalomaniac, and
somebody who does not know very many things an aspiring
president should know.
Also, I think it was an exaggeration
to state that by this single extra- ordinarily vague tweet "Donald Trump" "may
have started a new arms race" (if only because
that means the investment of billions of dollars).
Then again, I think the following is
While Obama’s nuclear spending continues
what Albert Einstein called, in 1946, the “drift toward unparalleled
catastrophe,” it still adheres to the current in-force
nuclear-reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia, called New START.
This calls for the reduction in the number of warheads in both nations’
stockpiles from the current amount of roughly 7,000 warheads each, to
1,550 warheads each by February 2018. Trump’s declarations suggest he
would scrap New START and relaunch a new nuclear-arms race between the
U.S. and Russia. This, in turn, could easily trigger the desire among
other existing nuclear states, like India, Pakistan and Israel, to
increase their stockpiles.
I do not know how "easily" this
triggering would be, but if indeed START is scrapped this is a serious
possibility. Also, I should add at this place that I
think that Obama, who has unveiled a plan in which trillions of
dollars are being invested in new American nuclear arms, has not
been doing much to decrease the number of nuclear warheads.
This ends as follows:
Yes, Obama should take the weapons off
high alert, but that’s not enough. Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear
trigger is a terrifying prospect. It’s the anti-nuclear movement that
needs to go on high alert to make sure that trigger never gets pulled.
I do not
think that Obama will "take
the [nuclear] weapons off high alert" (and he has a somewhat plausible
reason: If it gets known he has done so, the Russians might attack),
and I do not know how "the anti-nuclear
movement" can "make
sure that trigger never gets pulled".
And while I am
sorry to be a pessimist,
I do think that Donald Trump's election has made it far
more probable that within four or eight years we are all blown up. (Here and here
are some of my reasons. You don't need to believe them, but
then you probably know less about politics
and fascism than I do, and very probably you are also not a
Theresa May Seeks to Pull UK
from European Convention on Human Rights
The fifth and last item today is by Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams
This starts as
British Prime Minister Theresa May will
campaign to withdraw
the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
in 2020, according to new reports.
May is expected to make the withdrawal a
central mandate of her campaign to be formally voted into office in
2020. She became the unelected
leader of the U.K. after former Prime Minister David Cameron stepped
down in July following the Brexit referendum.
The new conservative government is also
separately seeking to replace its current Human Rights Act—the U.K.'s
implementation of the ECHR—with a new set of rules which critics say
actually cracks down on free speech and peaceful protest.
I say, for I didn't know May planned on
withdrawing from "the European Convention on
Human Rights". Then again, I must say I am a bit
ambiguous about this, and here are my reasons:
First, I strongly dislike Theresa
May: She is indeed quite unelected, which is a bitter shame; she is
very much for the GCHQ, who are and have been implementing the
neofascistic program of knowing everything about anyone
for over fifteen years now, and indeed I think her latest plans
for the GCHQ, that give it even more powers and liberties, are awful,
and effectively turned Great Britain into a neofascistic state (in my
sense of the term: see note ).
But second, I am very doubful
about the European Convention on Human Rights,
for I don't think that "Convention" is about Human Rights at
all, at least not as these were understood in 1948, which the reader
can see here.
In fact, here is a note from December 12:
What this so-called "European
Convention on Human Rights" are in fact about
are the rights of the secret services to spy on anyone for any
conceivable reason whatsoever:
I am speaking of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights,
which the interested reader can find under the link. What replaced
that in Europe, the so-called "European Convention on Human
Rights" is not a convention on real human rights, but is an
utter blasphemy of human rights, for it encodes all the rights
of the secret services to secretly surveil everyone. That is not
a human right: It is an inhuman governmental force that excludes
all real rights.
Here is - for just one example - Article 8 of the so-called "European Convention on Human Rights" that supposedly
corresponds to the original
The first clause of this neofascistic
sick bit of total bullshit
denies you any legal right and replaces
this by the totally void "right to respect"; the second clause carefully
specifies which rights the police and the secret services may trample,
destroy and deny:
Article 8 – Right to respect for
private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for
his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a
public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.
Anything which might conflict with:
is NOT a human right anymore, as it IS
under Article 12, but all
to the freedoms of the police and the governments
- the interests of national security
- the interests of public safety
- the economic well-being of the country
- the prevention of disorder
- the prevention of crime
- the protection of health
- the protection of morals
- the protection of the rights of others,
- the protection of the rights of others
So in fact I don't care for the "European
Convention on Human Rights": I think it is a carefully construed fraud
that pretends to be about human rights but is in
fact about the rights of secret governmental spies to trample, destroy
and deny human rights.
There is more in the article, but since this consists mainly from
people who falsely claim that the "European
Convention on Human Rights" is about human rights rather than
about the rights of the secret spies, I skip them.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
 I am saying
this not because I want to
offend but because I want to explain,
and my own explanatory definition of neofascism is this:
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit as
its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist,
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
Also, I am
rather certain that most (not: all) of those who style
themselved as "neoliberals" in fact are neofascists as defined
(even though they probably do not like the term).
And this is
fascism as I
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with centralized authority and a dictator, that
suppresses the opposition through propaganda, censorship and terror,
that propounds an ethics founded
on discipline, virility, and collectivism, that has a politics that is
totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-individualist,
anti-equality, and anti-Marxist, that is also authoritarian,
rightwing and nationalistic, and often racist, and that has a corporative organization of the economy, b. A political philosophy or movement based on or
advocating such a social system.
following if you are interested: On Fascism
and Neofascism: Definitions. (This lists 22 definitions of the term
"fascism", and critically
reflects on them.)
 This is a guess, that is based on earlier
information that at most 1 in a 100 people do any serious programming.
It seems programming is difficult for many, which very probably is
true, but I learned it three times: In 1973, for mainframes (quite
different than for PCs: These were the days one's programs had to be
delivered as cards); in 1979/80 with AppleBasic (which was quite neat
and a real experience: this was the first time I could type in a
program as text, and debug it as it ran); and once again between 1988
and 2007 with various languages one could get free or cheap programming
environments for (Pascal, Prolog, Smalltalk, Python, Assembler).
The main reason for me to say this is not to brag, but to point out
that (i) any real
learning of a programming language will take (at least, providing one
is not a mathematical genius) several weeks or months of work, and that
(ii) it seems this is rather difficult - which means few journalists
will really know it.
And this is also one of my explanations why in fact so few take
the amazing thefts of everyone's privacy seriously: Few
seem to have any realistic ideas about what this may involve.
 In fact, both changes happened in 2015 and are commented on February 15, 2015 and November 8, 2015.
Since then, I know The Guardian definitely sold out: They care much
more for the financial interests of its few journalists than for
telling the truth to its buyers, or so it seems. (And now they also
want special financial support for doing - what they call -