ODAY I begin a series which I was eager to start a long time ago but did not because there was a pending case. I decided to split it into many parts so as to highlight many different ordeals and mistreatments.

What heralds the beginning of this series is the document head shown above. It was sent to us only days ago, more than 6 months after we had requested information as per the law permits us (British law is generally fairly good when it comes to information disclosures in the public sector).

There is a stamp at the very top, stating August. That was 6 months ago.

In this post we wish to highlight the following points:

• The papers, which weigh at 166 pages, were necessary in order for us to make our case
• These papers were sent to us half a year (or more) after the request was made
• The page above (click to zoom) serves to show that the papers could probably be sent about a month after the request had been made
• The papers which we needed were sent to us about 4 months after the case was very much over (as we had won it, proving that were the subject of injustice)

What we can deduce, politely and cautiously, is that Home Office was perhaps not interested in providing us with material evidence that would support our case. This is just the tip of the iceberg as in future parts we shall show a lot more.

It is not entirely impossible that our solicitors, whom we paid a lot of money, just ‘sat’ on these documents for 5 months or so, but based on what was told to us, that’s definitely not the case. We were told this explicitly.

There are far more serious procedural lapses and supposed ‘oopsies’ (never in our favour), as future parts shall reveal.

UST under a year ago I protested in this blog against Obama’s intent to invade Syria and officially start another dirty war. It is now evident that the US teaches Syrian terrorists how to fight their government and also provides heavy weaponry, essentially promoting peace/calm by advancing profitable war at the expense of Syrian lives (cannon fodder and civilian casualties). In the United States, attention is being shifted away from the role of a US facility in Libya, which was being attacked while/after it had been funneling weapons (through Turkey) to Syrian terrorists. So much for peace, eh?

Less than a day ago a report surfaced in the German media (it is now in the French, Danish, and Russian press, to name just few examples, but the British and American media ignore it) saying that Blackwater, which is famously linked to the CIA, is now running things around the Ukraine (hundreds of mercenaries on the ground), only weeks after the CIA’s head visited the country, followed by — reportedly — several FBI and CIA agents. For those who don’t know, neo-Nazis gained power in Ukraine with much help from NATO and the US. These are the people responsible for the burning (while alive) dozens of nonviolent people in Odessa. The Western media is so fanatic about propaganda right now that it is lying to readers and viewers, mostly by omission.

Based on actions of NATO member nations in Ukraine, peace is clearly not a goal and calm won’t be restored any time soon. It is just yet another proxy war among several others. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people, some of whom were my childhood friends.

Faked (staged) Kuwaiti girl testimony in run-up to the 1991 Gulf War

yria is hardly the world’s biggest problem. Iraq wasn’t, either. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from there; in fact, they were mostly from US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which points to the real motivation of the attacks: imperialism. Osama Bin Laden even said so himself, referring to he violation of the sovereignty in his home nation, where he was raised by a very affluent family. Bush, like Obama and Osama, pretended to be down-to-earth (dumb) and average because he knew his target audience. He didn’t get his position and his academic background by mere chance. He grew up in very a affluent environment, but his campaign showed an image of Bush that — much like Obama — helps sell foreign policy which is cruel and unjust. Obama even got a Nobel peace prize as if it was predicted, without evidence, that he would be good for peace. What utter nonsense. Bush, Obama, and Osama are all violent cowards. They have that in common.

Syria is said to have had many weapons funnelled into it by the CIA, based on leaks (the corporate press was forced to cover this top maintain some credibility). A long-established Zionist aspiration was to eliminate a regime in Syria which is not headed puppets like in Egypt (before the uprising). Iraq too was a concern and we know this because of Israeli bombings there decades ago. Iraq was confronted by Bush senior using false (staged) testimonies and the US had given Sadden a go-ahead to enter Kuwait, as revealed by some cables from Wikileaks. So there is a lot more to this story than we once knew. Recently, as the CIA declassifies material, we also got confirmation that the US supported Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iran, which it had derailed using a coup (against a democratically-elected government) decades earlier.

Many of the citizens who watch the corporate press do not know the facts and even have contempt for the facts, so selling a US-led war in Syria to them would just be too easy. As for the chemical attack in the centre of Syria, is seems like media propaganda spearheaded by the BBC. Back in January there was a report in the corporate press about a plot by the US to manufacture a chemical attack on the population and then blame it on Assad. What a strange coincidence. “Red lines” from Obama almost predict what’s likely a false-flag operation, one among many before it.

here are reports right now about New Zealand residents taking action (e.g. protests) against illegal actions by their secret agencies and government, which include — quite famously — the illegal raid of a mansion. Here is a good reports about it.

Here is Kim telling his side of the story in a challenging interview.

COULD not help noticing that society is moving away from civility, attaining the exact opposite of progress because plutocrats took over the government and are now occupying entire nations.

We oughtn’t assume that society always moves forward. Just look at the Middle Ages, Islamisation, the rise of Nazism in Germany and so on. Civil rights are relative, but they are not very subjective. There is a yardstick for comparatively assessing human values.

The United States has been the world’s unchallenged empire for a few decades now (after parity with the Soviet empire) and it is conspiring with several other nations where degradation of human rights is closely correlated (the UK is no exception). Consider collaboration on surveillance by the NSA, drone strikes (the UK and Australia help with those), indefinite detention (with abductions outside the US), and even torture cells in several unmarked sites across Europe (for the CIA to aggressively “interrogate” people). These are just a few examples among many more. This post is not an exhaustive summary of what I have in mind.

In the age of Facebook as an online distraction (people posting photos of their family and friends, i.e. unwittingly act as informants) I remain quite pessimistic. Those of us who try to warn others about the loss of civility in the digitised and increasingly-automated world (where spying and assassination too are being automated) just perpetually remain a niche, so the forces of plutocracy carry on, largely unchallenged and scarcely feared by the public. The corporate media helps keep it that way and independent sites keep imploding in an age of austerity and other types of pressure against the population at large.

I realise that protests — while they’re in principle considered legal here — are practically impossible. For a protest to be effective it needs to be disruptive but authorities limit the effect by ensuring no protest disrupts anything (otherwise there are mass arrests to serve as intimidation measures). Online protests are being suppressed and journalism too (see Barrett Brown), so even those of us who engage in peaceful activism and no civil disobedience are coming under unprecedented pressure.

Defeatism would be premature because leaks such as the ones from Manning and Snowden show everyone that we, the people, still have ways to counter human suffering.

ITH PRISM all over the news, politicians in Finland (land of Nokia) are being pressured to drop E-mail services that give the US data which compromises sovereignty, e.g. political espionage.

Contributing my own bit to this push for sovereignty, I have contacted my bank, National Westminster, which will probably tell me I can’t opt out of sending my financial data to the US, land of illegal surveillance by NSA. I am now waiting for a phonecall from someone higher up in National Westminster. Here is my chat log from an hour ago:

Manny: Hi, you’re chatting with Manny. How may I help you?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Hi Manny, good afternoon.

Manny: Good Afternoon

Manny: How can I help today?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I have 5 accounts with NatWest, 1 of which is a USD account

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Several months ago I contacted NatWest regarding my newly-issued debit card, which is tied to Visa, not Maestro/Switch

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I had asked them to stop sending my financial data to Visa

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I wish to use my account without going through a foreign party

Manny: Okay, is that for your USD account, or the regular account?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: All accounts preferably

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I want my financial data to stay within the UK, I think the law protects me on this matter

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I can give my account details if they helps

Manny: Okay, do you do online banking with your accounts?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Yes, I do

Manny: Okay, can you log in online for me please?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: The USD account I cannot access online, it’s a Currency Account, but it’s based on Warwick, if I recall correcly, so I assume the data stays in the UK

Manny: Okay, can you log in online for me please?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Sure, hang on..

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I am logged in now

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: By the way, the chat facility did not work in Firefox

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Maybe a bug, I had to launch Chromium to get to it

Manny: Thank you, okay, and what is it you would like me change on the account exactly please?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: My accounts are, based on information I have been given by NatWest, enable my financial activity to be sent to another nation, even when I make payments within the UK

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I would like to opt out

Manny: Okay, one moment please.

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: thank you, Manny

Manny: Okay, we wouldn’t share an specific financial information with any parties outside of the UK, and any monitoring on your account or Visa card, would be done solely by the bank, and no one else.

Manny: I haven’t heard from you for a while. Are you still there?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: yes

Manny: Is this in reference to making payment via the internet or just using your card in general anywhere?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I am trying to interpret this because it’s sufficient for the processing to be done by Visa for another nation to hold a copy of all transactions

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Using my card as well as making transaction over the Internet. I need reassurance that in both cases the financial data is in no way trickling out outside the UK.

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: That would contradict what NatWest told me before, as they said Visa is a “man-in-the-middle” in the transactions

Manny: Okay, I don’t have access specifically to that information here I’m afraid, Dr. but what I will do for you is, send this on for investigation, and then my supervisory will look into this situation further for you, and then call you back once all the necessary information has been located for you.

Manny: You will get a call back within 5 working days at the very latest, is that okay for you?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: Thank you, Manny

Manny: You’re very welcome, may I take your best daytime contact number please?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: I am at home most of the time, the number to reach me on is xxxxxx

Manny: Thank you, I will get this request send for you right away, and you will hear back within 5 working days.

Manny: Is there anything else I can help you with today?

Dr. Roy Schestowitz: That’s enough for today, thank you. I shall wait for the call for clarifications, I hope they can amend my accounts to address the privacy problems that I never opted into

Manny: Okay, not to worry.

Manny: I would be grateful if you could take a moment of your time to complete the attached survey in connection with the service I have provided today?

Manny: Thank you for chatting with me. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Stay tuned…

THER than the fact that Google Glass is Linux-powered and partly Free/Open Source, I have never had interest in Google Glass. The fact that it is hackable — in the sense one can install one’s own system on the hardware — sure makes a difference, but most people will never practise this freedom. As long as Google, by default, hoovers in data from Google Glass (like it does on the Nexus series), the data is easily accessible to the Surveillance Industrial Complex. This ties into the previous post about peer-surveillance. There is no escaping it and there is reason to antagonise Google Glass as a concept, irrespective of whether one buys/uses it. A lot of people will have no choice as to whether their life(as dynamic imagery) is taken and then uploaded to a datacentre with weak data sharing/protection/retention policy. This is not the same as CCTV. Here we talk about videos that are captured in private spaces, too, more so than surveillance drones whose motion is limited to aerial and is still privacy-infringing, albeit they’re less ubiquitous due to cost, air traffic control, legislation and so on.

This is not about resisting a brand. It’s not hating advancement or fearing the future as Google likes to paint it. It is about telling the difference between marketing (the technology for Google Glass as an implementable concept has been around for decades) and societal effects. It’s like antagonising proprietary software for its effects on society, regardless of practical uses. Fog Computing (‘cloud’) should be rejected on similar grounds. Not everything that can be done should be done, at least or especially if it disregards the consent of non-participants.

To the user, the novelty here is the size of the hardware, the image resolution, and the wireless connection speeds (not related to Google at all).

To the Surveillance Industrial Complex, the novelty here is the ability to access a private (i.e. not accessible by us) database of videos for any given person queried (identity can be derived in a variety of ways, ranging from inter-personal connections to audio, video, and geographical location).