UPDATED: Fugitive Founder Julian Assange And Wikileaks Consider Legal Action Against U.S. Government And Google For Illegal Search And Seizure Of Gmails And Other Data Without Notice From Google Of Wkiileaks' Journalists

       Wednesday, 28 January 2015. GENEVA - Wikilleaks and its fugitive editor Jullian Assange through one of their lawyers Michael A. Ratner is demanding information and details about the search and seizure of three of Wikileaks' "whistleblowing" journalists' emails and other data by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and provided by Google pursuant to warrant(s) issued over two-and-one-half years ago. Since the subjects never were notified by Google of this demand for their private communications and data they thus were prevented from fighting the warrants in court. The New York Times in the below linked article reports that they are considering initiating a court action now against DOJ and Google related to this action and the failure to notify them.
       Google Chairman Eric Schmidt issued a statement that it was the "policy" of Google to inform parties in instances where such information was demanded but implied that despite Google's desire to do so the failure here was due to a gag order issued against Google "which sadly happens quite often". Google previously has taken legal action against the Government as to such demands for private information as well as the Government's wholesale collection of such information by "grabbing it out of the air" as in the well-publicized case of the NSA breaking Google's code for internal data point-to-point transmissions as part of the NSA's collection of metadata on all Americans and others without regard for "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause", nor any other limitation.
       However the facts here are instructive to all members of the public with Google accounts as they seem to demonstrate Google whatever claims Google may make as to the security of Gmail and other "private" data apparently it in reality is not willing ultimately to go to any efforts whatsoever to help protect the privacy of individuals' Gmail and other "private" data from disclosure to the Government. Google's Eric Schmidt gave no indication at all that Google makes any effort in such cases to fight a Government "gag order" so as even to alert Google account holders so that they can mount a legal defense as to even wrongfully issued search and seizure orders in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore false claims aside Google rolls over immediately without any fight even regarding giving notice to individuals that the Government has sought their Gmails and "private" data. In conclusion Google gave the Government individuals' Gmail and other "private" data without any fight whatsoever because when faced with a gag order Google did not even contest it so that the individuals could at least mount their own defense.
       "Gag orders" are particularly anathema to a free society which places a premium on freedom of speech and the press and are a form of "prior restraint" which is repugnant to the most core values of the United States Constitution. Since the Wikileaks' journalists' Gmails and other "private" data unfortunately entrusted to Google obviously were in no danger of being destroyed by the journalists and it is not as if since the disclosures of Edward Snowden especially Wikileaks is unaware it has been a prime target of U.S. Government presumably officials unwilling to operate in the public eye but prosecute whomever they can so as to shut then up so as to continue to operate protected by the "dark cloak of secrecy" hidden from public scrutiny the issuance of "gag orders" here is yet another example demonstating that they know they likely not only cannot withstand public scrutiny but even a legitimate challenge leveled against them in open court.
       This is but one more example of why individuals should consider applying for an invitation to a free ProtonMail email account based in Switzerland as described in any earlier post as others such as Hushmail and Statmail ultimately are susceptible to government intrusion whether by pressure on the Canadian government in British Columbia in the case of Hushmail or otherwise as to supposedly "secure" email encrypted accounts. Likewise if computer users do not wish to be tracked by governments or anyone else the stand-alone favorite is the "Tor" browser which can be researched on Wikepedia and other sites and freely downloaded from the internet.
       Despite Google's well-publicized seemingly antagonistic relationship to the U.S. Government executive branch in this area this must at the same time be tempered by Google's widely known ventures with the executive branch. One example is with the C.I.A. through that agency's In-Q-Tel investment arm providing services to several national intelligence agencies here in a joint venture with Google Ventures in the web monitoring package of the company Recorded Future described as the "the ultimate tool for open-source intelligence". Open-source intelligence is publicly available information from a wide variety of sources which can be amassed and organized to provide reputedly valuable intelligence information by any party. Readers interested in more detail regarding the above and other national security agency investment relationships with Google are referred initially to the wired.com article at the link http://www.wired.com/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/.
       Finally as to the Obama Administration's DOJ under departing Attorney General Eric Holder that department has undertaken unprecedented efforts to prosecute sources of unauthorized leaks of "security" information notably including aggressively using legal process against journalists and the press to attempt to force them to reveal their sources. This was demonstrated most recently in the subject of the immediately preceding Ninth Amendment post regarding the espionage conviction earlier this week of former C.I.A. agent Jeffrey Sterling which included efforts ultimately dropped to force New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal his source whose identity in the end was identified not by Mr. Risen but by reportedly very strong circumstantial evidence presented at Mr. Sterling's trial.
       The circumstances of these various legal actions and others in their totality would seem to point to a certain amount of ambiguity in the Obama Administration's perceived espoused concerns for the protection of privacy and freedom of speech rights of individuals and the press versus the reality of the unprecedented or continuing actions of the Obama Administration that seemingly intrude on them to a degree rarely or never seen before.
       
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/world/europe/wikileaks-assails-google-and-the-us.html?mabReward=A4&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

ProtonMail "The Only E-Mail System That The NSA Cannot Access" According To Forbes Magazine For Persons Most Serious About Their Communications Privacy Free Service Signup Now

       Sunday, 7 September 2014, GENEVA - The Ninth Amendment editorial board cannot even nearly keep abreast of what seem to have become more or less daily (just) public revelations about the constant escalation of (just) domestic encroachments on readers' privacy ranging from the "private" sector to the "public" sector and everything in the gray area between as perpetrated in recent years most flagrantly by the wretchedly illegal unconstitutional actions of the likes of the NSA and the seemingly ever exponentially expanding number of new U.S. Government acronymed agencies which proceed headlong as if they entirely have forgotten (if the latest generation ever even knew of) the People's fundamental inalienable rights as opposed to the limited power of the State only as expressly revocably granted it by the People under the U.S. Constitution. Not to mention Benjamin Franklin's stark admonition that "[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".
       Likewise the Ninth Amendment editorial board swiftly has come to the realization that just as it is in no position even nearly comprehensively to document and record the above relentless encroachments on the privacy of the individual it is equally ill-equipped neither to document nor offer well-informed assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of various known available means of attempting rightfully to protect and preserve one's privacy even in as limited but significant an area as e-mail communications.
       Having said that merely upon setting out just to bring to readers' attention with even minimal evaluation some few first e-mail services making heightened privacy claims such as Gmail, Hushmail and Startmail (now in beta) it readily became apparent that each was rife with complications such as that Gmail of course is a product of the ever-suspect Google known to scan e-mails for targeted advertising purposes, Hushmail although based in Canada is subject to the whims of the CSIS in seeking warrants which on further inquiry seemed at least as likely as the United States' own "intelligence" services if not more so to bumble into seeking access to innocuous encrypted e-mails stored in British Columbian servers, and as for Startmail now available in beta the Ninth Amendment admittedly by that point did not even further investigate what potential weaknesses might or might not be claimed or have merit or not as to that service.  The Ninth Amendment certainly does not mean to discourage readers from making their own decisions about these e-mail providers and in fact vigorously encourages those who are serious about their e-mail privacy to make their own investigations into the fitness of each of those services and others for readers' particular needs and comfort levels.
       Rather than give up the endeavor altogether however the Ninth Amendment was fortunate on further inquiry into e-mail privacy assessments made by others to find that the venerable Forbes magazine just months ago in an issue largely devoted to computer-age security issues included an article with link below that made the pronouncement echoed in the post heading above as to ProtonMail https://protonmail.ch that it is "[t]he only e-mail system that the NSA cannot access". Interested readers are invited to visit the link below to the Forbes assessment where they might find the credentials of the creators of ProtonMail just as impressive as we at the Ninth Amendment have.
       Also by following the above link or that in the Forbes article to this e-mail service with servers located in Geneva and protected by legendary strict Swiss privacy laws as well as with a satellite office on the MIT campus readers will find that the ProtonMail service has indeed proven very much in demand from the start although at least with limited storage it has decided to offer its service for free funded initially only by donations reportedly taking into account particularly those in countries such as Russia or China unable to pay fees but in very real need of e-mail privacy where an unencrypted e-mail message can reportedly lead to a very swift arrest indeed.
       The Ninth Amendment upon coming across ProtonMail wished to make this information available to our readers as soon as possible as consistent with the Forbes article we found upon visiting the Create Account ProtonMail webpage that the service already is at full capacity but taking usernames for a waitlist to be followed up by invitations to the service as more servers constantly come on line thanks apparently to a most generous flow of donations shown on the webpage at the time of this post to be more than one half million dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hollieslade/2014/05/19/the-only-email-system-the-nsa-cant-access/

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved