Thomas Drake, who disclosed evidence of multi-billion dollar corruption and mismanagement in the NSA and illegal domestic surveillance, faces retaliatory prosecution under the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers. Reporter: Scott Pelley Producers: Glenn Silber and Graham Messick Published by: 60 Minutes https://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/ Thomas Drake discovered that the NSA was illegally spying on Americans, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a failed surveillance program, and had rejected alternatives that provided valuable intelligence to protect national security while protecting Americans’ privacy. Rather than remain silent and complicit, Drake disclosed the wrongdoing to his superiors, the Department of Defense Inspector General, and the Congressional Intelligence Committees which didnt have much effect. Drake took his concerns to a Baltimore Sun reporter and filed an internal complaint alleging that the NSA and the government's surveillance program had committed fraud, waste, and abuse. He disclosed evidence of multi-billion dollar corruption and mismanagement in the NSA and illegal domestic surveillance. When President Obama first took office, he applauded whistleblowers as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” He said that “such acts of courage and patriotism… should be encouraged rather than stifled.” Given these remarks, Thomas Drake is exactly the type of whistleblower that the Obama administration should protect. However, under President Obama’s leadership, the Justice Department has labeled Drake an enemy of the state. Drake now faced retaliatory prosecution under the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers, who charged with leaking classified information under the Espionage Act - an archaic law intended to prosecute spies, not whistleblowers. Thomas A. Drake was indicted on ten felony counts of unlawful retention of classified information, obstruction of justice and making false statements. But the government's case against him collapsed and all of those counts were dismissed before trial. On July 15, 2011 he was sentenced to one year probation after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of Exceeding Authorized Use of a Computer. Charges against Thomas Drake were ultimately dropped. ------------------ There is no copyright infringement intended for the video and/or material used in this video. 'Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use' LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content within these recordings are property of their respective Designers, Writers, Creators, Owners, Organizations, Companies and Producers.

2014 TED Talk: Tim Berners-Lee - A Magna Carta for the Web Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web 25 years ago. He also leads the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), overseeing the Web's standards and development. So it’s worth a listen when he warns us: There’s a battle ahead. Eroding net neutrality, filter bubbles and centralizing corporate control all threaten the web’s wide-open spaces. It’s up to users to fight for the right to access and openness. The question is, What kind of Internet do we want? Speaker: Tim Berners-Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee Hosted by: TED Talks https://www.ted.com/talks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Why you should listen!** In the 1980s, scientists at CERN were asking themselves how massive, complex, collaborative projects (like the fledgling LHC) could be orchestrated and tracked. Tim Berners-Lee, then a contractor, answered by inventing the World Wide Web. This global system of hypertext documents, linked through the Internet, brought about a massive cultural shift ushered in by the new tech and content it made possible: AOL, eBay, Wikipedia, TED.com... Berners-Lee is now director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which maintains standards for the Web and continues to refine its design. Recently he has envisioned a "Semantic Web" -- an evolved version of the same system that recognizes the meaning of the information it carries. He's the 3Com Founders Professor of Engineering in the School of Engineering with a joint appointment in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Laboratory for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence (CSAIL) at the MIT, where he also heads the Decentralized Information Group (DIG). He is also a Professor in the Electronics and Computer Science Department at the University of Southampton, UK. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web in 1989, called for a "revolution" in how the internet is regulated and monetised in order to stem abuse, political polarisation and fake news. Sir Tim, has now launched a "Magna Carta for the web", warning that tech giants must change their ways to save the online world from the dangerous forces they have unleashed. The 63-year-old was speaking at the Web Summit in Lisbon to launch a new "contract for the web" which asks internet companies to uphold a set of principles such as protecting privacy and being transparent about their algorithms. Facebook and Google have backed the contract, despite both companies being mentioned by its creator as examples of how "the web we know and love" is under threat. Sir Tim said: "For the first 15 years, most people just expected the web to do great things. They thought 'there'll be good and bad, that is humanity, but if you connect humanity with technology, great things will happen.... In June 2015 it had been 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta, and because the landmark coincided with the 25th anniversary of the world wide web, the British Library asked people to vote on 500 clauses submitted by 3,000 young people to create a new Magna Carta, or great charter, for the digital age. “The project was conceived to encourage young people to think about issues of privacy, access and freedom raised by Magna Carta in the digital age," project manager Sarah Shaw said in a statement. "These ‘Top 10’ clauses we have revealed today show a snapshot of how the public feel at this 800th anniversary moment about our rights and responsibilities on the web." The original Magna Carta was signed between King John of England and his subjects on June 15, 1215, establishing that no monarch was above the law. Relevant Websites: Contract for the Web https://contractfortheweb.org/about/ Web Foundation https://webfoundation.org/about/ Creative Commons https://creativecommons.org/about/ --------------------------------------------------- There is no copyright infringement intended for the video and/or material used in this video. 'Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use' LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content within these recordings are property of their respective Designers, Writers, Creators, Owners, Organizations, Companies and Producers.

In 1997, the longtime British colony of Hong Kong was handed over to China with the understanding that it would retain relative autonomy under the concept of "one country, two systems." But last month, as part of the so-called Umbrella Revolution, Hong Kongers began vocally demanding Beijing stay out of their political affairs and grant the democracy they say they were promised with the handover. VICE News traveled to Hong Kong and embedded with the students leading the pro-democracy movement. As protestors marched through and occupied city parks and streets, police fired tear gas and became physically violent. Hong Kong, long a reliably stable world financial center, was being rocked by unrest. Aired 17th October 2014 Reporter: Isobel Young Producer: Sky TSE Publisher: Vice News https://www.vice.com What was the Umbrella Movement about? The protests of 2014 were about getting the universal suffrage that Hong Kong was promised in the Basic Law, the constitution that lays out how the city is to be governed after its return from Britain to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. While the Basic Law didn’t include a date for that to happen, and nor did the agreement between Britain and China for Hong Kong’s return, the standing committee of China’s legislature said in 2007 that in 2017 the chief executive “may be” elected by universal suffrage. (Prior to the handover, the top office in the city was the governor, appointed by Britain.) On Aug. 31, 2014, Beijing proposed that all eligible voters could vote in 2017, but only for two or three candidates who had been nominated by more than half of a 1,200-person nominating committee. However the committee is made up of people who disproportionately represent business elites and other groups close to Beijing. In the months leading up to Beijing’s announcement, many in the city were already aware that the question of candidate nominations would be a sticking point, and had organized regular protests around the issue. The night of Aug. 31, 2014 also saw people in the streets, banging pots and pans—and democracy activist and legal scholar Benny Tai warned, “Hong Kong is now entering a new era—a new era of resistance.” ----------------------- There is no copyright infringement intended for the video and/or material used in this video. 'Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use' LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content within these recordings are property of their respective Designers, Writers, Creators, Owners, Organizations, Companies and Producers.

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to. Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself. Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy. Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature. We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor. We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do. We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money. Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible. For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals. The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace. Onward. Eric Hughes 9 March 1993