ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Mar 2 16 9:25 PM
The clash between Apple and the FBI over whether the company should provide access to encrypted data on a locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers highlights debates about privacy and data security which have raged for decades. Cryptography was once controlled by the state and deployed only for military and diplomatic ends. But in the 1970s, cryptographer Whitfield Diffie devised a system which took encryption keys away from the state and marked the start of the so-called "Crypto Wars". Whitfield Diffie and three other experts spoke to the BBC World Service Inquiry programme about the tensions at the heart of the spat between Apple and the FBI. Whitfield Diffie: The revolution beginsIn 1975, cryptographer Whitfield Diffie devised "public key cryptography", which revolutionised encryption. "The basic techniques we used until public key cryptography come from around 1500 in the western world, and were known from about 800 in the Middle East. "They are basically arithmetic. Not ordinary integer arithmetic, but something like clock arithmetic - it's 11 o'clock and you wait three hours and you get 2 o'clock - and table lookups. What's the 5th element in the table? What's the 20th element? "The trouble is you can't do them very well without some kind of mechanical computation. A human being can't do enough of those calculations to produce a secure system without making too many mistakes.
The clash between Apple and the FBI over whether the company should provide access to encrypted data on a locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers highlights debates about privacy and data security which have raged for decades.
Cryptography was once controlled by the state and deployed only for military and diplomatic ends. But in the 1970s, cryptographer Whitfield Diffie devised a system which took encryption keys away from the state and marked the start of the so-called "Crypto Wars".
Whitfield Diffie and three other experts spoke to the BBC World Service Inquiry programme about the tensions at the heart of the spat between Apple and the FBI.
In 1975, cryptographer Whitfield Diffie devised "public key cryptography", which revolutionised encryption.
"The basic techniques we used until public key cryptography come from around 1500 in the western world, and were known from about 800 in the Middle East.
"They are basically arithmetic. Not ordinary integer arithmetic, but something like clock arithmetic - it's 11 o'clock and you wait three hours and you get 2 o'clock - and table lookups. What's the 5th element in the table? What's the 20th element?
"The trouble is you can't do them very well without some kind of mechanical computation. A human being can't do enough of those calculations to produce a secure system without making too many mistakes.
Read more @ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35659152?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
The latest version of the Investigatory Powers Bill has failed to clarify tricky issues like encryption and gives police and security services wide-ranging powersThe UK government is pushing ahead with plans to update surveillance laws, despite criticism from privacy activists, communications firms and three parliamentary committees. Earlier today, the Home Office published the latest version of its Investigatory Powers Bill, nicknamed the “snooper’s charter”, which had been released in draft form last November. “The revised bill is both clearer and stronger in protecting privacy,” said home secretary Theresa May. The latest version attempts to clarify that a company will only be forced to remove “electronic protections”, such as encryption, that it has applied to users’ messages when it is “technically feasible” to do so. The earlier version suggested firms could be required to decrypt messages for which they do not have a key, which is impossible. This may still be the case, and will hinge on whether firms like Apple are deemed to apply end-to-end encryption to messages, or if a user does it themselves. End-to-end encryption means that even the software author (in this case Apple) does not have access to the key, only the two users communicating. But given the communication takes place on Apple’s platform, the government may be leaving itself some wiggle room. Heavily criticised The government has also not stepped back from its heavily criticised plans requiring communications firms to hold “internet connection records”, detailing users’ web history, for 12 months, for use by police and security services in investigations. The scope of these powers has actually been expanded to give police access to all web records, not just illegal websites or communications services.
The latest version of the Investigatory Powers Bill has failed to clarify tricky issues like encryption and gives police and security services wide-ranging powers
The UK government is pushing ahead with plans to update surveillance laws, despite criticism from privacy activists, communications firms and three parliamentary committees.
Earlier today, the Home Office published the latest version of its Investigatory Powers Bill, nicknamed the “snooper’s charter”, which had been released in draft form last November. “The revised bill is both clearer and stronger in protecting privacy,” said home secretary Theresa May.
The latest version attempts to clarify that a company will only be forced to remove “electronic protections”, such as encryption, that it has applied to users’ messages when it is “technically feasible” to do so. The earlier version suggested firms could be required to decrypt messages for which they do not have a key, which is impossible.
This may still be the case, and will hinge on whether firms like Apple are deemed to apply end-to-end encryption to messages, or if a user does it themselves. End-to-end encryption means that even the software author (in this case Apple) does not have access to the key, only the two users communicating. But given the communication takes place on Apple’s platform, the government may be leaving itself some wiggle room.
The government has also not stepped back from its heavily criticised plans requiring communications firms to hold “internet connection records”, detailing users’ web history, for 12 months, for use by police and security services in investigations. The scope of these powers has actually been expanded to give police access to all web records, not just illegal websites or communications services.
Read more @ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079252-new-uk-snoopers-charter-still-gives-state-wide-hacking-powers/?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
Mar 2 16 10:16 PM
The number of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize has surged to a new record for 2016, with contenders ranging from peace negotiators in Colombia to US presidential candidate Donald Trump. "It came as a pleasant surprise," Olav Njoelstad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, told Reuters of the leap in the number of nominees to 376 from a previous high of 278 in 2014. Thousands of people, from members of every parliament worldwide to all former winners, are eligible to make nominations. Nomination does not imply Nobel endorsement. Norwegian Nobel experts who track publicly announced nominations reckon those with a chance include former US spy agency contractor Edward Snowden and Colombia's government and FARC rebel group - if they succeed in peace talks to end five decades of war.
The number of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize has surged to a new record for 2016, with contenders ranging from peace negotiators in Colombia to US presidential candidate Donald Trump.
"It came as a pleasant surprise," Olav Njoelstad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, told Reuters of the leap in the number of nominees to 376 from a previous high of 278 in 2014.
Thousands of people, from members of every parliament worldwide to all former winners, are eligible to make nominations. Nomination does not imply Nobel endorsement.
Norwegian Nobel experts who track publicly announced nominations reckon those with a chance include former US spy agency contractor Edward Snowden and Colombia's government and FARC rebel group - if they succeed in peace talks to end five decades of war.
Read more @ http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/03/02/nobel-peace-prize-shatters-nominees-record
Only China and Russia violate their citizens' privacy as much the Snoopers' Charter allows
The Investigatory Powers Bill is a dangerous affront on Parliament. It's unnecessary and it will make ordinary citizens less safe As the old saying goes, in heaven the food is Italian, the beer is German and the police are British. The rule of law in this country is upheld on the principle that the police are not our masters but our servants. We don’t have military police and you rarely see armed officers on our streets. Maybe crime would be lower if we had tougher law enforcement, but that’s besides the point - it’s just not how we do things here. Yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, wants to give police powers that even that most autocratic and unfree countries do not have. She is turning local bobbies into snoopers, inspectors into hackers, and in doing so she is eroding what little privacy we have from the prying eyes of an increasingly powerful government.
The Investigatory Powers Bill is a dangerous affront on Parliament. It's unnecessary and it will make ordinary citizens less safe
As the old saying goes, in heaven the food is Italian, the beer is German and the police are British. The rule of law in this country is upheld on the principle that the police are not our masters but our servants. We don’t have military police and you rarely see armed officers on our streets. Maybe crime would be lower if we had tougher law enforcement, but that’s besides the point - it’s just not how we do things here.
Yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, wants to give police powers that even that most autocratic and unfree countries do not have. She is turning local bobbies into snoopers, inspectors into hackers, and in doing so she is eroding what little privacy we have from the prying eyes of an increasingly powerful government.
Read more @ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/only-china-and-russia-violate-their-citizens-privacy-as-much-the-snoopers-charter-a6907136.html
Microsoft president defends need to keep governments from weakening technologies Opening speakers at the world’s largest technology security event have strongly defended the need to keep national governments from weakening technologies and laws that they argue are critical to safeguarding privacy and security. “Some proposals, such as weakening encryption, are so misguided as to boggle the mind. How can you possibly justify a policy that would catastrophically weaken our defence infrastructures?” asked opening speaker Amit Yoran, president of security company RSA, hosting the annual RSA Security Conference in San Francisco. Encryption — the encoding of data to make it unreadable by anyone except intended recipients — is widely used in internet and communications technologies. Its use increased after whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of surreptitious government spying on internet and communications data traffic.
Opening speakers at the world’s largest technology security event have strongly defended the need to keep national governments from weakening technologies and laws that they argue are critical to safeguarding privacy and security.
“Some proposals, such as weakening encryption, are so misguided as to boggle the mind. How can you possibly justify a policy that would catastrophically weaken our defence infrastructures?” asked opening speaker Amit Yoran, president of security company RSA, hosting the annual RSA Security Conference in San Francisco.
Encryption — the encoding of data to make it unreadable by anyone except intended recipients — is widely used in internet and communications technologies. Its use increased after whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of surreptitious government spying on internet and communications data traffic.
Read more @ http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/there-is-no-technology-more-important-than-encryption-1.2556561
Home Secretary Theresa May insists that the new Investigatory Powers Bill allowing cops to hack phones and computers has enabled fresh protections for the public HOOVERING up vast amounts of data around the world has saved dozens of lives from bombers, spy bosses revealed for the first time. GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 made public previously top secret details yesterday to show why so-called “bulk data” collection is vital. Spy chiefs answered a direct request from MPs to make an “operational case” for the technique as a landmark new law to boost eavesdropping powers was introduced to Parliament.
HOOVERING up vast amounts of data around the world has saved dozens of lives from bombers, spy bosses revealed for the first time.
GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 made public previously top secret details yesterday to show why so-called “bulk data” collection is vital.
Spy chiefs answered a direct request from MPs to make an “operational case” for the technique as a landmark new law to boost eavesdropping powers was introduced to Parliament.
Read more @ http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6970215/Spy-hackers-foiled-seven-UK-attack-plots.html
The Investigatory Powers Bill is officially on the road now. The British government has presented the final draft of legislation that critics call a “snooper’s charter”—it would create records of all the websites that people visit, legitimize the hacking of people’s computing devices, force organizations to hand over bulk data sets about the people they serve, and compel tech firms to remove encryption when asked to do so. Some of the changes since the first draft of the Investigatory Powers Bill include attempts to satisfy calls for better safeguards. Urgent surveillance warrants will now need to be reviewed by a senior judge more quickly than before. There is also now a requirement for the home secretary to authorize any request from British intelligence agencies to their overseas partners to spy on British people.
The Investigatory Powers Bill is officially on the road now.
The British government has presented the final draft of legislation that critics call a “snooper’s charter”—it would create records of all the websites that people visit, legitimize the hacking of people’s computing devices, force organizations to hand over bulk data sets about the people they serve, and compel tech firms to remove encryption when asked to do so.
Some of the changes since the first draft of the Investigatory Powers Bill include attempts to satisfy calls for better safeguards. Urgent surveillance warrants will now need to be reviewed by a senior judge more quickly than before. There is also now a requirement for the home secretary to authorize any request from British intelligence agencies to their overseas partners to spy on British people.
Read more @ http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/uk-investigatory-powers/
Just using scare tactics….
RSA Conference keynote reveals concerns over critical U.S. infrastructure, data integrity Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, Tuesday told a packed RSA keynote audience that over the next three years his main concerns are cyber attacks on critical U.S. infrastructure, destruction of data integrity, and disruption of the status quo. Rogers appeared on the second day of the annual RSA Conference in San Francisco and struck a tone of partnership with the private sector, with an emphasis on Silicon Valley. The presentation was predictable and light on details until Rogers began his concluding remarks. He said there are three main issues that concern him over the next three years, the first one being "when, not if, [we] are going to see a nation state or actor take destructive action against critical U.S infrastructure."
RSA Conference keynote reveals concerns over critical U.S. infrastructure, data integrity
Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, Tuesday told a packed RSA keynote audience that over the next three years his main concerns are cyber attacks on critical U.S. infrastructure, destruction of data integrity, and disruption of the status quo.
Rogers appeared on the second day of the annual RSA Conference in San Francisco and struck a tone of partnership with the private sector, with an emphasis on Silicon Valley. The presentation was predictable and light on details until Rogers began his concluding remarks.
He said there are three main issues that concern him over the next three years, the first one being "when, not if, [we] are going to see a nation state or actor take destructive action against critical U.S infrastructure."
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/attacks-disruption-destruction-top-concerns-for-nsa-chief/
Huh!?! That is a turnabout! What they do for the countries safety while passing around pictures of nude women they collect off peoples private conversations via phone or email…..? hmmmm
The secret cellphone metadata collection program Stellarwind became household knowledge in 2009, after files obtained by CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden were published in the Guardian newspaper. The man at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time is Michael Hayden, author of the new book, “Playing to the Edge.” Hayden has the distinction to be the only person to have led both the CIA and the NSA, and uses the book to give Americans a chance to look at the inner workings of both agencies, and what the intelligence community does for the country’s safety.
The secret cellphone metadata collection program Stellarwind became household knowledge in 2009, after files obtained by CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden were published in the Guardian newspaper.
The man at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time is Michael Hayden, author of the new book, “Playing to the Edge.” Hayden has the distinction to be the only person to have led both the CIA and the NSA, and uses the book to give Americans a chance to look at the inner workings of both agencies, and what the intelligence community does for the country’s safety.
Read more @ http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2016/03/01/46808/ex-cia--nsa-head-michael-hayden-on-the-tug-of-war/
SAN FRANCISCO — In 1970, a Stanford artificial intelligence researcher named John McCarthy returned from a conference in Bordeaux, France, where he had presented a paper on the possibility of a “Home Information Terminal.” He predicted the terminal would be connected via the telephone network to a shared computer, which in turn would store files that would contain all books, magazines, newspapers, catalogs, airline schedules, public information and personal files. Whitfield Diffie, then a young programmer at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, read Mr. McCarthy’s paper and began to think about the question of what would take the place of an individual signature in a paperless world. Mr. Diffie would spend the next several years pursuing that challenge and in 1976, with Martin E. Hellman, an electrical engineer at Stanford, invented “public-key cryptography,” a technique that would two decades later make possible the commercial World Wide Web.
SAN FRANCISCO — In 1970, a Stanford artificial intelligence researcher named John McCarthy returned from a conference in Bordeaux, France, where he had presented a paper on the possibility of a “Home Information Terminal.”
He predicted the terminal would be connected via the telephone network to a shared computer, which in turn would store files that would contain all books, magazines, newspapers, catalogs, airline schedules, public information and personal files.
Whitfield Diffie, then a young programmer at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, read Mr. McCarthy’s paper and began to think about the question of what would take the place of an individual signature in a paperless world. Mr. Diffie would spend the next several years pursuing that challenge and in 1976, with Martin E. Hellman, an electrical engineer at Stanford, invented “public-key cryptography,” a technique that would two decades later make possible the commercial World Wide Web.
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/cryptography-pioneers-to-win-turing-award.html
In a filing Thursday, US tech giant Apple laid out its case against a court order to bypass the security features of a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. The company claims that its First Amendment rights are being violated and accuses the government of attempting to “conscript” the company into spying on the population, a move it called “unprecedented.” While government officials have claimed that the court order is narrowly focused only on Syed Farook’s phone, in reality the case has been seized upon by the federal government to renew its offensive against encryption technology, which it views as an intolerable restraint on its spying powers. Even the San Bernardino police chief has admitted to the press that Farook’s iPhone, a work phone issued to him by the county, probably contains “nothing of any value.” “This is not a case about one isolated iPhone.” the court document filed by Apple reads. “Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe.”
In a filing Thursday, US tech giant Apple laid out its case against a court order to bypass the security features of a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. The company claims that its First Amendment rights are being violated and accuses the government of attempting to “conscript” the company into spying on the population, a move it called “unprecedented.”
While government officials have claimed that the court order is narrowly focused only on Syed Farook’s phone, in reality the case has been seized upon by the federal government to renew its offensive against encryption technology, which it views as an intolerable restraint on its spying powers. Even the San Bernardino police chief has admitted to the press that Farook’s iPhone, a work phone issued to him by the county, probably contains “nothing of any value.”
“This is not a case about one isolated iPhone.” the court document filed by Apple reads. “Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe.”
Read more @ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/27/appl-f27.html
In many ways, the current battle between Apple and the F.B.I. really began in June 2013, when the former defense contractor Edward J. Snowden revealed the scale of government spying on domestic Internet traffic. Usually, tech companies faced with often-secret court orders cooperated with this snooping. But the industry has since come to believe, thanks to the Snowden documents, that despite their cooperation, national security agents were also hacking into their networks. Given that history, it should surprise no one that Apple is digging in its heels on a court order requiring it to create software that would help law enforcement gain access to a password-protected iPhone that belonged to one of the gunmen in the December mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. But Apple engineers, as The New York Times reported Wednesday, are working on technology that would make even that impossible. If Apple should succeed, it will present an even tougher barrier to government snoops. And law enforcement, in turn, would have to find a way around that.
In many ways, the current battle between Apple and the F.B.I. really began in June 2013, when the former defense contractor Edward J. Snowden revealed the scale of government spying on domestic Internet traffic.
Usually, tech companies faced with often-secret court orders cooperated with this snooping. But the industry has since come to believe, thanks to the Snowden documents, that despite their cooperation, national security agents were also hacking into their networks.
Given that history, it should surprise no one that Apple is digging in its heels on a court order requiring it to create software that would help law enforcement gain access to a password-protected iPhone that belonged to one of the gunmen in the December mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.
But Apple engineers, as The New York Times reported Wednesday, are working on technology that would make even that impossible. If Apple should succeed, it will present an even tougher barrier to government snoops. And law enforcement, in turn, would have to find a way around that.
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/technology/when-the-apple-and-fbi-fight-really-began.html
The U.S. government just released the May 2002 letter that justified intercepting phone and email records—and eventually NSA surveillance. Nearly 14 years after it was written, the public can finally read the 22-page letter to a federal judge that justified intercepting phone and email records of millions of Americans—the extent of which eventually prompted Edward Snowden to leak details about the National Security Agency (NSA) data collection program. The document, written by a deputy in the Department of Justice, is a circuitous journey of logical leaps that seems to argue for exempting the president from following certain laws, exempting the military from the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and for implying that terrorists operating in the U.S. are a foreign occupying army. It even compares electronic spying to drunk driver sobriety checks. The 9/11 attacks are mentioned throughout as justification. Whether you're for or against antiterrorism surveillance in the U.S., the letter by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo is a challenging read. It starts out seeming to explain why the president can't do mass surveillance without a warrant. The NSA doesn't conduct surveillance in the U.S. or involving U.S. citizens, he says; and the FBI, which does operate in the States, is required to get a warrant under a 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
The U.S. government just released the May 2002 letter that justified intercepting phone and email records—and eventually NSA surveillance.
Nearly 14 years after it was written, the public can finally read the 22-page letter to a federal judge that justified intercepting phone and email records of millions of Americans—the extent of which eventually prompted Edward Snowden to leak details about the National Security Agency (NSA) data collection program.
The document, written by a deputy in the Department of Justice, is a circuitous journey of logical leaps that seems to argue for exempting the president from following certain laws, exempting the military from the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and for implying that terrorists operating in the U.S. are a foreign occupying army. It even compares electronic spying to drunk driver sobriety checks. The 9/11 attacks are mentioned throughout as justification.
Whether you're for or against antiterrorism surveillance in the U.S., the letter by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo is a challenging read. It starts out seeming to explain why the president can't do mass surveillance without a warrant. The NSA doesn't conduct surveillance in the U.S. or involving U.S. citizens, he says; and the FBI, which does operate in the States, is required to get a warrant under a 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Read more @ http://www.fastcompany.com/3057298/revealed-how-the-bush-administration-argued-legal-loopholes-for-nsa-snooping
Mar 3 16 7:47 AM
Hacking the Pentagon is a commonly seen feat in action movies, but among actual, real-life hackers who don't want to end in jail, it's known as something you just don't do. That changes today, with a new initiative from the U.S. Defense Department that will ask "vetted" security experts to test the cybersecurity of the Pentagon, Reuters reported Wednesday.The initiative, led by the Pentagon's Defense Digital Service (DDS) and called "Hack the Pentagon," will be similar to other "bug bounty" contests, often designed by large companies in order to have their security tested. Google, for example, has offered a bounty for anyone who can hack its Chrome browser at the annual Pwn2Own hacking contest for years. Pentagon expects thousands of qualified participants to join the initiative. The U.S. military has its own internal teams performing security checks, but having more brains working on a problem is probably a good thing.
Hacking the Pentagon is a commonly seen feat in action movies, but among actual, real-life hackers who don't want to end in jail, it's known as something you just don't do.
That changes today, with a new initiative from the U.S. Defense Department that will ask "vetted" security experts to test the cybersecurity of the Pentagon, Reuters reported Wednesday.
The initiative, led by the Pentagon's Defense Digital Service (DDS) and called "Hack the Pentagon," will be similar to other "bug bounty" contests, often designed by large companies in order to have their security tested. Google, for example, has offered a bounty for anyone who can hack its Chrome browser at the annual Pwn2Own hacking contest for years.
Pentagon expects thousands of qualified participants to join the initiative. The U.S. military has its own internal teams performing security checks, but having more brains working on a problem is probably a good thing.
FBI Director James B. Comey told lawmakers Tuesday that his agents have “engaged all parts of the U.S. government” to try to get into San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’s work iPhone -- with nothing to show for it. The comment counters public speculation about whether the agency had asked cybersecurity forces at the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon to help circumvent a passcode and other security features of the terrorist’s iPhone 5c. Comey didn’t name agencies, but noted that all options have been exhausted, including assessing a flood of email suggestions from the public. There’s no way to get a complete copy of the data on the passcode-locked iPhone 5c running the iOS 9 operating system without Apple’s help, Comey said.Federal prosecutors had said in another iPhone-unlocking case that investigators don’t have an obligation to consult with other agencies. The comment prompted a critical response from the judge in a ruling issued against the government Monday.
The comment counters public speculation about whether the agency had asked cybersecurity forces at the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon to help circumvent a passcode and other security features of the terrorist’s iPhone 5c.
Comey didn’t name agencies, but noted that all options have been exhausted, including assessing a flood of email suggestions from the public. There’s no way to get a complete copy of the data on the passcode-locked iPhone 5c running the iOS 9 operating system without Apple’s help, Comey said.
Federal prosecutors had said in another iPhone-unlocking case that investigators don’t have an obligation to consult with other agencies. The comment prompted a critical response from the judge in a ruling issued against the government Monday.
Read more @ http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-fbi-hackers-cia-nsa-20160301-story.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
Mar 4 16 10:01 AM
“I don’t know.” “I don’t know if that would work.” “I have no idea.” “I’m not sure I even fully understand the questions.” Safe to say, Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey was unprepared for a barrage of technical questions by California congressman Darrell Issa (R), during a hearing on iPhone encryption. The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today (March 1) after Apple refused to comply with a federal court order to help the FBI break into the iPhone 5c of one of the San Bernardino shooters by bypassing a security feature that erases its data after too many unsuccessful unlocking attempts. To do so, Apple said it would have to create a special version of its mobile operating system.
“I don’t know.”
“I don’t know if that would work.”
“I have no idea.”
“I’m not sure I even fully understand the questions.”
Safe to say, Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey was unprepared for a barrage of technical questions by California congressman Darrell Issa (R), during a hearing on iPhone encryption.
His plan to crack the iPhone will not even begin to work.Former antivirus developer and presidential wannabe John McAfee claimed a couple of weeks ago to have the perfect solution to the FBI-Apple stand-off. He offered to crack the iPhone for the FBI for free. This would let the government agency gain access to the phone while freeing Apple from any demands to assist. So confident was McAfee of his ability to help out that he said he'd eat a shoe on TV if he couldn't get into the phone. It will probably not come as much of a surprise to anyone to learn that the FBI has not been beating down McAfee's door.Perhaps they were unconvinced by the strategy that the man outlined. He said that he and his team would primarily use "social engineering," which is to say, manipulating people into telling you what you want to know through gaining their trust. It can be a powerful technique, but it certainly isn't a panacea. It's often less effective when the victims are aware that you're trying to socially engineer them (for example, by announcing your intent to do so on the Internet). It's less effective still when the people holding the information are in fact dead. McAfee may be persuasive, but probably not so persuasive as to be able to coax a corpse to give up its PIN. But John McAfee is clearly a public spirited man, eager to share his wisdom with the government and protect us all from an Apple backdoor. In an interview with Russia Today in which he is unironically introduced as a "cybersecurity legend" and currently running to be nominated as the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party (an association that frankly does neither party any favors), he outlined the real technique that he'd use to crack the phone, and it turns out to be a super convenient "half hour job." McAfee only said it'd take three weeks because he didn't want to have to eat his shoe if a cold or flu interrupted him.
Former antivirus developer and presidential wannabe John McAfee claimed a couple of weeks ago to have the perfect solution to the FBI-Apple stand-off. He offered to crack the iPhone for the FBI for free. This would let the government agency gain access to the phone while freeing Apple from any demands to assist. So confident was McAfee of his ability to help out that he said he'd eat a shoe on TV if he couldn't get into the phone.
It will probably not come as much of a surprise to anyone to learn that the FBI has not been beating down McAfee's door.
Perhaps they were unconvinced by the strategy that the man outlined. He said that he and his team would primarily use "social engineering," which is to say, manipulating people into telling you what you want to know through gaining their trust. It can be a powerful technique, but it certainly isn't a panacea. It's often less effective when the victims are aware that you're trying to socially engineer them (for example, by announcing your intent to do so on the Internet). It's less effective still when the people holding the information are in fact dead. McAfee may be persuasive, but probably not so persuasive as to be able to coax a corpse to give up its PIN.
But John McAfee is clearly a public spirited man, eager to share his wisdom with the government and protect us all from an Apple backdoor. In an interview with Russia Today in which he is unironically introduced as a "cybersecurity legend" and currently running to be nominated as the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party (an association that frankly does neither party any favors), he outlined the real technique that he'd use to crack the phone, and it turns out to be a super convenient "half hour job." McAfee only said it'd take three weeks because he didn't want to have to eat his shoe if a cold or flu interrupted him.
Read more @ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/john-mcafee-better-prepare-to-eat-a-shoe-because-he-doesnt-know-how-iphones-work/
Mar 4 16 11:37 PM
IT HAS a computer room the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground.In this very room satellites are tracked from all over the world.The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is the top secret research facility less than 20km from Alice Springs.But up until recently, few of us knew much about the facility which is jointly run by Australia and the US.Now in a series of reports, Australian researchers have delved into the workings of the facility, painting a clearer picture of what takes place in the country’s most secretive site.The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, led by Australian defence academic Des Ball, reveal details of the facility that few of us would know about.And that’s the how both the American and Australian governments prefer to keep it.
IT HAS a computer room the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
In this very room satellites are tracked from all over the world.
The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is the top secret research facility less than 20km from Alice Springs.
But up until recently, few of us knew much about the facility which is jointly run by Australia and the US.
Now in a series of reports, Australian researchers have delved into the workings of the facility, painting a clearer picture of what takes place in the country’s most secretive site.
The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, led by Australian defence academic Des Ball, reveal details of the facility that few of us would know about.
And that’s the how both the American and Australian governments prefer to keep it.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/pine-gap-nautilus-institute-explores-alice-springs-joint-defence-facility/news-story/4cb8906c915e2df71b61c0c24babc1c9
Mar 5 16 9:41 AM
Bipartisanship, baby! Congress finally found something to agree on this Super Tuesday—how slippery the FBI’s stance on encryption is. At a House Judiciary hearing on Capitol Hill, representatives grilled FBI Director James Comey and Apple’s lawyers over their ongoing battle. The key to the dispute is whether the FBI can compel Apple to create software that would unlock a terrorism suspect’s iPhone. Most Democrats and Republicans asked Comey pointed questions. (A few complimented the FBI director on his candor, a sad reflection of how conditioned House members are to getting stonewalled by intelligence officials.) Comey’s prepared testimony rehashed an argument he has trotted out before: Encryption is a cloak for evildoers that lets criminals “go dark” and escape law enforcement. As we’ve said before, this argument simplifies a complex issue into an inaccurate Bad Guys vs. Good Guys situation. The stale prepared statement was nothing compared to how Comey responded to the barrage of questions. Here are some of the lowlights from the three-hour session:
Bipartisanship, baby! Congress finally found something to agree on this Super Tuesday—how slippery the FBI’s stance on encryption is.
At a House Judiciary hearing on Capitol Hill, representatives grilled FBI Director James Comey and Apple’s lawyers over their ongoing battle. The key to the dispute is whether the FBI can compel Apple to create software that would unlock a terrorism suspect’s iPhone.
Most Democrats and Republicans asked Comey pointed questions. (A few complimented the FBI director on his candor, a sad reflection of how conditioned House members are to getting stonewalled by intelligence officials.)
Comey’s prepared testimony rehashed an argument he has trotted out before: Encryption is a cloak for evildoers that lets criminals “go dark” and escape law enforcement. As we’ve said before, this argument simplifies a complex issue into an inaccurate Bad Guys vs. Good Guys situation. The stale prepared statement was nothing compared to how Comey responded to the barrage of questions. Here are some of the lowlights from the three-hour session:
Read more @ http://gizmodo.com/fbi-director-james-comey-is-a-clown-1762226376
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
Mar 8 16 2:30 PM
Computer scientists from MIT and the University of Innsbruck in Austria have developed the first ever five-atom quantum computer, which could one day factor any number and enable it to easily break RSA encryption.Computers today are coded using traditional bits, which is the small unit of data that usually has a single binary value of 0 or 1. When put together, the bits create code words like 00, 01, 10 or 11 that can be used to program the computer to perform specific commands.However, in quantum computing, bits can be in superposition known as "qubits", so they can have the value of 1 and 0 at the same time, so code words could be much wider, for example code words like 00+11, 00-11, 01+10 or 01-10.It typically takes around 12 qubits to factor the number 15, but researchers from MIT and the University of Innsbruck have managed to factor the same number in just five qubits with a quantum computer made from five single atoms, that each represent a single qubit.
Computer scientists from MIT and the University of Innsbruck in Austria have developed the first ever five-atom quantum computer, which could one day factor any number and enable it to easily break RSA encryption.
Computers today are coded using traditional bits, which is the small unit of data that usually has a single binary value of 0 or 1. When put together, the bits create code words like 00, 01, 10 or 11 that can be used to program the computer to perform specific commands.
However, in quantum computing, bits can be in superposition known as "qubits", so they can have the value of 1 and 0 at the same time, so code words could be much wider, for example code words like 00+11, 00-11, 01+10 or 01-10.
It typically takes around 12 qubits to factor the number 15, but researchers from MIT and the University of Innsbruck have managed to factor the same number in just five qubits with a quantum computer made from five single atoms, that each represent a single qubit.
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-developing-scalable-quantum-computer-based-five-atoms-that-could-end-rsa-encryption-1548079?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
Mar 12 16 8:18 AM
The United Nations official in charge of privacy matters has warned the United Kingdom that its draft law on surveillance, which allows for bulk data interception and government hacking, would have “negative ramifications far beyond” its shores. UK laws still hold sway over Commonwealth countries, which make up a quarter of UN member states, said the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph Cannataci. The UK bill “undermines the spirit of the very right to privacy,” Cannataci said. He has called the draft law “worse than scary” in remarks at a conference in Brazil in Oct. 2015.The UN official presented his first annual report (doc) to the body’s Human Rights Council in Geneva today (Mar. 9). The UK draft law, known as the Investigatory Powers bill, was highlighted in the report as one of the most important global privacy-related issues in the last year. “It would appear that the serious and possibly unintended consequences of legitimizing bulk interception and bulk hacking are not being fully appreciated by the UK government,” Cannataci said. US tech giants Apple and Google have attacked the UK law while it has been under review in the last three months by a pre-legislative parliamentary committee. They have said it would allow the UK to intercept data stored outside the country. Three other parliamentary committees and various activist groups also have slammed it.
The United Nations official in charge of privacy matters has warned the United Kingdom that its draft law on surveillance, which allows for bulk data interception and government hacking, would have “negative ramifications far beyond” its shores.
The UN official presented his first annual report (doc) to the body’s Human Rights Council in Geneva today (Mar. 9). The UK draft law, known as the Investigatory Powers bill, was highlighted in the report as one of the most important global privacy-related issues in the last year. “It would appear that the serious and possibly unintended consequences of legitimizing bulk interception and bulk hacking are not being fully appreciated by the UK government,” Cannataci said.
Mar 12 16 10:29 PM
President Obama has established a new initiative across multiple government agencies that will focus entirely on creating the fastest supercomputers ever devised. The National Strategic Computing Initiative will attempt to build the first ever exascale computer, which would be more than 30 times faster than today's fastest supercomputer, according to an executive order issued Wednesday.The initiative will primarily be a partnership between the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and National Science Foundation, which will be designing supercomputers primarily for use by NASA, the FBI, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and NOAA. Each of those agencies will be allowed to provide input during the early stages of the development of these new computers.The primary task of the initiative is "accelerating delivery of a capable exascale computing system," the order said. For context, it is believed that an exascale computer might be capable of mimicking the human brain, something impossible with current technology.
President Obama has established a new initiative across multiple government agencies that will focus entirely on creating the fastest supercomputers ever devised. The National Strategic Computing Initiative will attempt to build the first ever exascale computer, which would be more than 30 times faster than today's fastest supercomputer, according to an executive order issued Wednesday.
The initiative will primarily be a partnership between the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and National Science Foundation, which will be designing supercomputers primarily for use by NASA, the FBI, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and NOAA. Each of those agencies will be allowed to provide input during the early stages of the development of these new computers.
The primary task of the initiative is "accelerating delivery of a capable exascale computing system," the order said. For context, it is believed that an exascale computer might be capable of mimicking the human brain, something impossible with current technology.
Read more @ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/obamas-new-executive-order-says-the-us-will-build-an-exascale-supercomputer
Mar 18 16 10:02 PM
Legislators accuse Justice Department of overreaching and undermining privacy but warn Apple it’s ‘not going to like’ a congressionally mandated solution The Justice Department is on a “fool’s errand” trying to force Apple to unlock the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists, lawmakers told FBI director James Comey on Tuesday. Lawmakers of both parties sharply challenged Comey as the House judiciary committee considered the FBI’s court order to unlock an iPhone owned by Syed Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in December and was killed by law enforcement. Legislators repeatedly accused the Justice Department of overreaching its authority and undermining both privacy and cybersecurity. Several endorsed Congress passing a law settling the boundaries – something Apple supports – and accused the FBI of trying to circumvent Congress by launching a lawsuit against Apple. “Can you appreciate my frustration with what appears to be little more than an end-run around this committee?” asked Democratic congressman John Conyers. Representative Zoe Lofgren called FBI demands to weaken Apple’s security a “fool’s errand” that undermined cybersecurity.
Legislators accuse Justice Department of overreaching and undermining privacy but warn Apple it’s ‘not going to like’ a congressionally mandated solution
Lawmakers of both parties sharply challenged Comey as the House judiciary committee considered the FBI’s court order to unlock an iPhone owned by Syed Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in December and was killed by law enforcement.
Legislators repeatedly accused the Justice Department of overreaching its authority and undermining both privacy and cybersecurity. Several endorsed Congress passing a law settling the boundaries – something Apple supports – and accused the FBI of trying to circumvent Congress by launching a lawsuit against Apple.
“Can you appreciate my frustration with what appears to be little more than an end-run around this committee?” asked Democratic congressman John Conyers. Representative Zoe Lofgren called FBI demands to weaken Apple’s security a “fool’s errand” that undermined cybersecurity.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/01/apple-fbi-congress-hearing-iphone-encryption-san-bernardino?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
Known for his numerous leaks that exposed the NSA’s mass surveillance operations, Edward Snowden is now the latest expert to take a side in the Apple vs. FBI iPhone encryption case. According to him, the FBI’s claims are “BS,” and there is at least one way to bypass the iOS security features the Bureau wants Apple to remove.According to The Intercept, Snowden made an appearance at the Common Cause’s Blueprint for Democracy conference over a video link from Moscow. “The FBI says Apple has the ‘exclusive technical means,’” he said. “Respectfully, that’s bulls**t.” He then proceeded to explain how the FBI could force its way into the iPhone – which is how the FBI wants to get in – without Apple’s assistance. The FBI is worried that after entering the wrong PIN for 10 times in a row, the iPhone could automatically erase data stored on it. So that’s one of the things it’s asking Apple to remove. But Snowden revealed that the FBI could physically remove the memory from the phone’s mainboard, copy it, and then try password combinations until it finds the right one.
Known for his numerous leaks that exposed the NSA’s mass surveillance operations, Edward Snowden is now the latest expert to take a side in the Apple vs. FBI iPhone encryption case. According to him, the FBI’s claims are “BS,” and there is at least one way to bypass the iOS security features the Bureau wants Apple to remove.
According to The Intercept, Snowden made an appearance at the Common Cause’s Blueprint for Democracy conference over a video link from Moscow.
“The FBI says Apple has the ‘exclusive technical means,’” he said. “Respectfully, that’s bulls**t.” He then proceeded to explain how the FBI could force its way into the iPhone – which is how the FBI wants to get in – without Apple’s assistance.
The FBI is worried that after entering the wrong PIN for 10 times in a row, the iPhone could automatically erase data stored on it. So that’s one of the things it’s asking Apple to remove. But Snowden revealed that the FBI could physically remove the memory from the phone’s mainboard, copy it, and then try password combinations until it finds the right one.
Read more @ http://bgr.com/2016/03/09/apple-fbi-iphone-case-edward-snowden/
t’s about time for US President Obama to express his opinions over the ongoing feud between Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Apple has declared itself the protector of civil liberties and privacy of owners of its products which also extends to everyone else using technology by refusing to cooperate with the FBI in unlocking the secrets of an iPhone 5C. The phone was owned by terrorist Syed Farook who along with his wife, killed 14 people in San Bernardino last December.President Obama has finally spoken on the issue at the latest South by South West (SXSW) Conference in Austin Texas.“Technology is evolving so rapidly, that new questions are being asked. And, I am of the view, that there are very real reasons why we wanna make sure that the government cannot just willy-nilly get into everybody’s iPhones that are full of, smart phones that are full of very private information and very personal data. And let’s face it. That the whole Snowden disclosure episode elevated people’s suspicions of this.”— President Obama, Keynote address SXSW 2016So he’s well-aware of the iPhone issue and not too busy with the coming elections. He’s trying to comfort audience that the government is not into peeking into people’s phones like Edward Snowden said. The president probably says the same thing in every function he’s currently in which can be tiresome and a waste of time when there are other things to talk about.
t’s about time for US President Obama to express his opinions over the ongoing feud between Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Apple has declared itself the protector of civil liberties and privacy of owners of its products which also extends to everyone else using technology by refusing to cooperate with the FBI in unlocking the secrets of an iPhone 5C. The phone was owned by terrorist Syed Farook who along with his wife, killed 14 people in San Bernardino last December.
President Obama has finally spoken on the issue at the latest South by South West (SXSW) Conference in Austin Texas.
— President Obama, Keynote address SXSW 2016
So he’s well-aware of the iPhone issue and not too busy with the coming elections. He’s trying to comfort audience that the government is not into peeking into people’s phones like Edward Snowden said. The president probably says the same thing in every function he’s currently in which can be tiresome and a waste of time when there are other things to talk about.
Read more @ https://movietvtechgeeks.com/apple-vs-fbi-obama-edward-snowden-step/
Court-ordered release of Lavabit case files finally reveals Snowden was target of action that shuttered secure and private email serviceA redaction oversight by the US government has finally confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s targeting of secure email service Lavabit was used specifically to spy on Edward Snowden. Ladar Levison creator of the email service, which was founded on a basis of private communications secured by encryption and had 410,000 users, was served a sealed order in 2013 forcing him to aid the FBI in its surveillance of Snowden. Levison was ordered to install a surveillance package on his company’s servers and later to turn over Lavabit’s encryption keys so that it would give the FBI the ability to read the most secure messages that the company offered. He was also ordered not to disclose the fact to third-parties. After 38 days of legal fighting, a court appearance, subpoena, appeals and being found in contempt of court, Levison abruptly shuttered Lavabit citing government interference and stating that he would not become “complicit in crimes against the American people”. We now know that reports of Snowden’s use of Lavabit for his secure communications were true and that, as most presumed, the reason the FBI drove Lavabit into closure was to surveil the leaker of the NSA files.
Court-ordered release of Lavabit case files finally reveals Snowden was target of action that shuttered secure and private email service
A redaction oversight by the US government has finally confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s targeting of secure email service Lavabit was used specifically to spy on Edward Snowden.
Ladar Levison creator of the email service, which was founded on a basis of private communications secured by encryption and had 410,000 users, was served a sealed order in 2013 forcing him to aid the FBI in its surveillance of Snowden.
Levison was ordered to install a surveillance package on his company’s servers and later to turn over Lavabit’s encryption keys so that it would give the FBI the ability to read the most secure messages that the company offered. He was also ordered not to disclose the fact to third-parties.
After 38 days of legal fighting, a court appearance, subpoena, appeals and being found in contempt of court, Levison abruptly shuttered Lavabit citing government interference and stating that he would not become “complicit in crimes against the American people”.
We now know that reports of Snowden’s use of Lavabit for his secure communications were true and that, as most presumed, the reason the FBI drove Lavabit into closure was to surveil the leaker of the NSA files.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/18/redaction-fbi-target-ladar-lavabit-spy-edward-snowden
Mar 22 16 9:51 AM
A judge has cancelled a high-profile hearing between Apple and the US government after the FBI made the surprise announcement it might have found its own way to hack an iPhone at the centre of the legal dispute.In a motion filed late on Monday in federal court, government lawyers said an "outside party" had shown law enforcement a possible method for unlocking the iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people in a terrorism attack on December 2 in San Bernardino, California.The government said it needed time to test the method and if it proved viable, "it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple" that had led it to a courtroom showdown."We must first test this method to ensure it doesn't destroy the data on the phone, but we remain cautiously optimistic," US Department of Justice spokesperson Melanie Newman said in a statement to US media.The court ordered Apple in February to write and install a new version of the device's operating system to bypass a security protocol that will destroy stored data after too many failed password attempts.
A judge has cancelled a high-profile hearing between Apple and the US government after the FBI made the surprise announcement it might have found its own way to hack an iPhone at the centre of the legal dispute.
In a motion filed late on Monday in federal court, government lawyers said an "outside party" had shown law enforcement a possible method for unlocking the iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people in a terrorism attack on December 2 in San Bernardino, California.
The government said it needed time to test the method and if it proved viable, "it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple" that had led it to a courtroom showdown.
"We must first test this method to ensure it doesn't destroy the data on the phone, but we remain cautiously optimistic," US Department of Justice spokesperson Melanie Newman said in a statement to US media.
The court ordered Apple in February to write and install a new version of the device's operating system to bypass a security protocol that will destroy stored data after too many failed password attempts.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/apple-us-government-go-to-court-over-hack/news-story/121bde8db08e66f75374063b56861af0
Mar 22 16 9:01 PM
The US law enforcement agency is reportedly on the brink of backing down in a heated battle with Apple after its core argument was exposed as a fallacy.The FBI has been trying to persuade a US judge to force Apple to comply with a court order to build an iPhone operating software that can be hacked by agents. Despite having the weight and resources of the world’s most powerful government at its disposal, the FBI claimed it was unable to hack the phone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.But not everyone was buying it.Former analyst and NSA leaker Edward Snowden called the FBI’s claim “bullsh*t” to a room full of people at a conference in Washington this month.Millionaire programmer and the man responsible for the first commercial anti-virus program, John McAfee, also rubbished the apparent admission of technical impotence saying, “The FBI is trying to fool the American public.”The implication was that the FBI was using the high profile case in an effort to set a legal precedent it could use to force tech companies to comply with future investigations.It turns out, there was probably something to the allegation.
The US law enforcement agency is reportedly on the brink of backing down in a heated battle with Apple after its core argument was exposed as a fallacy.
The FBI has been trying to persuade a US judge to force Apple to comply with a court order to build an iPhone operating software that can be hacked by agents. Despite having the weight and resources of the world’s most powerful government at its disposal, the FBI claimed it was unable to hack the phone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.
But not everyone was buying it.
Former analyst and NSA leaker Edward Snowden called the FBI’s claim “bullsh*t” to a room full of people at a conference in Washington this month.
Millionaire programmer and the man responsible for the first commercial anti-virus program, John McAfee, also rubbished the apparent admission of technical impotence saying, “The FBI is trying to fool the American public.”
The implication was that the FBI was using the high profile case in an effort to set a legal precedent it could use to force tech companies to comply with future investigations.
It turns out, there was probably something to the allegation.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/fbi-likely-to-back-down-against-apple-after-major-claim-exposed-as-false/news-story/7c63c1f8a41dd10e8a20e7fe9158e486
Mar 25 16 2:06 PM
“Snowden has done a service”: Former Bush official Lawrence Wilkerson applauds the whistleblower
Wilkerson says Snowden did not threaten U.S. security, and, in a perfect world, the whistleblower would be rewarded “I try to stay up with Snowden,” said Lawrence “Larry” Wilkerson. “God, has he revealed a lot,” he laughed. A retired Army colonel who served as the chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in President George W. Bush’s administration, Wilkerson has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy. He sat down with Salon for an extended interview, discussing a huge range of issues from the war in Syria to climate change, from ISIS to whistle-blower Edward Snowden, of whom Wilkerson spoke quite highly. “I think Snowden has done a service,” Wilkerson explained. “I wouldn’t have had the courage, and maybe not even the intellectual capacity, to do it the way he did it.” Snowden’s reputation in mainstream U.S. politics, to put it lightly, is a negative one. In the summer of 2013, the 29-year-old techno wiz and private contractor for the NSA worked with journalists to expose the global surveillance program run by the U.S. government. His revelations informed the public not only that the NSA was sucking up information on millions of average Americans’ private communications; they also proved that the U.S. government was likely violating international law by spying on dozens of other countries, and even listening to the phone calls of allied heads of state such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who subsequently compared the NSA to the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police. Breaking with establishment political figures, Col. Wilkerson commended Snowden for his work and the way in which he carried it out. “There’s a logic to what he has done that is impressive,” Wilkerson told Salon. “He really has refrained from anything that was truly dangerous, with regard to our security — regardless of what people say.” “He has been circumspect about what he’s released, how he’s released it, who he’s released it to,” he continued. Snowden worked with journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill, and published the revelations in renowned international newspapers, including the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel. “It’s clear to me from listening to his personal statements — I think those are important — that he did have a genuinely altruistic motive for doing it,” Wilkerson explained. “Snowden seems to me to be pure as a driven snow,” he laughed. “You can be dangerous if you’re that way, but you can also be helpful. And I think he’s been more helpful than dangerous.”
Wilkerson says Snowden did not threaten U.S. security, and, in a perfect world, the whistleblower would be rewarded
“I try to stay up with Snowden,” said Lawrence “Larry” Wilkerson. “God, has he revealed a lot,” he laughed.
A retired Army colonel who served as the chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in President George W. Bush’s administration, Wilkerson has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy.
He sat down with Salon for an extended interview, discussing a huge range of issues from the war in Syria to climate change, from ISIS to whistle-blower Edward Snowden, of whom Wilkerson spoke quite highly.
“I think Snowden has done a service,” Wilkerson explained. “I wouldn’t have had the courage, and maybe not even the intellectual capacity, to do it the way he did it.”
Snowden’s reputation in mainstream U.S. politics, to put it lightly, is a negative one. In the summer of 2013, the 29-year-old techno wiz and private contractor for the NSA worked with journalists to expose the global surveillance program run by the U.S. government.
His revelations informed the public not only that the NSA was sucking up information on millions of average Americans’ private communications; they also proved that the U.S. government was likely violating international law by spying on dozens of other countries, and even listening to the phone calls of allied heads of state such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who subsequently compared the NSA to the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police.
Breaking with establishment political figures, Col. Wilkerson commended Snowden for his work and the way in which he carried it out.
“There’s a logic to what he has done that is impressive,” Wilkerson told Salon. “He really has refrained from anything that was truly dangerous, with regard to our security — regardless of what people say.”
“He has been circumspect about what he’s released, how he’s released it, who he’s released it to,” he continued.
Snowden worked with journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill, and published the revelations in renowned international newspapers, including the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel.
“It’s clear to me from listening to his personal statements — I think those are important — that he did have a genuinely altruistic motive for doing it,” Wilkerson explained.
“Snowden seems to me to be pure as a driven snow,” he laughed. “You can be dangerous if you’re that way, but you can also be helpful. And I think he’s been more helpful than dangerous.”
Read more @ http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/snowden_has_done_a_service_former_bush_official_lawrence_wilkerson_applauds_the_whistleblower/
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior U.S. and German officials agreed this week to deepen their collaboration on a range of cyber issues, including working to promote norms for responsible state behavior in cyberspace and expanding training in developing countries. The two governments underscored their shared strategic goals in a joint statement issued Thursday after a two-day annual bilateral meeting on cyber issues. Christopher Painter, cyber coordinator for the U.S. State Department, said the two countries already worked together closely in many areas, including law enforcement, human rights and other areas, but the fourth annual talks were focused on a broader, "whole-of-government" approach. "Having this annual discussion ... brings all the agencies together and it's a good way to take stock and make sure we're going in the right direction and thinking about how we can collaborate even further," he told Reuters in an interview.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior U.S. and German officials agreed this week to deepen their collaboration on a range of cyber issues, including working to promote norms for responsible state behavior in cyberspace and expanding training in developing countries.
The two governments underscored their shared strategic goals in a joint statement issued Thursday after a two-day annual bilateral meeting on cyber issues.
Christopher Painter, cyber coordinator for the U.S. State Department, said the two countries already worked together closely in many areas, including law enforcement, human rights and other areas, but the fourth annual talks were focused on a broader, "whole-of-government" approach.
"Having this annual discussion ... brings all the agencies together and it's a good way to take stock and make sure we're going in the right direction and thinking about how we can collaborate even further," he told Reuters in an interview.
Read more @ https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/31185470/u-s-germany-eye-ways-to-deepen-cyber-collaboration/
The National Security Agency’s data harvesting program, PRISM, has been the subject of much speculation and controversy since its existence was revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. PRISM is widely regarded as “the NSA spying on everyone’s Internet activity” by the public, which is left to guess at the true extent of the program from a few scraps of hard data, since so much of it remains classified. Recent stories have suggested the scope of NSA surveillance was considerably more narrow than critics feared, but now a ruling from a federal judge suggests that surveillance remains more broad than privacy activists might have hoped. In essence, the case is about a man arrested on terrorism charges who got caught because the NSA intercepted emails he sent to someone else they had under surveillance. Vocativ describes the defendant as Agron Hasbajrami, an Albanian citizen living in Brooklyn, who was arrested in 2011 and pled guilty to “trying to travel to Pakistan to join a militant jihadi group, as well as to wiring it money.”
PRISM is widely regarded as “the NSA spying on everyone’s Internet activity” by the public, which is left to guess at the true extent of the program from a few scraps of hard data, since so much of it remains classified. Recent stories have suggested the scope of NSA surveillance was considerably more narrow than critics feared, but now a ruling from a federal judge suggests that surveillance remains more broad than privacy activists might have hoped.
In essence, the case is about a man arrested on terrorism charges who got caught because the NSA intercepted emails he sent to someone else they had under surveillance.
Vocativ describes the defendant as Agron Hasbajrami, an Albanian citizen living in Brooklyn, who was arrested in 2011 and pled guilty to “trying to travel to Pakistan to join a militant jihadi group, as well as to wiring it money.”
Read more @ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/12/federal-judge-inadvertently-confirms-existence-of-nsa-spying-program/
Chinese chip-making ambitions are getting a $24 billion boost, as a new project breaks ground BEIJING—China is putting $24 billion toward building a world-class semiconductor industry, exploiting a partnership with a U.S. company for the production of memory chips used in a wide array of electronic devices. On Monday, XMC, a contract chip maker owned by the Chinese government, will break ground in the city of Wuhan for the first Chinese-owned plant dedicated to producing the most widely used memory chips, an XMC spokesman said. XMC last year partnered with U.S. flash-memory maker Spansion Inc. to co-develop next-generation chip technologies. Spansion later joined with Cypress Semiconductor Corp. as part of an all-stock merger valued at $5 billion. Chinese companies currently account for minimal production of memory chips, which are used to store data in electronic gadgets. Semiconductors in general have become a major target for Chinese policy makers as they promote a shift from low-end manufacturing to more-advanced sectors Beijing, which has established a national fund to support the semiconductor sector, also has pushed technological self-sufficiency following Edward Snowden’s revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency exploited backdoors in some U.S. technology products to spy on foreign governments. Memory chips are not a primary target for hackers, but theoretically could be hacked, according to cybersecurity experts.
BEIJING—China is putting $24 billion toward building a world-class semiconductor industry, exploiting a partnership with a U.S. company for the production of memory chips used in a wide array of electronic devices.
On Monday, XMC, a contract chip maker owned by the Chinese government, will break ground in the city of Wuhan for the first Chinese-owned plant dedicated to producing the most widely used memory chips, an XMC spokesman said.
XMC last year partnered with U.S. flash-memory maker Spansion Inc. to co-develop next-generation chip technologies. Spansion later joined with Cypress Semiconductor Corp. as part of an all-stock merger valued at $5 billion.
Chinese companies currently account for minimal production of memory chips, which are used to store data in electronic gadgets. Semiconductors in general have become a major target for Chinese policy makers as they promote a shift from low-end manufacturing to more-advanced sectors
Beijing, which has established a national fund to support the semiconductor sector, also has pushed technological self-sufficiency following Edward Snowden’s revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency exploited backdoors in some U.S. technology products to spy on foreign governments. Memory chips are not a primary target for hackers, but theoretically could be hacked, according to cybersecurity experts.
Read more @ http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-moves-to-contend-in-chip-making-1458851538
Edward Snowden: ‘We Must Seize The Means Of Communication’ To Protect Basic Freedoms
Renowned NSA whistleblower calls for ‘radical’ popular action to take control of information technologies. A gathering of journalists, hackers and whistleblowers in Berlin this weekend heard former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden, issue a call for citizens to find ways to take direct control over the information technologies we use everyday. The Logan Symposium, organized by the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) based in Goldsmiths University, London, also heard from Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, and NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney. The two-day conference was supported by a wide range of press freedom organisations, independent journalism outfits, and mainstream media — including the German newsmagazine Der Speigel.
Renowned NSA whistleblower calls for ‘radical’ popular action to take control of information technologies.
A gathering of journalists, hackers and whistleblowers in Berlin this weekend heard former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden, issue a call for citizens to find ways to take direct control over the information technologies we use everyday.
The Logan Symposium, organized by the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) based in Goldsmiths University, London, also heard from Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, and NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney.
The two-day conference was supported by a wide range of press freedom organisations, independent journalism outfits, and mainstream media — including the German newsmagazine Der Speigel.
Read more @ http://www.mintpressnews.com/edward-snowden-must-seize-means-communication-protect-basic-freedoms/214728/
Nearly three years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave journalists his trove of documents on the intelligence community’s broad and powerful surveillance regime, the public is still missing some crucial, basic facts about how the operations work. Surveillance researchers and privacy advocates published a report on Wednesday outlining what we do know, thanks to the period of discovery post-Snowden — and the overwhelming amount of things we don’t. The NSA’s domestic surveillance was understandably the initial focus of public debate. But that debate never really moved on to examine the NSA’s vastly bigger foreign operations. “There has been relatively little public or congressional debate within the United States about the NSA’s overseas surveillance operations,” write Faiza Patel and Elizabeth Goitein, co-directors of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, and Amos Toh, legal adviser for David Kaye, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Nearly three years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave journalists his trove of documents on the intelligence community’s broad and powerful surveillance regime, the public is still missing some crucial, basic facts about how the operations work.
Surveillance researchers and privacy advocates published a report on Wednesday outlining what we do know, thanks to the period of discovery post-Snowden — and the overwhelming amount of things we don’t.
The NSA’s domestic surveillance was understandably the initial focus of public debate. But that debate never really moved on to examine the NSA’s vastly bigger foreign operations.
“There has been relatively little public or congressional debate within the United States about the NSA’s overseas surveillance operations,” write Faiza Patel and Elizabeth Goitein, co-directors of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, and Amos Toh, legal adviser for David Kaye, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Read more @ https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17/five-big-unanswered-questions-about-the-u-s-s-worldwide-spying/
The public relations and legal battle between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Apple over the company’s use of encryption has put the focus on executive branch surveillance in a way not seen since Edward Snowden’s revelations almost three years ago. However, as the historical record demonstrates, the FBI’s domestic spying on the American public dates almost from the Bureau’s creation in July 1908. In the years that followed the FBI’s birth, other federal agencies–some civilian, some military–initiated their own warrantless domestic surveillance operations. Throughout this period, Congress was more frequently aiding and abetting this surveillance and repression, rather than preventing it or reining it in. As the showdown between Apple and the FBI illustrates, what has changed is the technology used to accomplish the surveillance–technology that now gives federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies the ability to surreptitiously access the computers, smartphones, and even home appliances of tens of millions of Americans. Today, the Cato Institute is launching a timeline that chronicles the history and implications of these developments: American Big Brother: A Century of Political Surveillance and Repression. Too often, federal domestic surveillance of citizens was a prelude to government actions aimed at subverting civil society organizations opposed to American involvement in foreign wars, aiding conscientious objectors, advancing civil rights and political autonomy for people of color, the creation of labor unions, and even surveillance of candidates running for or holding office–including members of Congress and presidential contenders.
The public relations and legal battle between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Apple over the company’s use of encryption has put the focus on executive branch surveillance in a way not seen since Edward Snowden’s revelations almost three years ago. However, as the historical record demonstrates, the FBI’s domestic spying on the American public dates almost from the Bureau’s creation in July 1908. In the years that followed the FBI’s birth, other federal agencies–some civilian, some military–initiated their own warrantless domestic surveillance operations. Throughout this period, Congress was more frequently aiding and abetting this surveillance and repression, rather than preventing it or reining it in.
As the showdown between Apple and the FBI illustrates, what has changed is the technology used to accomplish the surveillance–technology that now gives federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies the ability to surreptitiously access the computers, smartphones, and even home appliances of tens of millions of Americans.
Today, the Cato Institute is launching a timeline that chronicles the history and implications of these developments: American Big Brother: A Century of Political Surveillance and Repression.
Too often, federal domestic surveillance of citizens was a prelude to government actions aimed at subverting civil society organizations opposed to American involvement in foreign wars, aiding conscientious objectors, advancing civil rights and political autonomy for people of color, the creation of labor unions, and even surveillance of candidates running for or holding office–including members of Congress and presidential contenders.
Read more @ http://www.cato.org/blog/introducing-american-big-brother-century-political-surveillance-repression
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic and a Republican congressmen have asked the National Security Agency to halt a reported plan to share more raw intelligence data with other federal agencies, warning the policy shift would be “unconstitutional and dangerous,” according to a letter seen by Reuters. U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Blake Farenthold, who sit on the House Oversight Committee, said in a letter dated March 21 to NSA Director Michael Rogers that the proposal would violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections because the collected data would not require a warrant before being searched for domestic law enforcement purposes.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic and a Republican congressmen have asked the National Security Agency to halt a reported plan to share more raw intelligence data with other federal agencies, warning the policy shift would be “unconstitutional and dangerous,” according to a letter seen by Reuters.
U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Blake Farenthold, who sit on the House Oversight Committee, said in a letter dated March 21 to NSA Director Michael Rogers that the proposal would violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections because the collected data would not require a warrant before being searched for domestic law enforcement purposes.
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com/r-lawmakers-say-nsa-plan-to-expand-sharing-data-unconstitutional-2016-3?IR=T
Stand with Apple, Stand Up for Civil Rights
The Apple case is a matter of deep personal concern to me—given the surveillance of civil rights organizations. The terrorists win when we allow fear to chip away at the U.S. Constitution, our national soul, our freedom, our way of life. That is why the government, courts, private companies and individual citizens must defend and uphold—however unpopular—our First Amendment rights, our right to privacy and basic freedoms. That is why I stand with Apple in its encryption battle with the FBI. I mourn the loss of 14 lives snatched away by terrorists in San Bernardino last December. Like every American, I am steadfast in supporting legitimate law enforcement measures to root out terrorism and protect our national security. But if the government prevails against Apple, it is my belief that it will accelerate—and make easier—government efforts to “hack” into the legitimate activities of human rights organizations and activists, as happened time and time again during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The recent revelation of the government’s use of drones to conduct domestic spying shows how vulnerable everyday Americans are to invasive surveillance.
The Apple case is a matter of deep personal concern to me—given the surveillance of civil rights organizations.
The terrorists win when we allow fear to chip away at the U.S. Constitution, our national soul, our freedom, our way of life. That is why the government, courts, private companies and individual citizens must defend and uphold—however unpopular—our First Amendment rights, our right to privacy and basic freedoms. That is why I stand with Apple in its encryption battle with the FBI.
I mourn the loss of 14 lives snatched away by terrorists in San Bernardino last December. Like every American, I am steadfast in supporting legitimate law enforcement measures to root out terrorism and protect our national security.
But if the government prevails against Apple, it is my belief that it will accelerate—and make easier—government efforts to “hack” into the legitimate activities of human rights organizations and activists, as happened time and time again during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The recent revelation of the government’s use of drones to conduct domestic spying shows how vulnerable everyday Americans are to invasive surveillance.
Read more @ https://lasentinel.net/stand-with-apple-stand-up-for-civil-rights.html
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin Although the FBI cancelled its courtroom showdown with Apple after finding an outside backdoor into the San Bernadino shooter’s iPhone, the debate over how far the government can worm its gloved hand into your phone isn’t over. Should this new method fail, the FBI will still take Apple to court. Even if it works, this is not the end of the encryption debate. The FBI and DOJ are still likely to pressure tech companies to hand over source code and keys to unlock encrypted products in a number of other criminal cases.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
Although the FBI cancelled its courtroom showdown with Apple after finding an outside backdoor into the San Bernadino shooter’s iPhone, the debate over how far the government can worm its gloved hand into your phone isn’t over.
Should this new method fail, the FBI will still take Apple to court. Even if it works, this is not the end of the encryption debate. The FBI and DOJ are still likely to pressure tech companies to hand over source code and keys to unlock encrypted products in a number of other criminal cases.
Read more @ http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/apple-vs-fbi-op-ed/
When Apple recently refused to comply with a federal court order issued by the FBI to help it break into an iPhone 5c, belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino incident, a US House Judiciary Committee hearing was held. If a ruling is made in favour of the FBI, Apple will have to weaken the encryption of its iPhone operating system, allowing the FBI to gain access to data on any iPhone. Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook described this as the “software equivalent of cancer.” Detrimental to future security Apple’s argument is that if it is forced to write such software, it would open the floodgates to constantly writing spy tools for law enforcement. Cook gave the example of being forced to write and install a program on a suspect’s phone that would help police turn on the iPhone’s video camera. It would also seriously undermine Apple’s business, which has been partly built on the security of its proprietary software.
When Apple recently refused to comply with a federal court order issued by the FBI to help it break into an iPhone 5c, belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino incident, a US House Judiciary Committee hearing was held.
If a ruling is made in favour of the FBI, Apple will have to weaken the encryption of its iPhone operating system, allowing the FBI to gain access to data on any iPhone. Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook described this as the “software equivalent of cancer.”
Apple’s argument is that if it is forced to write such software, it would open the floodgates to constantly writing spy tools for law enforcement. Cook gave the example of being forced to write and install a program on a suspect’s phone that would help police turn on the iPhone’s video camera. It would also seriously undermine Apple’s business, which has been partly built on the security of its proprietary software.
Read more @ http://www.itproportal.com/2016/03/24/a-matter-of-privacy/
To mark World Day Against Cyber Censorship, Edward Snowden talks to us about how governments are watching everything we do online, and why we must bring mass surveillance back under control. Today, the government is granting itself the power to police every citizen’s private life. Every man, woman, child, boy, girl. It doesn’t matter who you are, how innocent or not innocent you are, they are watching everything you’re doing. They’re intercepting it, analyzing it and storing it for increasing periods of time. The fact that we’ve got agencies like the GCHQ looking through webcams into people’s bedrooms, into the four walls of their homes, is terrifying. The NSA is collecting billions of phone location records a day, so they know where you got on the bus, where you went to work, where you slept and what other cell phones slept with you. We have to ask: 'Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?'
To mark World Day Against Cyber Censorship, Edward Snowden talks to us about how governments are watching everything we do online, and why we must bring mass surveillance back under control.
Today, the government is granting itself the power to police every citizen’s private life.
Every man, woman, child, boy, girl. It doesn’t matter who you are, how innocent or not innocent you are, they are watching everything you’re doing. They’re intercepting it, analyzing it and storing it for increasing periods of time.
The fact that we’ve got agencies like the GCHQ looking through webcams into people’s bedrooms, into the four walls of their homes, is terrifying.
The NSA is collecting billions of phone location records a day, so they know where you got on the bus, where you went to work, where you slept and what other cell phones slept with you. We have to ask: 'Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?'
Read more @ https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/ether/edward-snowden-privacy-powerless-surveillance-censorship
When the New York Times revealed on Saturday that the Paris attackers used and trashed multiple “burner” phones to hide their plotting from authorities, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and The Wire’s creator, David Simon, started debating the value of communications surveillance over Twitter. The Paris attacks, the subject of intense speculation since last year, have reignited the debate over whether Snowden’s revelations helped the enemy avoid the NSA’s all-seeing eye. The Times article also repeats the assertion — with no credible evidence — that those involved in the attack used encryption, which scrambles communications in transit, to help hide their activities from authorities. Snowden, the former NSA contractor turned whistleblower, pitted his views on the failures of NSA spying to hunt down terrorists against what Simon, a journalist and author, described as the potential advantage of proactive collection to detect burner phones used by less sophisticated criminals. The Wire, Simon’s hit show about Baltimore crime, involves drug kingpins using burner phones to evade detection. Snowden joked on Twitter that the show’s example “is helping the terrorists” — something he is typically blamed for, without evidence, since he revealed NSA spying methods in 2013.
When the New York Times revealed on Saturday that the Paris attackers used and trashed multiple “burner” phones to hide their plotting from authorities, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and The Wire’s creator, David Simon, started debating the value of communications surveillance over Twitter.
The Paris attacks, the subject of intense speculation since last year, have reignited the debate over whether Snowden’s revelations helped the enemy avoid the NSA’s all-seeing eye. The Times article also repeats the assertion — with no credible evidence — that those involved in the attack used encryption, which scrambles communications in transit, to help hide their activities from authorities.
Snowden, the former NSA contractor turned whistleblower, pitted his views on the failures of NSA spying to hunt down terrorists against what Simon, a journalist and author, described as the potential advantage of proactive collection to detect burner phones used by less sophisticated criminals.
The Wire, Simon’s hit show about Baltimore crime, involves drug kingpins using burner phones to evade detection. Snowden joked on Twitter that the show’s example “is helping the terrorists” — something he is typically blamed for, without evidence, since he revealed NSA spying methods in 2013.
Read more @ https://theintercept.com/2016/03/21/ed-snowden-and-the-wires-david-simon-talk-surveillance-and-its-limits-on-twitter/?comments=1
European ministers are expected on Thursday to push telecommunications and digital service providers to work more closely with government authorities to track down terror suspects as part of a post-Brussels attack crackdown. At a hastily arranged meeting, EU ministers responsible for security issues will call for a European legislative blueprint to be drawn up by June to enable governments to obtain easier access to such “digital evidence”, according to a draft statement seen by the Financial Times.
European ministers are expected on Thursday to push telecommunications and digital service providers to work more closely with government authorities to track down terror suspects as part of a post-Brussels attack crackdown.
At a hastily arranged meeting, EU ministers responsible for security issues will call for a European legislative blueprint to be drawn up by June to enable governments to obtain easier access to such “digital evidence”, according to a draft statement seen by the Financial Times.
Read more @ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eab11fb8-f11c-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a.html
Do you remember one of the Snowden revelations was that the NSA was spying on this oil company and also Rousseff.
Neoliberal parties, the corporate media, a conservative judiciary, oil lobbyists, the white elite and right-wing groups, with generous help from outside, have ganged up to derail the country’s government. And it’s all being made to look like a popular uprising against a corrupt regime Sao Paulo: In November 2009, The Economist put Brazil on its cover. Brazil Takes Off, read the headline, emblazoned on a photo of Rio’s iconic statue of Christ the Redeemer rising above blue waters like an inter-stellar rocket. Predicting that “Brazil is likely to become the world’s fifth-largest economy, overtaking Britain and France,” the magazine said that South America’s largest economy should “pick up more speed over the next few years as big new deep-sea oilfields come on stream, and as Asian countries still hunger for food and minerals from Brazil’s vast and bountiful land.” In 2009, even as the world was reeling from a catastrophic financial crisis, The Economist saw Brazil as the great hope of global capitalism. Back then, the British magazine was not the only one in love with Brazil. Under Lula da Silva’s leadership, the country was witnessing unprecedented prosperity and social change. Lula’s personal rise from shoe-shine boy and motor mechanic to the presidency of the biggest Latin American country was the stuff of legends. He was the subject of several books and a Brazilian box-office hit. At the G-20 summit in London in April 2009, US president Barrack Obama called him the “most popular politician on earth.” And with two of the biggest sporting spectacles – the FIFA World Cup (2014) and the Olympics (2016) – scheduled to happen in the country, Brazil, perennially branded the “country of the future,” finally appeared to be arriving on the global stage. Seven years later, Brazil is looking like a completely different country. Lula, who retired in 2010 with an 80% approval rating, was detained this month for questioning in a multi-billion dollar corruption scandal that has seen some of his Workers Party (PT) comrades go to jail. His successor, President Dilma Rousseff is facing impeachment in the Congress. The country’s economy shrank by 3.5% last year, and this year won’t be any better. Inflation is in double digits and hundreds of thousands are facing unemployment. Millions of people have taken to the streets – both in support of and opposition to the government. No one cares two hoots about the Rio Olympics, which are less than five months away. And the corporate media – global and local – has already written off Lula, Rousseff and Brazil. The Brazil story began to lose some of its shine in 2013, especially in the eyes of international business media. In September 2013, The Economist put Brazil on its cover once again. The report was scathing and blasted Rousseff, who had been running the country for three years by then and was facing an election the next year, for doing “too little to reform its government in the boom years.” It took Brazil to task for “too many taxes,” “too much public expenditure” and paying pensions that were too “generous.” That had not been a good year for Brazil. The economy was faltering and hundreds of thousands of people had come out on the streets just ahead of the FIFA Confederations Cup to protest against corruption and demand better public services. The economy appeared to have stalled entirely. So what went wrong between 2009 and 2013? How did Rousseff, declared the most powerful woman in the world in 2010 by Forbes, suddenly become weak and incompetent? How did the Brazil story turn from one of hope to that of despair in such a short time? The answer is simple – oil, and the money, power and politics it generates. Same old, same oil In 2007, Brazil discovered an oil field with huge reserves in a pre-salt zone below the ocean surface. Within a year, the country had uncovered oil and natural gas reserves exceeding 50 billion barrels – the largest in South America. Brazil was now the new darling of the world’s oil merchants, and Wall Street. State-owned Petrobras had enjoyed a monopoly over oil exploration in Brazil since its creation in 1953, but the sector had been opened up to Royal Dutch Shell in 1997. With the oil finds of 2007-08, global giants like Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil were eyeing Brazil in the hopes of lucrative contracts. But no deals could be struck. In 2007, Lula partially restored Petrobras’s monopoly over Brazilian oil. Laws made under the guidance of Rousseff, who was Lula’s chief of staff, gave the company sole operating rights, with all its earnings going to government’s social programmes on education and health. Petrobras also began partnering with state-owned oil firms from other countries, mainly China. (ONGC and Bharat Petroleum too are partners of Petrobras and have offices in Rio, the headquarters of the Brazilian company). The US State Department and Energy Information Agency (EIA) soon began lobbying Brazilian officials on behalf of American companies. In secret US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2010, it was revealed how the Americans were worried about the presence of state-owned Chinese companies in Brazil, with one cable detailing how the US was trying to get the country’s laws changed to its advantage.
Sao Paulo: In November 2009, The Economist put Brazil on its cover. Brazil Takes Off, read the headline, emblazoned on a photo of Rio’s iconic statue of Christ the Redeemer rising above blue waters like an inter-stellar rocket. Predicting that “Brazil is likely to become the world’s fifth-largest economy, overtaking Britain and France,” the magazine said that South America’s largest economy should “pick up more speed over the next few years as big new deep-sea oilfields come on stream, and as Asian countries still hunger for food and minerals from Brazil’s vast and bountiful land.”
In 2009, even as the world was reeling from a catastrophic financial crisis, The Economist saw Brazil as the great hope of global capitalism.
Back then, the British magazine was not the only one in love with Brazil. Under Lula da Silva’s leadership, the country was witnessing unprecedented prosperity and social change. Lula’s personal rise from shoe-shine boy and motor mechanic to the presidency of the biggest Latin American country was the stuff of legends. He was the subject of several books and a Brazilian box-office hit. At the G-20 summit in London in April 2009, US president Barrack Obama called him the “most popular politician on earth.” And with two of the biggest sporting spectacles – the FIFA World Cup (2014) and the Olympics (2016) – scheduled to happen in the country, Brazil, perennially branded the “country of the future,” finally appeared to be arriving on the global stage.
Seven years later, Brazil is looking like a completely different country. Lula, who retired in 2010 with an 80% approval rating, was detained this month for questioning in a multi-billion dollar corruption scandal that has seen some of his Workers Party (PT) comrades go to jail. His successor, President Dilma Rousseff is facing impeachment in the Congress. The country’s economy shrank by 3.5% last year, and this year won’t be any better. Inflation is in double digits and hundreds of thousands are facing unemployment. Millions of people have taken to the streets – both in support of and opposition to the government. No one cares two hoots about the Rio Olympics, which are less than five months away. And the corporate media – global and local – has already written off Lula, Rousseff and Brazil.
The Brazil story began to lose some of its shine in 2013, especially in the eyes of international business media. In September 2013, The Economist put Brazil on its cover once again. The report was scathing and blasted Rousseff, who had been running the country for three years by then and was facing an election the next year, for doing “too little to reform its government in the boom years.” It took Brazil to task for “too many taxes,” “too much public expenditure” and paying pensions that were too “generous.”
That had not been a good year for Brazil. The economy was faltering and hundreds of thousands of people had come out on the streets just ahead of the FIFA Confederations Cup to protest against corruption and demand better public services. The economy appeared to have stalled entirely.
So what went wrong between 2009 and 2013? How did Rousseff, declared the most powerful woman in the world in 2010 by Forbes, suddenly become weak and incompetent? How did the Brazil story turn from one of hope to that of despair in such a short time?
The answer is simple – oil, and the money, power and politics it generates.
Same old, same oil
In 2007, Brazil discovered an oil field with huge reserves in a pre-salt zone below the ocean surface. Within a year, the country had uncovered oil and natural gas reserves exceeding 50 billion barrels – the largest in South America. Brazil was now the new darling of the world’s oil merchants, and Wall Street.
State-owned Petrobras had enjoyed a monopoly over oil exploration in Brazil since its creation in 1953, but the sector had been opened up to Royal Dutch Shell in 1997. With the oil finds of 2007-08, global giants like Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil were eyeing Brazil in the hopes of lucrative contracts. But no deals could be struck.
In 2007, Lula partially restored Petrobras’s monopoly over Brazilian oil. Laws made under the guidance of Rousseff, who was Lula’s chief of staff, gave the company sole operating rights, with all its earnings going to government’s social programmes on education and health. Petrobras also began partnering with state-owned oil firms from other countries, mainly China. (ONGC and Bharat Petroleum too are partners of Petrobras and have offices in Rio, the headquarters of the Brazilian company).
The US State Department and Energy Information Agency (EIA) soon began lobbying Brazilian officials on behalf of American companies. In secret US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2010, it was revealed how the Americans were worried about the presence of state-owned Chinese companies in Brazil, with one cable detailing how the US was trying to get the country’s laws changed to its advantage.
Read more @ http://thewire.in/2016/03/25/a-coup-is-in-the-air-the-plot-to-unsettle-rousseff-lula-and-brazil-25893/
On June 6, 2013, a story broke which would go on to change the world. It concerned thousands of classified memos, emails and other data taken by a contractor from the United States government’s National Security Agency (NSA). The leak was huge in scope and described covert operations against other nations. The documents also laid bare a massive data collection programme on US citizens (and everyone else.) That contractor was Edward Snowden and the shockwaves from his disclosure are still being felt today. Little was known about the NSA, even by those within the US government; the intelligence community used to joke that its initials stood for ‘No Such Agency’. It’s difficult to call the public’s reaction disproportionate. The agency’s practice, through a programme named PRISM, of storing data on every telephone call made and email sent through US servers, including those by innocent US citizens, was shocking and illegal. Underpinning this public outcry, however, was a profound global unease. People vaguely understood that they needed to be protected from online threats and they had a rough idea that this was the stated remit of the NSA. However, even today, few really have a grasp of what cybersecurity involves; what an attack might look like, or what the government could do to stop it. In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War Fred Kaplan sets out to shed some much-needed light on the realm of cyberwarfare and the shadowy history of the agency which was to make it its speciality. The book traces the NSA back to its inception in the early 1950s, and meticulously charts the struggles, conflicts, setbacks and presidential panics which helped it become the technical behemoth exposed to the world in 2013. We learn the threats and opportunities of cyber war are nothing new. The use of intercepted intelligence was a key tactic for Roman infantrymen, who captured enemy messengers in order to learn and counter the movements of their enemies. In the Second World War, British codebreakers led by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park helped to turn the tide by decrypting messages sent by the Germans and Japanese. Used correctly, this approach can leave the enemy command unable to trust the information they’re receiving from the field, distorting their view of a battle. Kaplan tracks the development of these tactics through various US conflicts, tracing the NSA’s growing capabilities from Moscow to the Middle East.
On June 6, 2013, a story broke which would go on to change the world. It concerned thousands of classified memos, emails and other data taken by a contractor from the United States government’s National Security Agency (NSA).
The leak was huge in scope and described covert operations against other nations. The documents also laid bare a massive data collection programme on US citizens (and everyone else.) That contractor was Edward Snowden and the shockwaves from his disclosure are still being felt today.
Little was known about the NSA, even by those within the US government; the intelligence community used to joke that its initials stood for ‘No Such Agency’.
It’s difficult to call the public’s reaction disproportionate. The agency’s practice, through a programme named PRISM, of storing data on every telephone call made and email sent through US servers, including those by innocent US citizens, was shocking and illegal. Underpinning this public outcry, however, was a profound global unease. People vaguely understood that they needed to be protected from online threats and they had a rough idea that this was the stated remit of the NSA. However, even today, few really have a grasp of what cybersecurity involves; what an attack might look like, or what the government could do to stop it.
In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War Fred Kaplan sets out to shed some much-needed light on the realm of cyberwarfare and the shadowy history of the agency which was to make it its speciality. The book traces the NSA back to its inception in the early 1950s, and meticulously charts the struggles, conflicts, setbacks and presidential panics which helped it become the technical behemoth exposed to the world in 2013.
We learn the threats and opportunities of cyber war are nothing new. The use of intercepted intelligence was a key tactic for Roman infantrymen, who captured enemy messengers in order to learn and counter the movements of their enemies. In the Second World War, British codebreakers led by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park helped to turn the tide by decrypting messages sent by the Germans and Japanese.
Used correctly, this approach can leave the enemy command unable to trust the information they’re receiving from the field, distorting their view of a battle. Kaplan tracks the development of these tactics through various US conflicts, tracing the NSA’s growing capabilities from Moscow to the Middle East.
Read more @ http://www.thenational.ae/arts-life/the-review/20160323/550/book-review-fred-kaplans-dark-territory--how-baywatch-bikinis-became-a-us-weapon
Belgian government says the legislation won’t overstep privacy boundaries. Even before this week’s terrorist attacks, Belgium planned to beef up its data retention laws and give intelligence agencies and prosecutors broader powers. “[The terror attacks] could very well speed up the talks,” said Belgian MP Peter Dedecker, member of the Flemish-nationalist N-VA. The day before Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in November’s Paris terror attacks, capture last Friday, Belgium’s Minister of Justice Koen Geens announced the Council of Ministers wanted to pass two key laws before the summer. One would help streamline rules for authorities’ online activities and hacking rights. The second would allow intelligence agencies greater freedoms to hack extremist groups online and eavesdrop on cross-border communications. “Governments can gather data but we have to do it under clear, defined conditions: who has access, who can analyze the data, who can share it,” said Bart Tommelein, state secretary for privacy in Belgium. The two laws are now being reviewed by the Council of State — which does legal checks on government proposals — and will likely be discussed in parliament in the next two months, if not sooner.
Belgian government says the legislation won’t overstep privacy boundaries.
Even before this week’s terrorist attacks, Belgium planned to beef up its data retention laws and give intelligence agencies and prosecutors broader powers.
“[The terror attacks] could very well speed up the talks,” said Belgian MP Peter Dedecker, member of the Flemish-nationalist N-VA.
The day before Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in November’s Paris terror attacks, capture last Friday, Belgium’s Minister of Justice Koen Geens announced the Council of Ministers wanted to pass two key laws before the summer.
One would help streamline rules for authorities’ online activities and hacking rights.
The second would allow intelligence agencies greater freedoms to hack extremist groups online and eavesdrop on cross-border communications.
“Governments can gather data but we have to do it under clear, defined conditions: who has access, who can analyze the data, who can share it,” said Bart Tommelein, state secretary for privacy in Belgium.
The two laws are now being reviewed by the Council of State — which does legal checks on government proposals — and will likely be discussed in parliament in the next two months, if not sooner.
Read more @ http://www.politico.eu/article/attacks-could-speed-revamp-of-belgian-cybersecurity-laws/
Mar 29 16 1:16 PM
THE FBI says it successfully used a mysterious technique without Apple’s help to break into an iPhone linked to the gunman in a California mass shooting. The surprise development effectively ends a pitched court battle between Apple and the Obama administration. The government told a federal court on Monday without any details that it accessed data on gunman Syed Farook’s iPhone and no longer requires Apple’s assistance. Farook and his wife died in a gun battle with police after killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.
THE FBI says it successfully used a mysterious technique without Apple’s help to break into an iPhone linked to the gunman in a California mass shooting.
The surprise development effectively ends a pitched court battle between Apple and the Obama administration.
The government told a federal court on Monday without any details that it accessed data on gunman Syed Farook’s iPhone and no longer requires Apple’s assistance. Farook and his wife died in a gun battle with police after killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/mobile-phones/fbi-cracks-into-gunmans-iphone-using-mysterious-technique-without-apples-help/news-story/184f3becc7baf6fcbf50005c694add8b
A lot of time wasted going to court to get Apple to hand over its keys to the Apple Kingdom..... now anyone on that phone who may have been responsible in helping the terrorists have probably disappeared into the mists....
Mar 29 16 2:08 PM
INVESTIGATORS are broadening their DNA searches beyond government databases and demanding genetic information from companies that do ancestry research for their customers.Two major companies that research family lineage for fees around $US200 say that over the last two years, they have received law enforcement demands for genetic information stored in their DNA databases.Ancestry.com and competitor 23andme report a total of five requests from US law agencies for the genetic material of six individuals in their growing databases of hundreds of thousands. Ancestry.com turned over one person’s data for an investigation into the murder and rape of an 18-year-old woman in Idaho Falls, Idaho. 23andme has received four other court orders but persuaded investigators to withdraw the requests.The companies say law enforcement demands for genetic information are rare.But privacy advocates and experts are concerned that genetic information turned over for medical, family history research or other highly personal reasons could be misused by investigators — and that the few known cases could be the start of a trend.“There will be more requests as time goes on and the technology evolves,” said New York University law professor Erin Murphy, author of Inside The Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA. Law enforcement agencies across the country have access to growing state and national databases with millions of genetic samples of convicted offenders and arrestees.
INVESTIGATORS are broadening their DNA searches beyond government databases and demanding genetic information from companies that do ancestry research for their customers.
Two major companies that research family lineage for fees around $US200 say that over the last two years, they have received law enforcement demands for genetic information stored in their DNA databases.
Ancestry.com and competitor 23andme report a total of five requests from US law agencies for the genetic material of six individuals in their growing databases of hundreds of thousands. Ancestry.com turned over one person’s data for an investigation into the murder and rape of an 18-year-old woman in Idaho Falls, Idaho. 23andme has received four other court orders but persuaded investigators to withdraw the requests.
The companies say law enforcement demands for genetic information are rare.
But privacy advocates and experts are concerned that genetic information turned over for medical, family history research or other highly personal reasons could be misused by investigators — and that the few known cases could be the start of a trend.
“There will be more requests as time goes on and the technology evolves,” said New York University law professor Erin Murphy, author of Inside The Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA. Law enforcement agencies across the country have access to growing state and national databases with millions of genetic samples of convicted offenders and arrestees.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/law-enforcement-investigators-seek-out-private-dna-databases/news-story/ed2fe5872be32ad11f58361cecf662bd
Mar 30 16 9:25 AM
What is privacy and what is an individual’s right to it? That is the question that renowned linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Intercept co-founding editorGlenn Greenwald sought to answer on Friday evening as the three (virtually) shared a stage for a panel discussion at the University of Arizona in Tuscon. Coming amid the FBI’s public battle against Apple as well as days after the bombings in Brussels last week, which have spurred another round of calls for heightened security and surveillance, the conversation challenged the rhetoric that national security requires that governments can access individual communications. “Should our government be omniscient?” asked Snowden, who took part in the discussion via satellite from Russia. “That has value, of course, in thwarting nefarious and criminal behavior. But the public has a right to know if the government is going to be omniscient. As it stands, this decision has been made by a few people behind closed doors. That is the problem.” “There are systems of unaccountable power—some of them private, some of them governmental,” Chomsky stated, regarding the growing commercialization of the internet. “They don’t care about democracy and have shaped and molded the system. Technology is neutral. It can be used for good or evil. It’s up to us to determine what the future holds.” When asked about the FBI’s ongoing effort to force Apple to break into one of the suspected San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, Greenwald stated that the bureau’s case against the tech company is “pure deceit.”
What is privacy and what is an individual’s right to it?
That is the question that renowned linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Intercept co-founding editorGlenn Greenwald sought to answer on Friday evening as the three (virtually) shared a stage for a panel discussion at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.
Coming amid the FBI’s public battle against Apple as well as days after the bombings in Brussels last week, which have spurred another round of calls for heightened security and surveillance, the conversation challenged the rhetoric that national security requires that governments can access individual communications.
“Should our government be omniscient?” asked Snowden, who took part in the discussion via satellite from Russia. “That has value, of course, in thwarting nefarious and criminal behavior. But the public has a right to know if the government is going to be omniscient. As it stands, this decision has been made by a few people behind closed doors. That is the problem.”
“There are systems of unaccountable power—some of them private, some of them governmental,” Chomsky stated, regarding the growing commercialization of the internet. “They don’t care about democracy and have shaped and molded the system. Technology is neutral. It can be used for good or evil. It’s up to us to determine what the future holds.”
When asked about the FBI’s ongoing effort to force Apple to break into one of the suspected San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, Greenwald stated that the bureau’s case against the tech company is “pure deceit.”
Read more @ http://disinfo.com/2016/03/chomsky-snowden-greenwald-on-privacy-in-the-age-of-surveillance/
Apr 1 16 12:17 AM
Apple Inc. refused to give the FBI software the agency desperately wanted. Now Apple is the one that needs the FBI's assistance.The FBI announced Monday that it managed to unlock an iPhone 5c belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters without the help of Apple. And the agency has shown no interest in telling Apple how it skirted the phone's security features, leaving the tech giant guessing about a vulnerability that could compromise millions of devices. "One way or another, Apple needs to figure out the details," said Justin Olsson, product counsel at security software maker AVG Technologies. "The responsible thing for the government to do is privately disclose the vulnerability to Apple so they can continue hardening security on their devices."
Apple Inc. refused to give the FBI software the agency desperately wanted. Now Apple is the one that needs the FBI's assistance.
The FBI announced Monday that it managed to unlock an iPhone 5c belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters without the help of Apple. And the agency has shown no interest in telling Apple how it skirted the phone's security features, leaving the tech giant guessing about a vulnerability that could compromise millions of devices.
"One way or another, Apple needs to figure out the details," said Justin Olsson, product counsel at security software maker AVG Technologies. "The responsible thing for the government to do is privately disclose the vulnerability to Apple so they can continue hardening security on their devices."
Read more @ http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-next-steps-20160330-story.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
Apr 1 16 5:06 PM
The Maryland Special Court of Appeals, the state’s second-highest court, on Wednesday issued a landmark opinion explaining an earlier ruling that police must obtain search warrants before using the controversial cell phone surveillance devices known as Stingrays. “This is the first appellate opinion in the country to fully address the question of whether police must disclose their intent to use a cell site simulator to a judge and obtain a probable cause warrant,” Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, told The Intercept. Wednesday’s opinion explains in detail why the court upheld a lower court ruling earlier this month, which rebuked the Baltimore Police Department for secretly using a cell site simulator to track down a murder suspect. Officers obtained a pen register, which required a lower standard of probable cause to collect phone data than a warrant, then deployed an advanced version of the Stingray known as a “Hailstorm,” without informing the judge.
The Maryland Special Court of Appeals, the state’s second-highest court, on Wednesday issued a landmark opinion explaining an earlier ruling that police must obtain search warrants before using the controversial cell phone surveillance devices known as Stingrays.
“This is the first appellate opinion in the country to fully address the question of whether police must disclose their intent to use a cell site simulator to a judge and obtain a probable cause warrant,” Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, told The Intercept.
Wednesday’s opinion explains in detail why the court upheld a lower court ruling earlier this month, which rebuked the Baltimore Police Department for secretly using a cell site simulator to track down a murder suspect. Officers obtained a pen register, which required a lower standard of probable cause to collect phone data than a warrant, then deployed an advanced version of the Stingray known as a “Hailstorm,” without informing the judge.
Read more @ http://disinfo.com/2016/03/court-stingray-warrant/
Apr 5 16 5:16 PM
Knowing you're being watched online can have a 'chilling effect on democratic discourse', the study said Government surveillance of the internet may cause people to self-censor and avoid voicing controversial opinions, a new study has suggested. The study looks at how knowledge of surveillance can cause a "chilling effect on democratic discourse" online, and paints a worrying picture of the future of free speech on the internet.For her research, Wayne State University's Elizabeth Stoycheff looked through the lens of the 'Spiral of Silence' theory, which describes the tendency of people to keep quiet when they think their views go against those of the majority.The findings were based on online surveys conducted by a group of participants, which built up a profile of each by asking them questions about their media consumption, political views and personality traits. During the survey, a random group of participants were selected to be given a message which "primed" them to perceive their online activity was being monitored by the US government.
Government surveillance of the internet may cause people to self-censor and avoid voicing controversial opinions, a new study has suggested.
The study looks at how knowledge of surveillance can cause a "chilling effect on democratic discourse" online, and paints a worrying picture of the future of free speech on the internet.
For her research, Wayne State University's Elizabeth Stoycheff looked through the lens of the 'Spiral of Silence' theory, which describes the tendency of people to keep quiet when they think their views go against those of the majority.
The findings were based on online surveys conducted by a group of participants, which built up a profile of each by asking them questions about their media consumption, political views and personality traits.
During the survey, a random group of participants were selected to be given a message which "primed" them to perceive their online activity was being monitored by the US government.
Read more @ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/technology/government-surveillance-stops-people-sharing-controversial-opinions-online-study-suggests-34581359.html
No need for backdoors or weakened encryption when clever policing does the job.Key evidence that helped convict two British men last week for terrorist offences was reportedly obtained from a locked phone using a simple but highly effective ruse. According to CNN, which cited a source close to the investigation, undercover police officers visited Junead Khan, 25, of Luton posing as company managers and asked to check his driver and work records. "When they disputed where he was on a particular day, he got out his iPhone and showed them the record of his work. The undercover officers asked to see his iPhone and Khan handed it over," CNN reported. At that point they apparently arrested Khan and changed the password settings on the iPhone to prevent it from becoming locked. Dean Haydon, head of the Metropolitan Police's counter terrorism command, told CNN: "Via that phone we knew that they'd been in contact with Daesh fighters in Syria via text message, via e-mails but also using social media applications but also there was a vast amount of extremist and terrorist material on there in relation to how to make a bomb, for instance, but also material that related to atrocities overseas."
Key evidence that helped convict two British men last week for terrorist offences was reportedly obtained from a locked phone using a simple but highly effective ruse.
According to CNN, which cited a source close to the investigation, undercover police officers visited Junead Khan, 25, of Luton posing as company managers and asked to check his driver and work records.
"When they disputed where he was on a particular day, he got out his iPhone and showed them the record of his work. The undercover officers asked to see his iPhone and Khan handed it over," CNN reported. At that point they apparently arrested Khan and changed the password settings on the iPhone to prevent it from becoming locked.
Dean Haydon, head of the Metropolitan Police's counter terrorism command, told CNN: "Via that phone we knew that they'd been in contact with Daesh fighters in Syria via text message, via e-mails but also using social media applications but also there was a vast amount of extremist and terrorist material on there in relation to how to make a bomb, for instance, but also material that related to atrocities overseas."
Read more @ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/iphone-terror-crypto-uk-police/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link