06.16.15
by

Guia prático para iniciar no Casino 888 – registo, login e bónus detalhado

If you are looking for a reliable guide to Casino 888 entrar, this article covers everything from registration to your first withdrawal.

Quick Checklist

  • Certifique-se de que tem a idade legal (18+ ou conforme a sua jurisdição).
  • Tenha um endereço de e-mail válido e um número de telemóvel.
  • Prepare um documento de identificação (cartão de cidadão ou passaporte) para verificação KYC.
  • Escolha um método de pagamento aceite (cartão, transferência, carteira digital).
  • Leia os termos do bónus de boas-vindas antes de depositar.
  • Aceda ao site móvel através do seu browser — não é necessária uma app nativa.

Step-by-Step Sign-Up

  1. Aceda à página inicial do Casino 888 e clique em “Registar” ou “Criar Conta”.
  2. Preencha o formulário com os seus dados pessoais: nome, data de nascimento, morada e nacionalidade.
  3. Defina um nome de utilizador e uma palavra-passe forte (mínimo 8 caracteres, com maiúsculas, minúsculas e números).
  4. Confirme o seu e-mail através do link enviado para a sua caixa de entrada.
  5. Faça o primeiro depósito (se aplicável, utilize o código de bónus oferecido).
  6. Complete a verificação de identidade (KYC) enviando os documentos solicitados.
  7. Já pode aceder ao casino 888 login e começar a jogar.

Calculating Your Bonus

O bónus de boas-vindas típico oferece um valor percentual sobre o primeiro depósito. Suponha que o Casino 888 oferece um bónus de 100% até 500 €. Se depositar 200 €, receberá 200 € adicionais, totalizando 400 € para jogar. Contudo, é necessário cumprir requisitos de aposta.

Importante: Os requisitos de aposta indicam quantas vezes o valor do bónus deve ser jogado antes de poder levantar os ganhos. Por exemplo, se o requisito for 35x o bónus, terá de apostar 200 € × 35 = 7.000 €. Considere ainda que nem todos os jogos contribuem igualmente. Slots contribuem 100%, enquanto jogos de mesa podem contribuir apenas 10%.

Fórmula: Valor total a apostar = Bónus × Requisito de aposta. No exemplo: 200 € × 35 = 7.000 €. Se jogar slots com RTP de 96%, a perda esperada é de 4% × 7.000 € = 280 €. Assim, o valor líquido esperado do bónus é 200 € – 280 € = –80 € (negativo, mas pode ter sorte).

Is It Safe?

O Casino 888 opera sob licença de Curaçao (eGaming). Embora não tenha uma licença europeia como a MGA, a plataforma utiliza encriptação SSL de 128 bits para proteger os dados dos utilizadores. Todas as transações financeiras são processadas por gateways seguros. A verificação de identidade (KYC) é obrigatória para prevenir fraudes. Contudo, lembre-se de que ganhos obtidos em casinos com licença de Curaçao podem estar sujeitos a imposto de renda no seu país — consulte um contabilista.

Deposits & Withdrawals

Método Depósito Mínimo Levantamento Mínimo Tempo de Processamento
Cartão de Crédito/Débito 10 € 20 € 1–3 dias úteis
Transferência Bancária 25 € 50 € 3–5 dias úteis
Carteira Digital (Skrill, Neteller) 10 € 10 € Até 24 horas
Criptomoedas (Bitcoin, Ethereum) 20 € 50 € 12–48 horas

Os levantamentos estão sujeitos a verificação adicional. Para o casino 888 portugal, os valores aparecem em euros. O app 888 casino é, na verdade, um site otimizado para dispositivos móveis (PWA) — aceda pelo browser e adicione ao ecrã inicial.

Good to Know

As categorias de jogos com maior RTP são as slots de alta volatilidade (ex.: Mega Joker com 99%) e o blackjack clássico (99,5% com estratégia básica). Evite slots com jackpot progressivo cujo RTP pode ser inferior a 90% e jogos de keno ou raspadinhas online, que frequentemente têm RTP abaixo de 85%.

Troubleshooting

  • Não consigo fazer login: Verifique se o nome de utilizador e a palavra-passe estão corretos. Se esqueceu a palavra-passe, utilize a opção “Recuperar palavra-passe”. Se o problema persistir, limpe a cache do browser ou tente outro dispositivo.
  • O depósito não aparece na conta: Aguarde 15–30 minutos. Se não aparecer, contacte o suporte com o comprovativo da transação. Pode ser necessário verificar se usou o código de bónus correto.
  • Levantamento recusado: Verifique se o seu documento de identificação foi aprovado (KYC). Alguns métodos exigem que tenha feito um depósito prévio com o mesmo método. Confirme os limites mínimos e máximos.
  • O jogo não carrega: Atualize o browser ou experimente um browser diferente. Desative extensões de bloqueio de anúncios temporariamente. Certifique-se de que o seu sistema operativo está atualizado.
  • Recebi um e-mail de phishing: O Casino 888 nunca pede a sua palavra-passe por e-mail. Encaminhe o e-mail suspeito para o suporte oficial e altere a sua palavra-passe imediatamente.
  • O bónus não foi creditado: Leia os termos: alguns bónus requerem um código promocional durante o depósito. Se cumpriu tudo, aguarde até 24 horas ou contacte o suporte.

FAQ

Preciso de descarregar uma aplicação para jogar no Casino 888?

Não. O site é totalmente otimizado para dispositivos móveis e funciona como uma progressive web app (PWA). Pode adicioná-lo ao ecrã inicial do seu telemóvel para acesso rápido.

Quanto tempo demora a verificação KYC?

Geralmente, entre 24 e 72 horas após o envio dos documentos. Em alguns casos, pode demorar até 5 dias úteis se houver inconsistências.

Posso jogar com criptomoedas?

Sim, o Casino 888 aceita Bitcoin, Ethereum e outras criptomoedas para depósitos e levantamentos, sujeitos a limites específicos.

Qual é o depósito mínimo para receber o bónus de boas-vindas?

O depósito mínimo para ativar o bónus é de 20 €, mas verifique sempre os termos atuais, pois podem variar.

Os ganhos são tributados?

Depende do seu país de residência. Em Portugal, os ganhos em casinos online licenciados pela SRIJ estão isentos de IRS, mas o Casino 888 não possui licença SRIJ. Recomendamos consultar as autoridades fiscais locais.

Como posso contactar o suporte ao cliente?

O suporte está disponível via chat ao vivo (24 horas), e-mail e telefone. O chat ao vivo é o método mais rápido.

O Casino 888 é compatível com dispositivos iOS e Android?

Sim, o site funciona em qualquer sistema operativo com browser moderno. A experiência é idêntica à de uma app nativa.

Posso definir limites de depósito?

Sim, nas configurações da conta pode estabelecer limites diários, semanais ou mensais para jogar de forma responsável.

O que fazer se o casino 888 login não funcionar?

Tente redefinir a palavra-passe. Se ainda assim não conseguir, contacte o suporte técnico para verificar se a sua conta está ativa.

Este guia prático cobre os passos essenciais para começar no Casino 888 — desde o registo até ao primeiro levantamento. Lembre-se de jogar com responsabilidade e de verificar sempre as promoções atuais para maximizar a sua experiência. Boa sorte!

03.12.15
by

Energy casino regisztráció és kifizetés – Teljes útmutató bónuszokkal

Ha megbízható útmutatót keres a(z) Energy casino 30 oldalhoz, ez a cikk mindent lefed a regisztrációtól az első kifizetésig.

Gyors ellenőrzőlista

  • Regisztráció és személyazonosság igazolása (KYC)
  • No deposit bónusz igénylése (ha elérhető)
  • Bónusz feltételek áttekintése (fogadási követelmények, lejárati idő)
  • Első befizetés és további bónuszok aktiválása
  • Kifizetési módszer kiválasztása az igényeknek megfelelően
  • Felelős játék beállítások (letéti limitek, időkorlátok)

Fiók létrehozása

  1. Látogasson el a kaszinó weboldalára, és kattintson a „Regisztráció” gombra.
  2. Adja meg e-mail címét, válasszon erős jelszót, és adja meg a kívánt pénznemet.
  3. Erősítse meg a regisztrációt a megadott e-mailben található link segítségével.
  4. Töltse ki a személyes adatokat (teljes név, lakcím, születési dátum).
  5. Töltse fel a szükséges dokumentumokat a KYC (ügyfélazonosítás) folyamathoz – ez elengedhetetlen a későbbi kifizetésekhez.
  6. A regisztráció után nézze meg a fiók bónuszrészlegét; az Energycasino no deposit bonus általában automatikusan jóváírásra kerül.
  7. Ha a bónusz aktiválásához kód szükséges, keresse az Energycasino no deposit bonus code-ot a promóciós e-mailben vagy a weboldalon.

A bónusz kiszámítása

A no deposit bónusz tipikusan 30 ingyenes pörgetés (free spin) formájában érkezik, 1 eurós tétenként. Tegyük fel, hogy a választott játék RTP-je 96% (0,96). A várható nyeremény a free spinek után:

Példa:

Nyeremény = 30 × 1 € × 0,96 = 28,8 €.

A nyereményekre vonatkozó fogadási követelmény (wagering requirement) általában 35-szörös. Ez azt jelenti, hogy a 28,8 €-t 35-ször kell megforgatnia, mielőtt kifizetheti: 28,8 € × 35 = 1008 €.

Ha a megforgatás során továbbra is 96%-os RTP-vel számolunk, az elvárt visszajátszásból származó veszteség: 1008 € × (1 – 0,96) = 40,32 €.

A nettó várható érték tehát: 28,8 € (nyeremény) – 40,32 € (várható veszteség a megforgatás alatt) = -11,52 €. Ez a szám negatív, mert a magas fogadási követelmény miatt a játékos átlagosan veszít a bónuszból. Éppen ezért érdemes olyan játékokat választani, amelyek hozzájárulnak a megforgatáshoz, és alacsony a házelőnyük.

Biztonsági áttekintés

A kaszinó SSL titkosítást használ az adatok védelmére, és lehetőséget biztosít a kétfaktoros azonosítás (2FA) bekapcsolására. A KYC folyamat során minden játékosnak igazolnia kell személyazonosságát, ami megakadályozza a visszaéléseket.

Fontos megjegyzés: A Curacao-licencű kaszinók esetén a nyeremények a saját országában adókötelesek lehetnek – javasoljuk, hogy tájékozódjon a helyi adószabályokról.

Banki megoldások és fizetések

A kaszinó több fizetési módot kínál, melyek befizetési és kifizetési ideje eltérő. Az Energy casino kifizetés gyorsasága nagyban függ a választott módszertől.

Fizetési mód Befizetési idő Kifizetési idő Minimum összeg Maximum összeg
Bankkártya (Visa / MasterCard) Azonnali 1–3 munkanap 10 € 5000 €
E-pénztárca (Skrill, Neteller) Azonnali 1–24 óra 10 € 10 000 €
Kriptovaluta (Bitcoin, Ethereum) 1–2 óra 1 óra – 24 óra 20 € 10 000 €
Banki átutalás 1–3 munkanap 3–7 munkanap 50 € 10 000 €

Ügyfélszolgálati útmutató

Az alábbi gyakori problémákra kínálunk lépésenkénti megoldást:

  • Elfelejtett jelszó: Kattintson a „Elfelejtett jelszó” linkre a bejelentkezési oldalon, adja meg e-mail címét, majd kövesse a kapott útmutatást.
  • Fiók hitelesítési probléma: Ha a KYC dokumentumokat nem fogadták el, ellenőrizze, hogy minden adat olvasható és érvényes. Lépjen kapcsolatba az ügyfélszolgálattal a további teendőkért.
  • Bónusz nem került jóváírásra: Ellenőrizze a bónuszfeltételeket (pl. minimális befizetés, kód használata). Ha szükséges, írja be az Energycasino no deposit bonus code-ot a fiók bónuszrészlegében.
  • Kifizetés várakozási ideje hosszú: A kifizetés előtt minden esetben szükséges a teljes KYC átvilágítás. Ha ez már megtörtént, hívja fel az ügyfélszolgálat figyelmét a késésre.
  • Technikai hiba játék közben: Frissítse az oldalt, törölje a böngésző gyorsítótárát, vagy próbálkozzon másik böngészővel. Ha a probléma továbbra is fennáll, rögzítsen egy képernyőképet és jelezze a támogatásnak.
  • Játékhatár beállítása: A felelős játék szakaszban állítson be napi, heti vagy havi letéti limiteket, valamint időkorlátokat.

Profi tippek

Módszer Befizetés sebessége Kifizetés sebessége
Bankkártya Azonnali 1–3 nap
E-pénztárca Azonnali 1–24 óra
Kriptovaluta 1–2 óra ~1 óra
Banki átutalás 1–3 nap 3–7 nap

A kifizetések általában hosszabb időt vesznek igénybe a biztonsági ellenőrzések miatt. Érdemes e-pénztárcát vagy kriptovalutát választani, ha gyors kifizetésre van szüksége.

Gyakran Ismételt Kérdések

Hogyan aktiválhatom az Energycasino no deposit bonus-t?

A regisztrációt követően a bónusz általában automatikusan megjelenik a fiókjában. Ha nem, lépjen a „Bónuszok” menüpontba, és kattintson az aktiválás gombra. Néhány esetben szükség lehet egy bónuszkód megadására.

Szükség van bónuszkódra az Energycasino no deposit bonus code használatához?

Nem mindig, de egyes promóciókhoz igen. Ha a kaszinó kódot igényel, azt a regisztrációs űrlapon vagy a befizetés előtt kell megadnia. A kódot általában a promóciós e-mailben vagy a weboldalon találja.

Milyen gyors az Energy casino kifizetés?

A kifizetés sebessége a választott módszertől függ. Az e-pénztárcás kifizetések 1–24 óra alatt, a kriptovaluták akár 1 óra alatt, a bankkártyás kifizetések pedig 1–3 munkanap alatt érkeznek meg.

Vannak-e korlátozások a no deposit bónusszal nyert összegre?

Igen, a legtöbb kaszinó maximális kifizetési limitet alkalmaz a no deposit bónuszoknál (pl. 50–100 €). Mindig olvassa el az adott ajánlat általános szerződési feltételeit.

Hogyan teljesíthetem a fogadási követelményeket?

A fogadási követelményeket a bónusz összegének (vagy a nyereménynek) a meghatározott szorzójával számolják. A teljesítéshez olyan játékokat válasszon, amelyek 100%-ban beszámítanak – általában a nyerőgépek a legjobbak. Kerülje az asztali játékokat, mert azok alacsonyabb beszámítási aránnyal rendelkeznek.

Mi történik, ha nem használom fel a bónuszt időben?

A bónuszok lejárati idővel rendelkeznek (pl. 7–30 nap). Ha ezen időszakon belül nem aktiválja vagy nem teljesíti a feltételeket, a bónusz és a hozzá kapcsolódó nyeremények elvesznek.

Lehetőség van a nyeremény kifizetésére kriptovalutában?

Igen, ha a kaszinó támogatja a kriptovalutákat. A Bitcoin és Ethereum kifizetés jellemzően gyors, de ellenőrizze, hogy a választott kriptovaluta szerepel-e a kifizetési módok között.

Záró gondolatok

Összefoglalva, a kaszinó számos lehetőséget kínál, de mindig ellenőrizze a bónuszfeltételeket, és játsszon felelősségteljesen. Reméljük, ez az útmutató segített eligazodni a regisztráció és kifizetés folyamatában.

09.27.13
by

Open Market.Org: Don’t Nudge On Me

In a recent New York Times column, David Brooks describes American culture as “mentally lazy.” Overcoming that, he argues, requires a dose of what he calls “social paternalism” in public policy.

Is he right?

I thought about that yesterday, as I drank a can of pink grapefruit-flavored San Pellegrino while sitting in an old family friend’s living room. The friend had just returned from swimming laps and wore Speedo jammers—knee-length, spandex-tight swim trunks, a jarring sight on an adult male. “Mary,” he said. “Here’s the problem with the media today: No one can just sit with someone they disagree with and listen to their point of view anymore.” (Was I not listening to a man in Speedo jammers with all manner of civility?)

He continued, “America wants a media outlet that will provide civil disagreement; she just doesn’t know it yet.”

He presented, in effect, an interesting anomaly. Conflict around an idea creates buzz. Yet, bombast causes sources to lose credibility with media consumers. “News” coverage and opinion pieces dwell in a Catch-22: The ridiculous get attention while the substantive get lost in the fray—and then the ridiculous get dismissed anyway. Subsequently, the public, though engaged in a whirlwind of dramatic press, tunes out.

Where I differ with AMiJ (Adult Male in Jammers) is on what it is the public wants. Why search for an even-keeled news sources when loud commentary and feuding pundits attract so many eyeballs? A talk show where two or more parties calmly discuss current events without exaggeration would not do as well as the over-the-top pundits.

 

It’s not just news. In the same thread, reality television gains traction. Trashy TV shows enter the cultural mainstream when we self-deprecatingly call, say, The Real Housewives a guilty pleasure. Yet, any time we watch or discuss such shows we encourage more of them being made. As much as Americans like to complain about the media, the ultimate responsibility for the media we consume lies not with newspaper or network executives, but with us.

So is David Brooks right that American culture is “mentally lazy”? Perhaps. But on whether that carries any implications for public policy, the answer is a firm, “No.” Neither government nor AMiJ knows any better what “we” want. Brooks and others may find biased, bombastic, or dumbed-down media objectionable, but so what?

——

Click here for the full article:

http://www.openmarket.org/2013/09/24/dont-nudge-on-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Openmarketorg+%28OpenMarket.org%29

09.25.13
by

Politico: NSA Chief Attributes Calls For Restriction of Government Surveillance on “Sensationalized” Reporting and “Media Leaks”

Gen. Keith Alexander is pictured. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

The leader of the embattled National Security Agency doubled down Wednesday  against calls from Capitol Hill to restrict U.S. government surveillance programs — a campaign  he attributed to “sensationalized” reporting and “media leaks.”

On the same day that key Senate lawmakers pledged to bring new oversight to  the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander mounted a public defense of his agency: He  stressed the intelligence community isn’t “listening to Americans’ phone calls  and reading their emails,” and he urged technology and government leaders to  help “get the facts out” and “get our nation to understand why we need these  tools” in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosures.

Speaking at a cybersecurity  conference in Washington, Alexander also commended companies for cooperating  with the federal government, and he made a plea for more power — particularly to  thwart terrorists who have elevated their activities to cyberspace.

“Over 950 people were killed in Kenya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan,” Alexander said at the Billington CyberSecurity Summit, referencing recent  violence in the region, “and we’re discussing more esoteric things here. Why?  Because we’ve stopped the terrorist attacks here.”

“We’ve been fortunate, and it’s not been luck,” the general continued. “It’s  our military that’s out [front], and it’s our intelligence community back here.  They can’t do it without tools. So we’re going to have a debate in this country:  Do we give up those tools? I’m concerned we’ll make the wrong decision.”

Alexander gave the speech before attending a classified meeting with  lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee — whose chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy  (D-Vt.), just this Tuesday called for sweeping changes to the NSA’s surveillance  powers.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and other lawmakers later  unveiled their own blueprint for surveillance reform. The package would reform  the secret court that authorizes government surveillance requests while limiting  the NSA’s ability to collect U.S. phone call logs in bulk.

“It is designed to set a high bar and serve as a measure for true  intelligence reform,” Wyden said at a news conference, emphasizing the proposed  legislation is “not cosmetic.”

Alexander heads back to the Hill on Thursday to testify before the Senate  Intelligence Committee, which is exploring the NSA’s data collection and  retention practices under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.  He’ll return again next week for an open session with Leahy’s panel.

Even against those strong political currents, however, Alexander fiercely  defended the NSA’s existing authorities.

The general repeatedly referenced Sept. 11, 2001, saying the intelligence  community had learned from those attacks that it “had to connect the dots.” Alexander pointed to the Boston tragedy and “the threats this summer” as he made  the case for “speed and agility” in intelligence gathering. The NSA leader also  rebuffed charges that his agency had siphoned up mounds of Americans’ personal  data. Pointing to Section 215, the provision in the PATRIOT Act under which the  NSA has sought telephone  call logs in bulk, Alexander emphasized: “There is no content, there  [are] no names, just the numbers. That’s it. That’s all we asked for.”

Alexander also appeared to defend tech companies like Google and Microsoft,  both of which are actively are fighting the federal government to release more  data about government surveillance requests. Speaking only generally about “industry,” Alexander said companies aren’t “driving up to the NSA” and “dumping” data. They’re doing “what the courts are directing them to provide,” Alexander said. “Our industry have taken a beating on this, and it’s wrong.”

———

Click below for the full article:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/nsa-chief-slams-sensationalized-reporting-97337.html

09.21.13
by

The Daily Beast: 4 Principles For a Libertarian National Security State – Part 4

4. Track the effectiveness.

 

Speaking of the TSA leads directly into a final way of minimizing the excesses and wastefulness of a national surveillance state. Every policy and every agency needs to be reviewed for effectiveness over time. On its 10-year anniversary, the TSA was the subject of a withering report by Reps. John Mica (R-Fla.) and Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who noted that $56 billion invested in making flying safer after 9/11 had not increased safety by any appreciable measure.

 

At the same, TSA personnel increased by 400 percent while passenger volume had increased by less than 12 percent. More recently, in July, the GAO released a report documenting a 27 percent increase in TSA-employee misconduct between 2010 and 2012.

 

A variety of books over the past few years—including Moises Naim’s new The End of Power and Matt Welch’s and my The Declaration of Independents (2011)—document the way in which power and authority is leaching out of traditional centralized authorities such as governments, corporations, and churches. This result is a change in the relationship between state and citizen, producer and consumer, priest and congregant. What was once a far more hierarchical, top-down, and force-fed relationship is much flatter and more voluntary. Companies must do more than ever to placate their workers and customers, and even the Catholic Church can no longer issue doctrine without regard for the reaction of believers.

 

Governments, of course, maintain more power but even they rest ultimately upon the consent of the governed. At least since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our own government has used real and imaginary threats to engage in behavior that is not just increasingly being revealed to the public (thank you, Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers) but being reviled as noxious, misguided, and offensive to basic civil liberties and freedom. It’s little wonder then, that the president’s and Congress’ approval ratings are so low. Would that they would recognize us as partners in the war on terror rather than as potential combatants. They might just make our world a bit safer and be able to get on with their jobs of actually governing.

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/14/four-principles-for-a-libertarian-national-security-state.html

09.20.13
by

The Daily Beast: 4 Principles For a Libertarian National Security State – Part 3

3. Target the bad guys.

 

Supporters of a massive, effectively unregulated surveillance state are constantly touting the benefits of dragnet-style reporting requirements and snooping. For instance, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) have said repeatedly that NSA logging of phone call metadata and internet traffic were instrumental in the 2009 arrests of Najibullah Zazi, who plotted to blow up New York’s subway system, and David Headley, who traveled to Mumbai to scope the Taj Mahal hotel for an attack. Yet it turns out that neither case provides any evidence for the efficacy of widespread surveillance programs.

 

Indeed, they point to the effectiveness of old-fashioned intelligence and police work, where authorities keep tabs on people and groups with well-known reputations for violence and terrorism (Zazi was picked up based on tips from British agents; as a former Drug Enforcment Adminstration informant (!), Headley was well-known to investigators).

 

Surveillance-state supporters are constantly invoking the “needle-in-the-haystack” metaphor, the idea being that finding terrorists requires patient sifting through huge mounds of extraneous material. It’s odd then, isn’t it, that the basic urge is always to increase the size of the haystack rather than decrease it. Consider how The PATRIOT Act vastly increased the number of “currency transaction reports” (CTRs) that banks needed to file with the federal government in the name of outing terrorist money flows. Originally created to help snag drug kingpins, some 12 million CTRs were being filed annually before 9/11—a number that was already overwhelming any ability to use the information effectively. Creating a bigger haystack isn’t a smart way to find bad guys hidden within.

 

The same dynamic is at work in arguably the most-visible and least-popular excresence of the war on terror: the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the imposition of invasive and time-consuming procedures at the nation’s airports. The threat of hijacked planes being used as missiles was effectively ended on the morning of 9/11 itself, when passengers charged hijackers on United Flt 93 and drove the plane into a Pennsylvania field. The barricading of cockpit doors shortly after 9/11 ended the possibility of a repeat of 9/11. Yet we continue to fund a massively expensive system to search all people boarding airplanes in a long-running exercise in “security theater” that accomplishes nothing.

 

09.19.13
by

The Daily Beast: 4 Principles For a Libertarian National Security State – Part 2

2. Legal authority is not optional.

Whether we’re discussing the use of drones, metadata dragnets, or anything else that seems creepy at first mention, the real anxiety stems from a lack of a clearly articulated and defensible legal framework. As disconcerting as it was to learn of a secret presidential kill list, it was far worse to realize that there was essentially no controlling legal authority which bound Barack Obama’s decisionmaking process. Similarly, recognizing that the NSA is not simply unwilling to follow the law but incapable of even understanding it is unacceptable.

No government—or branch of government—wants to have its decisions vetted by any sort of watchdog, but that’s the only way to minimize errors and build confidence that national security operations are not ultimately creating a government within a government. We have reached the point where the courts originally set up by 1978’s FISA (itself a product of an earlier era of massive violations of civil liberties), need a complete overhaul. If even sitting senators have trouble getting information about how and why the government is collecting information on citizens, something is wrong beyond repair.

The same is true for the foundational document in the War on Terror, which was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 and grants vague and sweeping powers to the president of the United States. It reads, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” A dozen years after the 9/11 attacks, any such declaration needs to be scrapped, rewritten, and voted on—in the cold light of day, not a hot flash of panic.

What was once a far more hierarchical, top-down, and force-fed relationship is much flatter and more voluntary.

 

09.18.13
by

The Daily Beast: 4 Principles For a Libertarian National Security State – Part 1

Like hits for Katy Perry, the scandals for the National Security Agency just keep coming. In the wake of revelations that the NSA has been tracking virtually every phone call ever made and sifting through Internet data like a crazed prospector panning for gold at Sutter’s Mill, there’s yet more disturbing news with every passing day.

The latest is that between 2006 and 2009, Politico reports, the NSA lied about its activities to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court charged with authorizing its snooping. Worse still, this outcome is a toxic mix of spy-agency overreach and bureaucratic incompetence. “An internal inquiry into the misstatements also found that no one at the NSA understood how the entire call-tracking program worked,” says Politico, which quotes an unnamed source who explains, “There was nobody at NSA who really had a full idea of how the program was operating at the time.”

This is as outrageous as it is dispiriting (and predictable). But a dozen years after the 9/11 attacks ushered in the global war on terror, there’s no reason that we should have to live in fear of our government’s efforts to keep us safe and warm. Here are four basic principles that should inform what might be called a libertarian national security state. That is, one that helps to protects us without routinely transgressing constitutional guarantees to privacy, due process, freedom from illegal searches, and the right to be left alone.

1. Transparency uber alles.

One of the main reasons that Barack Obama’s approval ratings are in the crapper is because of his epic failure to live up to his promise to run what he guaranteed would be the most transparent administration EVAH. That’s especially true when it comes to national security issues. Even the most hardened anti-terror hawks have been shocked by revelations of widespread secret drone strikes, extra-judicial kill lists, a war on leakers and journalists, and ubiquitous snooping on Americans.

However disturbing it was to learn of massive surveillance of law-abiding citizens in violation of restrictions on the NSA, it was made even worse by blatant lies to the American public. When Director of National Intelligence James Clapper flat-out lied under oath to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), there should have been immediate and visible consequences, both in terms of personnel and policy.

In an age of Wikileaks, Anonymous, Edward Snowden, and other ultimately unstoppable forces, transparency isn’t just a buzzword, like green energy or farm-fresh. It’s an eventuality and the first government that levels with its people about what it’s actually up to will be far stronger and resilient than one that is constantly hiding its activities. We’re grownups, for Christ’s sake, and if some sort of restriction on our freedoms or oversight on our activities is actually defensible and necessary for a legitimate security purpose, we’ll respond in a responsible way.

Every bullshit, after-the-fact rationalization drives a deeper wedge between citizens and government. White House press releases like the one issued on July 23 don’t help. “In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures,” it read, “the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens.” In such moments, Barack Obama moves beyond cynicism into the realm of pure insult.