The Truth About Russia’s “Anti-Gay” Law

The hysterical outcry against the Russian “anti-gay” law is a monumental public relations scam and has nothing to do with genuine concerns about gay rights. Find out what it’s really about in this video.

Read Brian Heiss’ white paper –…

The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia’s anti-gay laws –…

Russia’s anti-gay law is wrong — but so is some of the criticism from the west –…

Egypt: Protesters defy new anti-demonstrations law

In Cairo protests by hundreds of Egyptians continued into Tuesday night despite attempts by riot…

euronews, the most watched news channel in Europe Subscribe for your daily dose of international news, curated and explained: Euronews is available in 13 other languages:…
In Cairo protests by hundreds of Egyptians continued into Tuesday night despite attempts by riot police to disperse them.

Most of them were students defying a new law which bans demonstrations without prior police approval.

Activists have described the legislation as a violation of their right to protest.


UK Police State? ‘New law would ban protests, even imply thought crime’

In this episode of Going Underground, Afshin Rattansi talks to blogger Scriptonite on the new ASBO bill which could restrict protests around the country. The new law grants local authorities, police and even private security firms sweeping powers to bar citizens from assembling lawfully in public spaces. Afshin also looks at Britain’s plans to train Myanmar’s army on human rights and fact that not all UK citizens know Britain’s already in the the EU.

America : Ex-Navy SEAL says Government is creating conditions to impose Martial Law (Oct 15, 2013)

Dem Congresswoman Suggests “Martial Law” to End Government Shutdown…

Sheila Jackson Lee Suggests ‘Martial Law’ to End Government Shutdown…

Obama Is Trying To Provoke A Revolution…

Ft. Hood Gears Up For Financial Collapse…

White House targets veterans for political reasons…

Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?…

‘Martial law’ declared by Democrat in Congress…

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

BitTorrent ethics: Punishing piracy or criminalizing sharing?

BitTorrent ethics: Punishing piracy or criminalizing sharing?

If you live in a densely populated modern city, there is a strong chance that wireless network transmissions that are in breach of copyright law could be around you at this very moment.

  The decentralized network architecture known as peer-to-peer  (P2P) communications allows files of all kinds to be shared over  the internet with other users without monetary exchange, and  millions utilize this technology on daily basis. To some, this  kind of exchange represents a new paradigm shift in sharing arts  and culture that has the potential to empower new content  producers who would have otherwise been consumers, while giving  rise to a new decentralized economic model. To those who have a  stake in maintaining the pre-eminence of copyright laws over the  means of distribution, the millions who utilize these new habits  of consumption are likened to renegade sea-bandits in arms –   pirates – and they need to be stopped.  

  Most file-sharing is utilized through BitTorrent, and involves a  host website that supports an index of .torrent files that can be  downloaded in separate client applications. The content itself is  not stored on a single centralized hard drive, but rests on the  individual hard drives of millions of users who share their files  through a P2P network, making file-sharing very difficult to  regulate. The kinds of files that are shared range from films and  music to software and e-books. All of it is done without monetary  exchange, just as one would share the same kind of content with a  friend. Much like the printing press, cassette recorders, VCRs,  cable television, mp3 players and the like, the film studios of  Hollywood and the recording industry view such innovations as an  existential threat to their industries – and file-sharing has  become the present day object of a witch-hunt led by the Motion  Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its counterpart, the  Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).  

  Internet 2.0

  Before the digital age, information was exchanged through bulky  bundles of paper and plastic discs. The internet was originally  developed as a means to circumvent these physical limitations by  creating a decentralized network that would allow users to  connect to each other irrespective of their physical location.  From the perspective of the file-sharer, the internet is  functioning exactly as it was intended to. For the intellectual  property industries that are bent on punishing offenders of  copyright law (people who exchange copyrighted files), the  internet cannot be allowed to exist as it does now. As a result  of massive lobbying efforts, trends are emerging among lawmakers  to develop far-reaching regulations to govern the internet and  inalterably change the way it operates. The bottom line is that  industries and the corporations that control them want to pass  regulation to give the private sector sweeping central authority  over the internet and its content under the guise of protecting  intellectual property rights, while vastly expanding the duration  of existing copyrights. 

Photo by Steve Rhodes /

Photo by Steve Rhodes /


  The unregulated internet is arguably the most representative and  democratic feature of industrial societies, and the ideology of   ‘copyright fundamentalism’ threatens this medium of exchange.  Because file-sharing is done through private means and  decentralized networks, copyright law cannot be enforced without  violating the privacy of individual users through mass  surveillance that would monitor sharing habits. What could the  regulated Internet 2.0 look like? Based on the fine print of  bills that have failed to become law, a few ideas come to mind.  Websites and blogs can be taken down without court order over the  most marginal cases of copyright infringement; file-sharers would  have their bandwidth cut for using P2P and be subject to pay  steep fines; invasive hard drive searches by police and  immigration officials at airports, and more. The end-game for  corporate lobbyists is to persuade governments to deregulate and  liberalize markets and economic space while regulating  communication mediums like the internet to protect the  deregulation of the economic space that protects corporate  monopoly profits. It’s liberty for the markets. Not for you.

Game changer: Swiss banks ditch secrecy

Game changer: Swiss banks ditch secrecy

Switzerland, the world’s largest offshore wealth center, worth an estimated $2.2 trillion in assets, has signed an agreement to share financial information with nearly 60 other countries, which could completely change the country’s financial landscape.


The country has made a giant leap towards banking transparency   after it signed a convention with the Organization for Economic   Cooperation and Development (OECD) agreeing to exchange data with   60 member countries.

Switzerland already has bilateral tax collection agreements with   the UK and Austria, but the move to chip away another layer of   the country’s infamous banking secrecy was prompted by   international pressure from the US, Germany, and France,

The tax agreement, called the Multilateral Convention on Mutual   Administrative Assistance on Tax Matters came into force in 2010,   and includes all G20 states, and most European states. The convention   requires participants to pool tax collection information, and   includes automatic exchanges, in some cases.

Under the convention, the Swiss government can call on large   private banks like UBS AG, Julius Baer, and Credit Suisse Group   AG to turn over confidential information to international tax   watchdogs.

The crackdown on the tight-lipped policy could cost the Swiss   business, as the new policy may be a turn-off for foreign banks.   At the beginning of 2012, 145 foreign banks had offices in   Switzerland, and as of May 2013, 16 had left, according to data   from the Association of Foreign Banks in Switzerland.

Between 2008 and 2012, foreign bank assets decreased by $921   billion, as tax evasion eroded and clients withdrew money. 

New Minnesota State Law Bans Cancer-Causing Formaldehyde in Children’s Products, Stays in Vaccines

Lawmakers in the state of Minnesota have decided formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent, is too dangerous for children’s products. According to section 325F.175 of HF458, products containing formaldehyde are banned from being sold starting August 1st, 2014, for manufacturers and August 1st, 2015, for retailers. [1]

Finally, an answer to one of the many toxic ingredients being injected into your child?

Not so fast.

At first blush, it appears Minnesota is addressing at least one of the many toxic chemicals found in vaccines. However, a carefully crafted paragraph creates a loophole for excluding vaccines from this ban.

The Pharmaceutical Loophole

So, how is formaldehyde banned in toys and clothes but permitted to still be in vaccines? The new Minnesota state law exempts vaccines through this passage in a section entitled “[325F.174] DEFINITIONS.”

It reads:

“(c) “Children’s product” means a product primarily designed or intended by a manufacturer to be physically applied to or introduced into a child’s body, including any article used as a component of such a product and excluding a food, beverage, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical product or biologic, children’s toys that are covered by the ASTM International F963 standard for Toy Safety, or a medical device as defined in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, United States Code, title 21, section 321(h), as amended through February 15, 2013.” [1] (emphasis mine)

Frankly, I’m puzzled. Lawmakers don’t want your child to play with or put into their mouth products containing formaldehyde, but if your doctor injects it into your baby, it is perfectly fine?

Let’s Look at Which Vaccines Contain Formaldehyde

You may be asking, “Why is there formaldehyde in vaccines?”

The very short answer is this chemical has been used for over half a century in the vaccine manufacturing process. It was originally used as an attempt to inactivate the poliovirus in the first vaccines produced by Jonas Salk in the late 1940s and early 1950s. [2]


Formaldehyde did not inactivate all viruses in the vaccine. Do more research on the polio vaccine contamination with the cancer causing monkey virus, SV40.


After the polio vaccine, formaldehyde was heavily used in manufacturing pediatric vaccines.

To see how many vaccines contain this cancer-causing chemical today, let’s take a look at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia website. The formaldehyde content of vaccines licensed for use in the United States (quantity per dose converted from mg to mcg): [3]

Trade Name / Quantity (per dose)

  • Td / DT:  ≤ 20 mcg – 100 mcg
  • Daptacel: ≤ 100 mcg
  • Infanrix: ≤ 100 mcg
  • Tripedia: ≤ 100 mcg
  • Pediarix: ≤ 100 mcg
  • Havrix: ≤ 50 mcg (pediatric)
  • Vaqta: 4 mcg (pediatric)
  • Twinrix: ≤ 100 mcg
  • Comvax: < 0.4 mcg
  • IPOL: ≤20 mcg
  • JE-Vax: < 200 mcg
  • ADACEL: < 5 mcg
  • Boostrix: < 100 mcg
  • Fluarix: ≤ 5 mcg
  • FluLaval: < 25 mcg
  • Fluzone – intradermal: < 20 mcg

Get a closer look at the vaccine schedule to see how much formaldehyde will be injected into your child.

What Do The Experts Say?

There seem to be conflicting views as to how safe formaldehyde really is.

On the one hand, research on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website cautions us by saying, Formaldehyde can damage cells by binding to DNA and thereby forming formaldehyde-DNA adducts; this process may interfere with accurate DNA replication and lead to mutations and cancerous tumors.” [4] (emphasis mine)

This should be extremely concerning for you because within every vaccine product insert is the following passage: “This vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic [cancer-causing] or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.”

Personally, I take this as a very serious warning, especially since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be the ones making this evaluation.

The other side of the argument made by the FDA justifies formaldehyde in vaccines by stating, “The amount of formaldehyde present in some infant vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern, according to a study using a mathematical model developed by scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” [5] (emphasis mine)

Did you catch it?

Please remember this point: The assumption being made is based on a mathematical model. FDA experts should be ready to meet higher standards, in my opinion. Maybe that is why the FDA plays hot potato when answering the question?

Here are 7 basic questions I think parents should be asking at this point:

1. Was a mathematical model the only criteria used to make the determination formaldehyde was safe to inject into babies?

2. Did they test on animals? If so, what are the results and where is the data?

3. What scientific measurements are used to measure harm on infants?

4. What tests can I ask my doctor about right now to see if formaldehyde injured my child?

5. Not every baby is the same and has the same metabolism. Did their mathematical model compensate for different genetics or did it assume all children are the same?

6. What considerations were given to repeatedly injecting this chemical into infants potentially sensitizing them and creating lifelong allergies to formaldehyde?

7. Many pharmacists recommend not mixing drugs and, after all, vaccines are drugs. What are the synergistic effects of having multiple vaccine and ingredients, like mercury or aluminum, injected into your baby at the same time?

Here is the fatal flaw. The pharmaceutical literature cautions arrogant scientists from making large assumptions with “harmless” ingredients and children.

“Pharmaceutical products may contain, in addition to the active or therapeutic agent(s), a variety of other ingredients, termed inactive or inert, which are categorized as excipients or additives (flavorings, sweeteners, preservatives, stabilizers, diluents, lubricants, etc.). The words inert or inactive may be misnomers for some excipients because some have been shown to cause adverse effects. Neonates and young children are at risk for such effects because they may not be able to metabolize or eliminate an ingredient in a pharmaceutical product in the same manner as an adult.” (pp. 344) (emphasis mine)

Swarbrick, James and Boylan, James C. Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology. Vol. 11. 1995. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Are you sure there isn’t a hidden agenda?

Get the full list of vaccine ingredients being injected into your child right now by clicking on this link.


If legislatures are concerned with your children wearing clothes or playing with toys containing formaldehyde, why give pharmaceutical products that are injected a free pass?

At the end of the day, government officials do not know your child’s name or face. They care about keeping their jobs and making sure they uphold the policies put in place. The simple truth is this: Vaccine manufacturers are protected by law if your child suffers from an adverse reaction.

Lastly, as a starting reference point, I recommend you read an older but brutally honest review of what happens when formaldehyde is injected into animals by Martin H. Fischer entitled The Toxic Effects of Formaldehyde and Formalin. [6]

– See more at:

Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores

Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores

Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.

  The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an  August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained  steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force  against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate  Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.

  President Obama has decided to put off military action until at  least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of  Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.

  Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere  between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or  stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement  of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of  Syria.

  The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has  been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the  region.

  While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the  event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian  President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is  needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat  to any nation.

  Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed  off Syria’s shores.


  The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile  destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is   “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.

  The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each  armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range  of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for  precise targeting.

  The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable  of defending the vessels from air attacks.

  On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan,  but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in  the area for the time being.

  Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an  audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that  the US ships are prepared for what he called a “vast spectrum  of operations,” including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles  at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting  themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.

  In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have  one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria.  At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped  ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to  154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

  It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS  San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern  Mediterranean.

  The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of  Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern  Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,”   a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

  The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from  President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as  the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”

While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before  the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the  text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive  operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons  stockpiles and production facilities.

  On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had  moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be  part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria,  US officials told ABC News.

  The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton  and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS  Shoup.

  The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned  a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed  to “maximize available options.”  

The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also  in the northern Arabian Sea.


  Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its  only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus,  which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number  of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists  recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are  not in response to Western threats of a military strike.

  Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming  from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been  confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation  of the reported ship movements, though no comment was  forthcoming.

  On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai  Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port  city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of  Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the  Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.

“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take  on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its  combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.

  RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying  on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the  Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and  missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the  month.

  The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the  Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.

  Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to  comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy  currently had a “pretty strong group” there.

  “The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or  indirectly in a possible regional conflict,” he told the state  Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

“Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of  peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start  military action in the region.”

  Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the  frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander  Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

  They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser  Moskva.

  The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will  take over operations from a naval unit in the region.

“The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral  Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a  Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of  Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern  Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral  Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the  Russian Navy,” a source told Interfax on Wednesday.

  Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean  Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of  Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force  as its flagship.

  The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on  its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk,  the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on  Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.


  On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate  Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities,  and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean.  French officials denied they are in the region to participate in  military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in  training and operation preparations.

  Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no  ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the  air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those  the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time  reports.


  Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid  to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim  Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France  Presse reported.

  The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a  torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy’s southeastern coast  on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the  soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.


  As of August 29, the Royal Navy’s Response Force Task Group was  deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise  Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious,  type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious  warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.     The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also  believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in  Gibraltar.

  On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s   “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event  of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote  endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of  the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William  Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic  support.”

The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that  the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.  

Tor anonymity network could be ‘easily compromised,’ researcher says

Tor anonymity network could be ‘easily compromised,’ researcher says

Following revelations of mass online surveillance and encryption backdoors installed by the National Security Agency, some users have flocked to the Tor router service – although experts warn that it may not be as secure as once thought.

Tor, short for “The Onion Router,” has experienced a major uptick in subscribers since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details about the US government’s vast internet surveillance programs.

The service – which for years accepted funding from US government entities – has doubled its customer base, thanks to a growing number of people who wish to conceal their online communication, search queries, and home location from the government.

The most recent Snowden leak, which disclosed that the NSA uses backdoors to crack web encryption, may have alarmed Tor users by revealing that US and British intelligence agencies have also targeted the very anonymity services that Tor counts itself among. The NSA has allegedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars annually to “covertly influence” tech companies, and even planted undercover agents within major corporations.  

Unfortunately for the thousands of people who rely on Tor, many of the devices they use to connect to its servers could still be infiltrated by the NSA. This is partly due to only 10 percent of Tor servers using its latest iteration which boasts stronger cryptography.

Rob Graham, the CEO of penetration testing firm Errata Security, told Ars Technica that he ran a “hostile” exit node on Tor and found that 76 percent of the nearly 23,000 connections he tracked used a form of the 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman key.

The NSA’s exact capabilities have yet to be made public, but most security experts assume the agency could easily crack the key Graham observed.

Everyone seems to agree that if anything, the NSA can break 1024 RSA/DH keys,” Graham wrote in a blog post. “Assuming no ‘breakthroughs,’ the NSA can spend $1 billion on custom chips that can break such a key in a few hours. We know the NSA builds custom chips, they’ve got fairly public deals with IBM foundries to build chips.”

He also advised users to take responsibility for themselves by consistently updating their Tor software package and thoroughly reading through NSA documents that have been made public.

Of course, this is just guessing about the NSA’s capabilities,” Graham continued. “As it turns out, the newer elliptical keys may turn out to be relatively easier to crack than people thought, meaning that older software may in fact be more secure.”

It has been made public that the Department of Defense provided Tor with $876,099 in 2012 – a sum large enough to make up 40 percent of the project’s $2 million budget. Other government donors included the US State Department and the National Science Foundation.

Though the NSA itself is housed under the Department of Defense, Tor’s executive director Andrew Lewman has said that the intelligence agency has not requested a backdoor into the system.

The parts of the US and Swedish governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future,” Lewman explain in an email to customers, as quoted by The Washington Post. “Don’t assume that ‘the government’ is one coherent entity with one mindset.”

The big three: Sweden reacts to report of intel cooperation with NSA, GCHQ

The big three: Sweden reacts to report of intel cooperation with NSA, GCHQ

Sweden’s leaders came forward to express deep concern after a report alleged that the country’s spy agency has close ties with the NSA and GCHQ, and is the third major partner in surveillance cooperation.

“It’s a very serious matter if Sweden is indeed involved in American surveillance programs,” Green Party IT policy spokeswoman Maria Ferm told Sweden’s The Local. “I’m very concerned about the information that came up in the hearing,” she said.

According to a report in the Metro daily, investigative journalist Duncan Campbell disclosed information about Sweden’s ties to the NSA during a hearing on the wiretapping scandal of a committee in the European Parliament.

Campbell revealed that the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) provided the NSA and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) access to Baltic underwater cables. He added that Sweden was the third major partner in surveillance cooperation.

The FRA declined to comment on the report.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, which was created to research the wiretapping scandal, launched a series of hearings on Thursday.

The goal of the committee is to find out how EU citizens have been affected by US and UK surveillance.

“It’s deeply troubling if Sweden is participating in surveillance operations that are as extensive as those of the United States and that attempt to circumvent national laws,” stated Ferm.

Sweden’s Democracy Minister, Birgitta Ohlsson of the Liberal Party (Folkpartiet), also expressed her concern.

“I absolutely think this is not good. I’ve also been engaged in issues related to personal privacy and transparency in Sweden and I think in all countries, including Sweden, the EU, and the United States…that things have gone too far,” she said during an interview with Sveriges Television (SVT).

Other politicians were not surprised by the revelations.

“It’s hard for me to be surprised by information about FRA/NSA cooperation. Been convinced the whole time that the point of FRA is to provide the USA more info,” Fredrik Federley of the Centre Party wrote on his Twitter account. Federley is a critic of the controversial “FRA-law” in Sweden, which gives the government the power to eavesdrop on telephone calls and internet traffic.

In response to the allegations, Defense Minister Karin Enström of the Moderate Party said in a statement that Sweden’s intelligence cooperation with other countries is “critical for our security,” with rules that “balance security and privacy interests.”

“Intelligence operations occur within a framework with clear legislation, with strict controls, and under parliamentary oversight,” the statement read.

Politicians have stepped forward in Sweden, demanding that the government come clean.

Foreign policy spokesman for the Left Party, Hans Linde, called for the government to “put all its cards on the table” with respect to how Swedish and US intelligence agencies cooperate.

Ferm also asked the government to explain what really happened. “The government needs to tell us what’s going on,” she said, adding that she has called on Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and Justice Minister Beatrice Ask to answer questions in parliament.

News of the report emerged just one day after additional top-secret documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden were leaked to the media. The information revealed that the NSA and GCHQ have circumvented encryption methods used to secure emails, chats, and essentially most internet traffic that was previously thought to be protected.