-->

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

'THEY'RE NOT SORRY': PHONE HACKING VICTIM CHARLOTTE CHURCH SETTLES FOR $950,000


Gregory Katz  February 28, 2012
Charlotte Church's nearly $1 million settlement Monday with Rupert Murdoch's company provides vindication for a former child singing sensation caught in a web of tabloid intrigue as she grew into her teens.
But she does not believe the company's apology was sincere.
Outside London's High Court after receiving 600,000 pounds ($951,000) in a settlement from News International, Church attacked the tabloid culture that turned her life upside down: "They are not truly sorry. They are just sorry they got
caught.”
In a weekend interview with The Associated Press at her home in the village of Dinas Powys in south Wales, Church said she was looking forward to putting her legal troubles behind her and concentrating on her career and her young children.
"I'm a singer," Church said, wearing a casual blue dress while sitting scrunched up in a small chair in her home studio, littered with electric guitars and a couple of dirty plates left by her bandmates.
"I've always wanted to sing. I never wanted to be famous. I always want to perform live, and I've really, really missed that. Hopefully it will be a little bit fairer moving forward."
Church, who debuted at age 11 with an angelic voice that soared to classical song, is now a 26-year-old mother of two. Instead of preparing for what would undoubtedly have been a harrowing trial, she spends her free time in a garage studio next to her home, recording comeback tunes with local musicians.
The tracks-in-progress, covering a range of pop styles, are a reminder that before she was tabloid fodder _ characterized as a loose teenager with a fondness for booze and cigarettes _ she was a showstopping vocalist who had performed for a pope and a president and become a regular on the Oprah Winfrey show.
Her voice still soars, seemingly without effort, despite the occasional cigarette.
Church keeps the studio locked, along with the gate that blocks her driveway, and she doesn't talk freely on the telephone. Suspicion is a residue of the phone hacking scandal, even if reporters no longer hide in her bushes or tap her phone messages.
Church's life offers a case study of the perils of child stardom. She sold out concert halls, made millions from record sales _ and became an obsession with the tabloid press. Reporters dogged her every step, eavesdropped on her communications and published shock headlines about her family based on the flimsiest leads.
She said she had wanted the case to be brought to trial but was reluctant to again become the focus of attention for Murdoch's lawyers and reporters. She also said she was concerned about possibly being held responsible for Murdoch's extensive legal costs if the case did not go her way.
"I felt sick to my stomach at what I'd been put through, and what my parents had been put through for this company's gain," she said.
"We were going to take this forward, to know what went on. We had a strong case, a lot of evidence. I wanted it to be as public as possible. But we settled for many different reasons. It's really difficult _ they've got 25 lawyers, and you've got four. They had massive resources, and they weren't going to take it lying down."
She does not believe her involvement in the case will end with Monday's settlement.
Church said phone numbers for her American publicist and agent were found in private detective Glenn Mulcaire's notes, which could be significant because Mulcaire was jailed after having been found to have hacked into the phones of some people mentioned in his handwritten notes.
She believes her agent and publicist may have been hacked as well, indicating that crimes may have been committed in the United States, not just Britain, raising the legal peril for Murdoch, whose company is headquartered in New York.
"That shows how large their web is," said Church.
Church was just 11 when she shot to fame with her uncanny mastery of classical standards. The intensity of tabloid scrutiny picked up pace in her mid-teenage years _ when she branched out into pop music _ as her romantic life, nights out on the town and even her cigarette smoking sparked racy front-page stories.
The pressure has eased in the last few years as Church has stayed out of the public eye while raising her two young children.
She lives in a spacious house with attractive grounds _ and neighbors who protect her privacy. The living room is filled with teddy bears and has a casual, lived-in look, but a home-office on top of the garage has been turned into a "war room" for her legal battle with the Murdoch empire.
Church believes the tabloids have done lasting damage to her career. Her voice is intact; she believes her reputation is not.
"I realize now their power, their absolute power," she said. "People really believe the things that are written, and a lot of the things they wrote weren't me at all, not the things I was saying, not my viewpoints, and I just realized they were shaping how people viewed me. I became a cartoon character, a soap opera character. It was constant, every day, from 16 to 21. There was always someone outside my house, following me."
Church said she cut off many of her close childhood friends because she thought they were selling stories about her to the press _ only to find out last summer that the tabloids had been getting the information from her voicemails.
She's apologized to her girl friends, but in some cases the damage could not be undone.
"They were really angry, I've had to go around to them and say, 'I'm sorry, I'm really sorry that I thought that of you but it was a really confusing time and we didn't know the broader picture.' I thought, I just have to limit the people I'm in daily contact with."
Her advice to any young, attractive singers likely to draw newspaper attention?
"Be careful, be very careful," she said. "It's dangerous."
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/theyre-not-sorry-phone-hacking-victim-charlotte-church-settles-for-950000-20120228-1tzka.html

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

JUST WHO OWNS AUSTRALIA'S WESTPAC BANK?

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/banking/wpac97.html
One thing is for sure Westpac is not majority owned by Australians. As you will see in the links below at least 50% of the company is owned by foreigners largely hidden in nominee companies.
The company's financials are stored in an image format ensuring that search engines cannot search on the  major shareholders in this banking giant (search engines search on text only).
Amongst its 20 largest shareholders are Rotchschild and Rockefeller interests and the infamous Cede and Co a US$6.1 trillion anonymous fund - blamed for the "controlled" sharemarket crash on Black Monday in October 1987.

Bob Joss:

Westpac is run by an American Bob Joss.
He is a good friend of Jim Wolfensohn who heads up the World Bank which is a supernational development institution making loans to developing countries with a minimum level of creditworthiness. The World Bank raises most of its money in the international financial markets. Over its more than 50 years the World Bank has lent more than $US277 billion to developing countries and economic institutions.
Extract Sydney Morning Herald:
THERE'S no doubt about it, Australia has been good to Bob Joss. Apart from anything else he's $35 million richer after five years at the helm of Westpac.
And Westpac shareholders have done pretty well out of Joss, riding the surging share price all the way to new record. So it was hardly a surprise when Joss decided to renew his contract with Westpac, which was due to expire in January.
The new contract is open-ended. But Joss can be expected to stay at least another three years. For starters, he has to wait that long before he can exercise all of his new package of 2.1 million options.
The market was pleased Joss decided to stay. The bank's share price has surged 19 per cent since the announcement in August versus the broader banking and finance index's 7.8 per cent.
Indeed, Westpac recorded something of a milestone this week when the bank's share price overtook that of its rival and fellow 1980s casualty ANZ for the first time in years.
Coming on top of a record $1.29 billion profit, which was clearly superior to that of its major bank rivals, Joss has every reason to celebrate with more gusto than usual during the holidays.

The Westpac shareholders:


National Australia Trustees Limited - 9.22% - largest shareholder in Westpac Limited

Foreign owned. Extract National Australia Bank Ltd press release:
a 43% gain in sales of unit trusts and trustee products to $809 million, reflecting strong growth in National Australia Trustees A1 Common Fund and increases in sales of managed investment funds

Lend Lease Custodian Pty Ltd - 8.42% - second largest shareholder.

Overseas controlled. Extract Lend Lease Custodian Share Capital — Note 18
In November 1986, Lend Lease Corporation issued 100,000 redeemable bearer option bonds due on 28 October 1996. Option bond holders could convert each option bond during this period into 100 shares of 50 cents each in Lend Lease Corporation, paid up to 1 cent per share. The full subscription price per share was $10.48. The balance of $10.47 following conversion was payable in full either at the option of the shareholder, at any time, or mandatorily when called by the Directors of Lend Lease Corporation in accordance with the Articles of Association. During the year 3,001 (June 1996 23,714) option bonds were fully converted. The option period lapsed at 28 October 1996 and hence at balance date there were no outstanding option bonds (June 1996 3,001 outstanding option bonds).
In June 1993, Lend Lease Corporation issued 20,000 non detachable conversion bonds as part of the Eurobond loans due 2003. When issued, the conversion bonds were paid up to the extent of US$0.01 per US$10,000 principal amount and could be converted into 17,316,017 ordinary shares of 50 cents each in Lend Lease Corporation at any time up to and including 1 June 2003 utilising the redemption of the Eurobond. During the financial year ended 30 June 1996, Lend Lease notified bondholders that all outstanding bonds would be called for redemption before December 1996. The call for redemption was finalised at December 1996 and hence at balance date there were no ordinary shares (June 1996 4.6 million ordinary shares) covered by outstanding non detachable conversion bonds.

Westpac Custodian Nominees - 8.18% - third largest shareholder.

Front for overseas interests. (See also fifth, sixth and seventh largest shareholders)
Extract Sydney Morning Herald:
John Fairfax Holdings is considering forcing the owners of $100 million-plus worth of shares sold by Mr Conrad Black's Hollinger group to reveal their identity.
The shares represent close to 5 per cent of the newspaper group and are housed in two companies that hold stock on behalf of others. One parcel of shares is in the name of Westpac Custodian Nominees while the other is in a nominee company of stockbroker Merrill Lynch.


Chase Manhattan Nominees Limited - 8.15% of Westpac - fourth largest shareholder.

Extract: UNDERSTANDING THE NEW WORLD ORDER
These people came to dominate the most important institutions in our society. They were powerful Wall Street lawyers like the Dulles brothers, who looked after the foreign investments of their super rich clients. Especially their investments in Europe, and more especially their investments in German corporations, which in the 1930s began building Hitler's new war machine.
At first with the backing of the Morgan Bank, and later with the Rockefeller Banks (Chase Manhattan, and First National City Bank, now called Citicorp ) the CFR had a healthy start in life. It was and continues to be nourished by the giant tax averting foundations of the super rich, and direct donations from the Fortune 500 channelled through as member fees.
"Clinton sits on the White House seat. While many work to ensure his defeat. But only few know, He's on the third row, Of the American Power Elite. ( anonymous )
" The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Felix Frankfurter -- Supreme Court Justice, CFR
" I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire,... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild

ANZ Nominees Limited - 4.85% - fifth largest shareholder.
National Nominees Ltd - 4.59% - sixth largest shareholder.
Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd - 1.96% - seventh largest shareholder.

(a search on the three nominee company's above will reveal their close association by their common involvement in the top 20 of mainly mineral resource based companies). Try Alta Vista.

Australian Mutual Provident Society - 1.95% - eighth largest shareholder.

Australia's largest and oldest life insurance organisation - holds AAA rating for claims paying ability from Standard & Poors.

SAS Trustee Corporation - 1.95% - ninth largest shareholder.

Bonafide Australian Superannuation scheme tied up with the New South Wales state government.

Queensland Investment Corporation - 1.6% - tenth largest shareholder.

No information available on the Internet about this group.

MLC Limited - 1.24% - eleventh largest shareholders.

Tied up with Lend Lease and National Mutual.

Perpetual Trustees Nominees - 1.18% - twelfth largest shareholders.

See fifth, sixth and seventh largest shareholders (above).

CEDE and Co (or DTC) - 0.90% - thirteenth largest shareholder.

Nominee Company:
The Depository Trust Company
7 Hanover Square, 23rd Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Attention: Scott Fietta

Telephone: (212) 709-6870
FAX: (212) 709-6896 or 6897

Extracts: THE DTC - A NINE TRILLION DOLLAR SECRET?
The Depository Trust Co. (DTC) is the best-kept secret in America. Headquartered at 55 Water St. NYC, this "financial institution" is perhaps the most powerful in the world, yet the public doesn't have a clue as to who they are or what they do.
How can a "bank" hold assets of over 9 trillion dollars and be unknown?
During our telephone conversation, Mr. Mcneil was trying to assure our researcher that they have never lost a certificate or made a mistake in a book ledger transaction. In attempting to give us an example of how trustworthy they are, he said: DTC's first controlled test was 4 or 5 years ago. Do you remember black Monday? There was a very proud to inform us that "DTC cleared every transaction without a single glitch!" Read these quotes again. He state that: "Black Monday" was a controlled test! "Black Monday" (October 1987) was a deliberately manipulated disaster for many Americans at the "controlled test" by the DTC and the FDC owners.
The hidden face of international tax evasion:
All the companies in this hidden index we uncovered, like Time Warner, CBS, Bankers Trust New York, Hewlett Packard etc..., are tied into this DTC plot (read that as Cede and Co).. with the following common theme:
DTC will act as securities depository for the Series A Preferred Securities. The Series A Preferred Securities will be issued only as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's nominee). One or more fully-registered global Series A Preferred Security certificates will be issued, representing in the aggregate the total number of Series A Preferred Securities, and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC is a limited-purpose trust company organised under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organisation" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). DTC holds securities that its participants ("Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the settlement among Participants of securities transactions, such as transfers and pledges, in deposited securities through electronic computerised book-entry changes in Participants' accounts, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organisations ("Direct Participants"). DTC is owned by a number of its Direct Participants and by The New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (the "New York Stock Exchange"), the American Stock Exchange, Inc., and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as securities brokers and dealers, banks and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). The rules applicable to DTC and its Participants are on file with the Commission.
An application has been filed by Goldman, Sachs & Co. with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the registration of the MIPS servicemark (for DTC).
GLOBAL BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM
The Depository Trust Company (DTC), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the Bonds. The Bonds will be issued as fully-registered bonds registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee). One fully-registered bond certificate will be issued for each maturity of each issue of the Bonds, in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC is a limited-purpose trust company organised under the New York Banking Law, a banking organisation within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a clearing corporation within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a clearing agency registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds securities that its participants (Participants) deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the settlement among Participants of securities transactions, such as transfers and pledges, in deposited securities through electronic computerised book-entry changes in Participants accounts, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organisations. DTC is owned by a number of its Direct Participants and by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock Exchange, Inc., and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as securities brokers and dealers, banks, and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly (Indirect Participants). The Rules applicable to DTC and its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


The cancer invading our banks does not stop here.
ANZ Bank, which last week announced the lay off of 1,700 Australians (and last year retrenched 2,000) has Chase Manhattan Nominees with 11.6% of its shares as its largest shareholder.
To see how this all this was allowed to happened you need to visit the Financial Services Industry Agreement page (FSIA) to see how the Australian Labor Party under Paul Keating sold Australia's soul to foreigners.

Just who are the Rotchschild's?

Return to the Australian National News of the Day.

Friday, February 17, 2012

PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE OFFICE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION AND PLANNING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS INITIATIVE

220px-US_Department_of_Homeland_Security_Seal.svg.png

June 22, 2010
Contact Point Donald Triner, Director (Acting), National Operations Center Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (202) 282-8611
Reviewing Official Mary Ellen Callahan Chief Privacy Officer Department of Homeland Security (703) 235-0780Abstract
The Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS), National Operations Center (NOC), will launch and lead the Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness (Initiative) to assist the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components involved in fulfilling OPS statutory responsibility (Section 515 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 321d(b)(1)) to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the federal government, and for those state, local, and tribal governments, as appropriate. The NOC and participating components1 may also share this de-identified information with international partners and the private sector where necessary and appropriate for coordination. While this Initiative is not designed to actively collect Personally Identifiable Information (PII), OPS is conducting this Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) because the Initiative could potentially involve PII or other information received in an identifiable form. In the event PII comes into the Department’s possession under this Initiative, the NOC will redact all PII prior to further dissemination of any collected information. In the event of an in extremis situation involving potential life and death, OPS will share certain PII with the responding authority in order for them to take the necessary actions to save a life, such as name and location of a person calling for help buried under rubble, or hiding in a hotel room when the hotel is under attack by terrorists.
Reference is made to previous social media event monitoring initiative PIAs conducted by OPS to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the entire federal government, and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate, and to ensure that critical disaster-related information reaches government decision makers consistent with Section 515 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 321d(b)(1)). Those OPS PIAs include: 1) Haiti Social Media Disaster Monitoring Initiative (January 21, 2010); 2) 2010 Winter Olympics Social Media Event Monitoring Initiative (February 10, 2010); and 3) April 2010 BP Oil Spill Response Social Media Event Monitoring Initiative (April 29, 2010). For more information on these OPS PIAs, visit www.dhs.gov/privacy. Going forward, individual PIAs on social media monitoring will not be issued, instead, they will be covered by this overarching PIA.
This PIA will be reviewed every six months to ensure compliance. This will be done in conjunction with a Privacy Office-led Privacy Compliance Review of the Initiative and of OPS social media monitoring Internet-based platforms and information technology infrastructure.
Overview
Federal law requires the NOC to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the entire federal government, and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate, and to ensure that critical disaster-related information reaches government decision makers. See Section 515 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 321d(b)(1)). The law defines the term “situational awareness” as “information gathered from a variety of sources that, when communicated to emergency managers and decision makers, can form the basis for incident management decision-making.” OPS is launching and leading this Initiative to fulfill its legal mandate to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. In doing so, OPS is working with select components within the Department to achieve
1 OPS is working with select components within the Department to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the federal government, and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate, and to ensure that critical disaster-related information reaches government decision makers consistent with Section 515 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 321d(b)(1)).
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 2
this statutory mandate.
The NOC will use Internet-based platforms that provide a variety of ways to follow activity related to monitoring publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards. Through the use of publicly available search engines and content aggregators2 the NOC will monitor activities on the social media sites listed in Appendix A for information that the NOC can use to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. Appendix A is a current list of sites that the NOC will use as a starting point under this Initiative. Initial sites listed may link to other sites not listed. The NOC may also monitor those sites if they are within the scope of this Initiative. The NOC will gather, store, analyze, and disseminate relevant and appropriate de-identified information to federal, state, local, and foreign governments, and private sector partners authorized to receive situational awareness and a common operating picture. Under this initiative, OPS will not: 1) actively seek personally identifiable information (PII); 2) post any information; 3) actively seek to connect with other internal/external personal users; 4) accept other internal/external personal users’ invitations to connect; or 5) interact on social media sites. However, OPS is permitted to establish user names and passwords to form profiles and follow relevant government, media, and subject matter experts on social media sites listed in Appendix A in order to use search tools under established criteria and search terms such as those listed in Appendix B for monitoring that supports providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture.
The NOC will identify and monitor only information needed to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. The NOC will use this information to fulfill the statutory mandate set forth above to include the sharing of information with foreign governments and the private sector as otherwise authorized by law.
The Department may use social media for other purposes including interacting with the public, disseminating information to the public, as well as law enforcement, intelligence, and other operations covered by applicable authorities and PIAs. For more information on these social media PIAs, visit www.dhs.gov/privacy.
Section 1.0 Characterization of the Information
The following questions are intended to define the scope of the information requested and/or collected as well as reasons for its collection as part of the program, system, rule, or technology being developed.
1.1 What information is collected, used, disseminated, or maintained in the system?
Third-party service providers offer an array of applications that provide social media services along with publicly-available online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards. See Appendix A for a current list of the types of sites that may be viewed for information. See Appendix B for current search terms used under this Initiative. The NOC will review information posted by individual account users on third-party social media websites of activities and events necessary to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. The NOC will access these web-based platforms to identify content posted by public users for the purpose of providing situational awareness and establishing a common
2 Content aggregators generally provide a consolidated view of web content in a single browser display or desktop application.
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 3
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 4
operating picture. The NOC will assess information identified to assist decision-makers.
The NOC shall not actively collect data on the individuals posting information to third-party service providers, about individual users, or PII. Should PII come into the NOC’s possession, the NOC shall redact it prior to further dissemination of any collected information. In the event of an in extremis situation involving potential life and death, DHS will share certain PII with the responding authority in order for them to take the necessary actions to save a life, such as name and location of a person calling for help buried under rubble, or hiding in a hotel room when the hotel is under attack by terrorists.
1.2 What are the sources of the information in the system?
Members of the public as well as first responders, press, volunteers, and others provide publicly available information on social medial sites including online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards. OPS is permitted to establish user names and passwords to form profiles on social media sites listed in Appendix A and to use search tools under established criteria and search terms such as those listed in Appendix B for monitoring that supports providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture.
1.3 Why is the information being collected, used, disseminated, or maintained?
The NOC will identify, use, disseminate, and maintain this information to comply with its statutory mandate to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the entire federal government, and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate and to ensure that this information reaches government decision makers. The aggregation of data published via social media sites should make it possible for the NOC to provide more accurate situational awareness, a more complete common operating picture, and more timely information for decision makers.
1.4 How is the information collected?
The NOC will identify information directly from third-party social media services. The NOC will access and collect information from various informational streams and postings that the NOC, as well as the broader public, view and monitor. See Appendix A for a list of the types of sites that may be viewed for information. See Appendix B for the types of search terms used in social media monitoring.
1.5 How will the information be checked for accuracy?
The NOC will identify information from third-party social media services submitted voluntarily by members of the public and compares that information with information available in open source reporting and through a variety of public and government sources. By bringing together and comparing many different sources of information, the NOC will attempt to provide a more accurate picture of contemporaneous activities.
1.6 What specific legal authorities, arrangements, and/or agreements defined the collection of information?
Congress requires the NOC “to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the entire federal government and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate, in the event of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster; and ensure that critical terrorism
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 5
and disaster-related information reaches government decision-makers.” Section 515 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 321d(b)(1)). While the NOC may receive PII, PII is not actively collected and is not retrieved by personal identifier so a Privacy Act System of Records Notice is not required.
1.7 Privacy Impact Analysis: Given the amount and type of data collected, discuss the privacy risks identified and how they were mitigated.
There is a risk that the NOC will receive PII or other identifiable information that is not relevant to this Initiative. The NOC has a clear policy in place that any PII incidentally received will be redacted immediately. Also, under this initiative OPS will not: 1) actively seek PII; 2) post any information; 3) actively seek to connect with other internal/external personal users; 4) accept other internal/external personal users’ invitations to connect; and 5) interact on social media sites. Information collected to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture originates from publicly available social media sites and is available to the public.
Section 2.0 Uses of the Information
The following questions are intended to delineate clearly the use of information and the accuracy of the data being used.
2.1 Describe all the uses of information.
The NOC will use Internet-based platforms that provide a variety of ways to follow activities by monitoring publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards. Through the use of publicly available search engines and content aggregators, the NOC will continuously monitor activities on social media sites, such as those listed in Appendix A, using search terms, such as those listed in Appendix B, for information. The NOC will gather, store, analyze, and disseminate relevant and appropriate information to federal, state, local, and foreign governments, and private sector partners requiring and authorized to receive situational awareness and a common operating picture.
2.2 What types of tools are used to analyze data and what type of data may be produced?
NOC analysts will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating information provided on social media sites and will use tools offered by third-party social media sites to aid them in this overall effort. The final analysis will be used to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture.
2.3 If the system uses commercial or publicly available data please explain why and how it is used.
Publicly available, user-generated data can be useful to decision-makers as it provides “on-the- ground” information to help corroborate information received through official sources.
2.4 Privacy Impact Analysis: Describe any types of controls that may be in place to ensure that information is handled in accordance with the above described uses.
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 6
The risk is that PII will be sent to the NOC unintentionally. This has been mitigated by the clear policy that any PII inadvertently collected shall be redacted immediately before further use and sharing. The Department is providing notice of all uses of information under this Initiative through this PIA. the NOC will not actively collect or use any PII.
Section 3.0 Retention
The following questions are intended to outline how long information will be retained after the initial collection.
3.1 What information is retained?
The NOC will retain only user-generated information posted to publicly available online social media sites. Information posted in the public sphere that the Department uses to provide situational awareness or establish a common operating picture becomes a federal record and the Department is required to maintain a copy. However, the Department is working with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) on a retention schedule to immediately delete PII, upon the approval of this schedule by NARA, as well as to maintain records necessary for further use by the Department.
3.2 How long is information retained?
The NOC will retain information only long enough to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. Information posted in the public sphere that the Department uses to provide situational awareness or establish a common operating picture becomes a federal record and the Department is required to maintain a copy. The Department is working with NARA on a retention schedule to immediately delete PII, upon the approval of this schedule by NARA, as well as to maintain records necessary for further use by the Department.
3.3 Has the retention schedule been approved by the component records officer and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)?
The Office of Records Management is working with NARA to establish an approved retention and disposal policy.
3.4 Privacy Impact Analysis: Please discuss the risks associated with the length of time data is retained and how those risks are mitigated.
The risk associated with retention of information is that PII will be retained when it is not necessary and that the information will be kept longer than is necessary. The NOC has mitigated this risk by redacting PII it inadvertently collects and is working with NARA on a retention schedule to immediately delete PII, upon the approval of this schedule by NARA, as well as to maintain records necessary for further use by the Department.
Section 4.0 Internal Sharing and Disclosure
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 7
The following questions are intended to define the scope of sharing within the Department of Homeland Security.
4.1 With which internal organization(s) is the information shared, what information is shared and for what purpose?
Information will be shared within the NOC and with government leadership who have a need to know. The NOC is sharing this information for the statutorily mandated purpose of providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture.
4.2 How is the information transmitted or disclosed?
Information will be transmitted via email and telephone and by other electronic and paper means within the NOC and to government leadership where necessary and appropriate. PII will not actively be collected, but if pushed to the NOC, it will be redacted by the NOC before information is shared. The remaining data is analyzed and prepared for reporting.
4.3 Privacy Impact Analysis: Considering the extent of internal information sharing, discuss the privacy risks associated with the sharing and how they were mitigated.
The risk associated with sharing this information is that PII will be inadvertently collected and shared. The NOC has mitigated this risk by establishing effective policies to avoid collection of PII and to redact it if collected inadvertently. The NOC will only monitor publicly accessible sites where users post information voluntarily.
Section 5.0 External Sharing and Disclosure
The following questions are intended to define the content, scope, and authority for information sharing external to DHS which includes federal, state and local government, and the private sector.
5.1 With which external organization(s) is the information shared, what information is shared, and for what purpose?
The NOC will use this Initiative to fulfill its statutory responsibility to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the entire federal government, and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate, and to ensure that critical disaster-related information reaches government decision makers. Information may also be shared with private sector and international partners where necessary, appropriate, and authorized by law.
5.2 Is the sharing of personally identifiable information outside the Department compatible with the original collection? If so, is it covered by an appropriate routine use in a SORN? If so, please describe. If not, please describe under what legal mechanism the program or system is allowed to share the personally identifiable
information outside of DHS.
PII will not actively be collected. However, if pushed to the NOC, the PII will be redacted. Information is only collected to provide situational awareness and to establish a common operating picture.
5.3 How is the information shared outside the Department and what security measures safeguard its transmission?
Information will be shared by phone, email, and other paper and electronic means.
5.4 Privacy Impact Analysis: Given the external sharing, explain the privacy risks identified and describe how they were mitigated.
External sharing risks are minimal as the Initiative will not share PII; only information collected to provide situational awareness and to establish a common operating picture is shared.
Section 6.0 Notice
The following questions are directed at notice to the individual of the scope of information collected, the right to consent to uses of said information, and the right to decline to provide information.
6.1 Was notice provided to the individual prior to collection of information?
The Department may publicize its use of social media. The NOC does not, however, provide notice to specific public users who voluntarily provide user-generated information on publicly accessible social media sites. The NOC may retrieve public information from the social media sites, but will not interact with individual personal users.
6.2 Do individuals have the opportunity and/or right to decline to provide information?
Information posted to social media websites is publicly accessible and voluntarily generated. Thus, the opportunity not to provide information exists prior to the informational post by the user.
6.3 Do individuals have the right to consent to particular uses of the information? If so, how does the individual exercise the right?
Individuals voluntarily post information on social media sites and have the ability to restrict access to their posts as they see fit. Any information posted publicly can be used by the NOC in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture.
6.4 Privacy Impact Analysis: Describe how notice is provided to individuals, and how the risks associated with individuals being unaware of the collection are mitigated.
There is no requirement to provide notice to individuals under the framework applied under this
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 8
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 9
Initiative. Information posted to social media approved for monitoring under this Initiative is publicly accessible and voluntarily generated.
Section 7.0 Access, Redress and Correction
The following questions are directed at an individual’s ability to ensure the accuracy of the information collected about them.
7.1 What are the procedures that allow individuals to gain access to their information?
Social media are public websites. All users have access to their own information through their user accounts. Individuals should consult the privacy policies of the services they subscribe to for more information.
7.2 What are the procedures for correcting inaccurate or erroneous information?
Users may accidentally or purposefully generate inaccurate or erroneous information. There is no mechanism for correcting this. However, the community is largely self-governing and erroneous information is normally expunged or debated rather quickly by others within the community with more accurate and/or truthful information.
7.3 How are individuals notified of the procedures for correcting their information?
There is no specified procedure for correcting information to DHS; if there was, it relates to a social media- provided process and not a DHS process. Individuals may change their PII on the sites as well as the accessibility of their content posts at any time they wish through their user account management tools on social media sites.
7.4 If no formal redress is provided, what alternatives are available to the individual?
There is no specified procedure for correcting information to DHS; if there was, it relates to a social media-provided process and not a DHS process. Individuals may change their PII as well as the accessibility of their content posts at any time they wish through their user account management tools on the social media sites. Individuals should consult the privacy policies of the services to which they subscribe for more information.
7.5 Privacy Impact Analysis: Please discuss the privacy risks associated with the redress available to individuals and how those risks are mitigated.
The information available on social networking websites is largely user-generated, which means that the individual chooses the amount of information available about himself/herself as well as the ease with which it can be accessed by other users. Thus, the primary account holder should be able to redress
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 10
any concerns through the third-party social media service. Individuals should consult the privacy policies of the services they subscribe to for more information.
Section 8.0 Technical Access and Security
The following questions are intended to describe technical safeguards and security measures.
8.1 What procedures are in place to determine which users may access the system and are they documented?
No procedures are in place. Social media sites are publicly available, third-party services.
8.2 Will Department contractors have access to the system?
Yes, as it is required in the performance of their contractual duties at DHS.
8.3 Describe what privacy training is provided to users either generally or specifically relevant to the program or system?
All DHS employees and contractors are required to take annual privacy training.
8.4 Has Certification & Accreditation been completed for the system or systems supporting the program?
No. Social media sites are publicly available, third-party services.
8.5 What auditing measures and technical safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of data?
This PIA will be reviewed every six months to ensure compliance. This will be done in conjunction with a Privacy Office-led Privacy Compliance Review of the Initiative and of OPS social media monitoring internet based platforms and information technology infrastructure.
8.6 Privacy Impact Analysis: Given the sensitivity and scope of the information collected, as well as any information sharing conducted on the system, what privacy risks were identified and how do the security controls mitigate them?
These social media sites are publicly available, third-party services. Information is collected by the service itself to establish an account. Thereafter, users determine their level of involvement and decide how “visible” they wish their presence on any given service to be. The ability to choose how much information to disclose, as well as the short period of retention for any information collected by the NOC serves to mitigate any privacy risk.
Section 9.0 Technology
The following questions are directed at critically analyzing the selection process for any
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 11
technologies utilized by the system, including system hardware, RFID, biometrics and other technology.
9.1 What type of project is the program or system?
Third-parties control and operate social media services. Users should consult with representatives of the service provider in order to make themselves aware of technologies utilized by the system.
9.2 What stage of development is the system in and what project development lifecycle was used?
Social media is active at all times and is third-party owned and operated.
9.3 Does the project employ technology which may raise privacy concerns? If so please discuss their implementation.
Individuals should consult the privacy policies of the services they subscribe to for more information.
Responsible Officials
Donald Triner Director (Acting), National Operations Center Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Department of Homeland Security
Approval Signature
Original signed and on file with the DHS Privacy Office.
________________________________
Mary Ellen Callahan Chief Privacy Officer Department of Homeland Security
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 12
APPENDIX A Social Media Web Sites Monitored by the NOC
This is a representative list of sites that the NOC will start to monitor in order to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture under this Initiative. Initial sites listed may link to other sites not listed. The NOC may also monitor those sites if they are within the scope of this Initiative.
Tool General Search
Collecta RSSOwl Social Mention Spy Who's Talkin Shrook RSS reader
Video
Hulu iReport.com Live Leak Magma Time Tube Vimeo Youtube MySpace Video
Maps
Global Incident Map Google Flu Trends
Health Map IBISEYE Stormpulse Trends Map
Photos
Flickr Picfog Twicsy Twitcaps
Twitter/API
Twitter/API
Link
User/Passwor d Required
No No No No No
No
No No No No No No No No
No
No No No No No
No No No No
Yes
http://collecta.com http://www.rssowl.org/ http://socialmention.com/ http://www.spy.appspot.com http://www.whostalkin.com/
http://www.utsire.com/shrook/
http://www.hulu.com http://www.ireport.com/ http://www.liveleak.com/ http://mag.ma/ http://www.dipity.com/mashups/timetube http://www.vimeo.com http://www.youtube.com http://vids.myspace.com/
http://globalincidentmap.com/
http://www.google.org/flutrends/ http://www.healthmap.org/en http://www.ibiseye.com/ http://www.stormpulse.com/ http://www.trendsmap.com
http://www.flickr.com/ http://picfog.com/ http://www.twicsy.com http://www.twitcaps.com
http://www.twitter.com
Twitter Search
Monitter Twazzup Tweefind Tweetgrid Tweetzi Twitter Search
Twitter Trends
Newspapers on Twitter Radio on Twitter Trendistic Trendrr
TV on Twitter Tweet Meme TweetStats Twellow Twendz Twitoaster Twitscoop Twitturly
We Follow
Facebook
It's Trending Facebook
MySpace
MySpace (limited search)
Blogs Aggs
ABCNews Blotter al Sahwa AllAfrica Avian Flu Diary BNOnews Borderfire Report Borderland Beat Brickhouse Security Chem.Info
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 13
http://www.monitter.com/ No http://www.twazzup.com No http://www.tweefind.com/ No http://tweetgrid.com/ No http://tweetzi.com/ No http://search.twitter.com/advanced No
http://www.newspapersontwitter.com/ No
http://www.radioontwitter.com/ No http://trendistic.com/ No http://www.trendrr.com/ No http://www.tvontwitter.com/ No http://tweetmeme.com/ No http://tweetstats.com/ No http://www.twellow.com/ No http://twendz.waggeneredstrom.com/ No http://twitoaster.com/ No http://www.twitscoop.com/ No http://twitturly.com/ No http://wefollow.com/ No
http://www.itstrending.com/news/ No http://www.facebook.com Yes
http://www.myspace.com Yes http://www.myspace.com No
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ No http://al-sahwa.blogspot.com/ No http://allafrica.com/ No http://afludiary.blogspot.com/ No http://www.bnonews.com/ No
http://www.borderfirereport.net/ No http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ No
http://blog.brickhousesecurity.com/ http://www.chem.info/default.aspx No
No
Chemical Facility Security News ComputerWorld Cybercrime Topic Center Counter- Terrorism Blog Crisisblogger Cryptome Danger Room Drudge Report El Blog Del Narco Emergency Management Magazine Foreign Policy Passport Global Security Newswire Global Terror Alert Global Voices Network Google Blog Search Guerra Contra El Narco H5N1 Blog Homeland Security Today Homeland Security Watch Huffington Post Hurricane Information Center HurricaneTrack InciWeb Informed Comment Jihad Watch Krebs on Security LA Now LA Wildfires Blog
http://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/topic/82/Cybercrime+and+Ha cking
No
No
http://www.counterterrorismblog.com/ No http://crisisblogger.wordpress.com/ No http://cryptome.org/ No http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/ No http://drudgereport.com/ No
http://elblogdelnarco.blogspot.com/ http://www.emergencymgmt.com
No
No http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/ No
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/
No
http://www.globalterroralert.com/ No
http://globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/americas/haiti/ No
http://blogsearch.google.com
No
http://guerracontraelnarco.blogspot.com/ http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/ No
No
http://www.hstoday.us/ No
http://www.hlswatch.com/ No http://huffingtonpost.com/ No
http://gustav08.ning.com/ No http://www.hurricanetrack.com/ No http://www.inciweb.org/ No
http://www.juancole.com/ No http://www.jihadwatch.org/ No
http://krebsonsecurity.com/ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/ No
No http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/wildfires/ No
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 14
Livesay Haiti Blog LongWarJournal Malware Intelligence Blog MEMRI MexiData.info MS-13 News and Analysis Narcotrafico en Mexico
National Defense Magazine National Terror Alert
NEFA Foundation Newsweek Blogs Nuclear Street NYTimes Lede Blog Plowshares Fund Popular Science Blogs Port Strategy Public Intelligence ReliefWeb RigZone Science Daily STRATFOR Technorati Terror Finance Blog The Latin Americanist Threat Level Threat Matrix Tickle the Wire Tribuna Regional TruckingInfo.co m United Nations IRIN Ushahidi Haiti
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 15
http://livesayhaiti.blogspot.com/ No http://www.longwarjournal.org/ No
http://msthirteen.com/ http://narcotraficoenmexico.blogspot.com/
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
http://malwareint.blogspot.com/
No http://www.memri.org/ No http://mexidata.info/ No
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/ No
http://www.nefafoundation.org/ No http://blog.newsweek.com/ No http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/ No
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/ No http://www.ploughshares.org/news-analysis/blog No
http://www.popsci.com/ http://www.portstrategy.com/ No
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/
http://latribunaregional.blogspot.com/ http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/index.asp
http://publicintelligence.net/
No http://www.reliefweb.int No http://www.rigzone.com/ No http://www.sciencedaily.com/ No http://www.stratfor.com/ No http://technorati.com/ No
No
No http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/ No http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/ No http://www.ticklethewire.com/ No
http://ourlatinamerica.blogspot.com/
http://www.irinnews.org/ No http://haiti.ushahidi.org/ No
No No
No
No
No
No
War on Terrorism WikiLeaks WireUpdate
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 16
No http://wikileaks.org/ No http://wireupdate.com/ No
http://terrorism-online.blogspot.com/
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 17
APPENDIX B Terms Used by the NOC When Monitoring Social Media Sites
This is a current list of terms that will be used by the NOC when monitoring social media sites to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. As natural or manmade disasters occur, new search terms may be added. The new search terms will not use PII in searching for relevant mission-related information.
DHS & Other Agencies
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Coast Guard (USCG) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol Secret Service (USSS) National Operations Center (NOC) Homeland Defense Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Task Force Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Fusion Center Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Secure Border Initiative (SBI) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Air Marshal Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Guard Red Cross United Nations (UN)
Domestic Security
Assassination Attack Domestic security Drill
Exercise Cops Law enforcement Authorities Disaster assistance Disaster management DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office) National preparedness Mitigation
Prevention Response Recovery Dirty bomb Domestic nuclear detection Emergency management Emergency response
First responder Homeland security Maritime domain awareness (MDA) National preparedness initiative Militia Shooting Shots fired Evacuation Deaths Hostage Explosion (explosive) Police Disaster medical assistance team (DMAT) Organized crime Gangs National security State of emergency Security Breach Threat Standoff SWAT Screening Lockdown Bomb (squad or threat) Crash Looting Riot Emergency Landing Pipe bomb Incident Facility
HAZMAT & Nuclear
Hazmat Nuclear Chemical spill Suspicious package/device Toxic
National laboratory Nuclear facility Nuclear threat Cloud
Plume Radiation Radioactive Leak Biological infection (or event) Chemical
Chemical burn Biological Epidemic Hazardous Hazardous material incident Industrial spill
Infection Powder (white) Gas Spillover Anthrax Blister agent Chemical agent Exposure Burn Nerve agent Ricin Sarin North Korea
Health Concern + H1N1
Outbreak Contamination Exposure Virus Evacuation Bacteria
Recall Ebola Food Poisoning Foot and Mouth (FMD) H5N1 Avian
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 18
Flu Salmonella Small Pox Plague Human to human Human to Animal Influenza Center for Disease Control (CDC) Drug Administration (FDA) Public Health Toxic Agro Terror Tuberculosis (TB) Agriculture Listeria Symptoms Mutation Resistant Antiviral Wave Pandemic Infection Water/air borne Sick Swine Pork Strain Quarantine H1N1 Vaccine Tamiflu Norvo Virus Epidemic World Health Organization (WHO) (and components) Viral Hemorrhagic Fever E. Coli
Infrastructure Security
Infrastructure security Airport Airplane (and derivatives) Chemical fire
CIKR (Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources) AMTRAK Collapse Computer infrastructure
Communications infrastructure
Telecommunications Critical infrastructure National infrastructure Metro
WMATA Subway BART MARTA Port Authority NBIC (National Biosurveillance Integration Center)
Transportation security Grid Power Smart
Body scanner Electric Failure or outage Black out
Brown out Port Dock Bridge Cancelled Delays Service disruption Power lines
Southwest Border Violence
Drug cartel Violence Gang Drug Narcotics Cocaine Marijuana Heroin Border Mexico Cartel Southwest Juarez Sinaloa Tijuana Torreon Yuma Tucson Decapitated
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 19
U.S. Consulate Consular El Paso Fort Hancock San Diego Ciudad Juarez Nogales Sonora Colombia Mara salvatrucha MS13 or MS-13 Drug war Mexican army Methamphetamine Cartel de Golfo Gulf Cartel
La Familia Reynosa Nuevo Leon Narcos Narco banners (Spanish equivalents) Los Zetas
Shootout Execution Gunfight Trafficking Kidnap Calderon Reyosa Bust Tamaulipas Meth Lab Drug trade Illegal immigrants Smuggling (smugglers) Matamoros Michoacana
Guzman Arellano-Felix Beltran-Leyva Barrio Azteca Artistic Assassins Mexicles
New Federation
Terrorism
Terrorism Al Qaeda (all spellings)
Terror Attack Iraq Afghanistan Iran Pakistan Agro Environmental terrorist Eco terrorism Conventional weapon Target
Weapons grade Dirty bomb Enriched Nuclear Chemical weapon Biological weapon Ammonium nitrate Improvised explosive device IED (Improvised Explosive Device) Abu Sayyaf
Hamas FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces Colombia) IRA (Irish Republican Army) ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna) Basque Separatists Hezbollah Tamil Tigers PLF (Palestine Liberation Front) PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization Car bomb Jihad Taliban Weapons cache Suicide bomber Suicide attack Suspicious substance AQAP (AL Qaeda Arabian Peninsula) AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) Yemen Pirates Extremism Somalia Nigeria Radicals Al-Shabaab Home grown Plot
Privacy Impact Assessment
Office of Operations Coordination and Planning Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Page 20
Nationalist Recruitment Fundamentalism Islamist
Weather/Disaster/Emergency
Emergency Hurricane Tornado Twister Tsunami Earthquake Tremor Flood Storm Crest Temblor Extreme weather Forest fire
Brush fire Ice Stranded/Stuck Help
Hail Wildfire Tsunami Warning Center Magnitude Avalanche Typhoon Shelter-in-place Disaster Snow Blizzard Sleet Mud slide or Mudslide Erosion Power outage Brown out Warning Watch Lightening Aid Relief Closure Interstate Burst Emergency Broadcast System
Cyber Security
Cyber security Botnet DDOS (dedicated denial of service) Denial of service Malware Virus Trojan Keylogger Cyber Command 2600 Spammer Phishing Rootkit Phreaking Cain and abel Brute forcing Mysql injection Cyber attack Cyber terror Hacker China Conficker Worm Scammers Social media
Other
Breaking News

WAS JFK KILLED BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST IN ALIENS? SECRET MEMO SHOWS PRESIDENT DEMANDED UFO FILES 10 DAYS BEFORE DEATH


Last updated at 8:21 AM on 19th April 2011
An uncovered letter written by John F Kennedy to the head of the CIA shows that the president demanded to be shown highly confidential documents about UFOs 10 days before his assassination.
The secret memo is one of two letters written by JFK asking for information about the paranormal on November 12 1963, which have been released by the CIA for the first time.
Author William Lester said the CIA released the documents to him under the Freedom of Information Act after he made a request while researching his new book 'A Celebration of Freedom: JFK and the New Frontier.'
Assassination: Was JFK shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs?
Assassination: Was JFK shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs?
The president’s interest in UFOs shortly before his death is likely to fuel conspiracy theories about his assassination, according to AOL News.
Alien researchers say the latest documents, released to Mr Lester by the CIA, add weight to the suggestion that the president could have been shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs.


In one of the secret documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, JFK writes to the director asking for the UFO files.
Released: Letter from JFK to CIA director asking for access to UFO files, which has been released to an author under the Freedom of Information Act
Released: Letter from JFK to CIA director asking for access to UFO files, which has been released to an author under the Freedom of Information Act
In the second memo, sent to the NASA administrator, the president expresses a desire for cooperation with the former Soviet Union on mutual outer space activities.
The previously classified documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act to teacher William Lester as part of research for a new book about JFK.
He said that JFK’s interest in UFOs could have been fuelled by concerns about relations with the former Soviet Union.
Beam me up: Days before he was killed, JFK wrote to the CIA demanding access to their files about UFOs
Beam me up: Days before he was killed, JFK wrote to the CIA demanding access to their files about UFOs
Unclassified: A second memo written by JFK on November 12 1963, 10 days before his assassination, which has been released by the CIA
Unclassified: A second memo written by JFK on November 12 1963, 10 days before his assassination, which has been released by the CIA
‘One of his concerns was that a lot of these UFOs were being seen over the Soviet Union and he was very concerned that the Soviets might misinterpret these UFOs as U.S. aggression, believing that it was some of our technology,’ Mr Lester told AOL News.
‘I think this is one of the reasons why he wanted to get his hands on this information and get it away from the jurisdiction of NASA so he could say to the Soviets, “Look, that's not us, we're not doing it, we're not being provocative. “.’
But conspiracy theorists said the documents add interest to a disputed file, nicknamed the ‘burned memo’, which a UFO investigator claims he received in the 1990s.
The document, which has scorch marks, is claimed to have been posted to UFO hunter Timothy Cooper in 1999 by an unknown CIA leak, but has never been verified.
Disputed: In the 'burned memo' the CIA director allegedly wrote: 'Lancer [JFK] has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow'
Disputed: In the 'burned memo' the CIA director allegedly wrote: 'Lancer [JFK] has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow'
In a note sent with the document, the apparent leaker said he worked for CIA between 1960 and 1974 and pulled the memo from a fire when the agency was burning some of its most sensitive files.
The undated memo contains a reference to ‘Lancer’, which was JFK's Secret Service code name.
On the first page, the director of Central Intelligence wrote: ‘As you must know, Lancer has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow.
‘Please submit your views no later than October. Your action to this matter is critical to the continuance of the group.’
The current owner of the ‘burned memo’, who bought it from Timothy Cooper in 2001 told AOL News that it shows that when JFK asked questions about UFOs that the CIA ‘bumped him off’.
UFO investigator Robert Wood said he has tested the paper it was printed on, the ink age, watermarks, font types and other markings.
He said: ‘I hired a forensics company to check the age of the ink and check several other things that you can date, using the same techniques you’d use in a court of law.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378284/Secret-memo-shows-JFK-demanded-UFO-files-10-days-assassination.html