ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Mar 29 15 10:49 PM
Read more @ http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/amending_patriot_act_would_sec.html
A technology coalition headed by Apple, Microsoft, and Google urged President Barack Obama and other government officials to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone call “metadata.” In a letter addressed to the President and other key figures, the coalition, made up of privacy advocates, technology firms, and trade companies, called the NSA program “untenable,” and urged the House to move forward with reforms. The letter, which was also addressed to high-ranking officials such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, singled out sections 215 and 214 of the Patriot Act, which have been used to legally justify the NSA’s data collection. The provision, which sunsets on June 1, was first used in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
A technology coalition headed by Apple, Microsoft, and Google urged President Barack Obama and other government officials to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone call “metadata.” In a letter addressed to the President and other key figures, the coalition, made up of privacy advocates, technology firms, and trade companies, called the NSA program “untenable,” and urged the House to move forward with reforms.
The letter, which was also addressed to high-ranking officials such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, singled out sections 215 and 214 of the Patriot Act, which have been used to legally justify the NSA’s data collection. The provision, which sunsets on June 1, was first used in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Read more @ http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/tech-giants-demand-end-of-nsa-metadata-collection/
Earlier this week, Apple and several other major U.S. tech companies renewed their calls for the U.S. government to reform its controversial electronic surveillance programs. In an open letter addressed to President Barack Obama, NSA Director Admiral Rogers, Attorney General Eric Holder, and several prominent members of Congress, Apple and dozens of other signatories urged the government to end the bulk data collection practices that were authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. As noted in the letter, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is used as the legal basis for the NSA’s bulk collection of electronic communications metadata. The letter also asked the government to institute “transparency and accountability mechanisms for both government and company reporting” for decisions made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Apple lent its support to the letter through its membership in the Reform Government Surveillance group, a coalition of major tech companies that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. The Reform Government Surveillance sent a separate open letter to the Senate last year that called for similar reforms. Besides tech companies, other prominent signatories to the most recent letter included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Human Rights Watch. While it’s no surprise that organizations like the ACLU and the EFF would be concerned with issues affecting privacy and electronic communications, it may surprise some people to know that Apple has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of the government’s spying programs following their exposure by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Apple’s strong stance against the government’s surveillance programs is even more surprising when considering that the company has historically received low marks from the EFF when it comes to protecting users’ data from government requests. Although Apple received the highest six-star rating in the EFF’s annual “Who Has Your Back?” report in 2014, the digital rights organization noted that the iPhone maker only earned one star in each of the previous three years. So why is Apple suddenly so gung-ho about government transparency and user privacy? Here are the three main reasons why Apple has become an outspoken opponent of the U.S. government’s spying programs.
Earlier this week, Apple and several other major U.S. tech companies renewed their calls for the U.S. government to reform its controversial electronic surveillance programs. In an open letter addressed to President Barack Obama, NSA Director Admiral Rogers, Attorney General Eric Holder, and several prominent members of Congress, Apple and dozens of other signatories urged the government to end the bulk data collection practices that were authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. As noted in the letter, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is used as the legal basis for the NSA’s bulk collection of electronic communications metadata. The letter also asked the government to institute “transparency and accountability mechanisms for both government and company reporting” for decisions made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Apple lent its support to the letter through its membership in the Reform Government Surveillance group, a coalition of major tech companies that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. The Reform Government Surveillance sent a separate open letter to the Senate last year that called for similar reforms. Besides tech companies, other prominent signatories to the most recent letter included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Human Rights Watch.
While it’s no surprise that organizations like the ACLU and the EFF would be concerned with issues affecting privacy and electronic communications, it may surprise some people to know that Apple has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of the government’s spying programs following their exposure by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Apple’s strong stance against the government’s surveillance programs is even more surprising when considering that the company has historically received low marks from the EFF when it comes to protecting users’ data from government requests. Although Apple received the highest six-star rating in the EFF’s annual “Who Has Your Back?” report in 2014, the digital rights organization noted that the iPhone maker only earned one star in each of the previous three years. So why is Apple suddenly so gung-ho about government transparency and user privacy? Here are the three main reasons why Apple has become an outspoken opponent of the U.S. government’s spying programs.
Read more @ http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/3-reasons-apple-is-pushing-for-nsa-spying-reforms.html/?a=viewall
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact
Mar 29 15 10:53 PM
Telecommunication firms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Australia will soon be required to store the metadata of their customers’ communications for two years. The requirement comes after both major Australian political parties backed the controversial data retention bill, which permits governmental access to the data, without the need for a search warrant. Metadata Storage The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 cleared a major hurdle this week in Australia after it secured 43 votes to 16 in the Australian Senate. It will then almost certainly will be rubber stamped in the lower House of Representatives and become law. Both the ruling Liberal Party of Australia and the opposition Australian Labor Party have backed the bill, with the only opposition coming from the Australian Green party, and several independents. The Greens argued strongly against the law, saying it would entrench “passive, mass surveillance”.
Telecommunication firms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Australia will soon be required to store the metadata of their customers’ communications for two years.
The requirement comes after both major Australian political parties backed the controversial data retention bill, which permits governmental access to the data, without the need for a search warrant.
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 cleared a major hurdle this week in Australia after it secured 43 votes to 16 in the Australian Senate. It will then almost certainly will be rubber stamped in the lower House of Representatives and become law.
Both the ruling Liberal Party of Australia and the opposition Australian Labor Party have backed the bill, with the only opposition coming from the Australian Green party, and several independents. The Greens argued strongly against the law, saying it would entrench “passive, mass surveillance”.
Read more @ http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-regulation/australia-mandatory-data-retention-laws-165263
Wow, they are serious about wanting to spy on every facet of our lives!!
New Lowy Institute polling released today shows that the Australian Government's data retention ('metadata') laws, which passed the parliament last night, have the support of a clear majority of Australians. When asked whether 'legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content' is justified, 63% of the adult population say it is 'justified as part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security'. Only one-third (33%) say it 'goes too far in violating citizens' privacy and is therefore not justified.' Younger Australians (18-29) are more likely to say the legislation is not justified (47%), but this age group is divided about the policy, with 50% saying it is justified. 'Australians appear to accept some infringements on their privacy in the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting national security,' said Lowy Institute Executive Director Dr Michael Fullilove today. 'This result is consistent with 2013 Lowy Institute polling which found that most Australians believed the government had struck about the right balance between protecting the rights of citizens and fighting terrorism.'
New Lowy Institute polling released today shows that the Australian Government's data retention ('metadata') laws, which passed the parliament last night, have the support of a clear majority of Australians.
When asked whether 'legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content' is justified, 63% of the adult population say it is 'justified as part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security'. Only one-third (33%) say it 'goes too far in violating citizens' privacy and is therefore not justified.'
Younger Australians (18-29) are more likely to say the legislation is not justified (47%), but this age group is divided about the policy, with 50% saying it is justified.
'Australians appear to accept some infringements on their privacy in the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting national security,' said Lowy Institute Executive Director Dr Michael Fullilove today. 'This result is consistent with 2013 Lowy Institute polling which found that most Australians believed the government had struck about the right balance between protecting the rights of citizens and fighting terrorism.'
Optus has admitted to not taking reasonable steps to secure the private information and personal security of about 300,000 customers in three separate incidents last year. Optus' admission, contained in what's known as an enforceable undertaking to the federal privacy commissioner, follows the Senate passing the Data Retention Bill on Thursday night, which requires all Australian telcos to store customer metadata for two years. The bill was passed despite fears the data could be hacked if it was not secured correctly by telcos, which historically have a poor reputation in Australia for keeping information secure. In the first incident, Optus mistakenly released the names, addresses and mobile phone numbers of about 122,000 Optus customers in the White Pages online directory without the consent of those customers. The issue, which occurred due to a "coding error", also resulted in the majority of those customers' information also being published in various print editions of the White Pages. The second incident concerned a flaw that left customers vulnerable to 'spoofing' attacks, where an unauthorised party could potentially access and use customer voicemail accounts messages, including being able to listen to recorded messages and change settings and preferences. The third incident concerned Optus "deliberately" leaving the management ports of customer-issued modems open, incorrectly assuming that they were only accessible by Optus staff for network management purposes. In addition, Optus issued 197,000 Netgear modems and 111,000 Cisco modems to its customers with factory default settings, including user default names and passwords in place. "In each case, there was a failure by Optus to detect the incidents; the incidents were brought to Optus' attention by third parties," states the enforceable undertaking, which was signed by Optus chief executive Allen Lew and accepted by privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim. "This resulted in Optus experiencing substantial delays in taking action to contain each incident, which also prolonged the duration of the risk to affected individuals."
Optus has admitted to not taking reasonable steps to secure the private information and personal security of about 300,000 customers in three separate incidents last year.
Optus' admission, contained in what's known as an enforceable undertaking to the federal privacy commissioner, follows the Senate passing the Data Retention Bill on Thursday night, which requires all Australian telcos to store customer metadata for two years.
The bill was passed despite fears the data could be hacked if it was not secured correctly by telcos, which historically have a poor reputation in Australia for keeping information secure.
In the first incident, Optus mistakenly released the names, addresses and mobile phone numbers of about 122,000 Optus customers in the White Pages online directory without the consent of those customers.
The issue, which occurred due to a "coding error", also resulted in the majority of those customers' information also being published in various print editions of the White Pages.
The second incident concerned a flaw that left customers vulnerable to 'spoofing' attacks, where an unauthorised party could potentially access and use customer voicemail accounts messages, including being able to listen to recorded messages and change settings and preferences.
The third incident concerned Optus "deliberately" leaving the management ports of customer-issued modems open, incorrectly assuming that they were only accessible by Optus staff for network management purposes.
In addition, Optus issued 197,000 Netgear modems and 111,000 Cisco modems to its customers with factory default settings, including user default names and passwords in place.
"In each case, there was a failure by Optus to detect the incidents; the incidents were brought to Optus' attention by third parties," states the enforceable undertaking, which was signed by Optus chief executive Allen Lew and accepted by privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim.
"This resulted in Optus experiencing substantial delays in taking action to contain each incident, which also prolonged the duration of the risk to affected individuals."
Australians will have two years of their metadata stored by phone and internet providers after the Abbott government's controversial data retention laws passed Parliament. But it's still unclear how much will be added to internet users' monthly bills. The latest suite of national security legislation passed the upper house on Thursday evening with bipartisan support. The government believes the laws, which allow about 85 security and policing agencies to access two years of an individual's metadata, are crucial to thwart terrorism attacks and prevent serious crime. The scheme is expected to cost up to $400 million a year, but the government won't reveal its share until the May budget.
Australians will have two years of their metadata stored by phone and internet providers after the Abbott government's controversial data retention laws passed Parliament.
But it's still unclear how much will be added to internet users' monthly bills.
The latest suite of national security legislation passed the upper house on Thursday evening with bipartisan support.
The government believes the laws, which allow about 85 security and policing agencies to access two years of an individual's metadata, are crucial to thwart terrorism attacks and prevent serious crime.
The scheme is expected to cost up to $400 million a year, but the government won't reveal its share until the May budget.
Mar 29 15 10:56 PM
The story of your life in metadata relates where you went, who you spoke with, how long you were there for. And now that story will be kept on file The story of your life in metadata is an open book. It paints a picture of where you went, who you spoke with, how long you were there for. What were you doing talking on the phone to the sexually transmitted infections clinic? What were you doing on the street corner where the man was murdered last night? Privacy, at its most basic level, is about the right of citizens to be let alone by their governments. At the heart of what is happening right now in Australia is a debate around this very idea. And as the federal government succeeded in passing its data retention laws on Thursday, it is an idea that is being challenged more than it ever has before. The government’s new law is fairly simple. The bill initially only came to 47 pages of amendments. But it is exceedingly vague and has enormous potential for expansion. What it does is force certain types of telecommunication companies to store certain types of communications data known as “metadata”. This is information about who you called, or emailed, where you were at the time, what kind of device you were using and how you connected to the internet. It spans all phone and web technology. This type of telecommunications data has always been accessible without a warrant. But data retention will vastly increase the reach of enforcement agencies into our personal lives, by creating a much larger set of data from which to draw. The privacy issues at the core of this debate are numerous. The key ones include: whether it is reasonable to collect this data on all citizens for two years, whether it is reasonable to make this data accessible without a warrant, and whether - if it is stored – it will be done securely.
The story of your life in metadata relates where you went, who you spoke with, how long you were there for. And now that story will be kept on file
The story of your life in metadata is an open book. It paints a picture of where you went, who you spoke with, how long you were there for. What were you doing talking on the phone to the sexually transmitted infections clinic? What were you doing on the street corner where the man was murdered last night?
Privacy, at its most basic level, is about the right of citizens to be let alone by their governments. At the heart of what is happening right now in Australia is a debate around this very idea. And as the federal government succeeded in passing its data retention laws on Thursday, it is an idea that is being challenged more than it ever has before.
The government’s new law is fairly simple. The bill initially only came to 47 pages of amendments. But it is exceedingly vague and has enormous potential for expansion.
What it does is force certain types of telecommunication companies to store certain types of communications data known as “metadata”. This is information about who you called, or emailed, where you were at the time, what kind of device you were using and how you connected to the internet. It spans all phone and web technology.
This type of telecommunications data has always been accessible without a warrant. But data retention will vastly increase the reach of enforcement agencies into our personal lives, by creating a much larger set of data from which to draw.
The privacy issues at the core of this debate are numerous. The key ones include: whether it is reasonable to collect this data on all citizens for two years, whether it is reasonable to make this data accessible without a warrant, and whether - if it is stored – it will be done securely.
The Coalition's controversial data retention legislation has sailed through the parliament with a minimum of fuss. An entirely predictable outcome after the Labor opposition made a largely perfunctory attempt to bring more rigour into the regime. As far as the opposition is concerned, it has done its job. After all Labor leader Bill Shorten has managed to eke out a concession or two out of Tony Abbott and the combined 38 amendments made to the legislation has substantially improved the bill. That's Labor's line anyway. For the telecommunications industry, there’s little time to reflect on its futile attempts to get any clarity from the Abbott government. The Data Retention Bill has been passed. The issue of just how much the government will contribute to the cost remains unresolved, and telcos have less than two years to to develop systems to store customer call records, assigned IP addresses, billing information, location data, and other personal information. A task that promises to be just as arduous, if not more, than trying to stop the politicians in Canberra to placate the demands of the security agencies.
The Coalition's controversial data retention legislation has sailed through the parliament with a minimum of fuss. An entirely predictable outcome after the Labor opposition made a largely perfunctory attempt to bring more rigour into the regime.
As far as the opposition is concerned, it has done its job. After all Labor leader Bill Shorten has managed to eke out a concession or two out of Tony Abbott and the combined 38 amendments made to the legislation has substantially improved the bill. That's Labor's line anyway. For the telecommunications industry, there’s little time to reflect on its futile attempts to get any clarity from the Abbott government.
The Data Retention Bill has been passed. The issue of just how much the government will contribute to the cost remains unresolved, and telcos have less than two years to to develop systems to store customer call records, assigned IP addresses, billing information, location data, and other personal information.
A task that promises to be just as arduous, if not more, than trying to stop the politicians in Canberra to placate the demands of the security agencies.
Mar 29 15 10:57 PM
THE European Commission has advised EU citizens to deactivate their Facebook accounts if they want avoid snooping from US security services. This was the warning given by EC lawyer Bernhard Schima during a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems. The case of Maximillian Schrems vs. Irish Data Protection Commissioner and Digital Rights Ireland Limited is focused on the current Safe Harbour framework, which covers the transmission of EU citizens’ data across to the US. Plaintiff Max Schrems argues the agreement no longer guarantees the privacy of European residents following Edward Snowden’s revelations of widespread surveillance by the NSA.
THE European Commission has advised EU citizens to deactivate their Facebook accounts if they want avoid snooping from US security services.
This was the warning given by EC lawyer Bernhard Schima during a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems.
The case of Maximillian Schrems vs. Irish Data Protection Commissioner and Digital Rights Ireland Limited is focused on the current Safe Harbour framework, which covers the transmission of EU citizens’ data across to the US.
Plaintiff Max Schrems argues the agreement no longer guarantees the privacy of European residents following Edward Snowden’s revelations of widespread surveillance by the NSA.
(Bloomberg) -- If you worry about your data being up for grabs by U.S. authorities, then dumping your Facebook Inc. account is a good start, an adviser to the European Union’s top court was told. Yves Bot, who’s guiding the bloc’s highest court on the legality of a 15-year-old data transfer pact with the U.S., was given the tip at a hearing in Luxembourg Tuesday. Bot asked an EU lawyer if there was any means at all to stop his data from being “at the disposal” of U.S. authorities. “You might consider closing your Facebook account, if you have one,” European Commission attorney Bernhard Schima replied in front of a 15-judge panel of the EU Court of Justice.
(Bloomberg) -- If you worry about your data being up for grabs by U.S. authorities, then dumping your Facebook Inc. account is a good start, an adviser to the European Union’s top court was told.
Yves Bot, who’s guiding the bloc’s highest court on the legality of a 15-year-old data transfer pact with the U.S., was given the tip at a hearing in Luxembourg Tuesday. Bot asked an EU lawyer if there was any means at all to stop his data from being “at the disposal” of U.S. authorities.
“You might consider closing your Facebook account, if you have one,” European Commission attorney Bernhard Schima replied in front of a 15-judge panel of the EU Court of Justice.
European Court of Justice begins hearing arguments in landmark Facebook privacy case The European Court of Justice has heard that the alleged transfer of European personal data to US intelligence services represents an “indiscriminate general surveillance” that is “manifestly incompatible” with EU privacy rights. The EU’s highest court heard oral arguments today in the case of Austrian privacy campaigner Max Schrems against the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), in a referral from the High Court in Dublin. Last year Mr Schrems challenged the DPC for not pursuing his complaint, on foot of claims by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that Facebook had breached EU law by passing his data to the US National Security Agency’s “Prism” programme. The High Court asked Luxembourg for clarification of EU rules regarding EU citizen data transfer to the US, known as the “Safe Harbour” provision.
The European Court of Justice has heard that the alleged transfer of European personal data to US intelligence services represents an “indiscriminate general surveillance” that is “manifestly incompatible” with EU privacy rights.
The EU’s highest court heard oral arguments today in the case of Austrian privacy campaigner Max Schrems against the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), in a referral from the High Court in Dublin.
Last year Mr Schrems challenged the DPC for not pursuing his complaint, on foot of claims by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that Facebook had breached EU law by passing his data to the US National Security Agency’s “Prism” programme. The High Court asked Luxembourg for clarification of EU rules regarding EU citizen data transfer to the US, known as the “Safe Harbour” provision.
Read more @ http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/facebook-data-transfers-violation-of-privacy-rights-1.2151155
Mar 29 15 10:59 PM
A day after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) revealed Safe Harbour for what it is – ridiculous – the UN has agreed to appoint a special investigator to look into digital spying and violations of online privacy. Yesterday the UN Human Rights Council unanimously decided to get a new ‘UN special rapporteur’ amid the shadows of the current Europe v Facebook case seen by the ECJ. A Brazil and Germany-backed resolution looked to respond to concerns over electronic surveillance and wide-reaching, largely illegal interception digital communications. "States must respect international human rights obligations regarding the right to privacy when they intercept digital communication of individuals and/ or collect personal data," Brazil's ambassador Regina Dunlop told the Council in presenting the resolution. During the debate, Russia's delegation criticised mass surveillance by the US, before everyone signed on to the agreement, commissioning the rapporteur (expert) to review government policies on intercepting and collecting our data. Private parade Interestingly, the as yet un-hired expert will also examine private sector responsibilities to respect human rights under the “Protect, Respect, Remedy framework” of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (according to Human Rights Watch) in the specific context of digital information and communication technology. It’s important to be fair to those private sector actors we all think of in this case, those like Facebook, Google, Microsoft etc. Based in the US, they are essentially at the mercy of immensely powerful laws such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The US has created a global political environment whereby if you’re not tracking absolutely everybody, all the time, then you are unsafe. It’s ludicrous, but it’s their reality now. So, the US reaps whatever possible from companies charged with protecting your personal information.
A day after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) revealed Safe Harbour for what it is – ridiculous – the UN has agreed to appoint a special investigator to look into digital spying and violations of online privacy.
Yesterday the UN Human Rights Council unanimously decided to get a new ‘UN special rapporteur’ amid the shadows of the current Europe v Facebook case seen by the ECJ.
A Brazil and Germany-backed resolution looked to respond to concerns over electronic surveillance and wide-reaching, largely illegal interception digital communications.
"States must respect international human rights obligations regarding the right to privacy when they intercept digital communication of individuals and/ or collect personal data," Brazil's ambassador Regina Dunlop told the Council in presenting the resolution.
During the debate, Russia's delegation criticised mass surveillance by the US, before everyone signed on to the agreement, commissioning the rapporteur (expert) to review government policies on intercepting and collecting our data.
Interestingly, the as yet un-hired expert will also examine private sector responsibilities to respect human rights under the “Protect, Respect, Remedy framework” of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (according to Human Rights Watch) in the specific context of digital information and communication technology.
It’s important to be fair to those private sector actors we all think of in this case, those like Facebook, Google, Microsoft etc. Based in the US, they are essentially at the mercy of immensely powerful laws such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The US has created a global political environment whereby if you’re not tracking absolutely everybody, all the time, then you are unsafe. It’s ludicrous, but it’s their reality now. So, the US reaps whatever possible from companies charged with protecting your personal information.
Read more @ http://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/item/41355-cyber-spying-under-attack/
A case against Facebook being heard at the European Court of Justice could transform data privacy across the entire EU. The lawsuit, brought by Austrian Facebook user Maximilian Schrems, focuses on what US companies do with data from customers based outside the US. His complaint seeks to stop US spies from accessing the private data of EU citizens. Screms said on a website he set up to publicise the case that “large internet companies (in the current case Facebook) have, pursuant to US law, allowed the US government to access European user data on a mass scale for law enforcement, espionage and anti-terror purposes.”
A case against Facebook being heard at the European Court of Justice could transform data privacy across the entire EU.
The lawsuit, brought by Austrian Facebook user Maximilian Schrems, focuses on what US companies do with data from customers based outside the US.
His complaint seeks to stop US spies from accessing the private data of EU citizens.
Screms said on a website he set up to publicise the case that “large internet companies (in the current case Facebook) have, pursuant to US law, allowed the US government to access European user data on a mass scale for law enforcement, espionage and anti-terror purposes.”
Read more @ http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/24289/how-a-facebook-user-complaint-could-change-european-data-privacy
Read more @ http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/security-conundrum-series-032715.html
BIG Brother is watching whether you like it or not. The United States’ Big Brother mass surveillance is taking place at the expense of civil liberties and there’s nothing we can do about it, a poll out today has found The poll, launched by Amnesty International which surveyed 15,000 people from 13 countries across every continent, found most people were opposed to mass surveillance. However most of us are also unaware how widespread it really was. The poll which forms part of Amnesty’s worldwide #UnfollowMe campaign reveals 71 per cent of people were strongly opposed to the United States monitoring their internet use. It also found thirds wanted major tech companies including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to secure their communications to prevent government access.
BIG Brother is watching whether you like it or not.
The United States’ Big Brother mass surveillance is taking place at the expense of civil liberties and there’s nothing we can do about it, a poll out today has found
The poll, launched by Amnesty International which surveyed 15,000 people from 13 countries across every continent, found most people were opposed to mass surveillance.
However most of us are also unaware how widespread it really was.
The poll which forms part of Amnesty’s worldwide #UnfollowMe campaign reveals 71 per cent of people were strongly opposed to the United States monitoring their internet use.
It also found thirds wanted major tech companies including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to secure their communications to prevent government access.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/google-yahoo-should-secure-data-against-us-govt-surveillance-say-amnesty-international/story-fnjwmwrh-1227268564208
Mar 29 15 11:00 PM
The Australian Financial Review's political editor Laura Tingle on Wednesday explained to news sources, in a light-hearted fashion, how they could continue to leak to her despite the new data retention laws. For those in the know out there who had lots to say in response on Twitter, here are my thoughts on some of the more technical points. I'm not a lawyer, but I have a reasonable understanding of information security and how it operates within, and across, organisations, and I have five issues with some of the tips her informant gave. My first point is that trying to delineate between metadata and data is to debate about angels on a pinhead. If I made metadata about your metadata, then your metadata is now data that my metadata describes – where is your god now? Let's agree that it's all data, because it is. The new data retention laws highlight the fact that it is all but impossible to cover your tracks online. Greg Newington Secondly, this idea that driving people to use overseas services such as Wickr, Gmail, Skype, Snapchat, etc in order to avoid the data retention regime is eye-poppingly misleading. If a public servant wanted to leak something to you that was ultra sensitive, and you've pointed them to use any of these overseas providers, the security and confidentiality of that information is now entirely dependent on the security capabilities of that third party provider. Personally, I'd prefer that if someone thinks that information is important enough to blow the whistle on, it isn't fired off into the cloud where accountability is easy to claim and hard to verify. Edward Snowden's leaks showed that the US National Security Agency is quite committed to drilling into these vendors in any way it can, and Snowden's leaks also proved that the NSA cannot control its own information.
The Australian Financial Review's political editor Laura Tingle on Wednesday explained to news sources, in a light-hearted fashion, how they could continue to leak to her despite the new data retention laws.
For those in the know out there who had lots to say in response on Twitter, here are my thoughts on some of the more technical points.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have a reasonable understanding of information security and how it operates within, and across, organisations, and I have five issues with some of the tips her informant gave.
My first point is that trying to delineate between metadata and data is to debate about angels on a pinhead. If I made metadata about your metadata, then your metadata is now data that my metadata describes – where is your god now? Let's agree that it's all data, because it is.
The new data retention laws highlight the fact that it is all but impossible to cover your tracks online. Greg Newington
Secondly, this idea that driving people to use overseas services such as Wickr, Gmail, Skype, Snapchat, etc in order to avoid the data retention regime is eye-poppingly misleading.
If a public servant wanted to leak something to you that was ultra sensitive, and you've pointed them to use any of these overseas providers, the security and confidentiality of that information is now entirely dependent on the security capabilities of that third party provider.
Personally, I'd prefer that if someone thinks that information is important enough to blow the whistle on, it isn't fired off into the cloud where accountability is easy to claim and hard to verify.
Edward Snowden's leaks showed that the US National Security Agency is quite committed to drilling into these vendors in any way it can, and Snowden's leaks also proved that the NSA cannot control its own information.
Read more @ http://www.afr.com/technology/not-so-simple-to-protect-secret-sources-under-data-retention-laws-20150326-1m80im
There is an old expression that an Englishman's home is his castle — and even for those of us who are not male or English, we still imagine the home to be a refuge against the bustle of the street and the prying eyes of nosey neighbours. When we go home we make a retreat from the chaos of the world, hunkering down into our own private kingdoms, places of safety and security. How architects think about the domestic reflects a popular desire to control how much of our home life we reveal. The Viennese modernist Adolf Loos believed that the outside of the home should be unremarkable, without ornament, plain and anonymous like a face lost in a city crowd. By contrast, the interior should be materially rich, eclectic and highly personal. How we design our homes, he argued, sends strong messages to society about who we think we are, and who we want to be. For Loos, sending messages was giving the game away — if we really want to be ourselves at home we have to conceal our lives from public scrutiny. That concealment is becoming harder and harder to manage. As you read this, the United States' National Security Agency (as well as a myriad of other corporations and governments) are almost definitely monitoring your home internet traffic and scanning your emails. Although the main building itself is not a secret, nothing is known about what goes on inside Under a programme called "Prism" they are keeping records of your phone's geolocation, harvesting your metadata and tracking your browser history. They are filing and documenting your most intimate details, and as we know from whistleblower Edward Snowden, NSA workers routinely share your nude photos with their colleagues (in an office culture apparently closer to fraternity "bros" than intelligence specialists). Your data is siphoned directly from the biggest servers in the world through so-called "backdoor" surveillance tools — including those of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple — and stored in the NSA's Massive Data Repository in Utah. Alongside your own personal information, more generalised data scooping and snooping is banked, logged and then synthesised, analysed and cross-compared.
There is an old expression that an Englishman's home is his castle — and even for those of us who are not male or English, we still imagine the home to be a refuge against the bustle of the street and the prying eyes of nosey neighbours. When we go home we make a retreat from the chaos of the world, hunkering down into our own private kingdoms, places of safety and security.
How architects think about the domestic reflects a popular desire to control how much of our home life we reveal. The Viennese modernist Adolf Loos believed that the outside of the home should be unremarkable, without ornament, plain and anonymous like a face lost in a city crowd. By contrast, the interior should be materially rich, eclectic and highly personal.
How we design our homes, he argued, sends strong messages to society about who we think we are, and who we want to be. For Loos, sending messages was giving the game away — if we really want to be ourselves at home we have to conceal our lives from public scrutiny.
That concealment is becoming harder and harder to manage. As you read this, the United States' National Security Agency (as well as a myriad of other corporations and governments) are almost definitely monitoring your home internet traffic and scanning your emails.
Although the main building itself is not a secret, nothing is known about what goes on inside
Under a programme called "Prism" they are keeping records of your phone's geolocation, harvesting your metadata and tracking your browser history. They are filing and documenting your most intimate details, and as we know from whistleblower Edward Snowden, NSA workers routinely share your nude photos with their colleagues (in an office culture apparently closer to fraternity "bros" than intelligence specialists).
Your data is siphoned directly from the biggest servers in the world through so-called "backdoor" surveillance tools — including those of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple — and stored in the NSA's Massive Data Repository in Utah. Alongside your own personal information, more generalised data scooping and snooping is banked, logged and then synthesised, analysed and cross-compared.
Mar 29 15 11:01 PM
New Zealand Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn on Thursday launched an inquiry into complaints that a spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), intercepted the communications of the country's citizens in the South Pacific. In a statement, Gwyn said the complaints and other public allegations raise wider questions regarding the collection, retention, and sharing of communications data. "I will be addressing the specific complaints that I have received, in accordance with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996," she said. "But there is also a clear need to provide as much factual information to the complainants, and to the wider public, as is possible." Documents released by United States National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed last week that the GCSB had collected the email, phone, and social media communications of its Pacific neighbours.
New Zealand Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn on Thursday launched an inquiry into complaints that a spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), intercepted the communications of the country's citizens in the South Pacific.
In a statement, Gwyn said the complaints and other public allegations raise wider questions regarding the collection, retention, and sharing of communications data.
"I will be addressing the specific complaints that I have received, in accordance with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996," she said.
"But there is also a clear need to provide as much factual information to the complainants, and to the wider public, as is possible."
Documents released by United States National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed last week that the GCSB had collected the email, phone, and social media communications of its Pacific neighbours.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/nz-spooks-face-south-pacific-dragnet-probe/
Since the summer of 2013 when Edward Snowden, a government system administrator and insider, unveiled secret government snooping on large volumes of citizen data (without proper legal tools such as search warrants), media coverage and discussion of government surveillance operations have been widespread. It’s been revealed that U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies with the three-letter acronyms (NSA, FBI, CIA and so on) have enormous data gathering operations, including accessing and analyzing data about phone calls as well as the content of emails, documents and web visits of U.S. and foreign citizens. The Internet infrastructure industry is experiencing business and operational impacts, since these headlines caused renewed focus on data privacy and surveillance issues.
Since the summer of 2013 when Edward Snowden, a government system administrator and insider, unveiled secret government snooping on large volumes of citizen data (without proper legal tools such as search warrants), media coverage and discussion of government surveillance operations have been widespread.
It’s been revealed that U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies with the three-letter acronyms (NSA, FBI, CIA and so on) have enormous data gathering operations, including accessing and analyzing data about phone calls as well as the content of emails, documents and web visits of U.S. and foreign citizens.
The Internet infrastructure industry is experiencing business and operational impacts, since these headlines caused renewed focus on data privacy and surveillance issues.
Read more @ http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/03/26/government-surveillance-dilemmas-present-challenges-for-data-centers/
Read more @ https://www.marketingmag.com.au/hubs-c/social-media-paranoia-existential-crises-fomo-fear-missing/
The new cybersecurity bill joins a long list of efforts launched without adequate thought. Editors Note: “Rethinking Intelligence” is a project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law that examines the contemporary U.S. intelligence community, which fellow Michael German argues “has grown too large, too expensive, too powerful, too ineffective, and too unaccountable to the American people.” In this occasional series, Defense One presents a selection of commentaries and interviews conducted by the Brennan Center with officials from defense, homeland security, federal law enforcement, Congress, intelligence, and other groups who present their ideas to improve the business of American intelligence. Their arguments tackle three fundamental questions: what is the scope of the new intelligence community, why does it sometimes fail, and how should the US reform it? For more, visit the Brennan Center online. The House and Senate Intelligence Committee just passed a cybersecurity bill that critics argue isn’t likely to improve cybersecurity. In fact, because it undermines the privacy of electronic communications by encouraging companies to broadly share private data with the government and each other, it may actually damage cybersecurity.
The new cybersecurity bill joins a long list of efforts launched without adequate thought.
Editors Note: “Rethinking Intelligence” is a project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law that examines the contemporary U.S. intelligence community, which fellow Michael German argues “has grown too large, too expensive, too powerful, too ineffective, and too unaccountable to the American people.”
In this occasional series, Defense One presents a selection of commentaries and interviews conducted by the Brennan Center with officials from defense, homeland security, federal law enforcement, Congress, intelligence, and other groups who present their ideas to improve the business of American intelligence.
Their arguments tackle three fundamental questions: what is the scope of the new intelligence community, why does it sometimes fail, and how should the US reform it? For more, visit the Brennan Center online.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committee just passed a cybersecurity bill that critics argue isn’t likely to improve cybersecurity. In fact, because it undermines the privacy of electronic communications by encouraging companies to broadly share private data with the government and each other, it may actually damage cybersecurity.
Mar 29 15 11:02 PM
Learn how the battle over privacy technologies could define the future of the web. This TechRepublic cover story explains the strange history and the serious consequences of the fight over encryption. A black shrouded figure appears on the screen, looming over the rapt audience, talking about surveillance. But this is no Big Brother figure seeking obedience though, rather the opposite. Perhaps even his nemesis. NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden is explaining how his former employer and other intelligence agencies have worked to undermine privacy on the internet and beyond. "We're seeing systemic attacks on the fabrics of our systems, the fabric of our communications... by undermining the security of our communications, they enable surveillance," he warns. He is speaking at the conference via a video link from Russia, where he has taken refuge after leaking the documents detailing some of the NSA's surveillance projects. The room behind him is in darkness, giving away nothing about his exact location. "Surveillance is not possible when our movements and communications are safe and protected — a satellite cannot see you when you are inside your home — but an unprotected computer with an open webcam can," he adds. Over the last two years a steady stream of documents leaked by Snowden have laid bare how intelligence agencies in the US and the UK have waged a secret war against privacy on the internet. How they have worked to undermine the technologies used by billions of people every day to protect everything from mundane messages — or webcam chats — to their most secret thoughts.
Learn how the battle over privacy technologies could define the future of the web. This TechRepublic cover story explains the strange history and the serious consequences of the fight over encryption.
A black shrouded figure appears on the screen, looming over the rapt audience, talking about surveillance. But this is no Big Brother figure seeking obedience though, rather the opposite.
Perhaps even his nemesis.
NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden is explaining how his former employer and other intelligence agencies have worked to undermine privacy on the internet and beyond.
"We're seeing systemic attacks on the fabrics of our systems, the fabric of our communications... by undermining the security of our communications, they enable surveillance," he warns.
He is speaking at the conference via a video link from Russia, where he has taken refuge after leaking the documents detailing some of the NSA's surveillance projects. The room behind him is in darkness, giving away nothing about his exact location.
"Surveillance is not possible when our movements and communications are safe and protected — a satellite cannot see you when you are inside your home — but an unprotected computer with an open webcam can," he adds.
Over the last two years a steady stream of documents leaked by Snowden have laid bare how intelligence agencies in the US and the UK have waged a secret war against privacy on the internet. How they have worked to undermine the technologies used by billions of people every day to protect everything from mundane messages — or webcam chats — to their most secret thoughts.
Read more @ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-undercover-war-on-your-internet-secrets-how-online-surveillance-cracked-our-trust-in-the-web/
A recent Pew Research Center report found that some Internet users have changed their use of social networking services, apps, email, and even search engines as a result of former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations about the government’s pervasive online surveillance. So how does your smartphone — the device that many of us find indispensable in our day-to-day lives — have the potential to expose your personal data and your online activity to government snooping? How does your mobile device protect your anonymity, and how does it leave your communications vulnerable to interception by the NSA and other intelligence agencies? Which apps are tapped (or asking to be tapped) by the NSA? Documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA and GCHQ exploit not only the location data that our phones share, but all of the data that streams from the apps we use everyday, according to the New York Times. With each new generation of mobile phones, greater amounts of personal data pour onto networks where spies can access it. Among the most valuable of those “unintended intelligence tools” are so-called leaky apps, which share everything from the smartphone identification codes of users to where users have been that day. The NSA and its British counterpart were working together on how to collect and store data from dozens of smartphone apps as early as 2007, and since then have traded techniques for acquiring location and planning data when a “target” uses Google Maps, and for accessing address books, friends lists, phone logs, and geographic data embedded in photos when someone sends a post to the mobile versions of Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other services. The agencies also showed particular interest in Google Maps, which is accurate to within a few yards or better, and collected so much data from the app that an NSA report from 2007 claimed that the agencies would “be able to clone Google’s database” of global searches for directions. A British report from 2012 included the code needed to access the profiles generated when Android users play Angry Birds.
A recent Pew Research Center report found that some Internet users have changed their use of social networking services, apps, email, and even search engines as a result of former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations about the government’s pervasive online surveillance. So how does your smartphone — the device that many of us find indispensable in our day-to-day lives — have the potential to expose your personal data and your online activity to government snooping? How does your mobile device protect your anonymity, and how does it leave your communications vulnerable to interception by the NSA and other intelligence agencies?
Documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA and GCHQ exploit not only the location data that our phones share, but all of the data that streams from the apps we use everyday, according to the New York Times. With each new generation of mobile phones, greater amounts of personal data pour onto networks where spies can access it. Among the most valuable of those “unintended intelligence tools” are so-called leaky apps, which share everything from the smartphone identification codes of users to where users have been that day.
The NSA and its British counterpart were working together on how to collect and store data from dozens of smartphone apps as early as 2007, and since then have traded techniques for acquiring location and planning data when a “target” uses Google Maps, and for accessing address books, friends lists, phone logs, and geographic data embedded in photos when someone sends a post to the mobile versions of Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other services.
The agencies also showed particular interest in Google Maps, which is accurate to within a few yards or better, and collected so much data from the app that an NSA report from 2007 claimed that the agencies would “be able to clone Google’s database” of global searches for directions. A British report from 2012 included the code needed to access the profiles generated when Android users play Angry Birds.
Read more @ http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/which-apps-expose-your-data-to-the-nsas-spying.html/?a=viewall
Mar 31 15 12:34 PM
A shootout has erupted outside the headquarters of the US National Security Agency, leaving one suspect dead and two others wounded, after a pair of men dressed as women tried to drive through the front gates. The men sped through the NSA entrance at Fort Meade in Maryland in a stolen Ford Escape around 9am local time, reports NBC News. The suspects opened fire when a guard intervened. The guard returned fire, killing one of the men and wounding the other. The 44-year-old guard was also injured. He and the surviving suspect, 20, were flown to a nearby hospital for treatment.
A shootout has erupted outside the headquarters of the US National Security Agency, leaving one suspect dead and two others wounded, after a pair of men dressed as women tried to drive through the front gates.
The men sped through the NSA entrance at Fort Meade in Maryland in a stolen Ford Escape around 9am local time, reports NBC News.
The suspects opened fire when a guard intervened. The guard returned fire, killing one of the men and wounding the other.
The 44-year-old guard was also injured.
He and the surviving suspect, 20, were flown to a nearby hospital for treatment.
Former NSA and CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden said the NSA will be forced to "fold its tent" on its phone data collection program without re-authorization by Congress of key sections of the Patriot Act due to expire later this year. "Our government has indicated that if Congress doesn't act, the NSA is going to fold its tent on this program because it will lose the authorization it currently has to do what it is currently doing without replacing it with any new approach," Hayden told The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV Monday. He said the "legal technicalities" to give the National Security Agency "a window… would be very much contested.""What we need is Congress to act."
Posts: 14359
Mar 31 15 8:55 PM
Mar 31 15 9:39 PM
icepick wrote:Not to act he means.
Apr 1 15 1:40 AM
Apr 1 15 8:28 AM
icepick wrote:I would like that. But then, there's a problem with that too. War is in the air thanks to Obama. This has all become such a mess in the last six years ................ as you said, he's a threat to the entire planet.
Apr 1 15 9:04 AM
As if Facebook’s privacy record wasn’t scary enough, a privacy watchdog has warned that the network spies on you even if you are logged out. The network constantly watches you on other websites, even when you’re not signed in to Facebook, researchers claim. Facebook will actuallyy watch which sites you visit, and store this information, even if you don’t use Facebook, University of Leuven researchers warn. The social network giant also ‘watches’ users who have specifically asked not to be watched – using browser cookies to monitor the sites everyone visits. The latest ‘Big Brother’ revelations come in a report commissioned by the Belgian Privacy Commission, in response to concerns over Facebook ‘watching’ users. The report found that people who have logged out – and non-Facebook users – were tracked constantly online via Facebook’s social plug-ins such as the ‘Like’ button on websites.
As if Facebook’s privacy record wasn’t scary enough, a privacy watchdog has warned that the network spies on you even if you are logged out.
The network constantly watches you on other websites, even when you’re not signed in to Facebook, researchers claim.
Facebook will actuallyy watch which sites you visit, and store this information, even if you don’t use Facebook, University of Leuven researchers warn.
The social network giant also ‘watches’ users who have specifically asked not to be watched – using browser cookies to monitor the sites everyone visits.
The latest ‘Big Brother’ revelations come in a report commissioned by the Belgian Privacy Commission, in response to concerns over Facebook ‘watching’ users.
The report found that people who have logged out – and non-Facebook users – were tracked constantly online via Facebook’s social plug-ins such as the ‘Like’ button on websites.
Read more @ http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/31/facebook-spies-on-you-even-when-you-are-logged-out-study-finds-5129194/
I have IncrediMail (had it for ten years or more) and now FB is even in my darn emails!!
Apr 1 15 12:04 PM
Apr 1 15 2:41 PM
icepick wrote:Yes, plenty on the payroll. Have you heard about Americans seeing Obama as a bigger threat than Putin? For some reason, somebody ran an articulate poll on the subject, and that's how it came out. I'm not surprised either.
Apr 1 15 3:55 PM
Apr 1 15 9:30 PM
icepick wrote:The media is lying about all of that support. Remember a couple of months ago when his approval rating was 27%? Things have gotten steadily worse, so why would it go up? All he is doing is vetoing every bill they hand him. If the Democrats had the brains of a grape, they would lend enough votes to over ride. Everybody is suspicious of his last election now.
Apr 1 15 9:57 PM
THE National Security Agency in the US is facing a new and unforeseen challenge in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks and it’s a very unfamiliar problem for the intelligence agency. The NSA suffered the biggest security breach in its history when former contractor Edward Snowden stole troves of classified data and leaked it to the press. The documents showed mass spying on US citizens. The public fallout from the revelations has tarnished the image of the agency, and is seriously affecting their ability to recruit college graduates.Even with the highly patriotic nature of American society, many idealistic graduates are second guessing what otherwise looks like a dream job — despite what would likely be a $A100,000 starting salary.A report by NPR radio details the difficulties faced by the agency as coveted minds like 22-year-old Daniel Swann, spurn the agency for other opportunities. He is in his fourth year of a concurrent bachelor’s-master’s degree in cyber security at Johns Hopkins University and says the Snowden leaks have changed his opinion about working for the government agency.“When I was a senior in high school I though I would end up working for a defence contractor or the NSA itself. That was actually a big priority for me,” he told NPR. But after the revelations of domestic spying he says his mindset has “definitely taken a different turn ... partially for moral reasons.”
THE National Security Agency in the US is facing a new and unforeseen challenge in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks and it’s a very unfamiliar problem for the intelligence agency.
The NSA suffered the biggest security breach in its history when former contractor Edward Snowden stole troves of classified data and leaked it to the press. The documents showed mass spying on US citizens. The public fallout from the revelations has tarnished the image of the agency, and is seriously affecting their ability to recruit college graduates.
Even with the highly patriotic nature of American society, many idealistic graduates are second guessing what otherwise looks like a dream job — despite what would likely be a $A100,000 starting salary.
A report by NPR radio details the difficulties faced by the agency as coveted minds like 22-year-old Daniel Swann, spurn the agency for other opportunities.
He is in his fourth year of a concurrent bachelor’s-master’s degree in cyber security at Johns Hopkins University and says the Snowden leaks have changed his opinion about working for the government agency.
“When I was a senior in high school I though I would end up working for a defence contractor or the NSA itself. That was actually a big priority for me,” he told NPR. But after the revelations of domestic spying he says his mindset has “definitely taken a different turn ... partially for moral reasons.”
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/the-nsa-is-having-trouble-recruiting-graduates-in-the-wake-of-snowden-leaks/story-fnjwnfzw-1227288086691
Apr 1 15 10:57 PM