\tDans le tourbillon extraordinaire<\/strong> de r\u00e9v\u00e9lations et de mises en cause globales de toute l’infrastructure de la communication et de l’informatique du Syst\u00e8me (des USA) qu’est en train de provoquer la crise Snowden, on s’attache ici \u00e0 ce qu’on pourrait nommer le McCarthysme globalis\u00e9 de l’administration Obama. Il s’agit des consignes officielles diffus\u00e9es aupr\u00e8s de millions de fonctionnaires, essentiellement les fonctionnaires accr\u00e9dit\u00e9s pour l’acc\u00e8s aux donn\u00e9es confidentielles (sorte de secret d\u00e9fense), d’avoir \u00e0 se surveiller les uns et les autres pour d\u00e9terminer des comportements suspects qui pourraient conduire \u00e0 rep\u00e9rer, non pas les whistleblower<\/em> effectifs, mais les whistleblower<\/em> potentiels<\/strong> dans les diff\u00e9rents services gouvernementaux.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(Nous avons r\u00e9cemment donn\u00e9 [le 21 juin 2013<\/a>] des indications concernant le nombre de fonctionnaires accr\u00e9dit\u00e9s pour des donn\u00e9es confidentielles, donc ces personnes qui forment le noyau des hauts fonctionnaires touch\u00e9s par la politique McCarthyste de l’administration Obama : \u00abOn notera la constance de ce rapport souvent retrouv\u00e9 de 1%-99%, qui appara\u00eet ainsi d’autant plus<\/em> symbolique<\/em><\/strong>, m\u00eame dans des cas moins apparent\u00e9s \u00e0 ce qu’on veut d\u00e9crire ici. Un exemple est celui des personnes b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiant aux USA de l’accr\u00e9ditation officielle aux informations class\u00e9es secr\u00e8tes : leur nombre se rapproche de ce rapport 1%-99%. Les chiffres disponibles les plus r\u00e9cents donnent 4,8 millions de personnes disposant de cette accr\u00e9ditation aux USA [selon FAS Project on Government Secrecy, le 23 juillet 2012]. On voit que le chiffre de 4,8 millions, compar\u00e9 \u00e0 une population US qui avoisine les 313 millions en 2012 n’est pas loin de ce rapport 1%-99%, d’un gros demi-point : on se trouve dans le m\u00eame ordre de grandeur.<\/em>\u00bb) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCet extraordinaire<\/strong> programme retrouve comme naturellement la technique de la d\u00e9nonciation qui fonctionna \u00e0 plein durant le McCarthysme des ann\u00e9es 1947-1955. Cette fois, il porte sur une masse d’individus consid\u00e9rable et il devient, non plus un t\u00e9moignage sous serment avec d\u00e9nonciation publique en principe sans cons\u00e9quence l\u00e9gale comme dans la version initiale (sorte de lynch<\/em> social par la r\u00e9putation et l’anormalit\u00e9 par rapport au conformisme, dans l’esprit puritain des d\u00e9buts du peuplement europ\u00e9en\/anglo-saxon de l’Am\u00e9rique du Nord) ; il s’agit d’une obligation l\u00e9gale de d\u00e9nonciation assortie de poursuites l\u00e9gales, avec inculpations criminelles possibles, pour qui ne s’y soumet pas. Ce programme kafka\u00efen et parano\u00efaque a \u00e9t\u00e9 lanc\u00e9 en 2011 et sa substance vient d’\u00eatre largement document\u00e9e par le groupe McClatchy, de McClatchy Newspapers (l’un des seuls groupes de presse US \u00e0 avoir une politique d’information avec de nombreux aspects antiSyst\u00e8me), le 9 juillet 2013<\/a>. Le tr\u00e8s long texte de McClatchy d\u00e9taille les proc\u00e9dures envisag\u00e9es et appliqu\u00e9es par les diff\u00e9rents agences, minist\u00e8res, etc., et, d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, les effets et les r\u00e9sultats souvent schizophr\u00e9niques et ridicules auxquels l’on parvient. Le titre le dit clairement en termes mesur\u00e9s : \u00ab Experts: Obama’s plan to predict future leakers unproven, unlikely to work<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abIn an initiative aimed at rooting out future leakers and other security violators, President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues based on behavioral profiling techniques that are not scientifically proven to work, according to experts and government documents. The techniques are a key pillar of the Insider Threat Program, an unprecedented government-wide crackdown under which millions of federal bureaucrats and contractors must watch out for high-risk persons or behaviors among co-workers. Those who fail to report them could face penalties, including criminal charges.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbObama mandated the program in an October 2011 executive order after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents from a classified computer network and gave them to WikiLeaks, the anti-government secrecy group. The order covers virtually every federal department and agency, including the Peace Corps, the Department of Education and others not directly involved in national security.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbFederal employees and contractors are asked to pay particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel of co-workers as a way to predict whether they might do harm to the United States. Managers of special insider threat offices will have regular, timely, and, if possible, electronic, access to employees’ personnel, payroll, disciplinary and personal contact files, as well as records of their use of classified and unclassified computer networks, polygraph results, travel reports and financial disclosure forms.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut even the government’s top scientific advisers have questioned these techniques. Those experts say that trying to predict future acts through behavioral monitoring is unproven and could result in illegal ethnic and racial profiling and privacy violations. There is no consensus in the relevant scientific community nor on the committee regarding whether any behavioral surveillance or physiological monitoring techniques are ready for use at all, concluded a 2008 National Research Council report on detecting terrorists. Doing something similar about predicting future leakers seems even more speculative, Stephen Fienberg, a professor of statistics and social science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a member of the committee that wrote the report, told McClatchy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe emphasis on individual lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors comes at a time when growing numbers of Americans must submit to extensive background checks, polygraph tests and security investigations to be hired or to keep government or federal contracting jobs. The U.S. government is one of the world’s largest employers, overseeing an ever-expanding ocean of information.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWhile the Insider Threat Program mandates that the nearly 5 million federal workers and contractors with clearances undergo training in recognizing suspicious behavior indicators, it allows individual departments and agencies to extend the requirement to their entire workforces, something the Army already has done.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAlthough agencies and departments are still setting up their programs, some employees already are being urged to watch co-workers for indicators that include stress, divorce and financial problems.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWhen asked about the ineffectiveness of behavior profiling, Barlow said the policy does not mandate that employees report behavior indicators. It simply educates employees about basic activities or behavior that might suggest a person is up to improper activity, he said. These do not require special talents. If you see someone reading classified documents they should not be reading, especially if this happens multiple times and the person appears nervous that you saw him, that is activity that is suspicious and should be reported, Barlow said. The insider threat team then looks at the surrounding facts and draws the conclusions about the activity.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut some current and former U.S. officials and experts worry that Obama’s Insider Threat Program could lead to false or retaliatory accusations across the entire government, in part because security officials are granted access to information outside their usual purview. These current and former U.S. officials and experts also ridiculed as overly zealous and simplistic the idea of using reports of suspicious behavior to predict potential insider threats. It takes years for professional spy-hunters to learn their craft, and relying on the observations of inexperienced people could lead to baseless and discriminatory investigations, they said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAnyone is an amateur looking at behavior here, said Thomas Fingar, a former State Department intelligence chief who chaired the National Intelligence Council, which prepares top-secret intelligence analyses for the president, from 2005 to 2008. Co-workers, Fingar said, should be attentive to colleagues’ personal problems in order to refer them to counseling, not to report them as potential security violators. It’s simply because they are colleagues, fellow human beings, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbEric Feldman, a former inspector general of the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret agency that oversees U.S. spy satellites, expressed concern that relying on workers to report colleagues’ suspicious behaviors to security officials could create a repressive kind of culture. The answer to it is not to have a Stasi-like response, said Feldman, referring to the feared secret police of communist East Germany. You’ve removed that firewall between employees seeking help and the threat that any employee who seeks help could be immediately retaliated against by this insider threat office.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Parall\u00e8lement, sur cette question du McCarthysme globalis\u00e9, Russia Today<\/em> a interview\u00e9, le 11 juillet 2013<\/a>, David Lindoff, du site ThisCantBeHappening<\/em>. Interrog\u00e9 sur les pratiques g\u00e9n\u00e9rales d’espionnage domestique et de surveillance aux USA, Lindoff donne une interpr\u00e9tation des mesures gouvernementales \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard de ses propres fonctionnaires. Pour lui, il s’agit d’abord de dissimuler les politiques v\u00e9ritables du gouvernement dans les domaines de l’espionnage et de la surveillance, domestiques et internationaux. Il est \u00e9vident que le programme Obama\/NSA renvoie la Stasi<\/em> et toutes les autres r\u00e9f\u00e9rences du domaine (stalinisme avec la GPU puis le NKVD, nazisme, etc.) au rang des petits amateurs. Les USA sont aujourd’hui les ma\u00eetres du totalitarisme, montrant en cela qu’ils sont compl\u00e8tement le Syst\u00e8me lui-m\u00eame, et ex\u00e9cutant effectivement une politique de rationalisation de la folie<\/a> dont les effets contre-productifs type-blowback<\/em> vont, \u00e0 partir de la crise Snowden, s’accumuler d’une fa\u00e7on impressionnante (cycle surpuissance-autodestruction).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRussia Today<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abWhen President Obama was a Senator he said: No more spying on citizens, who are not suspected of a crime. It seems that things have changed now. What happened?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDavid Lindoff<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abHe meant citizens except those who work for the federal government. Aside from the fact that, actually, we are spying on all the citizens, he’s also got this program now where the administration wants all federal employees in all agencies of the federal government to become spies reporting on the people who work next to them, in the next cubicle or in the next office. It’s an incredible extension of this Stasi like approach to life in America. At the same time it’s a completely inefficient and failed way to try to run a government bureaucracy. The worst thing about it, it has nothing to do with national security, because he is talking about every department of the government: the Department of Labor, the Food and Drug Administration, the health department. All these departments they have nothing to do with national security, he is telling people that they should rat out their neighbors and co-workers if they think they are doing something wrong.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRussia Today<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abIs it safe to say that the government is getting a little paranoid? All of this didn’t stop Edward Snowden from actually blowing the whistle.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDavid Lindoff<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abLet’s be clear, this is not about national security; it’s about preventing people from telling the truth about problems within government, about corruption, about failed policies and so on. What it really is that the Obama administration has gone even beyond the Nixon administration in the 70s in its fear of leaks and in its effort to control the story. It’s trying to prevent the press from getting access to people inside the government, who would tell them the truth about what’s going on. All they get is public relations handouts from the government and its trying to prevent the government from being embarrassed.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRussia Today<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abHow do you then work for a government who doesn’t trust you, who wants to spy on your every move, not only where you work but, possibly, at home too. Isn’t this why Edward Snowden thought we can’t continue like this, we have to break the silence whether it’s for civil liberties or within the people we work together with?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDavid Lindoff<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abAbsolutely. The minute that that policy got announced a lot of people changed their plans about wanting to make a career in the government. If you have a policy like that you are eliminating the best people who you would like to work in a government bureaucracy and you are attracting the ones who would do that kind of thing, and, probably those are the ones who are corrupt, the ones who would do any evil thing that the administrators tell them to do. It is just an invitation to massive corruption and abuse.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \n dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le McCarthysme globalis\u00e9 de BHO Dans le tourbillon extraordinaire de r\u00e9v\u00e9lations et de mises en cause globales de toute l’infrastructure de la communication et de l’informatique du Syst\u00e8me (des USA) qu’est en train de provoquer la crise Snowden, on s’attache ici \u00e0 ce qu’on pourrait nommer le McCarthysme globalis\u00e9 de l’administration Obama. Il s’agit des… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[12281,12282,3506,4638,7556,3871,12224,3489],"class_list":["post-75092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-denonciation","tag-lindoff","tag-maccarthysme","tag-mccarthysme","tag-mcclatchy","tag-nsa","tag-snowden","tag-stasi"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}