Data Spies and the Art of Letting Go

spy 01This blog is about the Philippines, too. It is, indeed.

The screaming from American civil liberties groups is so loud it echoes off the coast of China. Some of the U.S. security agencies’ secret projects are being revealed and they evidently include data mining of vast reams of telephone call data.

Essentially, as I understand the use of this information, it is to construct what I call “data traps” for terrorists. Rather like a spider web, communications are patterned to lead from and to possible instigators of terrorism. After the pattern is constructed and it points to certain terminals, specific warrants for wire taps can be obtained for those terminals.

Man, I like that program.

So I’m guessing I’m not seeing it as others are seeing it. They see massive “invasion of privacy” and are bloody well stomping indignantly about, overlaying evil intent on something that, in my mind, is of good intent: keeping me and my family alive. That, and I have pretty well conceded that Google knows more about me than my wife does, or maybe even I do. So privacy as we used to know it is gone.

So I feel no particular outrage. Peculiar, eh?

spy 02

The questions that arise in my mind are:

  • Who weighs in against the civil liberties groups? Who is the check against THEM? They do not speak for all America, after all, although they seem to operate under a halo of perceived innocence and a perception that they aim for a higher good.
  • What is your preference, privacy or terrorist bombs? You can’t strip the tools of defense from the defense agencies and then yell at them when some whacko with a turban flies a plane into a nearby office tower or drops a dirty nuke off at a sports arena whilst the game is in progress.
  • What’s the problem, really? Privacy no longer exists if you use a computer or phone. Period. It’s gone. You are being monitored. Google is tracking every CLICK, not just every e-mail. Others, too. That’s why I write blogs about Chinese boats and am presented with ads at the top of my e-mail page from vendors wanting to sell me a boat.
  • Do you believe the national government is entitled to conduct secret acts? If so, ought we not reserve our screaming for cases in which harm is done, rather than scream at the ghosts? Hobgoblins, fears, and anxieties ought not run our government.
  • Can you trust your government? Or do you believe that when someone in government does wrong, it is not the exception, but the rule?  I trust the U.S. government, myself. But with a recognition that checks and balances are important because power is intoxicating.

Perhaps it would be well to elaborate a bit on these five questions.

Checking the Civil Liberties Groups

I bemoan the fact that the Philippines does not have a vibrant Civil Liberties Union. This group in the U.S. has done so much to open our eyes about discrimination and bad treatment of racial minorities, women, the elderly, children and other groups. They help protect our freedom of speech and privacy, or what little is left of it.

Yet, we need to ask, are they always RIGHT in their advocacies? Or, perhaps a better way to put it, what are the RISKS and COSTS of civil rights initiatives?

Government is put on the defensive because it is hard to counter the do-gooder halo. Well, where is the public agency that certifies that civil liberties representatives are themselves ethical and qualified to opine? In the courts, prosecuting attorneys are for the most part well intended and competent. But sometimes they get it wrong, or use underhanded methods. They have to live by a set of ethics.

Who watches the advocates? Like to make sure they are not cheating and playing their own deceitful game of politics and  playing unfairly on citizen emotions? How do we check that they are not infiltrated by the Chinese or those whacko left wingers. How do we make sure they are being above-board in their OWN information gathering, not stealing like the scurrilous Wikileaks malcontents and thieves?

It’s a question, that’s all. Right now, my advice to the screamers is to stop screaming and using emotional terminology (“Orwellian” was the word of the day yesterday) like you are the font of all accountability for the security of Americans. You are simply one view. Worth listening to. If you provide information and logic and drop the emotionalism. But you are not MY God.

Privacy or Bombs?

Decisions are decisions. Doing nothing is a decision. If you force the national government to do nothing to protect Americans from people who will do ANYTHING to harm them, that is a decision. You must hold YOURSELF accountable for deaths that may occur because terrorists were not identified in the data traps being set for them. Because you decided YOUR PRIVACY was more important than THEIR LIVES.

Personal Privacy

There is precious little left. Cameras are everywhere and soon those with Google glass will be able to wink and record our acts. Cameras are on the light posts watching cheaters skim through the red, and in 7-Eleven nabbing thieves, and behind the ATM glass watching our withdrawals. The automated check-out systems record our purchases at the supermarket or Wal-Mart, profiling us and our product preferences. And of course data snoops are like a swarm of bees on the internet, capturing clicks like a bazillion Chinese checkers players gone mad with their marbles.

Personal privacy is largely an illusion, applying only to those who withdraw from society, rather like asocial weirdos who secret themselves in a cabin deep in the woods to stay away from other people.

Government Secrecy

Well, again, here is where I split with some freedom lovers, those who want their own privacy shrink-wrapped and sealed behind a titanium shield while the government is an open book, sold to Wiki-leaks at the first opportunity of disgruntlement. Wiki-leaks is a pack of thieves, slime-balls, in my book.

I believe corporations have a right to privacy, to think and plan without causing their shareholders to run amuck and sell the corporation down the tubes on a rumor, and I believe government is entitled to privacy to skulk around in the darkened places that still exist on this planet, to snoop and even eradicate.

I’m also pro-drone. I believe it is fair to tilt the game level, so the hunters become the hunted.

felix-leap-2_2369093b

The Art of Letting Go

Trust of Government

You know, this is the bottom line. There are many who don’t trust the American government. They take a case of bad judgment or bad result or bad historical moments or their own isolated run-ins with America and generalize it to a national character.  Mostly, they are right as to specific incidents, but wrong as to national character. The national character of the U.S. is fundamentally good. The values are good. The economic system is good. The artistic expressions and freedoms are superb. The watchdogs are good (Civil Liberties Union). The checks and balances invariably check and balance. It is a fun, free, wholesome, educated, clean place to live and raise a family. Good Christian values anchor behaviors.

I trust Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Defense Committee, when she says the Committee has been briefed on the phone gathering program and it is crucial to keeping America, and Americans, safe. I trust President Obama to be as straight with Americans as it is possible to be, and protect our interests and safety. He need not tell all. That is the meaning of trust.

As for data mining, here, NSA, you can have my phone records. Where do I sign the release?

I lost my virginity back when the FBI decided I was a threat for attending a Hayden, Rubin, Kuntsler anti-Viet Nam War rally in 1970. A few days later, the FBI parked in an inconspicuous brown van down the road apiece and listened mightily to my ex-wife and I. After all, she is, for those of you keeping track of the finer details, the daughter of a communist.

The FBI got an earful of some really good sex.

So I’ve let go, I’ve been violated, and lived to talk about it. Now I am floating free in a data world of enormous depth and buoyancy and richness. It’s a new world, a glorious, information-packed, vibrant world, and we live in it. Best to float with the current, eh? Or soar with it to relish the amazing knowledge  that is just a few clicks away.

I’m innocent and trust my government to recognize that.

Now kindly let them continue their hard work to hunt down the fanatical murderers who are trying to kill my family in the name of their God. The only Orwellian people around here are those nut cases.

Comments
38 Responses to “Data Spies and the Art of Letting Go”
  1. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    Scarrrrry !!! I have to live with it. NSA’s PRISM or no PRISM Google or Lexus Nexis can find me the moment I sign that escrow, swipe my card, take charter flight to Kauai to run away from it all. They can find me. Those ubiquitous spy-cam, unmanned drones with face-recognition, license plate reading HighDef cams and infra-red censors will do me in. GOODBYE PRIVACY!!!

    Obama said it aptly, “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going have to make some choices as a society.” If Obama not take action, he’ll get blamed if some terrorists slips thru the intelligence crack. Obama should be thankful to WBush for the Patriot Act that Democrats didn’t want. Now it’s the democrats turn to use it.

    In the Philippines, there was is and forever will be no privacy even before the advent of Google. Those peering eyes of neighbors are watching my every moves. Sensitive ears can hear my moan and groan. ZTE witnesses knew something was brewing when de Venecia Jr closed the door behind them. San Miguel, another ZTE personality, was witnessed receiving an envelope and the gossipy Philippine Media knew right away that what was in the envelope was wad of money without the benefit of x-rays.

    We have a modern day J Edgar Hoover, this time it is not kept in a folder it is in digital format that can be accessed in split second.

    GOODBYE PRIVACY. This is what we trade in for the conveinece of internet.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      HA! HA! HA! I forgot. There is one guy that is watching US all the time 24/7 even inside the bedroom. It is GOD. And we thought we have privacy from the beginning of the world. Let us pray …

    • Joe America says:

      In real life, I’m a private person, and like my quiet and isolation. But the Philippines, um . . . intrudes. ahahaha So I’ve learned to go with the flow, and the internet and Google-spy and all that is just our new reality, kind of like learning to breathe water instead of air, developing gills that allow one to subsist in a data goldfish bowl.

  2. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    The problem of Obama’s administration is a serial leaker from the top with topsecret security clearance. Verizon & Internet dragnet leaked to the same Guardian reporter. This is what I am afraid of, what I am afraid of this will be copied by benigno.

    Whatever happens in the U.S. Philippines do it, too. I bet my PLDT and Smart account will wind up in benigno’s desk.

    • Joe America says:

      Yes, whomever the Guardian tapped, he is the new “deep throat”. Trouble is, what he is revealing is not criminal, and therefore the throat is the criminal. Revealing national secrets like they were Betty Crocker recipes.

  3. The Mouse says:

    You know what I am more concerned of? Banks and commercial businesses selling my personal information to third party! Now, we get those annoying marketing calls and spam mails.

    • Joe America says:

      I don’t know what rules exist here to prevent that. In the U.S., privacy is actually pretty tight and those kinds of acts are illegal. Spam is easily dumped. I used to enjoy the marketing calls. I would politely say “no I’m not interested”, and they would keep selling. I would say “no” politely. After about the fifth polite “no” I’d erupt screaming about how many times I had to say “no”, and “are you STUPID or what?” It was rather fun.

    • edgar lores says:

      Surely banks don’t do that, do they? Even commercial businesses are not supposed to do it unless you sign off and grant permission. At least here in Oz.

      I had an incident recently, where my debit card was used – or attempted to be used – to purchase goods in Cambodia. Now, I had never used the debit card to buy anything and I had only used it once at an ATM (outside the bank premises) to withdraw funds. The ATM did not automatically surrender the card after the transaction, and a couple of guys ‘helped’ me to retrieve my card by pressing some buttons on the left of the screen and re-inputting my PIN. I was suspicious and immediately went inside the bank to have my PIN changed. The guys must have been able to secure the card number though, and because I had changed the PIN and because I keep a very low balance in that account, the bank rejected the Cambodian transaction. (The bank replaced the card immediately and unilaterally.)

      As to telemarketers, I do answer politely. I usually ask them to write me a letter (unless it’s the guy from Microsoft telling me my computer is infected), at which point they hang up or say, “Let’s talk first.” To this I say, “I’m sorry, I’m having lunch (or tea)” and hang up. I wonder what misdeeds these telemarketers and scammers must have committed in a previous life to end up in this line of ‘work’.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      The Little Lady in Red Riding Hood and Mr. Anonymous sold out Renato Corona of his surreptiously acquired private dollar bank account. If it were in America, these duo would end up in the slammer, of course, that includes Corona.

      That PMAyer kapitan-sa-barko that drove the acquired hand-me-down Hamilton class fridget to Philippines told the world thru the clueless Philippine Media that China has nothing to worry about the fleet of frightgate because it only has 105 howitzer and .50 caliber machine gun.

      Filipinos are bunch of national security risks that is why I am totally against Freedom of Information Act because freedom of information already exist.

  4. edgar lores says:

    1. So, basically, what you are saying is that a guardian can ‘intrude’ into the privacy of telephone conversations and monitor the conversation for the wellbeing of himself (the protector) and the protected.

    2. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

    3. Is the intrusion arbitrary? Google provides two meanings of the adjective:
    – “Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.”
    – “(of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.”

    3.1. The first definition does not apply because the act of the US government is not random but planned and it is based on the reason of national defense.

    3.2. Is the act “unrestrained” meaning without limits to its freedom? And is it “autocratic” meaning an exercise of unwarranted power? I would not think so. The restraints are in the advice of the NSA to and approval of the Executive and Legislative branches, in the objections of the civil liberty groups, and in the chorus of disapproval from the protected. And the warrant of power is national defence against the threat of terrorism.

    4. The analysis of telephone conversations would be as to content, to location, to frequency and to principals.

    4.1. Given the volume, it would be impossible to parse all the content of all conversations. The likelihood is that conversations would be scanned for keywords. This may not be very effective in that terrorists would speak in code. They will speak of bagels instead of bombs.

    4.2. The danger is that the government will use its knowledge of your extramarital trysts to its own ends. This is where the issue of trust comes in.

    4.2. Location might be of some significance if it crosses national borders. Frequency might also be of some significance, although terrorists use and discard mobile phones like cigarettes.

    4.3. Principals would be very significant if the government can establish a dossier from several agencies – immigration, tax, real estate, motor vehicles, etc.

    4.4. I wonder if the technology might be put to good use like proving innocence. If a man was charged with a crime and it could be revealed that he was in another location at that time, then that would be a beneficial byproduct.

    5. Life has become so complex. It would really be much simpler if men accepted the plurality of beliefs and of resources, practiced and enjoyed his own, and respected those of others. The beliefs, of course, must be non-discriminatory and the resources clearly delineated. All of this ‘overhead ordure’ would be unnecessary.

    • Joe America says:

      Regarding 1. The telephone record data crunch is not really an invasion of privacy. It is like the police who sit at the side of the road with a radar gun. They only take in information to identify law-breakers.
      2. “Arbitrary interference” The data crunch doesn’t interfere with anything, unless you pop up as a suspect. Then court warrants are required for further investigation (e.g., wire taps).
      4.1 The content of calls is not a part of the data crunch, as I under stand it. Just who called whom when, and how do the dot’s connect to some known suspect in Yemen.
      5. Yes respect for others who live differently is difficult to grab hold of sometimes. Certainly, the Taiwanese president has little grasp of Philippine self-interest. As an example.

      • edgar lores says:

        1. I understand there are several aspects of the program. I would doubt that the data mining is limited to metadata and not to content. A great part of our digital lives are stored and access has been given by key companies. Google has email scan algorithms to target ads. Facebook might have the similar capabilities. If NSA vacuums info – both metadata and actual data – it would need bots to trawl through the humongous mess to sift out the nuggets.

        2. I agree there would be no interference that the individual can detect. But I think the probability of ‘accidental’ misuse of the intelligence gathered is high and will happen.

        3. There are reports that the program is a hoax contrived to be revealed at the time of the Chinese official visit and or the President’s visit to Silicon valley. The companies have denied participation. There must be a kernel of truth, but we will never know the whole story.

        • Joe America says:

          The three elements in the news lately are: (1) data traps, which are non-personal until they identify suspects, (2) plug-ins to yahoo, Google, etc (denied by those companies), and (3) an executive order from President Obama directing the start-up of offensive cyber-spying work. Also, we know there have been a lot of government requests to Google and others for specific information, and we suspect international calls and e-mails are monitored for keywords.

          Lay the potential for abuse of this information against the potential for fanatics to do damage and the scale tilts toward radicals as the bigger threat, in my mind. I put Wikileaks in the bucket of radicals who will harm individuals to get at the state, the state representing an ideology they are opposed to. And of course a lot of people who want to blow up bombs to exorcise their own devils, in the name of their God.

          Privacy or security. I argue for security because I trust in US values, checks, balances and discipline. The fascinating question to me is, how would most Filipinos argue? Do they trust their state?

          • edgar lores says:

            1. I think you have the basic elements correctly listed right there – values, checks, balances and discipline.

            2. The central issue is trust. Let’s start with that.

            3. For trust to be continually held in place, there must be restraints – by checks and balances from all angles – bottom, sides and top.

            4. Discipline, I think, is where the problem lies and the absence of greater transparency.

            4.1. There must be discipline from the top in all branches of government. For the executive not to condone breaches, for the legislature to be informed and to keep watch, and for the judiciary not to grant warrants without sufficient evidence.

            4.2. There must be discipline from the bottom, by the people, and from the sides, by the media, to keep vigil.

            4.3. I have three problems: (a) the possibility of a Bush-Cheney combination or a J Edgar Hoover coming back into office; (b) the magnitude of influence that the military-intelligence complex exerts as seen, for instance, in the inability of Obama to close Gitmo; and (c) the secrecy, the lack of transparency as seen, for instance, in the fact that the Prism project started some years ago. There is some transparency in that members of Congress are advised of these security measures, and I guess it would be naive of us not to assume that a level of eavesdropping is being conducted. We know that the NSA has been electronically monitoring the airwaves in space before, but now they are into virtual space where they can build more detailed dossiers on citizens than the East German Stasi could ever dream of. After 9/11 the government could have been upfront and said, “Oh, we are going to collect metadata on your calls and digital data”, and there might not have been such a hullabaloo as there is now.

            4.4. The choice between privacy vs. security may be the obvious dichotomy of the issue, but there are major issues in governmental misuse and abuse of personal information. The US is different from East Germany, Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and Turkey – to name a few – but the recalcitrance of the GOP and the extreme views of the Right leaves me with a certain amount of worry and distrust. Perhaps there should be a fourth branch of government, an independent Transparency Commission with greater powers than the ombudsman to regularly monitor the secret bureaus. It would be a civilian group to counter the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

            5. If Filipino politicians cannot be trusted to take care of the people’s taxes and the country’s natural resources, how much more can they be trusted with snooping into people’s lives? The Enriles will not have to used the expensive carrot of incentives but only the hard stick of blackmail.

          • Joe America says:

            Certainly a government intent upon control, if it had the tools of the current US government, would be quite an imposing threat to every value America stands for. Given the out-of-control animosity displayed by American legislators, rather than maturity, one can easily conjure up a Bush/Cheney/Hoover/McCarthy cabal gone mad to gain control of all the levers of government. Throw in Nixon for the dark eyes.

            The Transparency Commission is a superb idea, a bridge between the naive (citizens) and occasionally scurrilous (security agencies).

            Similarly, tools like the US security agencies are developing in the hands of someone like Senator Sotto is equally frightening. Narrow range of tolerance, high control, high temper, distorted values.

            The key question, however, is, why is the US developing these tools? Because the enemy walks about in clothes like the neighbor, is intent upon gaining access to all the tools of murder from poisons to nukes, and doesn’t mind seeing how many innocents he can murder. I think the US security agencies are in a terribly difficult situation, trying to protect against an ominous, deadly, sneaky enemy. They can’t do it with their hands tied. I’m on their side. I understand the wariness of people who view American government almost as an enemy. I don’t. I consider extremist Muslims to be the enemy. I trust American government more, believe their values are better, and believe they do what they do because they must. I wish them well.

  5. andrew lim says:

    Believe it or not, but there are still people in the Phil without any documentary/digital presence anywhere. One of our previous household help was like that. I used to joke that she would make the perfect terrorist, since she is figuratively “invisible.” A manhunt for her means you would have to go find the community she lives in and ask people around. But you cannot find any record of her – no SSS, TIN, birth certificate, ATM, voter’s ID, no id of any kind.

    • Joe America says:

      It took my wife 18 months to go from no documented presence to being a real person with social security and a passport.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      You got me thinking there, Andrew. I will take my word back on my first comment, You are right. There are many invisible undocumented Filipinos living amongst us. They do not have facebook, no bank account, no birth certificate, voter’s ID, SSS, TIN, no property … no education. Our garderner has neither of the above.

  6. J says:

    This reminds me of the debate in the Philippines over a national ID system. Those opposed are usually groups with links to the Red movement.

    • The Mouse says:

      They don’t wanna be caught in their hiding place and a national ID system will probably point where the Tiamzon couple are at. Hehe

    • Joe America says:

      I’ve never really understood the objection to a national ID system. It’s not like a number tattooed on the forehead or anything. In the US, the social security card is very close to being that, and I don’t know that it has much in the way of downsides.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      I am in favor of National ID system but I want to be undocumented natural born-Filipino at the same time. I want to be invisible. I treasure my privacy.

  7. I think you’ll find this blog post by Dr. David Kaiser, among my favorite historians, relevant and interesting: http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2013/06/pearson-and-assange.html

    • Joe America says:

      Thanks J. Dr. Kaiser expresses eloquently how Assange is different from an admirable “whistle blower” who is interested in correcting a wrong, not bringing down an institution. And I suppose the article explains that JoeAm’s view of “trust in the institution” is “old school” . . . perhaps. 🙂

  8. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    America the reluctant enemy of China.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50148532n
    Military choppers and most probably the recently bought 2nd-hand Hamilton class frigate cannot wage war against China becaue spare parts are made there.

  9. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    PALM SPRINGS – Barack Obama flew from Washington DC to a remote retirement desert in Palm Springs in California JUST TO MEET President of China. Chinese were there to protest the kiling of Falun Gung followers so were white Americans over occupation of Nepal.

    FILIPINOS? Filipinos? Filipinos that are thick in California were never to be found to protest the occupation of Spratley Islands. There seems to be disconnect between Filipinos in America and Filipinos in the Philippines.

    http://ktla.com/2013/06/07/president-obama-meets-with-chinas-president-at-desert-retreat/#axzz2VU83osp5

    • Joe America says:

      It is so hot in Palm Springs that the shops have misters to spray the sidewalks with dew to cool off the customers. Nobody in their right mind would go there to protest in 115 degrees whilst the dignitaries cool their heels in sub-zero air con.

      • Attila says:

        The Philippine Independence day parade was on a very pleasant day. You could see a bunch of loud leftist organizations but not one protester about the the occupation of Spratley Islands or Taiwan’s harassing behavior. It felt like being in the Twilight Zone.(comfort zone?) America bashing must be one of the most addicting ‘drug trip” for some Filipinos. Bashing China probably a painful experience without the usual rewards in pleasure.

        • Joe America says:

          There is little envy of China, so perhaps that particular motivation, to bring down someone who is succeeding, is not there.

          • The Mouse says:

            I agree that it is not envy on China but China shooing us in our own backyard.

            Prior to the 2010 incursion in the Reed Bank, Philippine-Chinese relations were okay and Filipinos were optimistic of China’s rise. 10 years ago, hardcore nationalists even bragged that China is a better partner than the West…

            But enter the Joint survey under Arroyo and the Reed Bank incursion and then the Scarborough….

            As a note to Mariano, South Vietnamese in the US were also protesting the Xi-Obama meeting…

            To be fair with some Fil-Ams, they protested several times last year about the Scarborough…. You have to wonder more the lack of protest in the Philippines in front of the Chinese embassy but you readily see people protesting the Baliktatan at the US Embassy. LOL

          • Joe America says:

            Do you think Arroyo was working on a solution, or was she laying the groundwork for today’s problems? I’ve read that she was selling out Philippine rights, but as manuelbuencamino points out elsewhere, joint development is the likely solution.

            As I said in response to your other comment, a critic defines himself, really. So do protesters, if and when and where they choose to strut their stuff. I would note that the US has spent a big pile of money remodeling the Embassy. Making it larger. Organizing things better for the trampling hordes of visa applicants. hehheh, making the fences higher and stronger.

          • The Mouse says:

            Outsize the EEZ, the joint survey is a good solution.

            Here is the problem. A large part of it was IN the Philippine EEZ; nothing on the EEZ of Vietnam and China. It would have been okay if the two countries submitted to Philippine laws…not even in “overlapping EEZs” since there are no overlapping EEZs with China and Vietnam and the Philippines. This would be more of a solution if the countries involved were Malaysia and Brunei because of the overlapping EEZs. The question that must be determined before any joint survey is if Vietnam and China have valid claims per international law.

            While it may sound good in the surface, it then, i believe evolved into the worst disputes esp that the hearsay is that data showed large oil and gas deposit potential. Things weren’t really bad between China and the Philippines until the Reed Bank incursion.

            Speaking of the new Embassy. I think I read somewhere that they dug out some WW2 vintage bomb. I wonder how many are buried under Manila

          • Joe America says:

            Ah, that makes sense re EEZ. Maybe the Philippine appeal to the international courts will pave a way for agreements to be struck. It would if China were reasonable, but it seems her military leaders are not inclined to grant any other nation respect.

            Regarding graves beneath Manila’s streets, I suspect there are many. I’m reminded of the photos done by John T Pilot (see the “Library” tab above).

  10. manuel buencamino says:

    Don’t believe what mainstream media tells you about those so-called NSA leaks. Project Edward Snowden is the American counter-terror project meant to scare terrorists into communicating via carrier pigeons again. That’s all it is. Trust me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s