ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Mar 7 16 6:58 PM
Step one: book guest speaker. Step two: pay guest speaker. How hard can it be? Well, if the guest speaker is Edward Snowden, the man who spilled the secrets of the US espionage complex, the answer is: pretty hard. Think Inc is an an "edu-tainment" company that specialises in bringing prominent intellectuals to Australia for speaking tours. Their latest venture is a virtual tour by Snowden, currently in hiding in Russia and one of the most wanted men on the planet, who will appear via video link. His physical absence, however, has not been enough to prevent two foreign exchange companies, a large venue, and a major credit card company from refusing to be associated with the tour. Sydney-based Desh Amila, 34, is one half of Think Inc. Amila and his partner, Suzi Jamil, 24, are currently escorting US string theorist Dr Brian Greene around the country, and past guests have included cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, neuroscientist Sam Harris and former Islamist-turned-UK-politician Maajid Nawaz. Through various arcane means last year, they managed to make contact with Snowden and convince him to speak. That's where the problems started. Amila said that once contact had been made with Mr Snowden and agreement reached on the tour, Think Inc had attempted in December to lodge a deposit into a bank account nominated by Snowden's lawyer. The company chosen to handle the transfer, UK-based and Australian registered foreign exchange company World First Pty Ltd, at first agreed to make the transaction, but then sent an email advising that it was "unable to facilitate payment to the named individual due to compliance restriction".
Step one: book guest speaker. Step two: pay guest speaker. How hard can it be?
Well, if the guest speaker is Edward Snowden, the man who spilled the secrets of the US espionage complex, the answer is: pretty hard.
Think Inc is an an "edu-tainment" company that specialises in bringing prominent intellectuals to Australia for speaking tours. Their latest venture is a virtual tour by Snowden, currently in hiding in Russia and one of the most wanted men on the planet, who will appear via video link. His physical absence, however, has not been enough to prevent two foreign exchange companies, a large venue, and a major credit card company from refusing to be associated with the tour.
Sydney-based Desh Amila, 34, is one half of Think Inc. Amila and his partner, Suzi Jamil, 24, are currently escorting US string theorist Dr Brian Greene around the country, and past guests have included cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, neuroscientist Sam Harris and former Islamist-turned-UK-politician Maajid Nawaz. Through various arcane means last year, they managed to make contact with Snowden and convince him to speak. That's where the problems started.
Amila said that once contact had been made with Mr Snowden and agreement reached on the tour, Think Inc had attempted in December to lodge a deposit into a bank account nominated by Snowden's lawyer.
The company chosen to handle the transfer, UK-based and Australian registered foreign exchange company World First Pty Ltd, at first agreed to make the transaction, but then sent an email advising that it was "unable to facilitate payment to the named individual due to compliance restriction".
Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/national/edward-snowden-australian-tour-dogged-by-corporate-boycotts-20160304-gnadsi.html
In his first Australian interview, Edward Snowden talks for 90 minutes via video about his life in exile and how the internet that has enabled mass surveillance can also be a force for good. In the language of cyber-security, surveillance and spying, history is divided into two eras: pre-Snowden, and post-Snowden. The break in the timeline happened in May 2013, when Edward Snowden, a then-30 year-old computer systems administrator with US security company Booz Allen Hamilton, copied a vast tranche of top-secret information, fled to Hong Kong, and passed much of it on to a couple of journalists. His actions had several profound effects. They revealed the staggering extent of mass surveillance conducted, in particular, by the "Five Eyes" alliance of US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British security agencies. They resulted in espionage charges that make him, easily, America's most wanted fugitive. They resulted in him receiving temporary asylum in Russia. They made him an instantly recognisable icon of popular culture. And they made him a bridge across history. It is not a depiction he likes. "I don't see myself as such a personally significant figure," he told The Age. The journalists to whom he first passed his copied information, he said, were the truly important figures in the story, because they were "in contest with the government for what we should know, for what we should be allowed to know."
In his first Australian interview, Edward Snowden talks for 90 minutes via video about his life in exile and how the internet that has enabled mass surveillance can also be a force for good.
In the language of cyber-security, surveillance and spying, history is divided into two eras: pre-Snowden, and post-Snowden.
The break in the timeline happened in May 2013, when Edward Snowden, a then-30 year-old computer systems administrator with US security company Booz Allen Hamilton, copied a vast tranche of top-secret information, fled to Hong Kong, and passed much of it on to a couple of journalists.
His actions had several profound effects. They revealed the staggering extent of mass surveillance conducted, in particular, by the "Five Eyes" alliance of US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British security agencies. They resulted in espionage charges that make him, easily, America's most wanted fugitive. They resulted in him receiving temporary asylum in Russia. They made him an instantly recognisable icon of popular culture.
And they made him a bridge across history. It is not a depiction he likes.
"I don't see myself as such a personally significant figure," he told The Age.
The journalists to whom he first passed his copied information, he said, were the truly important figures in the story, because they were "in contest with the government for what we should know, for what we should be allowed to know."
Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/world/exclusive-edward-snowden-speaks-to-andrew-masterson-about-living-in-exile-20160301-gn76xs.html
Strange those sentences used I have read repeatedly since the Snowden revelations….. almost like they are rehearsed….. this is what you say and stick to it kind of thing.
Edward Snowden, the former contractor who leaked National Security Agency secrets, fired back on Friday after being accused of treason by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas during the previous night’s GOP debate. Mr. Cruz said the former NSA analyst committed treason when he leaked national security documents detailing the spy agency’s intelligence-gathering operations. “The evidence is clear that not only [did] Snowden violate the law, but it appears he committed treason. Treason is defined under the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America, and what Snowden did made it easier for terrorists to avoid detection,” Mr. Cruz said during Thursday’s GOP debate, hosted by Fox News, in Detroit. “Aiding the public is treason only if the voter is your enemy,” Mr. Snowdentweeted. The Department of Justice has charged Mr. Snowden, 32, with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified intelligence as a result of disclosing sensitive NSA documents to the press in 2013. He has resided in Russia since being granted asylum later that year.
Edward Snowden, the former contractor who leaked National Security Agency secrets, fired back on Friday after being accused of treason by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas during the previous night’s GOP debate.
Mr. Cruz said the former NSA analyst committed treason when he leaked national security documents detailing the spy agency’s intelligence-gathering operations.
“The evidence is clear that not only [did] Snowden violate the law, but it appears he committed treason. Treason is defined under the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America, and what Snowden did made it easier for terrorists to avoid detection,” Mr. Cruz said during Thursday’s GOP debate, hosted by Fox News, in Detroit.
“Aiding the public is treason only if the voter is your enemy,” Mr. Snowdentweeted.
The Department of Justice has charged Mr. Snowden, 32, with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified intelligence as a result of disclosing sensitive NSA documents to the press in 2013. He has resided in Russia since being granted asylum later that year.
Read more @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/4/edward-snowden-on-ted-cruz-debate-slam-treason-onl/?
As of right now, none of the presidential candidates have even come close to supporting Edward Snowden. In fact, candidates have called him a traitor, a spy, and stated that he's committed treason. The facts are Snowden broke the law, but in turn, exposed illegal government activity to the American people. So did Snowden actually do something illegal or commit treason? That's where the 'which came first, the chicken or egg' argument comes into play, but it seems as if all of the presidential candidates have stated the chicken clearly committed treason. Maybe I'm not surprised that none of the candidates have spoken in favor of Snowden, but I just thought that if there was someone who would stand up for him, it would be Bernie Sanders. When asked about the issue, Sanders has stated "I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American public ... he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that." But Sanders also has stated that he would shut down the NSA and was one of the very few who voted against the Patriot Act. And just recently, Sanders tweeted out: 'In my view, the NSA is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner.'
As of right now, none of the presidential candidates have even come close to supporting Edward Snowden. In fact, candidates have called him a traitor, a spy, and stated that he's committed treason. The facts are Snowden broke the law, but in turn, exposed illegal government activity to the American people. So did Snowden actually do something illegal or commit treason? That's where the 'which came first, the chicken or egg' argument comes into play, but it seems as if all of the presidential candidates have stated the chicken clearly committed treason.
Maybe I'm not surprised that none of the candidates have spoken in favor of Snowden, but I just thought that if there was someone who would stand up for him, it would be Bernie Sanders. When asked about the issue, Sanders has stated "I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American public ... he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that." But Sanders also has stated that he would shut down the NSA and was one of the very few who voted against the Patriot Act. And just recently, Sanders tweeted out: 'In my view, the NSA is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner.'
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-gipple/why-wont-bernie-sanders-s_b_9388728.html
Trump jumped up and down wanting Snowden killed at the beginning of Snowden’s revelations…. And not to forget that America stranded Snowden in Russia…. So calling him a Russian spy is ridiculous to say the least.
The Kremlin has dismissed Donald Trump’s comments that whistleblower Edward Snowden is “a spy” who Russia needs to return to the U.S., Russian state news agency RIA Novosti has reported. Snowden, an ex-National Security Agency contractor, has been charged with three felony counts, including violations of the U.S. Espionage Act, for leaking documents about top secret mass surveillance programs. He has been living in exile in Moscow for over two years. Trump, who is campaigning to become the Republican party presidential nominee, gave his opinion on Snowden during the 11th candidate’s debate on Thursday night.
The Kremlin has dismissed Donald Trump’s comments that whistleblower Edward Snowden is “a spy” who Russia needs to return to the U.S., Russian state news agency RIA Novosti has reported.
Snowden, an ex-National Security Agency contractor, has been charged with three felony counts, including violations of the U.S. Espionage Act, for leaking documents about top secret mass surveillance programs. He has been living in exile in Moscow for over two years.
Trump, who is campaigning to become the Republican party presidential nominee, gave his opinion on Snowden during the 11th candidate’s debate on Thursday night.
Read more @ http://www.newsweek.com/kremlin-rebuffs-donald-trumps-snowden-claims-433332
Although the U.S. government has yet to formally charge NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden with treason, each of the four GOP candidates at the latest debate has openly called Snowden a "traitor." While the remaining GOP candidates have spoken out against National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, calling him a “traitor,” the United States government has yet to formally charge him with treason. Federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against the former NSA contractor in June 2013, after he leaked a collection of mass surveillance documents which revealed to the public that the NSA was collecting the phone records of American citizens. The complaint stated that Snowden is facing a charge of “theft of government property,” along with charges of “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” which were both brought under the Espionage Act of 1917.
Although the U.S. government has yet to formally charge NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden with treason, each of the four GOP candidates at the latest debate has openly called Snowden a "traitor."
While the remaining GOP candidates have spoken out against National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, calling him a “traitor,” the United States government has yet to formally charge him with treason.
Federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against the former NSA contractor in June 2013, after he leaked a collection of mass surveillance documents which revealed to the public that the NSA was collecting the phone records of American citizens.
The complaint stated that Snowden is facing a charge of “theft of government property,” along with charges of “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” which were both brought under the Espionage Act of 1917.
Read more @ http://truthinmedia.com/gop-candidates-call-snowden-traitor-us-yet-to-charge-treason/
The fact is Russia didn’t have too as there are no extradition agreements with Russia, and the charges against Snowden would have meant a death sentence, so Russia did the right thing in giving him asylum. It appears America was afraid of all the information being leaked of their illegal spying, and on leaders of other countries….. leader’s who were friends with America.
US Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said that Russia should have sent whistleblower Edward Snowden back to the United States. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – Former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden started making revelations about widespread US global surveillance in 2013. The same year, Russia granted the whistleblower temporary asylum for one year. In August 2014, Snowden received a three-year residence permit to live in Russia. "Edward Snowden is a spy, and if Russia respected us they would have sent him back immediately," Trump said on Thursday night during a Republican debate in Detroit, as quoted by The Atlantic. In the United States, Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison on charges of espionage and theft of government property. He currently works with academics, technologists and engineers on privacy solutions and collaborates with the US-based Freedom of the Press Foundation.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – Former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden started making revelations about widespread US global surveillance in 2013.
The same year, Russia granted the whistleblower temporary asylum for one year. In August 2014, Snowden received a three-year residence permit to live in Russia.
"Edward Snowden is a spy, and if Russia respected us they would have sent him back immediately," Trump said on Thursday night during a Republican debate in Detroit, as quoted by The Atlantic.
In the United States, Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison on charges of espionage and theft of government property.
He currently works with academics, technologists and engineers on privacy solutions and collaborates with the US-based Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/world/20160304/1035756909/Russia-Should-Have-Sent-Snowden-to-US.html
The national security whistleblower talks to the Free State Project from an undisclosed location in Russia. "There's a very real difference between allegiance to country–allegiance to people–than allegiance to state, which is what nationalism today is really more about," says Edward Snowden. On February 20, the whistleblowing cybersecurity expert addressed a wide range of questions during an in-depth interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Liberty Forum, a gathering of the Free State Project (FSP) in Manchester, New Hampshire. FSP seeks to move 20,000 people over the next five years to New Hampshire, where they will secure "liberty in our lifetime" by affecting the political, economic, and cultural climate of the state. Over 1,900 members have already migrated to the state and their impact is already being felt. Among their achievements to date: getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists. For more on FSP and Liberty Forum, go here. Snowden's cautionary tale about the dangers of state surveillance wasn't lost on his audience of libertarians and anarchists who reside in the "Live Free or Die" state. He believes that technology has given rise to unprecedented freedom for individuals around the world—but he says so from an undisclosed location in authoritarian Russia. And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening. "They know more about us than they ever have in the history of the United States," Snowden warns. "They're excusing themselves from accountability to us at the same time they're trying to exert greater power over us." In the midst of a fiercely contested presidential race, Snowden remains steadfast in his distrust of partisan politics and declined to endorse any particular candidate or party, or even to label his beliefs. "I do see sort of a clear distinction between people who have a larger faith in liberties and rights than they do in states and institutions," he grants. "And this would be sort of the authoritarian/libertarian axis in the traditional sense. And I do think it’s clear that if you believe in the progressive liberal tradition, which is that people should have greater capability to act freely, to make their own choices, to enjoy a better and freer life over the progression of sort of human life, you’re going to be pushing away from that authoritarian axis at all times."
"There's a very real difference between allegiance to country–allegiance to people–than allegiance to state, which is what nationalism today is really more about," says Edward Snowden. On February 20, the whistleblowing cybersecurity expert addressed a wide range of questions during an in-depth interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Liberty Forum, a gathering of the Free State Project (FSP) in Manchester, New Hampshire.
FSP seeks to move 20,000 people over the next five years to New Hampshire, where they will secure "liberty in our lifetime" by affecting the political, economic, and cultural climate of the state. Over 1,900 members have already migrated to the state and their impact is already being felt. Among their achievements to date:
getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists.
For more on FSP and Liberty Forum, go here.
Snowden's cautionary tale about the dangers of state surveillance wasn't lost on his audience of libertarians and anarchists who reside in the "Live Free or Die" state. He believes that technology has given rise to unprecedented freedom for individuals around the world—but he says so from an undisclosed location in authoritarian Russia.
And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening.
"They know more about us than they ever have in the history of the United States," Snowden warns. "They're excusing themselves from accountability to us at the same time they're trying to exert greater power over us."
In the midst of a fiercely contested presidential race, Snowden remains steadfast in his distrust of partisan politics and declined to endorse any particular candidate or party, or even to label his beliefs. "I do see sort of a clear distinction between people who have a larger faith in liberties and rights than they do in states and institutions," he grants. "And this would be sort of the authoritarian/libertarian axis in the traditional sense. And I do think it’s clear that if you believe in the progressive liberal tradition, which is that people should have greater capability to act freely, to make their own choices, to enjoy a better and freer life over the progression of sort of human life, you’re going to be pushing away from that authoritarian axis at all times."
Read more @ http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/25/edward-snowden
Edward Snowden’s recent appearance at the Liberty Forum made headlines all over. He also got Manchester morning radio talking, as WFEA’s wake-up host Jared Goodell had me on last week to discuss Snowden:
The passing of Harper Lee Harper, author of "To Kill A Mockingbird," brings to mind the character of Atticus Finch and his similarity to the real man Edward Snowden. Attorney Finch incurred the wrath of his Alabama community by defending a black man against a false rape charge, as Snowden has incurred the wrath of many Americans with his disclosure of unconstitutional NSA spying. Both men did what they thought was right, knowing full well that their actions would result in serious negative consequences to themselves and their families. The book "To Kill A Mockingbird" has had a profound impact on the United States as it shined a bright light on racism, sexism and class differences. It will be interesting to see if Snowden's actions will have a similar impact on American society, especially given the FBI's recent demand for Apple to "unlock" their phones. I am reminded of Ben Franklin's famous statement, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The passing of Harper Lee Harper, author of "To Kill A Mockingbird," brings to mind the character of Atticus Finch and his similarity to the real man Edward Snowden. Attorney Finch incurred the wrath of his Alabama community by defending a black man against a false rape charge, as Snowden has incurred the wrath of many Americans with his disclosure of unconstitutional NSA spying.
Both men did what they thought was right, knowing full well that their actions would result in serious negative consequences to themselves and their families.
The book "To Kill A Mockingbird" has had a profound impact on the United States as it shined a bright light on racism, sexism and class differences. It will be interesting to see if Snowden's actions will have a similar impact on American society, especially given the FBI's recent demand for Apple to "unlock" their phones.
I am reminded of Ben Franklin's famous statement, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Read more @ http://www.eagletribune.com/opinion/what-atticus-finch-and-edward-snowden-teach-us/article_2066dcd8-36c6-5195-8dd8-891d3f9cbb7d.html
Got to see this movie when it comes out, I love the Bourne movies!
Jason Bourne is coming back! Matt Damon will once again star as the superspy Jason Bourne in the fifth instalment of the "Bourne" film series. The highly anticipated action film now has the official title "Jason Bourne." After nine years, the loved trained assassin is finally coming back and fans are excited to witness another action-packed film. Damon himself is happy that he was able to reprise his role. The actor has revealed that he waited for the right time before deciding to come back. "We were really happy with the three films and if we were going to do another one, we wanted it to fit in with the three films in terms of quality," the actor said during an interview with Entertainment Weekly. Since they are after the quality of the film, they looked for a good story to tell. According to the Oscar winner actor, the story will be based on the events about the NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden. "Jason Bourne" will be about national security and the hidden agenda of the U.S. government to spy on everyone.
Jason Bourne is coming back!
Matt Damon will once again star as the superspy Jason Bourne in the fifth instalment of the "Bourne" film series. The highly anticipated action film now has the official title "Jason Bourne."
After nine years, the loved trained assassin is finally coming back and fans are excited to witness another action-packed film. Damon himself is happy that he was able to reprise his role. The actor has revealed that he waited for the right time before deciding to come back.
"We were really happy with the three films and if we were going to do another one, we wanted it to fit in with the three films in terms of quality," the actor said during an interview with Entertainment Weekly.
Since they are after the quality of the film, they looked for a good story to tell. According to the Oscar winner actor, the story will be based on the events about the NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden. "Jason Bourne" will be about national security and the hidden agenda of the U.S. government to spy on everyone.
Read more @ http://www.mnrdaily.com/article/jason-bourne-movie-update-bourne-5-inspired-from-edward-snowden-story/8885.htm
US government bugged the phones of UN refugee agency officials and EU leaders, WikiLeaks releases claim
The NSA listened in on phone conversations between a number of world leaders, WikiLeaks claims Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has published top secret documents which they claim show the US intercepted private communications between German chancellor Angela Merkel and UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon. The recently released documents also claim to show America's National Security Agency (NSA) listened in on exchanges between other allied heads of state and the UN refugee agency. One of the phone conversations apparently recorded by the NSA was between Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, in which the two allied leaders discussed how Italy could help repair Israel's relationship with the US in 2010.
The NSA listened in on phone conversations between a number of world leaders, WikiLeaks claims
Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has published top secret documents which they claim show the US intercepted private communications between German chancellor Angela Merkel and UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon.
The recently released documents also claim to show America's National Security Agency (NSA) listened in on exchanges between other allied heads of state and the UN refugee agency.
One of the phone conversations apparently recorded by the NSA was between Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, in which the two allied leaders discussed how Italy could help repair Israel's relationship with the US in 2010.
Read more @ http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikileaks-nsa-spying-us-government-merkel-netanyahu-berlusconi-refugees-a6890871.html
The spying of German Chancellor Angela Merkel by the U.S. is wider than first thought after it was revealed intelligence officials tapped talks between her and the head of the UN, according to German media. Citing classified documents released by WikiLeaks, it is alleged that the U.S. National Security Agency gathered information on a 2008 conversation she held with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on climate change. According to the report in Sueddeutche Zeitung, the exchange occurred ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit.
The spying of German Chancellor Angela Merkel by the U.S. is wider than first thought after it was revealed intelligence officials tapped talks between her and the head of the UN, according to German media.
Citing classified documents released by WikiLeaks, it is alleged that the U.S. National Security Agency gathered information on a 2008 conversation she held with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on climate change.
According to the report in Sueddeutche Zeitung, the exchange occurred ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3460506/US-spying-Merkel-wider-revealed-Intelligence-agency-tapped-conversations-Secretary-General-Ban-Ki-moon.html
Berlin (AFP) - US intelligence spied on talks German Chancellor Angela Merkel held with the UN chief and key European leaders, a German newspaper reported Tuesday citing classified documents released by WikiLeaks. The US National Security Agency (NSA), which drew fire for tapping Merkel's mobile phone, also gathered information on a 2008 conversation about climate change she held with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily said. In the exchange ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit, Merkel said the world expected the EU to take a leading role on the issue, while Ban praised Merkel's personal engagement on tackling climate change, the report said. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in an online statement that "today we showed that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies". German-US relations were badly strained after fugitive US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed widespread US foreign surveillance, including tapping Merkel's mobile phone.
Berlin (AFP) - US intelligence spied on talks German Chancellor Angela Merkel held with the UN chief and key European leaders, a German newspaper reported Tuesday citing classified documents released by WikiLeaks.
The US National Security Agency (NSA), which drew fire for tapping Merkel's mobile phone, also gathered information on a 2008 conversation about climate change she held with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily said.
In the exchange ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit, Merkel said the world expected the EU to take a leading role on the issue, while Ban praised Merkel's personal engagement on tackling climate change, the report said.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in an online statement that "today we showed that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies".
German-US relations were badly strained after fugitive US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed widespread US foreign surveillance, including tapping Merkel's mobile phone.
Read more @ http://news.yahoo.com/us-surveillance-merkel-wider-thought-wikileaks-142951516.html
Apple’s battle with the FBI is not about privacy v security, but a conflict created by the US failure to legitimately oversee its security service post Snowden The showdown between Apple and the FBI is not, as many now claim, a conflict between privacy and security. It is a conflict about legitimacy. America’s national security agencies insist on wielding unaccountable power coupled with “trust us, we’re the good guys”, but the majority of users have no such trust. Terrorism is real, and surveillance can sometimes help prevent it, but the only path to sustainable accommodation between technologies of secrecy and adequately informed policing is through a root-and-branch reform of the checks and balances in the national security system.
Apple’s battle with the FBI is not about privacy v security, but a conflict created by the US failure to legitimately oversee its security service post Snowden
The showdown between Apple and the FBI is not, as many now claim, a conflict between privacy and security. It is a conflict about legitimacy.
America’s national security agencies insist on wielding unaccountable power coupled with “trust us, we’re the good guys”, but the majority of users have no such trust. Terrorism is real, and surveillance can sometimes help prevent it, but the only path to sustainable accommodation between technologies of secrecy and adequately informed policing is through a root-and-branch reform of the checks and balances in the national security system.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/22/snowden-government-trust-encryption-apple-fbi
With Apple calling on the government to withdraw its demand that the company create a tool to unlock the iPhone in the San Bernardino case, it seems the FBI does have a plan B – albeit a long-winded and highly uncertain one. Edward Snowden says that FBI claims that it cannot access the phone without Apple’s help are not quite true. “The problem is, the FBI has other means… They told the courts they didn’t, but they do,” Snowden said during a virtual talk hosted by Johns Hopkins University. “The FBI does not want to do this.” The technique Snowden described is known as chip de-capping, and involves physically attacking the chip in order to probe its contents. Four cyber security researchers contacted by ABC News confirmed that the technique is real, but far from certain to succeed … IOActive Senior Security Consultant Andrew Zonenberg described how it works.
With Apple calling on the government to withdraw its demand that the company create a tool to unlock the iPhone in the San Bernardino case, it seems the FBI does have a plan B – albeit a long-winded and highly uncertain one. Edward Snowden says that FBI claims that it cannot access the phone without Apple’s help are not quite true.
“The problem is, the FBI has other means… They told the courts they didn’t, but they do,” Snowden said during a virtual talk hosted by Johns Hopkins University. “The FBI does not want to do this.”
The technique Snowden described is known as chip de-capping, and involves physically attacking the chip in order to probe its contents. Four cyber security researchers contacted by ABC News confirmed that the technique is real, but far from certain to succeed …
IOActive Senior Security Consultant Andrew Zonenberg described how it works.
Read more @ http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/22/fbi-iphone-hack-chip-de-capping/
The FBI and Apple are in a heated public relations battle over a court order that compels the company to create a tool to help the government unlock a smartphone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. But it's hard to tell which side is winning Americans' hearts and minds in the court of public opinion. One recent Pew Research Poll found that just over 50 percent of Americans sided with the FBI, and only 38 percent supported Apple's position. Now another poll released Wednesday by Reuters and market research firm Ipsos found stronger support for Apple, with 46 percent on their side, versus 35 percent for the FBI's position. But if you dig into the details of the surveys, it's clear that Americans' position on the dispute really comes down to how you ask about it.
The FBI and Apple are in a heated public relations battle over a court order that compels the company to create a tool to help the government unlock a smartphone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. But it's hard to tell which side is winning Americans' hearts and minds in the court of public opinion.
One recent Pew Research Poll found that just over 50 percent of Americans sided with the FBI, and only 38 percent supported Apple's position. Now another poll released Wednesday by Reuters and market research firm Ipsos found stronger support for Apple, with 46 percent on their side, versus 35 percent for the FBI's position.
But if you dig into the details of the surveys, it's clear that Americans' position on the dispute really comes down to how you ask about it.
Read more @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/24/why-you-hear-conflicting-stories-about-whether-people-support-apple-or-the-fbi/
The privacy crisis is a disaster of our own making – and now the tech firms who gathered our data are trying to make money out of privacy For privacy advocates, the Apple-FBI standoff over encryption is deja vu all over again. In the early 1990s, they fought and won a pitched battle with the Clinton administration over the Clipper chip, a proposal to add mandatory backdoors to the encryption in telecommunications devices. Soon after that battle was won, it moved overseas: in the UK, the Blair government brought in the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Privacy advocates lost that fight: the bill passed in 2000, enabling the government to imprison people who refused to reveal their cryptographic keys. The privacy fight never stopped. In the years since, a bewildering array of new fronts have opened up on the battlefield: social media, third-party cookies, NSA/GCHQ mass surveillance, corporate espionage, mass-scale breaches, the trade in zero-day vulnerabilities that governments weaponise to attack their adversaries, and Bullrun and Edgehill, the secret programmes of security sabotage revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Who really cares about surveillance? The first line of defense for surveillance advocates – whether private sector or governmental – is to point out just how few people seem to care about privacy. What can it matter that the government is harvesting so much of our data through the backdoor, when so many of us are handing over all that and more through the front door, uploading it to Facebook and Google and Amazon and anyone who cares to set a third-party cookie on the pages we visit?
The privacy crisis is a disaster of our own making – and now the tech firms who gathered our data are trying to make money out of privacy
For privacy advocates, the Apple-FBI standoff over encryption is deja vu all over again.
In the early 1990s, they fought and won a pitched battle with the Clinton administration over the Clipper chip, a proposal to add mandatory backdoors to the encryption in telecommunications devices.
Soon after that battle was won, it moved overseas: in the UK, the Blair government brought in the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Privacy advocates lost that fight: the bill passed in 2000, enabling the government to imprison people who refused to reveal their cryptographic keys.
The privacy fight never stopped. In the years since, a bewildering array of new fronts have opened up on the battlefield: social media, third-party cookies, NSA/GCHQ mass surveillance, corporate espionage, mass-scale breaches, the trade in zero-day vulnerabilities that governments weaponise to attack their adversaries, and Bullrun and Edgehill, the secret programmes of security sabotage revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The first line of defense for surveillance advocates – whether private sector or governmental – is to point out just how few people seem to care about privacy. What can it matter that the government is harvesting so much of our data through the backdoor, when so many of us are handing over all that and more through the front door, uploading it to Facebook and Google and Amazon and anyone who cares to set a third-party cookie on the pages we visit?
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/privacy-apple-fbi-encryption-surveillance
Microsoft…… I think they have that WRONG…. Not according to a previous news article.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others filed a friend of the court brief in support of Apple. It argues against the government's use of the All Writs Act to force the writing of new code, and emphasizes the "singular importance" of the case to all of them. On March 3, Amazon, Box, Cisco Systems, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest, Pinterest, Slack, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Yahoo filed an amici curiae -- or, "friends of the court" brief -- with a California District Court in support of Apple and its encryption conflict with the US government. "Amici often compete vigorously with Apple -- and with each other. But amici here speak with one voice because of the singular importance of this case to them and their customers who trust amici to safeguard their data and most sensitive communications from attackers," states the brief. On Feb. 16, the FBI obtained a court order, citing the All Writs Act (AWA) of 1789, requiring Apple to create software that will enable the FBI to access a locked device, bypass Apple security functions and search the device. Among the arguments made in the amici brief are that the AWA was "not designed to confer sweeping new powers" to the federal courts.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others filed a friend of the court brief in support of Apple. It argues against the government's use of the All Writs Act to force the writing of new code, and emphasizes the "singular importance" of the case to all of them.
On March 3, Amazon, Box, Cisco Systems, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest, Pinterest, Slack, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Yahoo filed an amici curiae -- or, "friends of the court" brief -- with a California District Court in support of Apple and its encryption conflict with the US government.
"Amici often compete vigorously with Apple -- and with each other. But amici here speak with one voice because of the singular importance of this case to them and their customers who trust amici to safeguard their data and most sensitive communications from attackers," states the brief.
On Feb. 16, the FBI obtained a court order, citing the All Writs Act (AWA) of 1789, requiring Apple to create software that will enable the FBI to access a locked device, bypass Apple security functions and search the device.
Among the arguments made in the amici brief are that the AWA was "not designed to confer sweeping new powers" to the federal courts.
Read more @ http://www.informationweek.com/government/google-microsoft-others-rally-behind-apple-against-fbi/d/d-id/1324570
The fight between Apple and the FBI has been framed as an epic battle between big tech and big government. Apple, says the Obama Administration, is siding with "its business model and public brand marketing strategy" ahead of public safety. That's not it, says Apple CEO Tim Cook. He says his company is "a staunch advocate for our customers' privacy and personal safety." Donald Trump has weighed in on the controversy, ad-libbing a call for a boycott of Apple products including the iPhone, the device at the center of the debate. Two weeks ago, a federal court ordered Apple to write code that would allow the FBI to unlock an iPhone used by one of the gunmen in the San Bernadino mass shooting. Apple refused, saying the code could be used to unlock other iPhones as well, not just the one covered by the order. A" Wall Street Journal" report that the feds are currently going after a dozen or so iPhones in other cases seems to back up Apple's argument. What this is really about -- but barely touched upon in corporate media -- is Edward Snowden. A few years ago, no one -- left, right, libertarian -- would have supported Apple's refusal to cooperate with a federal investigation of a terrorist attack associated with a radical Islamist group, much less its decision to fight a court order to do so. If investigators hadn't combed through the data on the phone used by Syed Farook before he slaughtered 14 people, it would have been seen as dereliction of duty. Obviously the authorities need to learn everything they can about Farook, such as whether he ever had direct communications with ISIS or if there were any coconspirators. Looking at evidence like that is what law enforcement is for. Rather than face Uncle Sam alone, Apple's defiance is being backed by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo -- companies who suffered disastrous blows to their reputations, and billions of dollars in lost business, after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that they spent years voluntarily turning over their customers' data to the spy agency in its drive to "hoover up" every email, phone call, text message and video communication on the planet, including those of Americans.
The fight between Apple and the FBI has been framed as an epic battle between big tech and big government. Apple, says the Obama Administration, is siding with "its business model and public brand marketing strategy" ahead of public safety. That's not it, says Apple CEO Tim Cook. He says his company is "a staunch advocate for our customers' privacy and personal safety."
Donald Trump has weighed in on the controversy, ad-libbing a call for a boycott of Apple products including the iPhone, the device at the center of the debate. Two weeks ago, a federal court ordered Apple to write code that would allow the FBI to unlock an iPhone used by one of the gunmen in the San Bernadino mass shooting. Apple refused, saying the code could be used to unlock other iPhones as well, not just the one covered by the order. A" Wall Street Journal" report that the feds are currently going after a dozen or so iPhones in other cases seems to back up Apple's argument.
What this is really about -- but barely touched upon in corporate media -- is Edward Snowden.
A few years ago, no one -- left, right, libertarian -- would have supported Apple's refusal to cooperate with a federal investigation of a terrorist attack associated with a radical Islamist group, much less its decision to fight a court order to do so. If investigators hadn't combed through the data on the phone used by Syed Farook before he slaughtered 14 people, it would have been seen as dereliction of duty. Obviously the authorities need to learn everything they can about Farook, such as whether he ever had direct communications with ISIS or if there were any coconspirators. Looking at evidence like that is what law enforcement is for.
Rather than face Uncle Sam alone, Apple's defiance is being backed by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo -- companies who suffered disastrous blows to their reputations, and billions of dollars in lost business, after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that they spent years voluntarily turning over their customers' data to the spy agency in its drive to "hoover up" every email, phone call, text message and video communication on the planet, including those of Americans.
Read more @ http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_ted_rall/fbi_vs_apple_is_really_about_edward_snowden
In Apple's Fight with the FBI, Edward Snowden Has Already Won the Encryption War
At least we now know that Big Tech did not capitulate to the federal government. The latest encryption war is over. The FBI has mounted an aggressive maneuver to get Apple to unlock the iPhone used by a terrorist, and I hope Apple figures out a way to provide the data the government needs without making any compromises over data security and user privacy. That might not be possible, but let's face it--Big Tech has not capitulated to the U.S. government. They never made a secret agreement. Edward Snowden won. Now we have to debate whether that's a good thing. Or express our opinion in the voting booth. What's obvious in this latest war over encryption is that the FBI does not have the software required to crack the iPhone. There is no way to dismantle the device, decrypt the data, and look through the contacts and other information that could aid officials in their investigation--at least, no reliable way to do that. It's obvious Apple never created a backdoor for the FBI. It follows that the other big names in tech, including Google and Facebook, didn't capitulate to the feds, either. What's not so obvious is when it might be necessary to give up some rights to privacy for the greater good, and that issue will likely end up in the Supreme Court. It will also become the hot topic of the spring and summer throughout the presidential race, and particularly at the upcoming SxSW conference in Austin. We know Donald Trump has already taken a side against Apple. Marco Rubio has the most sane response (not to take a political side, it just makes the most sense). He's argued that breaking the encryption in this case will reveal to the rest of the world that our government set a precedent in asking for a backdoor, which will then prompt those outside of the U.S. to provide "impenetrable" encryption. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did not pick a side in the last Democratic debate between Apple and the FBI. Again, not to get political, but Clinton has an uphill battle in convincing people she can stand up for Big Tech when she ran her own email server and possibly betrayed the trust of the American people by housing ultra-sensitive information that was left unprotected. In many ways, she's already taken a stand on the encryption debate. It's not as important to her. Even the security experts view this as a thorny issue.
At least we now know that Big Tech did not capitulate to the federal government.
The latest encryption war is over.
The FBI has mounted an aggressive maneuver to get Apple to unlock the iPhone used by a terrorist, and I hope Apple figures out a way to provide the data the government needs without making any compromises over data security and user privacy. That might not be possible, but let's face it--Big Tech has not capitulated to the U.S. government. They never made a secret agreement. Edward Snowden won.
Now we have to debate whether that's a good thing.
Or express our opinion in the voting booth.
What's obvious in this latest war over encryption is that the FBI does not have the software required to crack the iPhone. There is no way to dismantle the device, decrypt the data, and look through the contacts and other information that could aid officials in their investigation--at least, no reliable way to do that. It's obvious Apple never created a backdoor for the FBI. It follows that the other big names in tech, including Google and Facebook, didn't capitulate to the feds, either.
What's not so obvious is when it might be necessary to give up some rights to privacy for the greater good, and that issue will likely end up in the Supreme Court.
It will also become the hot topic of the spring and summer throughout the presidential race, and particularly at the upcoming SxSW conference in Austin. We know Donald Trump has already taken a side against Apple. Marco Rubio has the most sane response (not to take a political side, it just makes the most sense). He's argued that breaking the encryption in this case will reveal to the rest of the world that our government set a precedent in asking for a backdoor, which will then prompt those outside of the U.S. to provide "impenetrable" encryption.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did not pick a side in the last Democratic debate between Apple and the FBI. Again, not to get political, but Clinton has an uphill battle in convincing people she can stand up for Big Tech when she ran her own email server and possibly betrayed the trust of the American people by housing ultra-sensitive information that was left unprotected. In many ways, she's already taken a stand on the encryption debate. It's not as important to her.
Even the security experts view this as a thorny issue.
Read more @ http://www.inc.com/john-brandon/in-apples-fight-with-the-fbi-edward-snowden-has-already-won-the-encryption-war.html
What if the FBI could force Samsung to covertly turn on the video camera in your smart TV? Or force Google to deliver a malicious security update to your web browser which actually spied on you and transmitted your passwords and other sensitive information back to the FBI? Sound like something from a dystopian sci-fi movie? If Apple loses its high-profile legal fight with the U.S. government, these scenarios could become a reality. This will also threaten the security of all Internet users. Until relatively recently, consumers were often nagged to look for and download software updates. This is something that many of us didn't do, promptly, or often, at all. As a result, many people ran out-of-date, insecure software, leaving them unnecessarily vulnerable to cyber attacks and computer viruses. In an effort to get prompt security updates to as many consumers and businesses as possible, the software industry has largely shifted to a model of automatic updates. As a result, our phones, computers and Internet of Things devices (such as thermostats and smart TVs) now regularly call their makers to look for updates, which are then automatically downloaded and installed. The transition to automatic updates has significantly improved the state of cybersecurity. However, the existence of a mechanism to quietly deliver software onto phones and computers without the knowledge or consent of a user could be misused by criminals, hackers and nation states.
What if the FBI could force Samsung to covertly turn on the video camera in your smart TV? Or force Google to deliver a malicious security update to your web browser which actually spied on you and transmitted your passwords and other sensitive information back to the FBI? Sound like something from a dystopian sci-fi movie? If Apple loses its high-profile legal fight with the U.S. government, these scenarios could become a reality. This will also threaten the security of all Internet users.
Until relatively recently, consumers were often nagged to look for and download software updates. This is something that many of us didn't do, promptly, or often, at all. As a result, many people ran out-of-date, insecure software, leaving them unnecessarily vulnerable to cyber attacks and computer viruses.
In an effort to get prompt security updates to as many consumers and businesses as possible, the software industry has largely shifted to a model of automatic updates. As a result, our phones, computers and Internet of Things devices (such as thermostats and smart TVs) now regularly call their makers to look for updates, which are then automatically downloaded and installed.
The transition to automatic updates has significantly improved the state of cybersecurity. However, the existence of a mechanism to quietly deliver software onto phones and computers without the knowledge or consent of a user could be misused by criminals, hackers and nation states.
Read more @ http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160305/business/160309470/
The FBI chief is a formidable foe for tech companies in rows over privacy, writes Geoff Dyer Mr Comey was in the middle of the court battles that followed the bursting of the tech bubble and, as US deputy attorney-general, he was involved in a furious 2004 dispute within the George W Bush administration over electronic surveillance that foreshadowed the revelations made by Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor turned exiled whistleblower. Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2013, Mr Comey is now the main protagonist in another defining legal battle — that over the security technologies used on smartphones, which Mr Snowden has described as “the most important technology case of the decade”. Mr Comey is taking legal action against Apple to get the company to help the FBI break the passcode of the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino killers. However Apple is screaming that the FBI’s suggested technical fix is a slippery slope that will weaken the security of all smartphones.
The FBI chief is a formidable foe for tech companies in rows over privacy, writes Geoff Dyer
Mr Comey was in the middle of the court battles that followed the bursting of the tech bubble and, as US deputy attorney-general, he was involved in a furious 2004 dispute within the George W Bush administration over electronic surveillance that foreshadowed the revelations made by Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor turned exiled whistleblower.
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2013, Mr Comey is now the main protagonist in another defining legal battle — that over the security technologies used on smartphones, which Mr Snowden has described as “the most important technology case of the decade”. Mr Comey is taking legal action against Apple to get the company to help the FBI break the passcode of the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino killers. However Apple is screaming that the FBI’s suggested technical fix is a slippery slope that will weaken the security of all smartphones.
Read more @ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afa3a7b6-e130-11e5-9217-6ae3733a2cd1.html
In a wide-ranging show of solidarity, dozens of Apple’s tech industry competitors and contemporaries filed amicus briefs today in support of the company’s stand against the FBI. In one instance, heavyweights including Google, Microsoft, and Facebook set aside their corporate rivalries to file jointly. Twitter, Airbnb, Ebay, Reddit, and a half dozen other Internet luminaries joined forces to file another brief. The briefs, which argue that Apple should not be compelled to create software to help the FBI break into an iPhone that had been in possession of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, are meant to bolster the Cupertino company’s legal case. Intel and AT&T—yes, the same AT&T that had a secret spying pact with the NSA—filed their briefs solo. The ACLU, Access Now, and the Wickr Foundation, and a group of security experts have lent their support as well, with more companies, experts, and institutions expected to join in by the end of the Thursday deadline set by the case’s judge Sheri Pym. While this seems like a natural cause for the technology industry to rally behind, many tech leaders were initially slow to express support for Apple in the matter. As the New York Times reports, several companies also hesitated to support Apple publicly. Some expressed concern over whether this was the right fight to pick, while others worried about public perception.
In a wide-ranging show of solidarity, dozens of Apple’s tech industry competitors and contemporaries filed amicus briefs today in support of the company’s stand against the FBI. In one instance, heavyweights including Google, Microsoft, and Facebook set aside their corporate rivalries to file jointly. Twitter, Airbnb, Ebay, Reddit, and a half dozen other Internet luminaries joined forces to file another brief.
The briefs, which argue that Apple should not be compelled to create software to help the FBI break into an iPhone that had been in possession of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, are meant to bolster the Cupertino company’s legal case. Intel and AT&T—yes, the same AT&T that had a secret spying pact with the NSA—filed their briefs solo. The ACLU, Access Now, and the Wickr Foundation, and a group of security experts have lent their support as well, with more companies, experts, and institutions expected to join in by the end of the Thursday deadline set by the case’s judge Sheri Pym.
While this seems like a natural cause for the technology industry to rally behind, many tech leaders were initially slow to express support for Apple in the matter. As the New York Times reports, several companies also hesitated to support Apple publicly. Some expressed concern over whether this was the right fight to pick, while others worried about public perception.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2016/03/apple-fbi-tech-industry-support-amicus-brief/
As the controversy surrounding Apple and the FBI continues to heat up, a panel of tech industry leaders, privacy experts and former top government officials at the 2016 RSA Conference said the debate is about something much bigger: how government and privacy fit into the new digital age. "The issue of security and privacy is the defining issue of our age," said Art Coviello, former RSA executive chairman and now venture partner at Rally Ventures. "It's only a symptom of a larger issue. Whether we can solve it or not will determine if we are masters of the digital [era] or are its victims." The panel, which took place Thursday night at the RSA Conference in San Francisco, included Coviello; Michael Chertoff, executive chairman and co-founder of The Chertoff Group and former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mike McConnell, senior executive adviser at Booz Allen Hamilton and former director of National Intelligence; Nuala O'Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology; and Trevor Hughes, president and CEO of the International Association of Privacy Professionals.
As the controversy surrounding Apple and the FBI continues to heat up, a panel of tech industry leaders, privacy experts and former top government officials at the 2016 RSA Conference said the debate is about something much bigger: how government and privacy fit into the new digital age.
"The issue of security and privacy is the defining issue of our age," said Art Coviello, former RSA executive chairman and now venture partner at Rally Ventures. "It's only a symptom of a larger issue. Whether we can solve it or not will determine if we are masters of the digital [era] or are its victims."
The panel, which took place Thursday night at the RSA Conference in San Francisco, included Coviello; Michael Chertoff, executive chairman and co-founder of The Chertoff Group and former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mike McConnell, senior executive adviser at Booz Allen Hamilton and former director of National Intelligence; Nuala O'Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology; and Trevor Hughes, president and CEO of the International Association of Privacy Professionals.
Read more @ http://www.crn.com/news/security/300079930/rsa-panel-apple-fbi-battle-is-bigger-than-a-tug-of-war-over-encryption.htm?itc=refresh
Apple, FBI, Congress: 5 Burning Questions Raised
As Apple and the FBI struggle over matters of encryption, privacy and security, a House Judiciary Committee hearing helped to highlight several questions in need of answers. Engaging in a public contemplation of current encryption policy and practices, Apple SVP and general counsel Bruce Sewell presented testimony before the House Judiciary Committee March 1 as part of a hearing titled "The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy." FBI Director James Comey; Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr., representing the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); and Susan Landau, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, also gave testimony and answered questions before the committee. By the conclusion of the hearing, it was clear that a number of ideas and practices will continue to be contested, and that headline-making issues won't be resolved until answers are determined. Questions brought up include: 1. Does the FBI have the right to determine how safe is "safe enough"? Many of the frustrations of the NDAA and the FBI stem from an Apple software upgrade (with the introduction of iOS 8 in September 2014) that made device encryption the iPhone's default mode. In his testimony, Vance stated, "We want smartphone makers to offer the same strong encryption that Apple employed before iOS 8."
As Apple and the FBI struggle over matters of encryption, privacy and security, a House Judiciary Committee hearing helped to highlight several questions in need of answers.
Engaging in a public contemplation of current encryption policy and practices, Apple SVP and general counsel Bruce Sewell presented testimony before the House Judiciary Committee March 1 as part of a hearing titled "The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy."
FBI Director James Comey; Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr., representing the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); and Susan Landau, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, also gave testimony and answered questions before the committee.
By the conclusion of the hearing, it was clear that a number of ideas and practices will continue to be contested, and that headline-making issues won't be resolved until answers are determined. Questions brought up include:
1. Does the FBI have the right to determine how safe is "safe enough"?
Many of the frustrations of the NDAA and the FBI stem from an Apple software upgrade (with the introduction of iOS 8 in September 2014) that made device encryption the iPhone's default mode. In his testimony, Vance stated, "We want smartphone makers to offer the same strong encryption that Apple employed before iOS 8."
Read more @ http://www.informationweek.com/government/apple-fbi-congress-5-burning-questions-raised/d/d-id/1324535
Well-regarded privacy advocate and coder Frederic Jacobs will be joining Apple to work on a critical security component of Apple's desktop and mobile operating systems. Apple has hired Frederic Jacobs, one of the key developers who helped deliver Edward Snowden's preferred encrypted chat app to the iPhone and Android. Jacobs, a Belgian-born privacy advocate and coder with a background in cryptography, will be joining Apple as an intern this summer and working within Apple's CoreOS security team. Jacobs announced the move on Twitter on Thursday. Core OS is a layer in OS X and iOS. In iOS, it is used to manage app security when an iPhone connects to external hardware.
Well-regarded privacy advocate and coder Frederic Jacobs will be joining Apple to work on a critical security component of Apple's desktop and mobile operating systems.
Apple has hired Frederic Jacobs, one of the key developers who helped deliver Edward Snowden's preferred encrypted chat app to the iPhone and Android.
Jacobs, a Belgian-born privacy advocate and coder with a background in cryptography, will be joining Apple as an intern this summer and working within Apple's CoreOS security team. Jacobs announced the move on Twitter on Thursday.
Core OS is a layer in OS X and iOS. In iOS, it is used to manage app security when an iPhone connects to external hardware.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-hires-key-dev-behind-snowdens-signal-pet-secure-messaging-app/
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/apple-developer-signal-messaging-app-edward-snowden
In the latest iteration of the UK Investigatory Powers Bill released by Home Secretary Theresa May, the UK government has claimed that bulk collection powers provided to police and intelligence agencies are essential to disrupting cybercriminals that use the Tor network to operate on the internet. In the final draft of the proposals – branded a 'Snoopers' Charter' by critics – the controversial bulk powers first exposed by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden are vast. They include bulk interception of communications, bulk equipment interference (hacking), the collection of bulk communications data held by service providers and, perhaps most controversially, the retention of so-called bulk personal datasets on masses of innocent UK civilians not suspected of committing any crime. Additionally, they now are being endorsed as a way to combat criminality on underground networks. "The use of bulk data is among the few effective methods available to counter the illicit use of the dark web," the report asserts. "By analysing data obtained through bulk interception, investigators are able to link the anonymous identities of criminal users to their real world identities. These techniques rely on the analysis of large volumes of data; it would not be possible to do this through targeted interception or communications data powers."
In the latest iteration of the UK Investigatory Powers Bill released by Home Secretary Theresa May, the UK government has claimed that bulk collection powers provided to police and intelligence agencies are essential to disrupting cybercriminals that use the Tor network to operate on the internet.
In the final draft of the proposals – branded a 'Snoopers' Charter' by critics – the controversial bulk powers first exposed by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden are vast. They include bulk interception of communications, bulk equipment interference (hacking), the collection of bulk communications data held by service providers and, perhaps most controversially, the retention of so-called bulk personal datasets on masses of innocent UK civilians not suspected of committing any crime.
Additionally, they now are being endorsed as a way to combat criminality on underground networks. "The use of bulk data is among the few effective methods available to counter the illicit use of the dark web," the report asserts. "By analysing data obtained through bulk interception, investigators are able to link the anonymous identities of criminal users to their real world identities. These techniques rely on the analysis of large volumes of data; it would not be possible to do this through targeted interception or communications data powers."
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/snoopers-charter-uk-government-collecting-data-innocent-civilians-battle-dark-web-threat-1546961
The Internet of Things and the Internet might seem inextricably linked, but, increasingly, there are questions centered around how IoT devices should work with one another — and what happens when the Internet connection goes down? Users also are concerned with the privacy implications of having their data stored on a corporation’s servers, and they don’t like having an Internet connection as a potential point of failure. These reactions are rational, but reminiscent of online shopping circa 2000, which, ironically, might now be more secure than shopping in physical retail stores. To understand why device makers are relying on an Internet connection and cloud services, we need to look at how our IoT devices work. We need to understand data sources, processing, device to device communication and, ultimately, how one device can leverage another device. Data sources As a maker of climate control devices, there are only a few critical sources of data: humans, their environment (indoor and out) and energy utilities. There are humans who have a desire to be comfortable, which boils down to having a certain air temperature, radiant temperature and humidity, among other things. Humans live in a variety of geographies, meaning there are often large differences between what they like inside and actual outdoor conditions. Imparting comfort into a space with a large indoor/outdoor difference takes energy, and because energy is subject to supply and demand forces, using it intelligently means understanding its price at any given time.
The Internet of Things and the Internet might seem inextricably linked, but, increasingly, there are questions centered around how IoT devices should work with one another — and what happens when the Internet connection goes down?
Users also are concerned with the privacy implications of having their data stored on a corporation’s servers, and they don’t like having an Internet connection as a potential point of failure. These reactions are rational, but reminiscent of online shopping circa 2000, which, ironically, might now be more secure than shopping in physical retail stores.
To understand why device makers are relying on an Internet connection and cloud services, we need to look at how our IoT devices work. We need to understand data sources, processing, device to device communication and, ultimately, how one device can leverage another device.
As a maker of climate control devices, there are only a few critical sources of data: humans, their environment (indoor and out) and energy utilities.
There are humans who have a desire to be comfortable, which boils down to having a certain air temperature, radiant temperature and humidity, among other things. Humans live in a variety of geographies, meaning there are often large differences between what they like inside and actual outdoor conditions. Imparting comfort into a space with a large indoor/outdoor difference takes energy, and because energy is subject to supply and demand forces, using it intelligently means understanding its price at any given time.
Read more @ http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/05/can-you-take-the-internet-out-of-the-internet-of-things/?ncid=rss&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact