Sunday, September 15, 2013

Americans choose Guardian UK over main stream media

The fastest growing "newspaper" in America is based in Manchester, England. The Internet analytics firm Compete.com found that the number of visitors to the website of The Guardian grew by 1111.75% in August and an astounding 671,389.51% over the past year, signifying the desire for Americans to find real information about what's going on. 

The main word that people going to The Guardian were searching for was "Syria," according to Compete's blog. That would indicate Americans appreciate The Guardian's skepticism of President Obama's plans to attack Syria and its reputation for honest reporting. It also indicates that average Americans no longer trust their own media and are increasingly turning to a foreign news source. 

In polls previously reported by Anthony Gucciardi on Storyleak, it was found that the mainstream media has virtually lost all trust from the American people. 

It's no coincidence that The Guardian has seen such explosive growth over the past year. It was Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who broke the story about the NSA documents Edward Snowden was leaking. The Guardian has been willing to print all the details of NSA surveillance and not bow to political pressure. 

A TRADITION OF DISSENT 

Even though it's new to Americans, The Guardian is hardly a new newspaper. It has been around in one form or another since 1821. The Guardian is the third most popular daily in Great Britain with a circulation of 197,000 paper copies and nine million online readers. 

The interesting thing is that The Guardian is known as a fairly liberal newspaper in England, but it has a strong appeal to American conservatives and libertarians; probably because of its willingness to stand up for civil liberties and its opposition to surveillance. 

Another reason for the paper's popularity and independence is that The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust. The Trust is a charitable foundation that allows The Guardian to operate at a loss. In other words, The Guardian is not part of the corporate media, and its purpose is to report the news not to enhance a corporate bottom line. 

Oddly enough, The Guardian has also become a major thorn in the side of President Obama. It has embarrassed him tremendously by exposing his administration's questionable activities. The paper was actually formed after authorities shut down another newspaper that supported radical reforms in 1821. The Guardian's online success shows how pathetic the American media has become. Hopefully, Jeff Bezos will be able to transform The Washington Post into something similar (but probably not).
http://www.sott.net/article/266355-Americans-rejecting-mainstream-media-for-UK-Guardian

Beware the Fed is armed (literally)

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement -- have armed divisions.
The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.
Though most Americans know agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board employing armed officers might come as a surprise.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/armed-epa-agents-in-alaska-shed-light-on-70-fed-agencies-with-armed-divisions/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2f1Bm9itG

The Man In Charge Of The NSA Modeled His Office After The Bridge Of The Starship Enterprise


Privacy: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the NSA, as it enters every computer and pries whatever data can be stolen and recorded in perpetuity. Its ongoing mission: to explore the internet and all TCP/IP packets, to seek out new emails, phone records, backdoors, webcams and bank accounts, to boldly go where no man with or without a search warrant has gone before.
Those who will recall our brief biopic on the "Meet The Man In Charge Of America's Secret Cyber Army [5]" remember that before Keith Alexander was put in charge of the NSA, he "was a one-star general in charge of the Army Intelligence and Security Command, the military’s worldwide network of 10,700 spies and eavesdroppers. In March of that year he told his hometown Syracuse newspaper that his job was to discover threats to the country. “We have to stay out in front of our adversary,” Alexander said. “It’s a chess game, and you don’t want to lose this one.” But just six months later, Alexander and the rest of the American intelligence community suffered a devastating defeat when they were surprised by the attacks on 9/11. Following the assault, he ordered his Army intercept operators to begin illegally monitoring the phone calls and email of American citizens who had nothing to do with terrorism, including intimate calls between journalists and their spouses. Congress later gave retroactive immunity to the telecoms that assisted the government."
That much is known. What may come as a surprise is that during his tenure at the AISC, Alexander made it quite clear that he perceived himself as none other than Star Trek's James T. Kirk, or to a lesser extent, Jean-Luc Piccard, if only based on how he decorated his "office" - the amusingly titled "Information Dominance Center." Amusingly, because said information dominance failed completely to foresee the events of September 11.
An article in Foreign Policy [6]has this nugget:
"When he was running the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, Alexander brought many of his future allies down to Fort Belvoir for a tour of his base of operations, a facility known as the Information Dominance Center. It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek, complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a huge TV monitor on the forward wall, and doors that made a 'whoosh' sound when they slid open and closed. Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in a leather 'captain's chair' in the center of the room and watched as Alexander, a lover of science-fiction movies, showed off his data tools on the big screen.

"'Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard,' says a retired officer in charge of VIP visits."

Alexander wowed members of Congress with his eye-popping command center. And he took time to sit with them in their offices and explain the intricacies of modern technology in simple, plain-spoken language. He demonstrated a command of the subject without intimidating those who had none.
Today, courtesy of the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, who tracked down the layout of said Information Dominance Center to designs prepared by DBI Architects [7]who supposedly were in charge of creating the General's work environs, we now have a glimpse of just how Star Trekishly the megalomaniac intercepting all US and global electronic communications and financial transactions thought of himself.
From Greenwald [8]:
It's a 10,740 square foot labyrinth in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The brochure touts how "the prominently positioned chair provides the commanding officer an uninterrupted field of vision to a 22'-0" wide projection screen":

 [9]

The glossy display further describes how "this project involved the renovation of standard office space into a highly classified, ultramodern operations center." Its "primary function is to enable 24-hour worldwide visualization, planning, and execution of coordinated information operations for the US Army and other federal agencies." It gushes: "The futuristic, yet distinctly military, setting is further reinforced by the Commander's console, which gives the illusion that one has boarded a star ship": [10]

 [10]


Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with little accountability or transparency. But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irrational it becomes.

Many US bridges old, risky and rundown

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorists coming off the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge into Washington are treated to a postcard-perfect view of the U.S. Capitol. The bridge itself, however, is about as ugly as it gets: The steel underpinnings have thinned since the structure was built in 1950, and the span is pocked with rust and crumbling concrete.
District of Columbia officials were so worried about a catastrophic failure that they shored up the horizontal beams to prevent the bridge from falling into the Anacostia River.
And safety concerns about the Douglass bridge, which is used by more than 70,000 vehicles daily, are far from unique.
An Associated Press analysis of 607,380 bridges in the most recent federal National Bridge Inventory showed that 65,605 were classified as "structurally deficient" and 20,808 as "fracture critical." Of those, 7,795 were both - a combination of red flags that experts say indicate significant disrepair and similar risk of collapse.
A bridge is deemed fracture critical when it doesn't have redundant protections and is at risk of collapse if a single, vital component fails. A bridge is structurally deficient when it is in need of rehabilitation or replacement because at least one major component of the span has advanced deterioration or other problems that lead inspectors to deem its condition poor or worse.
Engineers say the bridges are safe. And despite the ominous sounding classifications, officials say that even bridges that are structurally deficient or fracture critical are not about to collapse.
The AP zeroed in on the Douglass bridge and others that fit both criteria - structurally deficient and fracture critical. Together, they carry more than 29 million drivers a day, and many were built more than 60 years ago. Those bridges are located in all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, and include the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, a bridge on the New Jersey highway that leads to the Lincoln Tunnel, and the Main Avenue Bridge in Cleveland.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BRIDGE_SAFETY?SITE=CAOAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Larry Summers withdraws name from Fed consideration

By Updated: Sunday, September 15, 5:40 AM

Former Treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers has withdrawn his name as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman, in a startling development that raises new questions about who will lead the central bank when Chairman Ben S. Bernanke steps down in four months.
The other main candidates for the job have been Fed vice chairman Janet Yellen and former Fed vice chairman Don Kohn, though it is still possible that President Obama will seek another choice. Time is short for nominating someone for the critical post, with a confirmation process expected to last several months.
Obama had been strongly leaning toward picking Summers, who helped him navigate the depths of the financial crisis and recession at the beginning of his term, and had assurances from Democratic Senate leadership leaders that they would work to get him confirmed, according to people familiar with the matter.
But amid an intensifying uproar of liberal Democrats and left-wing groups opposed to his nomination, Summers decided to withdraw his name on Sunday, telephoning the president to tell him his decision.
“It has been a privilege to work with you since the beginning of your Administration as you led the nation through a severe recession into a sustained economic recovery,” Summers, a Harvard professor, wrote in a letter to the president. “This is a complex moment in our national life. I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interest of the Federal Reserve, the Administration, or ultimately, the interests of the nation’s ongoing economic recovery.”
(READ: The full text of Summers’s letter to Obama)
Obama accepted Summers’s decision, lauding him and saying that he planned to continue to consult his former adviser.
“Larry was a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today,” Obama said. “I will always be grateful to Larry for his tireless work and service on behalf of his country.”
People close to the Fed process said Summers faced not only a rebellion among liberal Democrats but also other unexpected interruptions, including the debate over whether to strike Syria, that stretched out the process and gave time for more opposition to build.
Summers’s nomination would have also collided with a tumultuous series of fall debates on the budget.
“It was just a perfect storm of bad timing,” said one person close to the White House, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about private deliberations. “It would have been absolute war, and the president would have had to spend all of his political capital. Larry decided not to drag him through it.”
The contest for Fed chairman had taken on the shape of a political race, with allies of both Summers and Yellen advancing their cases on the record and behind the scenes.
A wide array of current and former Obama officials backed Summers, arguing that his crisis experience and economic prowess made him an exceptional candidate. Yellen’s supporters, meanwhile, noted that she has deep Fed experience and has been an architect of the central bank’s efforts to reduce unemployment.
When word of Summers’s candidacy first circulated, liberals erupted, furious at what they said was his record of supporting deregulation in the Clinton administration. Obama took to defending him when questioned on Capitol Hill, and his supporters noted that he was an architect of the president’s regulatory response to the crisis.
In order to buy time and cool tensions, the White House announced that no decision would be made until the fall. But that only gave space for Summers’ s opponents to strengthen their protests to his candidacy, with four of the 12 Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, which would confirm Summers, signaling opposition.
That would have meant that the president would have probably had to court Republican support for a Summers nomination, while also trying to strike deals to keep the government open and operating.
Summers’s withdrawal is a disappointing setback for a renowned economist who had climbed to the top of nearly every ladder of his profession— as Treasury secretary, Harvard president and senior White House economic adviser. The Fed chairman would have represented the peak of that ascent.
It’s also a setback for Obama, who is fiercely loyal to his aides but has now on several occasions seen his preferred candidates for jobs lose out as a result of political opposition. It’s especially painful given that it’s Obama’s own party that cost Summers the nomination.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/larry-summers-withdraws-name-from-fed-consideration/2013/09/15/7565c888-1e44-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_print.html

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Advanced VPN service

HideMyAss.com

Connect to our VPN service to anonymously encrypt your internet activity from prying eyes. All applications on your computer that utilize your internet connection will become anonymous with just a click of a button; no technical experience is required due to our easy to use VPN software. Enjoy internet freedom and anonymity knowing that your sensitive web traffic is securely hidden behind 56'000+ IP addresses located in 114 locations in 61 countries.



HideMyAss.com

3 Potential "Taper" Surprises And FOMC Sugar-Coating

As we head for the fateful FOMC announcement on September 18, US data have continued to moderate. Accordingly, the consensus seems to be converging on a $10-15 billion initial reduction in monthly purchases (mostly focused on the Treasury side and less so on MBS) with any 'tightening' talk tempered by exaggerated forward-guidance discussions and the potential to drop thresholds to appear more easy for longer, since as CS notes, assuming Fed policymakers have learned anything in the last four months, they must know that the markets view “tapering” as “tightening,” even though they themselves for the most part do not. Thus, they are going to need to sugar-coat the message of tapering somehow. But as UBS notes, political risks have grown and there is little clarity on the Fed's thinking about the housing market. This leaves 3 crucial surprise scenarios for the FOMC "Taper" outcome.



On Size & Composition (via Credit Suisse),
On the subject of size, the trajectory of mortgage and Treasury issuance and outstandings is in our view the best and least-tortured reason for tapering. Mortgages outstanding are shrinking as household deleveraging continues to outpace new housing activity, and gross MBS production is now slowing as the refinancing pulse burns out. Meanwhile, the budget deficit is expected to be sharply-reduced for the next few years from the trillion-plus annual deficits of the last few years.
From the perspective of optics, at least, and possibly market functioning as well, $85bn per month of securities disappearing into the Fed’s vaults is simply too large. Indeed, in the case of MBS purchases, the Fed risks buying so much of the supply of particular issues that large market disruptions may re-emerge, as we saw near the end of the QE1 episode and for several quarters afterwards.

Taper Surprise Scenarios (via UBS),
Political risks have grown
Key Fed players have indicated time and again that a reduction in monetary accommodation is not a done deal. In addition to economic data, the Fed may consider political risks. We have discussed these risks at length in our recent publications, so we just highlight a few key items here. The debate over the US debt ceiling is approaching, the US government needs stopgap funding, the German election could roil markets, and the situation in the Middle East is dicey at best. Each of these issues could alter the Fed’s calculus on whether/when/how much to taper.
Too little clarity on the Fed’s thinking about the housing market
It is no secret that the Fed views the housing market recovery as a key to sustaining economic growth. In that context, the 100bp jump in mortgage rates must be worrisome to policy-makers, but we do not know how worrisome. Moreover, we have noted that the traditional buyer base for MBS seems to have lost its appetite. Consequently, the MBS market could respond erratically to a taper surprise.
Surprise I: delay
We think this scenario is the most likely surprise. Bear in mind that it is still a “surprise”, so therefore unlikely in our view. The Fed decides to postpone reductions until a vague date. It reiterates the policy that tapering is not a done deal.
What may cause it: A US political impasse is the probable catalyst. We recognize that a stand-off in Washington could well lead to a Treasury rally. The Fed might, in turn, see the rally as a chance to reduce its Treasury purchases. However, we suspect that the Fed would hold off tapering if Congress and the Administration are hamstrung. The Fed would want to appear apolitical, and initiating tapering could invite a lot of criticism from Capitol Hill.
Likely market reaction: US bull flattener. Five- and ten-year Treasuries and Agencies outperform, MBS tighten, US swap spreads widen initially, USD vol sells off sharply. Treasuries outperform Bunds and Gilts.
Surprise II: aggressive tapering plan
This scenario could take two forms. The obvious one is simply to reduce purchases by more than $15 billion. Second, the Fed could use aggressive forward-looking language to describe its future tapering plans.
What may cause it: Chairman Bernanke and others may push to accelerate tapering, in advance of considerable turnover slated for the Board early next year. The FOMC may ramp up tapering to put pressure on Congress. Mr. Bernanke and other officials have argued for months that monetary policy has its limits, and fiscal policy has to help bolster the economy.
Likely market reaction: US rates jump. The 7-10y part of the curve leads the way, but 20-30y catches on shortly thereafter. Off the run issues underperform OTRs. Gamma catches a strong bid. Treasuries lag Bunds and other high quality sovereigns by a wide margin.
Surprise III: mortgages bear the brunt of the taper
The broad consensus is that Fed will “go easy” on mortgages to avoid rocking the housing market recovery. Reducing MBS purchases as much as Treasury buys would be a major surprise to most investors (note above on size and composition)
What may cause it: the Fed appears to be much less comfortable owning MBS than Treasuries. Furthermore, numerous Republicans are apoplectic at the thought of the Fed maintaining a central role in the US housing market.
Likely market reaction: sharp underperformance of MBS, wider swap spreads in 5-10y area, initial 5y/10y steepener followed by 7y/20y steepener, as mortgages extend and convexity flows materialize. US gamma catches a moderate bid. Treasuries outperform Bunds, Gilts, etc.


On Pace and Sugar-Coating (via Credit Suisse),
A spoonful of sugar may ease the commencement of QE3 tapering, especially given the generally disappointing August jobs report. Assuming Fed policymakers have learned anything in the last four months, they must know that the markets view “tapering” as “tightening,” even though they themselves for the most part do not. Thus, they are going to need to sugar-coat the message of tapering somehow. We expect FOMC participants will insist that short-term interest rates remain anchored near zero for a long time, even after tapering is completed and net asset purchases have reached zero, and that reinvestments will continue for a long time to cover maturities and amortization.
Moreover, even after the short-term interest rate eventually in the future starts to go up, the Fed will not sell assets but rather will begin to allow assets to run off in the normal course of maturities and amortizations. We think the FOMC may also suggest that the new level of asset purchases announced at the upcoming September meeting might well be adequate for a time, signaling that there is no built-in expectation for a further step in October and perhaps not even in December. This could help the market absorb the first tapering shock and the uncertainties surrounding the identity of the next chairperson.
As Exhibit 4 indicates, we expect a $20bn taper in September, evenly split between MBS and Treasury purchases. Our baseline scenario includes another couple of $20bn taper moves in early 2014, at the January and April FOMC meetings, with a final $25bn cut at the June meeting to end the program around mid-year.
If our scenario holds, QE3 will have totaled just over $1.3 trillion, more than double QE2’s $600bn and a few hundred billion short of QE1, which expanded the Fed’s balance sheet by $1.725tn. Under these assumptions, the balance sheet will be nearly 50% larger by mid-2014 than it was when QE3 commenced in September 2012.
We have drafted an imaginary press release that embodies many of the ideas discussed above. Also, in the interest of shortening and simplifying the FOMC statement, we changed some of the arguably superfluous language that has been employed by the Committee over the past few meetings. As a consequence, Exhibit 6 below is one part forecast, and one part recommendation:

Friday, September 13, 2013

EM currency crash ‘could hit oil demand’: IEA

The recent crash in emerging market currencies could hit global oil demand if it continues, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned on Thursday, as it forecast an improvement in oil supply over the coming months.
Emerging markets have been pounded in 2013 amid speculation of an end to the U.S. Federal Reserve's bond-buying program, with currencies from countries including India, Turkey, Russia and Brazil coming under intense pressure. As oil is priced in dollars, depreciation in an oil-importing country's currency versus the dollar means the cost of importing oil for that country will rise – and could result in a reduction in demand.
"The rapid depreciation of many emerging market currencies since 1Q13 (first quarter of 2013), if sustained, may adversely affect oil demand," the Paris-based agency said in its September oil market report.

US arsenal of 3000 tons of chemical weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's not easy or quick to get rid of a nation's chemical weapons. Just ask the United States.
Three decades after the U.S. started destroying its own chemical weapons, the nation's stockpile stands at more than 3,000 tons - about three times what the U.S. now says Syrian President Bashar Assad controls.
While the U.S. has made significant progress eradicating 90 percent of the 31,500 tons it once possessed, the military doesn't expect to complete destruction until 2023.
Experts say it's probably simpler to make chemical weapons than to get rid of them.
"Disposal requires such rigorous processes to ensure there is no pollution or residual agent," said Susannah Sirkin, international policy director for Physicians for Human Rights, which has been monitoring weapons of mass destruction for more than two decades. "On average it is costing about 10 times more to destroy than it did to make the munitions."
The two basic destruction methods - chemical neutralization and incineration - both require specialized facilities. Using incineration, chemicals must be heated to thousands of degrees. Decades-old storage containers can be leaky and tough to handle. And destruction produces highly hazardous waste that must be carefully stored.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_CHEMICALS_AT_HOME?SITE=CAOAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It's Official. America's 'Suez Moment' Has Arrived

Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog [9],
In the summer of 1956, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, sparking a worldwide crisis.
The Suez links the Mediterranean to the rest of the world, and it’s one of the most important maritime thoroughfares in international trade. So this was a big deal.
Britain was a major stakeholder in the canal, and almost immediately, the British government put together a small coalition consisting of the UK, France, and Israel to regain Western control.
Their subsequent military action, however, greatly displeased the US government. And Uncle Sam quickly asserted its new role as the world’s superpower.
True, Britain had once been the dominant power in the world. But years of unsustainable finances and economic decline changed all of that.
By the end of World War II, Britain was nearly bankrupt. But reality hadn’t set in yet. They still saw themselves as a superpower.
British policymakers were still at the peace table. They helped set up the UN, divide up Germany, and even influence the new global financial system at Bretton Woods.
Reality finally hit during the Suez Crisis.
It became clear that the UK no longer had the economic fortitude or international standing to do as it pleased. And with the US opposed to the invasion of Egypt, the British government had no choice but to withdraw their troops.
In doing so, Britain handed the reins of world dominance over to the United States. And America held this position for decades.
But to anyone paying attention, this status has waned.
Asia is rising. Major centers of wealth and power have grown around the world. US finances are desolate. And its currency is now widely reviled by foreign governments.
But US politicians have completely ignored this trend over the last decade. They spend and act as if US global dominance is an endless river.
With Syria, though, the US may have finally reached its Suez moment.
Russia has now almost single-handedly precluded the US government from carrying out an attack in Syria.
And the Russian President has even taken his case to the American people in which he eloquently criticized both US policy as well as the notion of American exceptionalism.
Vladimir Putin is a brute. But he commands a nation that has all the power and might it needs to stand up to the United States and the rest of the West.
Just a few months ago, it was the Russians who wagged their fingers at European governments for confiscating bank accounts in Cyprus, comparing such tactics to the Soviet Union.
It’s also been the Russians who have stood up to the West and given sanctuary to Edward Snowden.
All of this would have been unthinkable ten years ago. And this may very well be the event that future historians look back on as the day America lost its global dominance.
This isn’t anything to cry about. The world isn’t coming to an end, it’s just changing. And this has been happening for thousands of years.
The Italians have been the world’s superpower at least twice in history– once during the time of ancient Rome, once during the Renaissance. The Chinese, Spanish, and Persians have all had their time atop the throne.
Power and wealth shift from time to time. And this is an important trend to embrace.
Being in front of this change could create generational prosperity. Stubbornly rejecting it could be detrimental to your savings and your liberty.
And if you’re not sure… just watch this video.


http://www.zerohedge.com/print/478803
 

Thursday, September 12, 2013

EU demands answers from United States on financial spying

* EU seeks answers over SWIFT snooping leak
* EU could revoke agreement granting U.S. limited access to data
By Claire Davenport
BRUSSELS, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The European Union demanded talks with the United States on Thursday to establish whether the intelligence service of its ally had been secretly drawing information from a global financial database in Belgium.
The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmstrom said in a Twitter posting she had spoken to U.S. counterparts and expressed strong concerns about tapping of financial data by U.S. intelligence authorities.
"Following up with a letter today, requesting consultation under the TFTP agreement. We need clear, satisfactory answers," she wrote.
In the absence of such satisfactory answers, the EU could revoke an agreement that allows the United States to access information under its Terror Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP). This would be subject to approval by EU member states.
According to leaked U.S. documents aired by Globo, Brazil's biggest television network, the U.S. government has tapped into the computer networks of companies including Google Inc. , Brazilian state-run oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA and the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).
The European Union shares data from the database of SWIFT, which exchanges financial messages concerning transactions across the world, but it only does so with the United States Treasury, to help intercept possible terrorism plots.
In 2010, the EU and the United States signed a formal agreement to limit how much of that data can be retrieved.
Each side can terminate the agreement if there is a severe breach but only after mutual consultation to establish whether the terms of the agreement have been broken.

Europe has been unsettled by other revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency had been spying on European citizens by trawling vast quantities of email and telephone data of both Americans and foreigners. (Reporting By Claire Davenport; editing by Philip Blenkinsop and Ralph Boulton)

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Which Apple Components Were Developed By The US Government

While the investing community this morning is focused squarely on the very disappointing iPhone 5 relaunch and the lack of a cemented China Mobile deal, which has resulted in a $20 billion loss in market cap in early trading for thesecond most widely held hedge fund stock, a thing that we find more curious in the aftermath of the latest revalations of an implicit, if not explicitly voluntary, joint venture between Apple and the US government and specifically its NSA uberspies, is just how much of Apple's product suite is derived thanks to developments by the US government. As the following Goldman breakdown of various components used by Apple in its products over the ages shows, one can understand why the NSA felt it was owed a little kickback by Apple and its "zombie" clients. After all, without the US government's technological innovation, Apple as we know it, would not exist.
Is it any wonder that the NSA believes it is entitled to a little crowdfunded effort by Apple and its zombies clients when it comes to building its next generation fingerprint database?
 

Another Swiss private bank under U.S. tax investigators' spotlight

* Rahn & Bodmer informed of U.S. investigation last week

* Bank says stopped accepting undeclared assets in 2008
(Reuters) - Private bank Rahn & Bodmer is under investigation by U.S. authorities, it said on Wednesday, following a recent deal to allow some Swiss banks to pay fines instead of facing prosecution for tax evasion by their U.S. customers.
That deal applies to about 100 second-tier Swiss banks, which may have to disclose information and face penalties of up to 50 percent of assets they manage for wealthy Americans.
A group of banks already under U.S. criminal investigation includes Credit Suisse, Julius Baer and state-backed regional bank Zuercher Kantonalbank. A second group of dozens more Swiss banks, which also helped weathy Americans hide their assets, are not yet under formal investigation.
"We knew we would have to go to U.S. authorities, so we began to prepare the documentation concerning our U.S. business some months ago, believing we would be in the second group," said Rahn & Bodmer partner Christian Rahn.
"It is difficult to evaluate whether being in the first group of banks is better for us or not," he said.
The bank was informed last week that it was under investigation, Rahn said. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department declined to comment.
The bank will not need to set aside capital to meet regulatory requirements if it has to pay a fine, as it has provisions which will cover a potential payment, Rahn said.
Credit Suisse and Julius Baer said in July they were preparing information on client withdrawals demanded by U.S. investigators to help pinpoint tax evasion, which may have pointing the finger at other banks.
However, Rahn said he did not believe his bank was being investigated as a result of data passed on by other banks as it had stopped accepting undeclared U.S. assets in 2008 and advised clients with such assets to make voluntary disclosures to the U.S. authorities.
According to its website, the Zurich-based bank managed client assets of 12.5 billion Swiss francs ($13.4 billion) at the end of 2012. It employs about 200 people.
It is the oldest bank remaining in the German-speaking part of Switzerland after St. Gallen-based Wegelin shut its doors earlier this year following an indictment and fine by U.S. authorities for conspiring to help U.S. clients evade taxes.
UBS paid a fine of $780 million in 2009 and delivered the names of more than 4,000 clients to avoid indictment, giving the U.S. authorities the information that has enabled them to pursue other Swiss banks.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Obama Seen Delaying Fed Choice Until After Syria Vote

“Syria right now has kind of paralyzed the town,” said David Plouffe, a former senior Obama adviser. “They’ll wait until the dust clears.”
An administration official said Obama hasn’t yet decided whom he will nominate for the Fed chairmanship. The official, who requested anonymity because the deliberations are private, declined to discuss the potential timing of an announcement.
Obama is mounting a full-court press to win support from members of Congress for authorization to attack Syria over what the administration says is the regime’s use of chemical weapons. Even as he traveled overseas to meetings with leaders in Sweden and Russia, he was making phone calls to senators and canceled a planned trip to California next week to focus on lobbying.
The Senate plans to begin debating an authorization resolution when it returns from its five-week break on Sept. 9. House leaders don’t plan to begin consideration until after a Senate vote, according to a House aide. That opens the possibility that the congressional debate on Syria will drag on until the week of Sept. 16.

Households On Foodstamps Rise To New Record High: More Americans Live In Poverty Than The Population Of Spain

There was much discussion of Friday's "disappointing" non-farm payrolls goal-seeked, seasonally adjusted, X-13-ARIMA conceived [4] jobs "number." The conclusion was that it showed an economy which one year after the start of QEternity was growing nowhere near where the Fed has projected and hoped it would be at this time. But in addition to the BLS jobs number, there was another just as important number that was released on Friday: the monthly foodstamp (SNAP [5]) participation update. There was no discussion of this particular number and for good reason. If the NFP number was at least meant to show some economic stability, if subpar, the monthly foodstamp update shows month after month that the greatest depression is nowhere near ending for millions of American living in poverty (83% of SNAP households [6]have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline or $14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).
To wit: in June, the number of households receiving foodstamps rose to 23.117 million, an increase of 45.9k in one month, and also a new record high. As for the average monthly benefit per household: $274.55, just off record lows.
 [7]
At the individual level, in June an additional 125,059 Americans started using Foodstamps, i.e. entered poverty. However, the silver lining was that unlike at the household level, the increase to 47.8 million was not a record high. It missed that particular record, set in December 2012, by 31,771.
 [8]
And while it is understandable why the media has been obsessed with Syria: after all the administration is in dire need of distractions from so many things having gone wrong, it is also understandable why no mainstream media outlet will show the following chart: the change of Americans on foodstamps and disability vs jobs since the start of the Depression in December 2007. The reason is that while over that time period the US still needs to generate an additional 2.2 million jobs to get back to breakeven (ignoring for a minute that the jobs created are mostly part-time or low paying jobs), the number of foodstamp and disability recipients has risen by 22 million!
SNAP and Disability vs Payrolls monthly:
 [9]
And SNAP and Disability vs Payrolls cumulative:
 [10]
Finally, putting it all into perspective, there are more Americans on foodstamps than the entire population of Spain.
 [11]
Source: USDA [5]

http://www.zerohedge.com/print/478601