ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Apr 2 15 10:13 AM
It’s time to clarify what data retention is and the nature of the threat it poses to citizens writes Crikey’s Bernard Keane. Crikey has been covering data retention for several years, and we’ve written tens of thousands of words in that time explaining what it is, why it’s important and the threat it poses to Australians. We know that a lot of people, especially in the media, have only started to focus on the issue in recent days, so we’ve further expanded this Q&A we prepared last year to take into account recent developments and give you a one-stop document for what will be Australia’s biggest ever mass surveillance regime. What is data retention? The compulsory retention of information about a citizen’s telecommunications and online usage, either by telcos and internet service providers themselves or by a government agency, so that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can use it to investigate crime and national security threats. The Australian version will force telcos and ISPs to retain your data. What sort of data is being retained? After seven years, we’ve now finally been told what data will be retained, courtesy of amendments to the proposed legislation (you can see them here; the relevant section is 187AA). The legislated form of the dataset is very vague and there are likely to be differences of interpretation between companies, but it consists of subscriber or account holder details, the source and destination of a communication, date, time and duration of communication, location and what services was used e.g. voice, SMS, social media, Skype, and the type of delivery services (ADSL, Wi-Fi, VoIP, cable, etc). It will not include browsing history and appears not to include download volumes. What will it cost? The government has made a vague commitment to partly fund the scheme, but its cost remains unknown. There are several figures floating around. The Prime Minister, whose grasp of detail on the issue of data retention hasn’t been especially good, suggested $400 million. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that considered the issue in 2012, iiNet said it might cost $5 a month for every customer to store data; that would be a $60 a year surveillance tax on every household. In 2014 iiNet significantly increased its estimate of the likely cost to $130 a year. Remember, both companies and government agencies will not merely need to store this data, but ensure it is stored safely — the vast trove of personal data that data retention will produce will be immensely attractive to criminals (in 2012, Anonymous hackers released customer data obtained from AAPT to protest against the then-government’s data retention proposal). The alternative to expensive, highly secure storage is storage with a cheap offshore provider where your data can be easily hacked. What happens currently? Traditionally, telcos have retained phone records because that was how they billed you. The government claims companies have less and less need for metadata beyond the billing cycle, and given there’s a cost to storing such data, they are keeping less of it for the sort of time periods agencies prefer — usually two years. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies call this “going dark” — losing access to phone information of the kind they’ve had for decades. However, major telcos like Telstra had rejected this argument and said they have no plans to abandon current retention arrangements. Moreover, both Elstra and major ISP iiNet say they will have to create new classes of data in order to comply with the law. This is not, strictly speaking, a “data retention” law but a “data creation” law. Isn’t this just maintaining the status quo, if phone records have always been kept? No. Your phone data now includes your location as your mobile phone interacts with nearby phone towers, so in effect it can be used as a tracking device. But more importantly, forget that “it’s just metadata” or “billing data”. A single phone call time and duration won’t tell anyone much about you. But in aggregate, communications data will reveal far more about you than content data. With data retention, agencies can accumulate a record of everyone you have called, everyone they have called, how long you spoke for, the order of the calls, and where you were when you made the call, to build a profile that says far more about you than any solitary overheard phone call or email. It can reveal not just straightforward details such as your friends and acquaintances, but also if you have medical issues, your financial interests, what you’re buying, if you’re having an affair or ended a relationship. Combined with other publicly available information, having a full set of phone records on an individual will tell you far more than much of their content dataever will. And if you don’t believe us, ask the people who know: the General Counsel for the United States National Security Agency has publicly stated, “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” According to the former head of the NSA, Michael Hayden, the US government kills people based on metadata it has accumulated on them. As Edward Snowden says: “You can’t trust what you’re hearing, but you can trust the metadata.”
It’s time to clarify what data retention is and the nature of the threat it poses to citizens writes Crikey’s Bernard Keane.
Crikey has been covering data retention for several years, and we’ve written tens of thousands of words in that time explaining what it is, why it’s important and the threat it poses to Australians. We know that a lot of people, especially in the media, have only started to focus on the issue in recent days, so we’ve further expanded this Q&A we prepared last year to take into account recent developments and give you a one-stop document for what will be Australia’s biggest ever mass surveillance regime.
What is data retention?
The compulsory retention of information about a citizen’s telecommunications and online usage, either by telcos and internet service providers themselves or by a government agency, so that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can use it to investigate crime and national security threats. The Australian version will force telcos and ISPs to retain your data.
What sort of data is being retained?
After seven years, we’ve now finally been told what data will be retained, courtesy of amendments to the proposed legislation (you can see them here; the relevant section is 187AA). The legislated form of the dataset is very vague and there are likely to be differences of interpretation between companies, but it consists of subscriber or account holder details, the source and destination of a communication, date, time and duration of communication, location and what services was used e.g. voice, SMS, social media, Skype, and the type of delivery services (ADSL, Wi-Fi, VoIP, cable, etc).
It will not include browsing history and appears not to include download volumes.
What will it cost?
The government has made a vague commitment to partly fund the scheme, but its cost remains unknown. There are several figures floating around. The Prime Minister, whose grasp of detail on the issue of data retention hasn’t been especially good, suggested $400 million. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that considered the issue in 2012, iiNet said it might cost $5 a month for every customer to store data; that would be a $60 a year surveillance tax on every household. In 2014 iiNet significantly increased its estimate of the likely cost to $130 a year. Remember, both companies and government agencies will not merely need to store this data, but ensure it is stored safely — the vast trove of personal data that data retention will produce will be immensely attractive to criminals (in 2012, Anonymous hackers released customer data obtained from AAPT to protest against the then-government’s data retention proposal). The alternative to expensive, highly secure storage is storage with a cheap offshore provider where your data can be easily hacked.
What happens currently?
Traditionally, telcos have retained phone records because that was how they billed you. The government claims companies have less and less need for metadata beyond the billing cycle, and given there’s a cost to storing such data, they are keeping less of it for the sort of time periods agencies prefer — usually two years. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies call this “going dark” — losing access to phone information of the kind they’ve had for decades.
However, major telcos like Telstra had rejected this argument and said they have no plans to abandon current retention arrangements. Moreover, both Elstra and major ISP iiNet say they will have to create new classes of data in order to comply with the law. This is not, strictly speaking, a “data retention” law but a “data creation” law.
Isn’t this just maintaining the status quo, if phone records have always been kept?
No. Your phone data now includes your location as your mobile phone interacts with nearby phone towers, so in effect it can be used as a tracking device. But more importantly, forget that “it’s just metadata” or “billing data”. A single phone call time and duration won’t tell anyone much about you. But in aggregate, communications data will reveal far more about you than content data. With data retention, agencies can accumulate a record of everyone you have called, everyone they have called, how long you spoke for, the order of the calls, and where you were when you made the call, to build a profile that says far more about you than any solitary overheard phone call or email. It can reveal not just straightforward details such as your friends and acquaintances, but also if you have medical issues, your financial interests, what you’re buying, if you’re having an affair or ended a relationship. Combined with other publicly available information, having a full set of phone records on an individual will tell you far more than much of their content dataever will.
And if you don’t believe us, ask the people who know: the General Counsel for the United States National Security Agency has publicly stated, “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” According to the former head of the NSA, Michael Hayden, the US government kills people based on metadata it has accumulated on them. As Edward Snowden says: “You can’t trust what you’re hearing, but you can trust the metadata.”
Governments and corporations gather, store, and analyze the tremendous amount of data we chuff out as we move through our digitized lives. Often this is without our knowledge, and typically without our consent. Based on this data, they draw conclusions about us that we might disagree with or object to, and that can impact our lives in profound ways. We may not like to admit it, but we are under mass surveillance. Much of what we know about the NSA’s surveillance comes from Edward Snowden, although people both before and after him also leaked agency secrets. As an NSA contractor, Snowden collected tens of thousands of documents describing many of the NSA’s surveillance activities. Then in 2013 he fled to Hong Kong and gave them to select reporters. The first news story to break based on the Snowden documents described how the NSA collects the cell phone call records of every American. One government defense, and a sound bite repeated ever since, is that the data they collected is “only metadata.” The intended point was that the NSA wasn’t collecting the words we said during our phone conversations, only the phone numbers of the two parties, and the date, time, and duration of the call. This seemed to mollify many people, but it shouldn’t have. Collecting metadata on people means putting them under surveillance. An easy thought experiment demonstrates this. Imagine that you hired a private detective to eavesdrop on someone. The detective would plant bugs in that person’s home, office, and car. He would eavesdrop on that person’s phone and computer. And you would get a report detailing that person’s conversations. Now imagine that you asked the detective to put that person under surveillance. You would get a different but nevertheless comprehensive report: where he went, what he did, who he spoke to and for how long, who he wrote to, what he read, and what he purchased. That’s metadata. Eavesdropping gets you the conversations; surveillance gets you everything else. Telephone metadata alone reveals a lot about us. The timing, length, and frequency of our conversations reveal our relationships with each other: our intimate friends, business associates, and everyone in-between. Phone metadata reveals what and who we’re interested in and what’s important to us, no matter how private. It provides a window into our personalities. It provides a detailed summary of what’s happening to us at any point in time. One experiment from Stanford University examined the phone metadata of about 500 volunteers over several months. The personal nature of what the researchers could deduce from the metadata surprised even them, and the report is worth quoting: Participant A communicated with multiple local neurology groups, a specialty pharmacy, a rare condition management service, and a hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis. Participant B spoke at length with cardiologists at a major medical center, talked briefly with a medical laboratory, received calls from a pharmacy, and placed short calls to a home reporting hotline for a medical device used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia. Participant C made a number of calls to a firearms store that specializes in the AR semiautomatic rifle platform. They also spoke at length with customer service for a firearm manufacturer that produces an AR line. In a span of three weeks, Participant D contacted a home improvement store, locksmiths, a hydroponics dealer, and a head shop. Participant E had a long early morning call with her sister. Two days later, she placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location. She placed brief additional calls two weeks later, and made a final call a month after. That’s a multiple sclerosis sufferer, a heart attack victim, a semiautomatic weapons owner, a home marijuana grower, and someone who had an abortion, all from a single stream of metadata.
Governments and corporations gather, store, and analyze the tremendous amount of data we chuff out as we move through our digitized lives. Often this is without our knowledge, and typically without our consent. Based on this data, they draw conclusions about us that we might disagree with or object to, and that can impact our lives in profound ways. We may not like to admit it, but we are under mass surveillance.
Much of what we know about the NSA’s surveillance comes from Edward Snowden, although people both before and after him also leaked agency secrets. As an NSA contractor, Snowden collected tens of thousands of documents describing many of the NSA’s surveillance activities. Then in 2013 he fled to Hong Kong and gave them to select reporters.
The first news story to break based on the Snowden documents described how the NSA collects the cell phone call records of every American. One government defense, and a sound bite repeated ever since, is that the data they collected is “only metadata.” The intended point was that the NSA wasn’t collecting the words we said during our phone conversations, only the phone numbers of the two parties, and the date, time, and duration of the call. This seemed to mollify many people, but it shouldn’t have. Collecting metadata on people means putting them under surveillance.
An easy thought experiment demonstrates this. Imagine that you hired a private detective to eavesdrop on someone. The detective would plant bugs in that person’s home, office, and car. He would eavesdrop on that person’s phone and computer. And you would get a report detailing that person’s conversations.
Now imagine that you asked the detective to put that person under surveillance. You would get a different but nevertheless comprehensive report: where he went, what he did, who he spoke to and for how long, who he wrote to, what he read, and what he purchased. That’s metadata. Eavesdropping gets you the conversations; surveillance gets you everything else.
Telephone metadata alone reveals a lot about us. The timing, length, and frequency of our conversations reveal our relationships with each other: our intimate friends, business associates, and everyone in-between. Phone metadata reveals what and who we’re interested in and what’s important to us, no matter how private. It provides a window into our personalities. It provides a detailed summary of what’s happening to us at any point in time.
One experiment from Stanford University examined the phone metadata of about 500 volunteers over several months. The personal nature of what the researchers could deduce from the metadata surprised even them, and the report is worth quoting:
Participant A communicated with multiple local neurology groups, a specialty pharmacy, a rare condition management service, and a hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis.
Participant B spoke at length with cardiologists at a major medical center, talked briefly with a medical laboratory, received calls from a pharmacy, and placed short calls to a home reporting hotline for a medical device used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia.
Participant C made a number of calls to a firearms store that specializes in the AR semiautomatic rifle platform. They also spoke at length with customer service for a firearm manufacturer that produces an AR line.
In a span of three weeks, Participant D contacted a home improvement store, locksmiths, a hydroponics dealer, and a head shop.
Participant E had a long early morning call with her sister. Two days later, she placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location. She placed brief additional calls two weeks later, and made a final call a month after.
That’s a multiple sclerosis sufferer, a heart attack victim, a semiautomatic weapons owner, a home marijuana grower, and someone who had an abortion, all from a single stream of metadata.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/03/data-and-goliath-nsa-metadata-spying-your-secrets/
If this is the case why is Hayden so onto wanting to keep it?
Memo seen by managers, but not top dog Even before Edward Snowden spilled the beans on the National Security Agency's(NSA's) extensive surveillance programs, high-level US bureaucrats were considering spiking the program. So says The Associated Press, thanks to unnamed sources who told the wire service the mass surveillance was disappointing as a counter-terrorism strategy. They claim the phone collection programs missed most mobile calls, and spent too much money hoovering landlines, adding vox interceptions were not central to counter-terrorism efforts. It flies in the face of boilerplate public responses from the spy agency that the costly and intrusive programs are worth every cent. President Barack Obama has proposed the NSA only pull interception data from telecommunications providers on an as-needed basis, but that has yet to pass Congress. Sources told the AP that top managers had received the proposal drafted from lower-level grunts, but it had not reached then NSA boss General Keith Alexander, who they say would probably have rejected the report. A presidential task force also suggests the programs should be dumped, since the phone record collection leaves open the dangerous possibility of abuse by future governments. The AP says the revelations could impact Congress' decision to renew the NSA's phone tapping warrant in June.
Even before Edward Snowden spilled the beans on the National Security Agency's(NSA's) extensive surveillance programs, high-level US bureaucrats were considering spiking the program.
So says The Associated Press, thanks to unnamed sources who told the wire service the mass surveillance was disappointing as a counter-terrorism strategy.
They claim the phone collection programs missed most mobile calls, and spent too much money hoovering landlines, adding vox interceptions were not central to counter-terrorism efforts.
It flies in the face of boilerplate public responses from the spy agency that the costly and intrusive programs are worth every cent.
President Barack Obama has proposed the NSA only pull interception data from telecommunications providers on an as-needed basis, but that has yet to pass Congress.
Sources told the AP that top managers had received the proposal drafted from lower-level grunts, but it had not reached then NSA boss General Keith Alexander, who they say would probably have rejected the report.
A presidential task force also suggests the programs should be dumped, since the phone record collection leaves open the dangerous possibility of abuse by future governments.
The AP says the revelations could impact Congress' decision to renew the NSA's phone tapping warrant in June.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/31/presnowden_nsa_grunts_wanted_to_nix_phone_spying_report/
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-nsa-almost-cancelled-surveillance-program-due-to-snowden-2015-3
Read more @ https://www.takepart.com/article/2015/03/29/nsa-considered-ending-spying-program-edward-snowden-exposed-it
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/237339-report-nsa-mulled-ending-data-program
American political analyst Scott Rickard has said that the US National Security Agency would continue its spying activities with impunity. “The NSA continues to operate with impunity in having just massive amount of access to information. At the same time, the intelligence communities and the providers of the actual technology are making money,” Rickard said in a phone interview with Press TV on Monday. Current and former intelligence officials claimed that the NSA spying program incurred considerable costs in terms of money and civil liberties. The NSA program aimed at collecting and saving American calling records also did little if anything to stop terrorism, according to the Associated Press citing the officials. The spying agency considered ending its secret program several months before whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed documents exposing the practice, according to the report by the Associated Press. Some NSA officials were ready to abandon the bulk collection in 2013 even though they knew they would lose the ability to search a database of US calling records, said the unnamed intelligence officials. “Recently, there’s been a report coming out that the NSA’s spying program was quite expensive and there were discussions on shutting it down in the past,” Rickard said. “The current conditions are far beyond that. When you look at the amount of information that’s been gathered both on the internet and the phones, it’s just tremendous.”
American political analyst Scott Rickard has said that the US National Security Agency would continue its spying activities with impunity.
“The NSA continues to operate with impunity in having just massive amount of access to information. At the same time, the intelligence communities and the providers of the actual technology are making money,” Rickard said in a phone interview with Press TV on Monday.
Current and former intelligence officials claimed that the NSA spying program incurred considerable costs in terms of money and civil liberties.
The NSA program aimed at collecting and saving American calling records also did little if anything to stop terrorism, according to the Associated Press citing the officials.
The spying agency considered ending its secret program several months before whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed documents exposing the practice, according to the report by the Associated Press.
Some NSA officials were ready to abandon the bulk collection in 2013 even though they knew they would lose the ability to search a database of US calling records, said the unnamed intelligence officials.
“Recently, there’s been a report coming out that the NSA’s spying program was quite expensive and there were discussions on shutting it down in the past,” Rickard said. “The current conditions are far beyond that. When you look at the amount of information that’s been gathered both on the internet and the phones, it’s just tremendous.”
Read more @ http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/31/404070/NSA-continues-to-operate-with-impunity
Summary:Even if a crucial and controversial legal authority expires later this year, the US government will still be able to collect billions of domestic call records on Americans. The US government will stop collecting billions of domestic call records each year, should the legal authority expire later this year. But a loophole in a secret court order would allow the government to carry on spying on US citizens regardless of whether or not it has legal grounds. According to Reuters on Monday, a spokesperson for the Obama administration's National Security Council conceded that it may have to wind down the bulk phone records collection program, despite being a "critical national security tool." "Allowing Section 215 [the law that allows the collection] to sunset would result in the loss, going forward, of a critical national security tool that is used in a variety of additional contexts that do not involve the collection of bulk data," spokesperson Ned Price told the news agency. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect calling records from phone companies in bulk -- so-called "metadata" -- expires on June 1. The existence of the phone records program was revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked a secret court order compelling Verizon to hand over its entire cache of customer records on a rolling basis. However, little stands in the way of the NSA continuing to use the phone records program to conduct domestic surveillance after June 1. A similarly secretive court order, declassified and released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this month, suggests Congress does not need to extend the legal authority in order for the government to carry on using the program. First reported by National Journal earlier this month, a passage buried on the final pages of the order may allow the court to rubber-stamp the continued use of the program.
Summary:Even if a crucial and controversial legal authority expires later this year, the US government will still be able to collect billions of domestic call records on Americans.
The US government will stop collecting billions of domestic call records each year, should the legal authority expire later this year.
But a loophole in a secret court order would allow the government to carry on spying on US citizens regardless of whether or not it has legal grounds.
According to Reuters on Monday, a spokesperson for the Obama administration's National Security Council conceded that it may have to wind down the bulk phone records collection program, despite being a "critical national security tool."
"Allowing Section 215 [the law that allows the collection] to sunset would result in the loss, going forward, of a critical national security tool that is used in a variety of additional contexts that do not involve the collection of bulk data," spokesperson Ned Price told the news agency.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect calling records from phone companies in bulk -- so-called "metadata" -- expires on June 1. The existence of the phone records program was revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked a secret court order compelling Verizon to hand over its entire cache of customer records on a rolling basis.
However, little stands in the way of the NSA continuing to use the phone records program to conduct domestic surveillance after June 1.
A similarly secretive court order, declassified and released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this month, suggests Congress does not need to extend the legal authority in order for the government to carry on using the program.
First reported by National Journal earlier this month, a passage buried on the final pages of the order may allow the court to rubber-stamp the continued use of the program.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-bulk-phone-records-collection-secret-court-ruling/
Personal privacy in a data-driven world
U.S. technology companies in March, along with civil rights leaders like the ACLU and Internet advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sent a letter to Congress demanding the federal government end ongoing mass surveillance efforts in the form of its “metadata” collection of telephone records.The letter specifically referred to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, a key provision of that law that gives the National Security Agency authority to collect data from virtually every phone call made in the United States. If not renewed, that provision --— which has been called unconstitutional and illegal by some policy experts — is set to expire June 1. Government monitoring practices have become an issue of reform for several years now, a reaction to the public’s furor over the NSA’s massive surveillance initiatives brought to light by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Last year a bipartisan bill, the USA Freedom Act, was introduced in Congress. A Senate version of that bill would have halted the practice of metadata collection altogether; a watered-down version, passed in the House, shifted the onus of metadata collection to U.S. telephone companies. The bill ultimately died in the Senate in November. Before that, in January 2014, President Obama proposed what the New York Times called “modest changes” to the NSA’s collection of metadata, suggesting intelligence agencies employ new search technologies in lieu of bulk collection, and, like the ill-fated House bill, suggested ceding that data gathering to the phone companies. Those new rules were finally unveiled this February. As it turns out, U.S. telephone companies are apparently leery about hoarding that content themselves, so intelligence agencies would still be in charge of collecting it until Congress decides otherwise, though there would be improved safeguards, such as purging irrelevant data after five years, and increased supervision into how it’s used. In other words, the practice of metadata collection is scheduled to continue pretty much just as before.
U.S. technology companies in March, along with civil rights leaders like the ACLU and Internet advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sent a letter to Congress demanding the federal government end ongoing mass surveillance efforts in the form of its “metadata” collection of telephone records.
Government monitoring practices have become an issue of reform for several years now, a reaction to the public’s furor over the NSA’s massive surveillance initiatives brought to light by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Last year a bipartisan bill, the USA Freedom Act, was introduced in Congress. A Senate version of that bill would have halted the practice of metadata collection altogether; a watered-down version, passed in the House, shifted the onus of metadata collection to U.S. telephone companies. The bill ultimately died in the Senate in November.
Before that, in January 2014, President Obama proposed what the New York Times called “modest changes” to the NSA’s collection of metadata, suggesting intelligence agencies employ new search technologies in lieu of bulk collection, and, like the ill-fated House bill, suggested ceding that data gathering to the phone companies. Those new rules were finally unveiled this February. As it turns out, U.S. telephone companies are apparently leery about hoarding that content themselves, so intelligence agencies would still be in charge of collecting it until Congress decides otherwise, though there would be improved safeguards, such as purging irrelevant data after five years, and increased supervision into how it’s used. In other words, the practice of metadata collection is scheduled to continue pretty much just as before.
Read more @ http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/4344/2015-04-01/blog-personal-privacy-data-driven-world.html
I am betting that information was collected…… as Snowden has said many times about events like the Boston Bombings and the recent terrorist event in France….. that all that collection does not expose terrorist activity….. even though terrorism is the excuse they use to collect everything.
The pilot who crashed the Germanwings plane, taking 150 lives, was too ill to work, according to doctors' notes found at his home. But Germany's strict medical privacy laws barred the doctors from conveying that judgment to the airline. A horrific event that could have been averted with a sharing of information happened because of laws designed to protect privacy. As typically occurs in such cases, the same public that supported such laws turns around and asks, Why didn't the authorities know? It's really hard to get an intelligent conversation going about the balance between privacy and security. Posturing over government intrusion into our personal lives blossoms at times of calm and then wilts when terrorists hijack the headlines. Not long ago, privacy advocates were inflaming the public over the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. In doing so, they often exploit the public's confusion on what information is collected. Last October, CNN anchor Carol Costello grilled Sen. Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, on NSA spying activities, in an exchange that indicated she didn't quite know what metadata is. As Coats tried to explain, metadata is information about numbers we call (the date, time and duration of each call) -- not what was said in the calls. That's what the government computers track. If they flag a worrisome pattern, a court must grant permission for a human being to listen in on the content.
The pilot who crashed the Germanwings plane, taking 150 lives, was too ill to work, according to doctors' notes found at his home. But Germany's strict medical privacy laws barred the doctors from conveying that judgment to the airline.
A horrific event that could have been averted with a sharing of information happened because of laws designed to protect privacy. As typically occurs in such cases, the same public that supported such laws turns around and asks, Why didn't the authorities know?
It's really hard to get an intelligent conversation going about the balance between privacy and security. Posturing over government intrusion into our personal lives blossoms at times of calm and then wilts when terrorists hijack the headlines.
Not long ago, privacy advocates were inflaming the public over the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. In doing so, they often exploit the public's confusion on what information is collected.
Last October, CNN anchor Carol Costello grilled Sen. Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, on NSA spying activities, in an exchange that indicated she didn't quite know what metadata is. As Coats tried to explain, metadata is information about numbers we call (the date, time and duration of each call) -- not what was said in the calls.
That's what the government computers track. If they flag a worrisome pattern, a court must grant permission for a human being to listen in on the content.
Read more @ http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_27814844/harrop-how-debate-over-privacy-vs-security-changes
U.S. Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis., photo on left) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who are seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety and combat any legal provisions that amount to American spying, unveiled their Surveillance State Repeal Act on Tuesday. “This isn’t just tinkering around the edges,” Pocan said during a Capitol Hill briefing on the legislation. “This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the PATRIOT Act.” “The PATRIOT Act contains many provisions that violate the Fourth Amendment and have led to a dramatic expansion of our domestic surveillance state,” added Massie (R-Ky.), who co-authored the legislation with Pocan. “Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize. It is long past time to repeal the PATRIOT Act and reassert the constitutional rights of all Americans.” The House bill would completely repeal the PATRIOT Act, passed in the days following the 9/11 attacks, as well as the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which permits the NSA to collect Internet communications — a program exposed by former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden. Likewise, the bill would reform the court that oversees the nation’s spying powers, enhance protections for whistleblowers, and stop the government from forcing technology companies to create easy access into their devices.
U.S. Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis., photo on left) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who are seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety and combat any legal provisions that amount to American spying, unveiled their Surveillance State Repeal Act on Tuesday.
“This isn’t just tinkering around the edges,” Pocan said during a Capitol Hill briefing on the legislation. “This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the PATRIOT Act.”
“The PATRIOT Act contains many provisions that violate the Fourth Amendment and have led to a dramatic expansion of our domestic surveillance state,” added Massie (R-Ky.), who co-authored the legislation with Pocan. “Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize. It is long past time to repeal the PATRIOT Act and reassert the constitutional rights of all Americans.”
The House bill would completely repeal the PATRIOT Act, passed in the days following the 9/11 attacks, as well as the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which permits the NSA to collect Internet communications — a program exposed by former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Likewise, the bill would reform the court that oversees the nation’s spying powers, enhance protections for whistleblowers, and stop the government from forcing technology companies to create easy access into their devices.
Read more @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20560-house-members-target-patriot-act-with-surveillance-state-repeal-act
In two months, unless Congress acts, Section 215 of the Patriot Act will expire. The NSA has used this provision to indiscriminately collect Americans’ calling records (including the date, time, and duration of calls, but not the content of the conversations). Practically, the deadline is May 22 with Congress scheduled to head out of town for Memorial Day. Nearly two years ago, Edward Snowden’s unauthorized disclosures to the public’s surprise, revealed this bulk collection program along with the government’s broad and secret interpretation of Section 215. This was expected to trigger a vigorous debate in Congress over the appropriate scope of the government’s surveillance efforts. Yet, reform legislation, the USA FREEDOM Act, which was considered last year, has yet to even be reintroduced in this Congress. When the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) reviewed the Section 215 program last year, it concluded that Section 215 did not provide an adequate legal basis to support bulk collection. The use of this provision was especially troubling because even a close reading of the statute would not have revealed to the public that it was authorizing the ongoing collection of millions of Americans’ phone records. PCLOB concluded: “[W]e do not believe that the process surrounding the application of Section 215 to bulk collection comported with the kind of public debate that best serves the development of policy affecting the rights of Americans.” Transparency is critical to a functioning democracy, especially for laws that require Congress to balance national security with individual privacy and civil liberties.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/237407-window-to-debate-surveillance-policy-is-closing
THE European Commission has advised EU citizens to deactivate their Facebook accounts if they want avoid snooping from US security services. This was the warning given by EC lawyer Bernhard Schima during a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems. The case of Maximillian Schrems vs. Irish Data Protection Commissioner and Digital Rights Ireland Limited is focused on the current Safe Harbour framework, which covers the transmission of EU citizens’ data across to the US. Plaintiff Max Schrems argues the agreement no longer guarantees the privacy of European residents following Edward Snowden’s revelations of widespread surveillance by the NSA.
THE European Commission has advised EU citizens to deactivate their Facebook accounts if they want avoid snooping from US security services.
This was the warning given by EC lawyer Bernhard Schima during a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems.
The case of Maximillian Schrems vs. Irish Data Protection Commissioner and Digital Rights Ireland Limited is focused on the current Safe Harbour framework, which covers the transmission of EU citizens’ data across to the US.
Plaintiff Max Schrems argues the agreement no longer guarantees the privacy of European residents following Edward Snowden’s revelations of widespread surveillance by the NSA.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/eu-citizens-told-to-close-their-facebook-accounts-to-avoid-snooping-from-us-security-services/story-fnjwnfzw-1227281012264
Read more @ http://peacekeeper.ru/en/?module=news&action=view&id=24917
A case against Facebook being heard at the European Court of Justice could transform data privacy across the entire EU. The lawsuit, brought by Austrian Facebook user Maximilian Schrems, focuses on what US companies do with data from customers based outside the US. His complaint seeks to stop US spies from accessing the private data of EU citizens. Screms said on a website he set up to publicise the case that “large internet companies (in the current case Facebook) have, pursuant to US law, allowed the US government to access European user data on a mass scale for law enforcement, espionage and anti-terror purposes.” “Aiding these forms of US ‘mass surveillance’ may, however, violate EU privacy laws and fundamental rights.” Schrems made contact with the Irish data regulator in August last year regarding the matter, arguing that the social network, whose European headquarters is based in Dublin, had contravened privacy laws.
A case against Facebook being heard at the European Court of Justice could transform data privacy across the entire EU.
The lawsuit, brought by Austrian Facebook user Maximilian Schrems, focuses on what US companies do with data from customers based outside the US.
His complaint seeks to stop US spies from accessing the private data of EU citizens.
Screms said on a website he set up to publicise the case that “large internet companies (in the current case Facebook) have, pursuant to US law, allowed the US government to access European user data on a mass scale for law enforcement, espionage and anti-terror purposes.”
“Aiding these forms of US ‘mass surveillance’ may, however, violate EU privacy laws and fundamental rights.”
Schrems made contact with the Irish data regulator in August last year regarding the matter, arguing that the social network, whose European headquarters is based in Dublin, had contravened privacy laws.
Read more @ http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/24289/how-a-facebook-user-complaint-could-change-european-data-privacy
If all the spying is for combating terrorism why is it that terrorist events are still happening…? Why aren’t they picking up on it? At the beginning of the Snowden revelations they said that they stopped many (something like 50) terrorist events then it was discovered they didn’t….(they lied), there were 2 events stopped and that was from good old fashioned foot work…. I always remember what Snowden said the spying was for, and it wasn’t to stop terrorism….. its about power and economic …..
Monitoring threats to national security is becoming increasingly difficult as tech companies ramp up encryption efforts, Europol has warned. The European Police Office's Director, Rob Wainwright, says sophisticated, encrypted online communication and hidden areas of the Internet -- known as the Dark web -- are creating problems in tracking and monitoring terrorist suspects. Speaking to the BBC as part of 5 Live Investigates, the Europol executive said sophisticated online communication is "the biggest problem" law enforcement officers face in this duty. "It's become perhaps the biggest problem for the police and the security service authorities in dealing with the threats from terrorism," Wainwright told the news agency. "It's changed the very nature of counter-terrorist work from one that has been traditionally reliant on having good monitoring capability of communications to one that essentially doesn't provide that anymore." Europol says encrypted communications is often central to terrorist operations. As an example, Rodrigo Bijou from data solutions provider The Data Guild told attendees at Kaspersky's Annual Security Summit in February that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are using online forums to spread propaganda, and are both developing their own communication tools and using encrypted offerings from the marketplace to communicate and organize activities.
Monitoring threats to national security is becoming increasingly difficult as tech companies ramp up encryption efforts, Europol has warned.
The European Police Office's Director, Rob Wainwright, says sophisticated, encrypted online communication and hidden areas of the Internet -- known as the Dark web -- are creating problems in tracking and monitoring terrorist suspects.
Speaking to the BBC as part of 5 Live Investigates, the Europol executive said sophisticated online communication is "the biggest problem" law enforcement officers face in this duty.
"It's become perhaps the biggest problem for the police and the security service authorities in dealing with the threats from terrorism," Wainwright told the news agency. "It's changed the very nature of counter-terrorist work from one that has been traditionally reliant on having good monitoring capability of communications to one that essentially doesn't provide that anymore."
Europol says encrypted communications is often central to terrorist operations. As an example, Rodrigo Bijou from data solutions provider The Data Guild told attendees at Kaspersky's Annual Security Summit in February that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are using online forums to spread propaganda, and are both developing their own communication tools and using encrypted offerings from the marketplace to communicate and organize activities.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/encrypted-communication-biggest-problem-in-tackling-terrorism-europol-warns/
Read more @ http://www.itproportal.com/2015/03/30/europol-opposes-computer-encryption/
Bipartisan legislation, introduced last month in the House and Senate, promises to reform and update the antiquated Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and in the process push back against the practice by agencies of government to gain access to personal data stored on U.S. corporation servers abroad. The legislation, called the LEADS Act, is co-sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), and in the House by Reps. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.). Short for "Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad," the LEADS Act's principal improvements on ECPA are in recognizing that U.S. law enforcement may not use warrants to compel the disclosure of customer content stored outside the United States unless the account holder is a U.S. person, and by strengthening the process — called MLATs (mutual legal assistance treaties) — through which governments of one country allow the government of another to obtain evidence in criminal proceedings. One of the better examples of the need for updating ECPA centers on a government warrant served on Microsoft for the contents of the email of an Irish citizen stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin. The government's interest in this individual is reported to be in connection with drug trafficking. Microsoft denied the request and is currently embroiled in litigation, now before a federal appeals court. At the mention of drug trafficking one imagines that many people might, at first glance, side with the government in this. But consider the same scenario, only with the countries reversed. Imagine the outrage if the Irish government demanded that a server located in the U.S. turn over to it the contents of the personal email of a U.S. citizen!
Bipartisan legislation, introduced last month in the House and Senate, promises to reform and update the antiquated Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and in the process push back against the practice by agencies of government to gain access to personal data stored on U.S. corporation servers abroad.
The legislation, called the LEADS Act, is co-sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), and in the House by Reps. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.).
Short for "Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad," the LEADS Act's principal improvements on ECPA are in recognizing that U.S. law enforcement may not use warrants to compel the disclosure of customer content stored outside the United States unless the account holder is a U.S. person, and by strengthening the process — called MLATs (mutual legal assistance treaties) — through which governments of one country allow the government of another to obtain evidence in criminal proceedings.
One of the better examples of the need for updating ECPA centers on a government warrant served on Microsoft for the contents of the email of an Irish citizen stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin. The government's interest in this individual is reported to be in connection with drug trafficking. Microsoft denied the request and is currently embroiled in litigation, now before a federal appeals court.
At the mention of drug trafficking one imagines that many people might, at first glance, side with the government in this. But consider the same scenario, only with the countries reversed. Imagine the outrage if the Irish government demanded that a server located in the U.S. turn over to it the contents of the personal email of a U.S. citizen!
Read more @ http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/237328-the-leads-act-and-cloud-computing
Earlier this week, Apple and several other major U.S. tech companies renewed their calls for the U.S. government to reform its controversial electronic surveillance programs. In an open letter addressed to President Barack Obama, NSA Director Admiral Rogers, Attorney General Eric Holder, and several prominent members of Congress, Apple and dozens of other signatories urged the government to end the bulk data collection practices that were authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. As noted in the letter, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is used as the legal basis for the NSA’s bulk collection of electronic communications metadata. The letter also asked the government to institute “transparency and accountability mechanisms for both government and company reporting” for decisions made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Apple lent its support to the letter through its membership in the Reform Government Surveillance group, a coalition of major tech companies that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. The Reform Government Surveillance sent a separate open letter to the Senate last year that called for similar reforms. Besides tech companies, other prominent signatories to the most recent letter included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Human Rights Watch. While it’s no surprise that organizations like the ACLU and the EFF would be concerned with issues affecting privacy and electronic communications, it may surprise some people to know that Apple has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of the government’s spying programs following their exposure by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Apple’s strong stance against the government’s surveillance programs is even more surprising when considering that the company has historically received low marks from the EFF when it comes to protecting users’ data from government requests. Although Apple received the highest six-star rating in the EFF’s annual “Who Has Your Back?” report in 2014, the digital rights organization noted that the iPhone maker only earned one star in each of the previous three years. So why is Apple suddenly so gung-ho about government transparency and user privacy? Here are the three main reasons why Apple has become an outspoken opponent of the U.S. government’s spying programs.
Earlier this week, Apple and several other major U.S. tech companies renewed their calls for the U.S. government to reform its controversial electronic surveillance programs. In an open letter addressed to President Barack Obama, NSA Director Admiral Rogers, Attorney General Eric Holder, and several prominent members of Congress, Apple and dozens of other signatories urged the government to end the bulk data collection practices that were authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. As noted in the letter, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is used as the legal basis for the NSA’s bulk collection of electronic communications metadata. The letter also asked the government to institute “transparency and accountability mechanisms for both government and company reporting” for decisions made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Apple lent its support to the letter through its membership in the Reform Government Surveillance group, a coalition of major tech companies that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. The Reform Government Surveillance sent a separate open letter to the Senate last year that called for similar reforms. Besides tech companies, other prominent signatories to the most recent letter included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Human Rights Watch.
While it’s no surprise that organizations like the ACLU and the EFF would be concerned with issues affecting privacy and electronic communications, it may surprise some people to know that Apple has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of the government’s spying programs following their exposure by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Apple’s strong stance against the government’s surveillance programs is even more surprising when considering that the company has historically received low marks from the EFF when it comes to protecting users’ data from government requests. Although Apple received the highest six-star rating in the EFF’s annual “Who Has Your Back?” report in 2014, the digital rights organization noted that the iPhone maker only earned one star in each of the previous three years. So why is Apple suddenly so gung-ho about government transparency and user privacy? Here are the three main reasons why Apple has become an outspoken opponent of the U.S. government’s spying programs.
Read more @ http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/3-reasons-apple-is-pushing-for-nsa-spying-reforms.html/?a=viewall
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact
Posts: 14359
Apr 2 15 2:58 PM
Apr 4 15 5:11 PM
icepick wrote:Yeah, you're stepping in some complicated areas in the surveillance world now Pen. It's nearly impossible to explain how and why it does or does not work. Worse yet, both results are intentional. They should have never started under the premise they did. Definitely not the version Obama escalated it to. People are only willing to tolerate it for so long. And then there's the issue where it takes on a life of its own, and runs to other nations as one decides to drop it for whatever reason(s). I sense that on the verge of happening now. It's like it's alive, and escapes to other places, in order to avoid being killed. History is loaded with stories about this. It insanely rides a wave of human nature. As one group drops it, the practice will jump to the next group, like fleas or something. That's why I was so upset when they first started it. The planet always has a hard time ridding itself of the practice. It takes a lot of time. Time at peace.
Apr 4 15 5:15 PM
New Zealand prime minister refuses to rule out that Kiwi metadata is being intercepted by American intelligence The claim by Edward Snowden that New Zealanders’ internet traffic is accessible through a NSA intelligence database “may well be right”, the country’s prime minister, John Key, has acknowledged. Key refused on Wednesday to rule out that New Zealanders’ metadata was being intercepted by American intelligence, telling local media: “I don’t run the NSA any more than I run any other foreign intelligence agency or any other country”. But he denied that agents from the country’s spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), were helping feed mass Kiwi metadata into the vast and controversial database known as XKeyscore. Documents obtained by Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, published on Monday, revealed that the New Zealand government worked throughout 2012 and 2013 to implement a domestic mass surveillance program. Codenamed Speargun, the program involved installing “cable access” equipment to monitor the Southern Cross cable, which carries most of New Zealand’s internet traffic to the world. Snowden wrote an accompanying post to the documents warning Kiwis that he had been able to search their intercepted metadata while an analyst with the NSA. “If you live in New Zealand, you are being watched,” he said. Key has acknowledged the existence of Speargun, but said he raised concerns it was targeted too broadly and put a stop to its rollout in March 2013.
New Zealand prime minister refuses to rule out that Kiwi metadata is being intercepted by American intelligence
The claim by Edward Snowden that New Zealanders’ internet traffic is accessible through a NSA intelligence database “may well be right”, the country’s prime minister, John Key, has acknowledged.
Key refused on Wednesday to rule out that New Zealanders’ metadata was being intercepted by American intelligence, telling local media: “I don’t run the NSA any more than I run any other foreign intelligence agency or any other country”.
But he denied that agents from the country’s spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), were helping feed mass Kiwi metadata into the vast and controversial database known as XKeyscore.
Documents obtained by Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, published on Monday, revealed that the New Zealand government worked throughout 2012 and 2013 to implement a domestic mass surveillance program.
Codenamed Speargun, the program involved installing “cable access” equipment to monitor the Southern Cross cable, which carries most of New Zealand’s internet traffic to the world.
Snowden wrote an accompanying post to the documents warning Kiwis that he had been able to search their intercepted metadata while an analyst with the NSA. “If you live in New Zealand, you are being watched,” he said.
Key has acknowledged the existence of Speargun, but said he raised concerns it was targeted too broadly and put a stop to its rollout in March 2013.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/john-key-says-edward-snowden-may-well-be-right-about-nsa-spying-on-nz
Congressmen who asked about oversight of NSA mass surveillance and domestic spying in 2013 could have “compromise[d] security” and were denied the records they sought because of concerns they lacked formal government security clearance, a former member of the House Intelligence Committee says in a newly-released video. The footage, from an August 29, 2013 town hall meeting, sheds new light on why lawmakers were denied key rulings and reports from the secret courts overseeing the National Security Agency — even as the Obama administration and intelligence officials claimed that all NSA programs were subject to strict congressional oversight and therefore could be held accountable. In the video, Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., then a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, discusses why Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., should not and did not receive information they sought from the committee. The committee had previously declined to explain why the information was withheld, going so far as to tell Grayson that even its discussion of his request was classified. Because the committee, like its Senate counterpart, tends to be particularly sympathetic to the intelligence community, getting information to non-committee-members like Grayson and Griffith is potentially crucial to reforming U.S. spy agencies. And in late 2013, following revelations of mass surveillance by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, there were any number of reform bills pending. At the time, President Obama defended bulk collection of telephone metadata, claiming in a press conference that “these programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. And if there are Members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up.”
Congressmen who asked about oversight of NSA mass surveillance and domestic spying in 2013 could have “compromise[d] security” and were denied the records they sought because of concerns they lacked formal government security clearance, a former member of the House Intelligence Committee says in a newly-released video.
The footage, from an August 29, 2013 town hall meeting, sheds new light on why lawmakers were denied key rulings and reports from the secret courts overseeing the National Security Agency — even as the Obama administration and intelligence officials claimed that all NSA programs were subject to strict congressional oversight and therefore could be held accountable.
In the video, Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., then a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, discusses why Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., should not and did not receive information they sought from the committee. The committee had previously declined to explain why the information was withheld, going so far as to tell Grayson that even its discussion of his request was classified. Because the committee, like its Senate counterpart, tends to be particularly sympathetic to the intelligence community, getting information to non-committee-members like Grayson and Griffith is potentially crucial to reforming U.S. spy agencies. And in late 2013, following revelations of mass surveillance by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, there were any number of reform bills pending.
At the time, President Obama defended bulk collection of telephone metadata, claiming in a press conference that “these programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. And if there are Members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up.”
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/03/property-insurance-companies-flooded-dark-money-groups-tied-gop-cash/
When Will the NSA Stop Spying on Innocent Americans?
The law cited as the justification for the phone dragnet will expire on June 1 unless Congress acts to extend it. Unless Congress acts, Americans will soon benefit from one of the Patriot Act's most important safeguards against abuse: Language in Section 215 of the law is scheduled to expire in June, depriving the FBI and NSA of a provision they've used to justify monitoring the phone calls of tens of millions of innocents (though a primary author of the law insists that it grants no such authority). If you've used a landline to call an abortion clinic, a gun store, a suicide hotline, a therapist, an oncologist, a phone sex operator, an investigative journalist, or a union organizer, odds are the government has logged a record of the call. If your Congressional representative has a spouse or child who has made an embarrassing phone call, the executive branch may well possess the ability to document it, though government apologists insist that they'd never do so and are strangely confident that future governments composed of unknown people won't either. Americans know about this intrusive spying on innocents thanks to Edward Snowden, the Booz Allen Hamilton contractor whose leaks revealed what national security officials hid even when doing so required lying in sworn testimony. In the aftermath of Snowden's leaks, the NSA argued that the phone dragnet is an important counterterrorism tool subject to careful safeguards against abuse. Keith Alexander went so far as to insist that it helped foil multiple terror plots.
The law cited as the justification for the phone dragnet will expire on June 1 unless Congress acts to extend it.
Unless Congress acts, Americans will soon benefit from one of the Patriot Act's most important safeguards against abuse: Language in Section 215 of the law is scheduled to expire in June, depriving the FBI and NSA of a provision they've used to justify monitoring the phone calls of tens of millions of innocents (though a primary author of the law insists that it grants no such authority). If you've used a landline to call an abortion clinic, a gun store, a suicide hotline, a therapist, an oncologist, a phone sex operator, an investigative journalist, or a union organizer, odds are the government has logged a record of the call. If your Congressional representative has a spouse or child who has made an embarrassing phone call, the executive branch may well possess the ability to document it, though government apologists insist that they'd never do so and are strangely confident that future governments composed of unknown people won't either.
Americans know about this intrusive spying on innocents thanks to Edward Snowden, the Booz Allen Hamilton contractor whose leaks revealed what national security officials hid even when doing so required lying in sworn testimony. In the aftermath of Snowden's leaks, the NSA argued that the phone dragnet is an important counterterrorism tool subject to careful safeguards against abuse. Keith Alexander went so far as to insist that it helped foil multiple terror plots.
Read more @ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/when-will-the-nsa-stop-spying-on-the-communications-of-innocent-americans/389375/
Read more @ http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-to-stop-collecting-phone-metadata-if-congress-lets-law-expire-20150324-1m60z7.html
To show how hard phone privacy can be, one artist examined the CIA, consulted hackers, and went far off the map (with a stop at Rite Aid). There's a lot you can find in the depths of the dark web, but in 2013, photographer and artist Curtis Wallen managed to buy the ingredients of a new identity. After purchasing a Chromebook with cash, Wallen used Tor, virtual marketplaces, and a bitcoin wallet to purchase a fake driver's license, insurance card, social security number, and cable bill, among other identifying documents. Wallen saw his new identity, Aaron Brown, as more than just art: Brown was a political statement on the techno-surveillance age. "I started looking into details on cell phone surveillance while I was working on Aaron Brown," Wallen said. "It opened my eyes to how insidious these little things really are." The cover of Wallen's handbook, presented inside a custom CIA-style "burn bag." With his latest project, "Proposition For An On Demand Clandestine Communication Network," (PropCom) Wallen doubles down on this anti-surveillance modus operandi. Step-by-step, Wallen instructs people in the laborious—and damned near impossible—art of ducking cell phone surveillance. This time, Wallen looked elsewhere for inspiration: Namely, the CIA's faulty cell phone tradecraft used in the 2005 extraordinary rendition of Hassan Mustafa Osama in Italy, and in their surveillance of Lebanese Hezbollah. In both cases, the CIA operatives’ closed cell phone networks were undone when Italian authorities and Hezbollah acquired phone metadata. Learning from these operational failures, Wallen conjured a clandestine cell phone network that could be used on demand. "I was interested in looking at this system from different angles," he says, "and finding ways where I could subvert it and use certain aspects of it against itself."
To show how hard phone privacy can be, one artist examined the CIA, consulted hackers, and went far off the map (with a stop at Rite Aid).
There's a lot you can find in the depths of the dark web, but in 2013, photographer and artist Curtis Wallen managed to buy the ingredients of a new identity. After purchasing a Chromebook with cash, Wallen used Tor, virtual marketplaces, and a bitcoin wallet to purchase a fake driver's license, insurance card, social security number, and cable bill, among other identifying documents. Wallen saw his new identity, Aaron Brown, as more than just art: Brown was a political statement on the techno-surveillance age.
"I started looking into details on cell phone surveillance while I was working on Aaron Brown," Wallen said. "It opened my eyes to how insidious these little things really are."
The cover of Wallen's handbook, presented inside a custom CIA-style "burn bag."
With his latest project, "Proposition For An On Demand Clandestine Communication Network," (PropCom) Wallen doubles down on this anti-surveillance modus operandi. Step-by-step, Wallen instructs people in the laborious—and damned near impossible—art of ducking cell phone surveillance.
This time, Wallen looked elsewhere for inspiration: Namely, the CIA's faulty cell phone tradecraft used in the 2005 extraordinary rendition of Hassan Mustafa Osama in Italy, and in their surveillance of Lebanese Hezbollah. In both cases, the CIA operatives’ closed cell phone networks were undone when Italian authorities and Hezbollah acquired phone metadata.
Learning from these operational failures, Wallen conjured a clandestine cell phone network that could be used on demand. "I was interested in looking at this system from different angles," he says, "and finding ways where I could subvert it and use certain aspects of it against itself."
Read more @ http://www.fastcompany.com/3044637/secret-phone-network
Mozilla on Friday warned against a government policy that could require phone companies to hold on to customer data longer than their business purposes require. Advocates for National Security Agency reform have cautioned against such a measure for the past year. Lawmakers are considering ending the government’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records in exchange for a system where officials could search records stored with the private companies themselves with approval from the surveillance court. The data retention provision did not make it into reform bills last year, including one in the Senate that narrowly failed on a procedural vote. Mozilla’s director of public policy, Chris Riley, wants it to stay that way. “It is an unnecessary, and harmful, posture for any democratic government to take. Data retention mandates are not a missing piece of the long-term surveillance ecosystem; they are a bridge too far,” he wrote in a blog post. Riley asserted that kind of deal would amount to “misguided pragmatism.” He said such “total after the fact information awareness” is what the public and companies have rallied against since the revelations from Edward Snowden about the extent of U.S. surveillance practices. Riley pointed to comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last year, when they wrote that phone companies’ “existing practices in retaining metadata” would suffice. With the increasing number of cyberattacks in the news, Riley also cautioned that forcing companies to hold onto data longer than they need poses a security risk. “In addition to making troves of private user information vulnerable to malicious actors, requiring companies to hold user data longer than necessary for business purposes would create additional liability and risk,” he wrote. Phone companies currently vary in how long they retain users' metadata, which includes phone numbers, call times and duration but not the content of calls. The government is currently limited to storing the information it collects in bulk to five years.
Mozilla on Friday warned against a government policy that could require phone companies to hold on to customer data longer than their business purposes require.
Advocates for National Security Agency reform have cautioned against such a measure for the past year. Lawmakers are considering ending the government’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records in exchange for a system where officials could search records stored with the private companies themselves with approval from the surveillance court.
The data retention provision did not make it into reform bills last year, including one in the Senate that narrowly failed on a procedural vote. Mozilla’s director of public policy, Chris Riley, wants it to stay that way.
“It is an unnecessary, and harmful, posture for any democratic government to take. Data retention mandates are not a missing piece of the long-term surveillance ecosystem; they are a bridge too far,” he wrote in a blog post. Riley asserted that kind of deal would amount to “misguided pragmatism.”
He said such “total after the fact information awareness” is what the public and companies have rallied against since the revelations from Edward Snowden about the extent of U.S. surveillance practices.
Riley pointed to comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last year, when they wrote that phone companies’ “existing practices in retaining metadata” would suffice.
With the increasing number of cyberattacks in the news, Riley also cautioned that forcing companies to hold onto data longer than they need poses a security risk.
“In addition to making troves of private user information vulnerable to malicious actors, requiring companies to hold user data longer than necessary for business purposes would create additional liability and risk,” he wrote.
Phone companies currently vary in how long they retain users' metadata, which includes phone numbers, call times and duration but not the content of calls. The government is currently limited to storing the information it collects in bulk to five years.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/237894-mozilla-warns-against-data-retention-requirement-in-nsa-reform
Canada’s system of watching the watchers needs better vision, says maverick MP Brent Rathgeber. The Independent member representing Edmonton-St. Albert is to table a private member’s bill after the Easter parliamentary break calling on government to scrap the federal watchdog office that monitors the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the country’s top-secret electronic spy agency. “I understand the dangers that are in this world and I understand that the state has to do this type of surveillance to keep its citizens safe. I don’t take issue with that,” Rathgeber said in an interview. “What I take issue with is going outside of (legal) parameters if you’re the CSE.” The Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner is responsible for seeing that the CSE doesn’t break the law, including violating Canadians’ privacy, as it vacuums electronic signals from around Canada and the globe for intelligence on the plans and activities of Canada’s adversaries. It is headed by a former judge, supported by 11 researchers and other staff and has a $2-million annual budget. That’s “woefully inadequate,” said Rathgeber. In a planning document released this past week, the commissioner’s office said it is doing an efficient and effective job, but without more funding is concerned it may fall behind as the CSE evolves and expands.
Canada’s system of watching the watchers needs better vision, says maverick MP Brent Rathgeber.
The Independent member representing Edmonton-St. Albert is to table a private member’s bill after the Easter parliamentary break calling on government to scrap the federal watchdog office that monitors the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the country’s top-secret electronic spy agency.
“I understand the dangers that are in this world and I understand that the state has to do this type of surveillance to keep its citizens safe. I don’t take issue with that,” Rathgeber said in an interview.
“What I take issue with is going outside of (legal) parameters if you’re the CSE.”
The Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner is responsible for seeing that the CSE doesn’t break the law, including violating Canadians’ privacy, as it vacuums electronic signals from around Canada and the globe for intelligence on the plans and activities of Canada’s adversaries. It is headed by a former judge, supported by 11 researchers and other staff and has a $2-million annual budget.
That’s “woefully inadequate,” said Rathgeber.
In a planning document released this past week, the commissioner’s office said it is doing an efficient and effective job, but without more funding is concerned it may fall behind as the CSE evolves and expands.
Read more @ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mp-rathgeber-wants-tougher-oversight-of-electronic-spy-agency
The Dutch “Surveillance Kings of Europe” Are About to Get Even Nosier
The Netherlands is considering a new law that would give its spooks unprecedented access to global data, including yours and mine. AMSTERDAM — When the exiled American whistleblower Edward Snowden dubbed the Dutch “the Surveillance Kings of Europe” earlier this year, he attracted little attention outside The Netherlands. But he was talking about an issue with global implications, not least for the United States. Snowden, now resident in Russia (and largely silent about its pervasive surveillance activities) told “Nieuwsuur,” a Dutch television news program, that the U.S. National Security Agency and its partners in Europe were encouraging the Dutch intelligence services to join the FVEY or “Five Eyes.” These Anglophone countries—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States—share electronic surveillance in its many forms under a multilateral treaty dating back to the early days of the Cold War. (The term Five Eyes comes from the classification heading “SECRET—AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY.”) And their goal, Snowden claimed, is to “create a surveillance super-state that shares all of its information.” Snowden suggested The Netherlands is being bullied into an unhealthy alliance with the Five Eyes. But if Dutch Minister of Interior Ronald Plasterk is worried about that, it certainly doesn’t show. Indeed, those in charge of the Dutch intelligence services seem positively enthusiastic about the possibility they could play surveillance with the big boys and they get rather resentful when some of their fellow Europeans try to rein them in. (The Dutch are already part of a second-tier agreement called the Nine Eyes, with the “Anglo-Saxons” plus Denmark, France, and Norway, and a third-tier one called the Fourteen Eyes that adds Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden. But those a junior varsities.) In a memorandum addressed to the Dutch parliament last month, Plasterk registered his strong opposition to proposals for what is called the European Intelligence Codex, an initiative from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that insists current intelligence practices “endanger fundamental human rights” (PDF). The codex is meant to help protect personal data Europe-wide.
The Netherlands is considering a new law that would give its spooks unprecedented access to global data, including yours and mine.
AMSTERDAM — When the exiled American whistleblower Edward Snowden dubbed the Dutch “the Surveillance Kings of Europe” earlier this year, he attracted little attention outside The Netherlands. But he was talking about an issue with global implications, not least for the United States.
Snowden, now resident in Russia (and largely silent about its pervasive surveillance activities) told “Nieuwsuur,” a Dutch television news program, that the U.S. National Security Agency and its partners in Europe were encouraging the Dutch intelligence services to join the FVEY or “Five Eyes.”
These Anglophone countries—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States—share electronic surveillance in its many forms under a multilateral treaty dating back to the early days of the Cold War. (The term Five Eyes comes from the classification heading “SECRET—AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY.”) And their goal, Snowden claimed, is to “create a surveillance super-state that shares all of its information.”
Snowden suggested The Netherlands is being bullied into an unhealthy alliance with the Five Eyes. But if Dutch Minister of Interior Ronald Plasterk is worried about that, it certainly doesn’t show.
Indeed, those in charge of the Dutch intelligence services seem positively enthusiastic about the possibility they could play surveillance with the big boys and they get rather resentful when some of their fellow Europeans try to rein them in. (The Dutch are already part of a second-tier agreement called the Nine Eyes, with the “Anglo-Saxons” plus Denmark, France, and Norway, and a third-tier one called the Fourteen Eyes that adds Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden. But those a junior varsities.)
In a memorandum addressed to the Dutch parliament last month, Plasterk registered his strong opposition to proposals for what is called the European Intelligence Codex, an initiative from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that insists current intelligence practices “endanger fundamental human rights” (PDF). The codex is meant to help protect personal data Europe-wide.
Read more @ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/03/the-dutch-surveillance-kings-of-europe-are-about-to-get-even-nosier.html
On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Maine Fourth Amendment Protection Act, a bill introduced by freshman Senator Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin). The bill’s purpose is to withhold material support or other assistance to a federal agency, specifically the National Security Administration, in its efforts “in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data or metadata” without informed consent, a warrant, or a legally recognized exemption. In the 126th Legislature, lawmakers passed several bills that would protect Mainers’ privacy. LD 1377 prevented state agencies from obtaining cell phone records without a warrant, and LD 415, which the legislature passed over the governor’s veto, prevented state agencies from collecting GPS data from phones without a warrant. The bills were meant as a countermeasure to the NSA’s controversial mass data collection activities, which first came to light due to Edward Snowden’s revelations. And while the laws protected Mainers’ data from state agencies, there was a loophole. State law does not prevent the NSA from collecting Mainers’ cell phone data without a warrant. Therefore, state agencies could essentially outsource their work to the NSA, according to Brakey, with the federal government conducting warrantless data collection and passing that information along to state agencies. “What [the Maine Fourth Amendment Protection Act] does is it closes that loophole, and it says that our state agencies, and local agencies, cannot accept or enable the federal government when it’s doing these illegal searches and seizures,” said Brakey in an interview. “It would prohibit our state and local agencies from accepting and using that data for any purposes.”
On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Maine Fourth Amendment Protection Act, a bill introduced by freshman Senator Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin).
The bill’s purpose is to withhold material support or other assistance to a federal agency, specifically the National Security Administration, in its efforts “in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data or metadata” without informed consent, a warrant, or a legally recognized exemption.
In the 126th Legislature, lawmakers passed several bills that would protect Mainers’ privacy. LD 1377 prevented state agencies from obtaining cell phone records without a warrant, and LD 415, which the legislature passed over the governor’s veto, prevented state agencies from collecting GPS data from phones without a warrant.
The bills were meant as a countermeasure to the NSA’s controversial mass data collection activities, which first came to light due to Edward Snowden’s revelations. And while the laws protected Mainers’ data from state agencies, there was a loophole.
State law does not prevent the NSA from collecting Mainers’ cell phone data without a warrant. Therefore, state agencies could essentially outsource their work to the NSA, according to Brakey, with the federal government conducting warrantless data collection and passing that information along to state agencies.
“What [the Maine Fourth Amendment Protection Act] does is it closes that loophole, and it says that our state agencies, and local agencies, cannot accept or enable the federal government when it’s doing these illegal searches and seizures,” said Brakey in an interview. “It would prohibit our state and local agencies from accepting and using that data for any purposes.”
Read more @ http://www.themainewire.com/2015/04/lawmakers-bill-hinder-nsa-operations-maine/
Nearly two years ago, Edward Snowden, a contractor working with the U.S. National Security Agency (“NSA”), revealed startling details of widespread surveillance practices by the U.S. government into telephone and Internet communications of U.S. and foreign citizens. The ensuing debate regarding the competing interests in national security and data privacy continues today, as these practices come under increased pressure in anticipation of two important developments coming in June 2015. On June 1, 2015, Section 215 of the U.S. PATRIOT Act (50 U.S.C. § 1861) (“Section 215”) is set to expire. Section 215 is the authority that allows the NSA, with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), to collect “metadata” of every phone call that originated or terminated in the United States. Some of the first documents revealed by Edward Snowden were orders by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) (the court that entertains applications submitted by the U.S. government for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes) requiring Verizon, Sprint and AT&T to hand over such metadata. The FBI obtained these orders for the benefit of the NSA. Previous attempts to reform the bulk collection of telephone metadata, most notably the USA FREEDOM Act originally proposed in October 2013, have been unsuccessful. On March 23, 2015, the National Security Council of the White House confirmed that such collection will end on June 1, 2015, unless Congress takes action. In response, a coalition of privacy advocates, human rights organizations, and technology companies issued an open letter dated March 25, 2015, calling on the government for meaningful reform of surveillance laws. The letter, sign by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation, among others, requests “a clear, strong, and effective end to bulk collection practices under the USA PATRIOT Act” as well as “an appropriate declassification regime for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decisions.” On March 27, 2015, the President issued a statement supporting reform and specifically proposing the following changes: The government should not collect or hold telephony metadata in bulk.The data should remain at the telephone companies for the length of time it currently does today.The government would obtain the data pursuant to individual orders from the FISC approving the use of specific numbers for such queries, if a judge agrees, based on national security concerns.While the President pushes for this reform, he also directed the Department of Justice to seek a 90-day reauthorization of the existing Section 215 program, “given the importance of maintaining this capability.” In the meantime, on June 24, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), its highest court, is expected to render an opinion in a case that questions the effectiveness of the Safe Harbor Framework. The Safe Harbor Framework is a key exception to EU’s Data Protection Directive, which prohibits any transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU that do not meet the EU’s “adequacy” standard for privacy protection. As an exception for U.S. companies operating in the EU, the Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. organizations to self-certify their compliance with the adequacy provision when they transfer EU personal data back to the U.S.
Nearly two years ago, Edward Snowden, a contractor working with the U.S. National Security Agency (“NSA”), revealed startling details of widespread surveillance practices by the U.S. government into telephone and Internet communications of U.S. and foreign citizens. The ensuing debate regarding the competing interests in national security and data privacy continues today, as these practices come under increased pressure in anticipation of two important developments coming in June 2015.
On June 1, 2015, Section 215 of the U.S. PATRIOT Act (50 U.S.C. § 1861) (“Section 215”) is set to expire. Section 215 is the authority that allows the NSA, with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), to collect “metadata” of every phone call that originated or terminated in the United States. Some of the first documents revealed by Edward Snowden were orders by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) (the court that entertains applications submitted by the U.S. government for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes) requiring Verizon, Sprint and AT&T to hand over such metadata. The FBI obtained these orders for the benefit of the NSA.
Previous attempts to reform the bulk collection of telephone metadata, most notably the USA FREEDOM Act originally proposed in October 2013, have been unsuccessful. On March 23, 2015, the National Security Council of the White House confirmed that such collection will end on June 1, 2015, unless Congress takes action.
In response, a coalition of privacy advocates, human rights organizations, and technology companies issued an open letter dated March 25, 2015, calling on the government for meaningful reform of surveillance laws. The letter, sign by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation, among others, requests “a clear, strong, and effective end to bulk collection practices under the USA PATRIOT Act” as well as “an appropriate declassification regime for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decisions.”
On March 27, 2015, the President issued a statement supporting reform and specifically proposing the following changes:
While the President pushes for this reform, he also directed the Department of Justice to seek a 90-day reauthorization of the existing Section 215 program, “given the importance of maintaining this capability.”
In the meantime, on June 24, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), its highest court, is expected to render an opinion in a case that questions the effectiveness of the Safe Harbor Framework.
The Safe Harbor Framework is a key exception to EU’s Data Protection Directive, which prohibits any transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU that do not meet the EU’s “adequacy” standard for privacy protection. As an exception for U.S. companies operating in the EU, the Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. organizations to self-certify their compliance with the adequacy provision when they transfer EU personal data back to the U.S.
Read more @ http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6890e7c3-c52e-42b6-a783-327a1cee4cb6
Read more @ http://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/item/41355-cyberspying-under-attack-fr
NSA finding it harder to recruit specialists following Snowden leaks
A booming economy in Silicon Valley and the post-Snowden era is making it more difficult for the NSA to successfully recruit tech-skilled workers (NASDAQ:FB, NASDAQ:GOOG) The National Security Agency (NSA) should be able to find itself 1,600 new recruits in 2015, with a heavy focus in computer science and math, but the task is getting harder. A combination of rising Silicon Valley tech employment/salaries mixed with Edward Snowden's intelligence leaks have damaged trust in the NSA from the public - and possible job recruits.
Read more @ http://www.tweaktown.com/news/44398/nsa-finding-harder-recruit-specialists-following-snowden-leaks/index.html
The laptop used to store top-secret documents leaked by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden has gone on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. The device was smashed apart under the instructions of British intelligence officials. It is part of a wider exhibit exploring freedom of speech and internet security.
The laptop used to store top-secret documents leaked by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden has gone on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.
The device was smashed apart under the instructions of British intelligence officials. It is part of a wider exhibit exploring freedom of speech and internet security.
Read more @ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32154254
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act failed after Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass government spying. But today it’s back, largely unchanged, as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act—and President Obama is expected to reverse his opposition to it. Lee Fang reports at The Intercept: For all its appeal to corporations, CISA represents a major new privacy threat to individual citizens. It lays the groundwork for corporations to feed massive amounts of communications to private consortiums and the federal government, a scale of cooperation even greater than that revealed by Snowden. The law also breaks new ground in suppressing pushback against privacy invasions; in exchange for channeling data to the government, businesses are granted broad legal immunity from privacy lawsuits — potentially leaving consumers without protection if companies break privacy promises that would otherwise keep information out of the hands of authorities. Ostensibly, CISA is supposed to help businesses guard against cyber attacks by sharing information on threats with one another and with the government. Attempts must be made to filter personal information out of the pool of data that is shared. But the legislation — at least as marked up by the Senate Intelligence Committee — provides an expansive definition of what can be construed as a cyber security threat, including any information for responding to or mitigating “an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or serious economic harm,” or that is potentially related to threats relating to weapons of mass destruction, threats to minors, identity theft, espionage, protection of trade secrets, and other possible offenses. Asked at a hearing in February how quickly such information could be shared with the FBI, CIA, or NSA, Deputy Undersecretary for Cybersecurity Phyllis Schneck replied, “fractions of a second.” ... The partnership between leading corporate lobbyists and the intelligence community was on full display at a cyber security summit hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a few days before the midterm election last year, in which NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers asked a room filled with business representatives for support in passing laws like CISA. At one point, Ann Beauchesne, the lead homeland security lobbyist with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asked Rogers, “How can the chamber be helpful to you?” — even suggesting a viral marketing campaign akin to the “ALS ice bucket challenge” to build public support. Watch the exchange below:
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act failed after Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass government spying. But today it’s back, largely unchanged, as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act—and President Obama is expected to reverse his opposition to it.
Lee Fang reports at The Intercept:
For all its appeal to corporations, CISA represents a major new privacy threat to individual citizens. It lays the groundwork for corporations to feed massive amounts of communications to private consortiums and the federal government, a scale of cooperation even greater than that revealed by Snowden. The law also breaks new ground in suppressing pushback against privacy invasions; in exchange for channeling data to the government, businesses are granted broad legal immunity from privacy lawsuits — potentially leaving consumers without protection if companies break privacy promises that would otherwise keep information out of the hands of authorities.
Ostensibly, CISA is supposed to help businesses guard against cyber attacks by sharing information on threats with one another and with the government. Attempts must be made to filter personal information out of the pool of data that is shared. But the legislation — at least as marked up by the Senate Intelligence Committee — provides an expansive definition of what can be construed as a cyber security threat, including any information for responding to or mitigating “an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or serious economic harm,” or that is potentially related to threats relating to weapons of mass destruction, threats to minors, identity theft, espionage, protection of trade secrets, and other possible offenses. Asked at a hearing in February how quickly such information could be shared with the FBI, CIA, or NSA, Deputy Undersecretary for Cybersecurity Phyllis Schneck replied, “fractions of a second.” ...
The partnership between leading corporate lobbyists and the intelligence community was on full display at a cyber security summit hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a few days before the midterm election last year, in which NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers asked a room filled with business representatives for support in passing laws like CISA. At one point, Ann Beauchesne, the lead homeland security lobbyist with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asked Rogers, “How can the chamber be helpful to you?” — even suggesting a viral marketing campaign akin to the “ALS ice bucket challenge” to build public support. Watch the exchange below:
Read more @ http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/dead_surveillance_legislation_returns_with_help_from_big_business_20150402
Since November 11, 2011, with the introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, American spy agencies have been pushing laws to encourage corporations to share more customer information. They repeatedly failed, thanks in part to NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass government surveillance. Then came Republican victories in last year’s midterm Congressional elections and a major push by corporate interests in favor of the legislation. Today, the bill is back, largely unchanged, and if congressional insiders and the bill’s sponsors are to believed, the legislation could end up on President Obama’s desk as soon as this month. In another boon to the legislation, Obama is expected to reverse his past opposition and sign it, albeit in an amended and renamed form (CISPA is now CISA, the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act”). The reversal comes in the wake of high-profile hacks on JPMorgan Chase and Sony Pictures Entertainment. The bill has also benefitted greatly from lobbying by big business, which sees it as a way to cut costs and to shift some anti-hacking defenses onto the government. For all its appeal to corporations, CISA represents a major new privacy threat to individual citizens. It lays the groundwork for corporations to feed massive amounts of communications to private consortiums and the federal government, a scale of cooperation even greater than that revealed by Snowden. The law also breaks new ground in suppressing pushback against privacy invasions; in exchange for channeling data to the government, businesses are granted broad legal immunity from privacy lawsuits — potentially leaving consumers without protection if companies break privacy promises that would otherwise keep information out of the hands of authorities.
Since November 11, 2011, with the introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, American spy agencies have been pushing laws to encourage corporations to share more customer information. They repeatedly failed, thanks in part to NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass government surveillance. Then came Republican victories in last year’s midterm Congressional elections and a major push by corporate interests in favor of the legislation.
Today, the bill is back, largely unchanged, and if congressional insiders and the bill’s sponsors are to believed, the legislation could end up on President Obama’s desk as soon as this month. In another boon to the legislation, Obama is expected to reverse his past opposition and sign it, albeit in an amended and renamed form (CISPA is now CISA, the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act”). The reversal comes in the wake of high-profile hacks on JPMorgan Chase and Sony Pictures Entertainment. The bill has also benefitted greatly from lobbying by big business, which sees it as a way to cut costs and to shift some anti-hacking defenses onto the government.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/01/nsa-corporate-america-push-broad-cyber-surveillance-legislation/
Apr 7 15 7:31 AM
BRITISH comedian John Oliver and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have reframed the government surveillance debate in terms we can all understand: personal nude photos. During an interview in Russia for Last Week Tonight, Mr Snowden said he felt vindicated when people around the world took notice of government spying thanks to the secrets contained in troves of US intelligence documents he released.“I think we’re seeing something amazing, which is that if you ask the American people to make tough decisions to confront tough issues to think about hard problems, they’ll actually surprise you,” he said.“OK, here’s the problem,” Oliver responded. “I did ask some Americans, and boy, did it surprise me.”The TV host played videos of Americans who had no idea who Snowden was, with many mistaking for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Oliver then showed a video of people being interviewed about having their personal nude photos stolen, which got them more fired up.
BRITISH comedian John Oliver and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have reframed the government surveillance debate in terms we can all understand: personal nude photos.
During an interview in Russia for Last Week Tonight, Mr Snowden said he felt vindicated when people around the world took notice of government spying thanks to the secrets contained in troves of US intelligence documents he released.
“I think we’re seeing something amazing, which is that if you ask the American people to make tough decisions to confront tough issues to think about hard problems, they’ll actually surprise you,” he said.
“OK, here’s the problem,” Oliver responded. “I did ask some Americans, and boy, did it surprise me.”
The TV host played videos of Americans who had no idea who Snowden was, with many mistaking for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Oliver then showed a video of people being interviewed about having their personal nude photos stolen, which got them more fired up.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/edward-snowden-tells-john-oliver-the-government-is-collecting-your-dck-pics/story-e6frfrnr-1227293582953
Apr 7 15 10:06 AM
How do you make Americans care about government surveillance? Naked photos, according to Last Week Tonight host John Oliver. Oliver traveled to Russia recently to sit down with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and explained that most Americans don't seem to care about secret National Security Agency (NSA) programs that snatch up huge amounts of your data without your knowledge. As Snowden explains why mass surveillance is a critical issue, Oliver interjects. "This is the whole problem. I glaze over because it's like the IT guy comes into your office and you go, 'oh s**t ... don't teach me anything, I don't want to learn, you smell like canned soup,'" he quipped. What to do? Explain it in terms that people understand: Dick pics. Oliver showed a clip of New Yorkers reacting to the possibility that the government had access to the naked photos they email or text to people. All of them were horrified. "This is the most visible line in the sand for people," Oliver says. "Can. they. see. my. dick." So Oliver asked Snowden to explain each of the NSA's more controversial programs in the context or whether or not they allow the government to sift through your more private photos. Here's what he had to say: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Yes. It allows the bulk collection of metadata that is one-end foreign. If you have Gmail, anytime that mail crosses outside the border of the U.S., your junk ends up in the database. Even if you send it to someone in the U.S., your domestic communication can go from New York to London and back, and get caught up in the database. Executive Order 12333: This is what the NSA uses when the other authorities aren't aggressive enough or they're not catching what they want. When you send your junk through Gmail, that's stored on Google's servers. Google moves data from data centre to data centre, invisibly to you, so your data could be moved outside the borders of the U.S. temporarily. So when Google moves it, the NSA catches a copy of that. PRISM: This is how they pull your junk out of Google with Google's involvement. The government deputizes tech companies to be their surveillance sheriffs.
How do you make Americans care about government surveillance? Naked photos, according to Last Week Tonight host John Oliver.
Oliver traveled to Russia recently to sit down with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and explained that most Americans don't seem to care about secret National Security Agency (NSA) programs that snatch up huge amounts of your data without your knowledge.
As Snowden explains why mass surveillance is a critical issue, Oliver interjects. "This is the whole problem. I glaze over because it's like the IT guy comes into your office and you go, 'oh s**t ... don't teach me anything, I don't want to learn, you smell like canned soup,'" he quipped.
What to do? Explain it in terms that people understand: Dick pics.
Oliver showed a clip of New Yorkers reacting to the possibility that the government had access to the naked photos they email or text to people. All of them were horrified. "This is the most visible line in the sand for people," Oliver says. "Can. they. see. my. dick."
So Oliver asked Snowden to explain each of the NSA's more controversial programs in the context or whether or not they allow the government to sift through your more private photos. Here's what he had to say:
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Yes. It allows the bulk collection of metadata that is one-end foreign. If you have Gmail, anytime that mail crosses outside the border of the U.S., your junk ends up in the database. Even if you send it to someone in the U.S., your domestic communication can go from New York to London and back, and get caught up in the database.
Executive Order 12333: This is what the NSA uses when the other authorities aren't aggressive enough or they're not catching what they want. When you send your junk through Gmail, that's stored on Google's servers. Google moves data from data centre to data centre, invisibly to you, so your data could be moved outside the borders of the U.S. temporarily. So when Google moves it, the NSA catches a copy of that.
PRISM: This is how they pull your junk out of Google with Google's involvement. The government deputizes tech companies to be their surveillance sheriffs.
Read more @ http://au.pcmag.com/internet-products/29651/news/watch-snowden-explains-how-the-nsa-can-see-your-na
John Oliver’s Dick Pic Interview With Edward Snowden Is Probably The Most Valuable Thing He’s Ever Done
Yesterday Last Week Tonight flagged that this week’s episode would have a special 45-minute runtime, because “there was an awful lot of last week to cover this week”. Besides that, there was absolutely no fanfare given to an episode that featured the most fascinating and important LWT segment yet — one which accomplished what major traditional news outlets couldn’t, and found a way to talk about mass government surveillance in a way that people genuinely understand and respond to. The centrepiece, obviously, was John Oliver’s revelation that he travelled to Moscow to interview NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden — a huge get for any media outlet, let alone one that preceded the broadcast of that interview with YouTube footage of a baby turtle humping a Croc — and broke the surveillance debate down to one question: “can the government see my dick?” (It turns out yes, yes they can. They know your dick better than you do.) It’s a neat trick, but it works: people care whether private photos of themselves can be seen by people other than the people they were taken for. It’s not “metadata” or “PRISM” or any other tech buzzword removed from most people’s experiences; it’s something real, and close. That’s what makes John Oliver so fascinating and valuable to watch; he can bring vague, far-off concerns and make them real to you.
Yesterday Last Week Tonight flagged that this week’s episode would have a special 45-minute runtime, because “there was an awful lot of last week to cover this week”. Besides that, there was absolutely no fanfare given to an episode that featured the most fascinating and important LWT segment yet — one which accomplished what major traditional news outlets couldn’t, and found a way to talk about mass government surveillance in a way that people genuinely understand and respond to.
The centrepiece, obviously, was John Oliver’s revelation that he travelled to Moscow to interview NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden — a huge get for any media outlet, let alone one that preceded the broadcast of that interview with YouTube footage of a baby turtle humping a Croc — and broke the surveillance debate down to one question: “can the government see my dick?” (It turns out yes, yes they can. They know your dick better than you do.) It’s a neat trick, but it works: people care whether private photos of themselves can be seen by people other than the people they were taken for. It’s not “metadata” or “PRISM” or any other tech buzzword removed from most people’s experiences; it’s something real, and close. That’s what makes John Oliver so fascinating and valuable to watch; he can bring vague, far-off concerns and make them real to you.
Read more @ http://junkee.com/john-olivers-dick-pic-interview-with-edward-snowden-is-probably-the-most-valuable-thing-hes-ever-done/54527
Read more @ http://rt.com/usa/247185-rand-paul-issues-positions/
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not going to just talk about government spying during their presidential campaigns. The tea party senators are going to force the other Republican White House hopefuls to talk about it, too. That's because few policy zones divide the GOP more than the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs. And on crowded primary debate stages, every candidate will be jockeying with the rest of the field to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. While Paul wants to dismantle NSA spying and Cruz wants to reform it, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are intent to preserve the agency's powerful capabilities. Other likely contenders, ranging from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Dr. Ben Carson, have largely ducked giving specifics prescriptions on the NSA, a National Journalanalysis has found.
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not going to just talk about government spying during their presidential campaigns. The tea party senators are going to force the other Republican White House hopefuls to talk about it, too.
That's because few policy zones divide the GOP more than the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs. And on crowded primary debate stages, every candidate will be jockeying with the rest of the field to separate themselves from the rest of the pack.
While Paul wants to dismantle NSA spying and Cruz wants to reform it, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are intent to preserve the agency's powerful capabilities. Other likely contenders, ranging from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Dr. Ben Carson, have largely ducked giving specifics prescriptions on the NSA, a National Journalanalysis has found.
Read more @ http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/04/how-2016-republicans-will-debate-nsa-reform/109351/
The controversy surrounding domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) is expected to divide hawks from libertarians in the 2016 race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to the National Journal. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, both staking out a libertarian/tea party position, are strong opponents of the NSA vacuuming up phone records of Americans in search of terrorist or espionage threats. Paul would dismantle the NSA; Cruz would reform the agency. Cruz backed the USA Freedom Act sponsored by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont which — had it passed — would have reformed but not gutted the Patriot Act. Paul, the singular presidential contender who uncompromisingly opposes NSA surveillance, voted against the measure because he wanted to altogether de-authorize the Patriot Act, according to the Journal. Other likely Republican Party hopefuls are either less clear-cut on the issue or supportive of NSA surveillance. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been critical of both the NSA and the Obama administration's handling of the agency, but has offered few specifics.
Read more @ http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/nsa-surveillance-phone-data-patriot-act/2015/04/06/id/636581/
Apr 7 15 6:36 PM
IN order to maintain national security, the NSA has set up a surveillance room specifically for watching hardcore pornography. While this may seem strange, it turns out terrorists are quite fond of adult entertainment.When US forces stormed Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, they discovered laptops littered with smutty videos.Analysts were then faced with the dubious task of visiting the websites frequented by jihadists in search of encrypted messages hidden in digital porn clips and photos.“We have terabytes of this stuff,” a US intelligence analyst told The Daily Beast.“It isn’t possible that they are encrypting messages in all of this stuff. Some of these guys are just perverts.” While watching porn all day may seem like a fantastic job, the reality is quite different.Analysts are often confronted with troubling content including pornographic images of childrenTo help cope with the constant bombardment of what they’re seeing, the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies employ a squad of psychiatrists and therapists for support.“They’re being exposed to material that, day in and day out, we’re not exposed to broadly in America,” a senior physician with the CIA’s Office of Medical told Daily Beast.“That has its own sort of impact and own sort of, for lack of a better term, shock value.”
IN order to maintain national security, the NSA has set up a surveillance room specifically for watching hardcore pornography.
While this may seem strange, it turns out terrorists are quite fond of adult entertainment.
When US forces stormed Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, they discovered laptops littered with smutty videos.
Analysts were then faced with the dubious task of visiting the websites frequented by jihadists in search of encrypted messages hidden in digital porn clips and photos.
“We have terabytes of this stuff,” a US intelligence analyst told The Daily Beast.
“It isn’t possible that they are encrypting messages in all of this stuff. Some of these guys are just perverts.”
While watching porn all day may seem like a fantastic job, the reality is quite different.
Analysts are often confronted with troubling content including pornographic images of children
To help cope with the constant bombardment of what they’re seeing, the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies employ a squad of psychiatrists and therapists for support.
“They’re being exposed to material that, day in and day out, we’re not exposed to broadly in America,” a senior physician with the CIA’s Office of Medical told Daily Beast.
“That has its own sort of impact and own sort of, for lack of a better term, shock value.”
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/analysts-visit-websites-frequented-by-jihadists-in-search-of-encrypted-messages-hidden-in-porn/story-fnjwnfzw-1227294008478
Apr 8 15 6:55 PM
Technology and politics make strange bedfellows. Rarely do politicians understand the capabilities or nuances of the cyber landscape, and rarely do technologists understand (or care to understand) the compromises of politics. But in a world of cyber espionage and cyber warfare, where technology is as integrated into the fabric of society as utilities and transportation, these two worlds are colliding. As evidence, we have the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015, passed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence a few weeks ago, followed by the passing of a similar bill, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act (PCNA) passed last week by the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. Momentum seems to be gathering at the federal level to pass legislation making it easier for private companies to share information about cybersecurity threats and breaches with the government. I personally struggle with the privacy implications. Cyber intelligence can include computer names and addresses, user names, emails, websites being visited, and more. While both the Senate and House bills contain provisions regarding privacy and the need to “scrub” data of personal information, it is inevitable and foreseeable that such information will sometimes find its way into the data being shared, and into the hands of intelligence agencies with no role in cyber security. A number of my colleagues whom I respect sent an open letter to the Senate regarding their concerns about privacy in CISA. This was prior to some recent amendments, but many of their concerns remain. At the same time, I am an unabashed proponent of information sharing when it comes to cyber threats. Too often, I see companies attacked using techniques that have been known to others in the industry for years; attacks that could be prevented or, at minimum, against which companies could be better prepared—if given the right information. We know that our adversaries are sharing, even buying and selling, cyber intelligence with each other. We need to do a better job sharing ourselves.
Technology and politics make strange bedfellows. Rarely do politicians understand the capabilities or nuances of the cyber landscape, and rarely do technologists understand (or care to understand) the compromises of politics. But in a world of cyber espionage and cyber warfare, where technology is as integrated into the fabric of society as utilities and transportation, these two worlds are colliding.
As evidence, we have the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015, passed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence a few weeks ago, followed by the passing of a similar bill, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act (PCNA) passed last week by the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.
Momentum seems to be gathering at the federal level to pass legislation making it easier for private companies to share information about cybersecurity threats and breaches with the government.
I personally struggle with the privacy implications. Cyber intelligence can include computer names and addresses, user names, emails, websites being visited, and more. While both the Senate and House bills contain provisions regarding privacy and the need to “scrub” data of personal information, it is inevitable and foreseeable that such information will sometimes find its way into the data being shared, and into the hands of intelligence agencies with no role in cyber security.
A number of my colleagues whom I respect sent an open letter to the Senate regarding their concerns about privacy in CISA. This was prior to some recent amendments, but many of their concerns remain.
At the same time, I am an unabashed proponent of information sharing when it comes to cyber threats. Too often, I see companies attacked using techniques that have been known to others in the industry for years; attacks that could be prevented or, at minimum, against which companies could be better prepared—if given the right information. We know that our adversaries are sharing, even buying and selling, cyber intelligence with each other. We need to do a better job sharing ourselves.
Read more @ https://blog.bit9.com/2015/03/31/information-sharing-walking-a-tightrope-or-tightening-the-rope/
If you've visited a Facebook page—even if you don't have an account, and even if you've opted out of tracking—the social network drops a long-lasting cookie onto your computer, and follows you everywhere you go. That's according to an in-depth report from a pair of Belgian universities, who were commissioned to investigate the issue by their local data protection agency. (Asked for a response, the UK’s own Information Commissioner Office directed us to Ireland’s data protection watchdogs, saying it wasn’t their remit as Facebook is based in Ireland.) The report found that Facebook tracks users even if they’re logged out, have deactivated their account, or have opted out of behavioural advertising. The problem centres on Facebook's social plugins, those widgets that people install on their sites with the Like button. The researchers suggested that Facebook sets a tracking cookie that can last for two years on your PC or device in three instances. First, when you visit a Facebook page—whether it's your own profile or a company page when you're not signed in; second, if you visit specific third-party websites (including mtv.com and, rather oddly, myspace.com); and third, rather ironically, if you go to the European Digital Advertising Alliance website to opt out of tracking. From then on, every time you visit a page with a Like button or other social plugin, it sees the cookie and sends the tracking details back to Facebook. That happens even if you don't click Like, login to Facebook, or interact in any other way with the site.
If you've visited a Facebook page—even if you don't have an account, and even if you've opted out of tracking—the social network drops a long-lasting cookie onto your computer, and follows you everywhere you go.
That's according to an in-depth report from a pair of Belgian universities, who were commissioned to investigate the issue by their local data protection agency. (Asked for a response, the UK’s own Information Commissioner Office directed us to Ireland’s data protection watchdogs, saying it wasn’t their remit as Facebook is based in Ireland.)
The report found that Facebook tracks users even if they’re logged out, have deactivated their account, or have opted out of behavioural advertising. The problem centres on Facebook's social plugins, those widgets that people install on their sites with the Like button.
The researchers suggested that Facebook sets a tracking cookie that can last for two years on your PC or device in three instances. First, when you visit a Facebook page—whether it's your own profile or a company page when you're not signed in; second, if you visit specific third-party websites (including mtv.com and, rather oddly, myspace.com); and third, rather ironically, if you go to the European Digital Advertising Alliance website to opt out of tracking.
From then on, every time you visit a page with a Like button or other social plugin, it sees the cookie and sends the tracking details back to Facebook. That happens even if you don't click Like, login to Facebook, or interact in any other way with the site.
Read more @ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/researchers-claim-facebook-tracks-you-even-if-you-opt-out
Apr 9 15 1:21 PM
A bust of Edward Snowden was erected overnight in Fort Greene Park—and it's already been covered up by authorities.
[UPDATE BELOW] The 100-pound bust of the (in)famous NSA whistleblower was erected near the park's Prison Ship Martyrs Monument early Monday morning. The artists who pulled it off told ANIMAL:
"Fort Greene’s Prison Ship Martyrs Monument is a memorial to American POWs who lost their lives during the Revolutionary War. We have updated this monument to highlight those who sacrifice their safety in the fight against modern-day tyrannies. It would be a dishonor to those memorialized here to not laud those who protect the ideals they fought for, as Edward Snowden has by bringing the NSA’s 4th-Amendment-violating surveillance programs to light. All too often, figures who strive to uphold these ideals have been cast as criminals rather than in bronze. "Our goal is to bring a renewed vitality to the space and prompt even more visitors to ponder the sacrifices made for their freedoms. We hope this inspires them to reflect upon the responsibility we all bear to ensure our liberties exist long into the future."
"Our goal is to bring a renewed vitality to the space and prompt even more visitors to ponder the sacrifices made for their freedoms. We hope this inspires them to reflect upon the responsibility we all bear to ensure our liberties exist long into the future."
Apr 9 15 7:14 PM
AN AUSTRALIAN law graduate spearheading a class-action suit against Facebook for alleged privacy breaches said ahead of the first hearing tomorrow he hopes the case will eventually lead to an overhaul of a “Wild West” approach to data protection. Max Schrems and 25,000 other Facebook users are suing the social network for various rights violations, ranging from the “illegal” tracking of their data under EU law to Facebook’s involvement in the PRISM surveillance program of the US National Security Agency (NSA).“Basically we are asking Facebook to stop mass surveillance, to (have) a proper privacy policy that people can understand, but also to stop collecting data of people that are not even Facebook users,” 27-year-old Schrems told AFP in an interview.“There is a wide number of issues in the lawsuit and we hope to kind of win all of them and to get a landmark case against US data-gathering companies.” The case has been brought against Facebook’s European headquarters in Dublin, which registers all accounts outside the United States and Canada — making up some 80 per cent of Facebook’s 1.35 billion users.
AN AUSTRALIAN law graduate spearheading a class-action suit against Facebook for alleged privacy breaches said ahead of the first hearing tomorrow he hopes the case will eventually lead to an overhaul of a “Wild West” approach to data protection.
Max Schrems and 25,000 other Facebook users are suing the social network for various rights violations, ranging from the “illegal” tracking of their data under EU law to Facebook’s involvement in the PRISM surveillance program of the US National Security Agency (NSA).
“Basically we are asking Facebook to stop mass surveillance, to (have) a proper privacy policy that people can understand, but also to stop collecting data of people that are not even Facebook users,” 27-year-old Schrems told AFP in an interview.
“There is a wide number of issues in the lawsuit and we hope to kind of win all of them and to get a landmark case against US data-gathering companies.” The case has been brought against Facebook’s European headquarters in Dublin, which registers all accounts outside the United States and Canada — making up some 80 per cent of Facebook’s 1.35 billion users.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/australian-law-graduate-about-the-take-on-facebook-has-25000-reasons-to-win/story-fnjwnhzf-1227297576521
Apr 10 15 7:03 PM
By exposing the NSA’s spying regime, Snowden forced the Justice Department to shut down a separate phone-surveillance operation. The polarizing leaker of government secrets rocketed back into public awareness, thanks to an interview with viral-hit-maker and comedian-with-a-conscience John Oliver. Then Snowden enthusiasts installed a bust of him in a Brooklyn park—which was later replaced with a hologram of his likeness. And actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt is traipsing around Washington, D.C., filming scenes as Snowden for the Oliver Stone movie about the fugitive slated for release later this year. But likely nothing will bring the former National Security Agency contractor as much satisfaction as finding out this week that his 2013 disclosures appear to have prompted the Justice Department to pull the plug on a secret mass-surveillance program—one he isn't even responsible for exposing. USA Today reported on Tuesday that a Justice Department program had, from 1992 to 2013, collected records of Americans' international phone calls. Described as a "blueprint" for the NSA's controversial dragnet, the program, housed within the Drug Enforcement Administration, "amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking," according to the paper. Those countries included U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as parts of Europe and nearly all of central and South America.
The polarizing leaker of government secrets rocketed back into public awareness, thanks to an interview with viral-hit-maker and comedian-with-a-conscience John Oliver. Then Snowden enthusiasts installed a bust of him in a Brooklyn park—which was later replaced with a hologram of his likeness. And actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt is traipsing around Washington, D.C., filming scenes as Snowden for the Oliver Stone movie about the fugitive slated for release later this year.
But likely nothing will bring the former National Security Agency contractor as much satisfaction as finding out this week that his 2013 disclosures appear to have prompted the Justice Department to pull the plug on a secret mass-surveillance program—one he isn't even responsible for exposing.
USA Today reported on Tuesday that a Justice Department program had, from 1992 to 2013, collected records of Americans' international phone calls. Described as a "blueprint" for the NSA's controversial dragnet, the program, housed within the Drug Enforcement Administration, "amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking," according to the paper. Those countries included U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as parts of Europe and nearly all of central and South America.
Read more @ http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/how-edward-snowden-unwittingly-killed-a-mass-surveillance-program-20150408
The bulk collection of phone records by the DEA preceded the NSA's own program The U.S. started keeping from 1992 records of international phone calls made by Americans, under a joint program of the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a newspaper report. The secret program, which aimed to counter drug trafficking, collected logs of "virtually all telephone calls" from the U.S. to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, according to USA Today, which quoted current and former officials associated with the operation. But the content of the calls was not recorded as part of the collection. The existence of the program was disclosed in January by a DEA official in testimony to a federal court, but the details were sketchy. The program preceded the bulk phone records collection by the National Security Agency in the country's fight against terrorism, which came into sharp focus in June 2013 after disclosures by the agency's former contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA was collecting call metadata, which does not include content, from telecommunications companies. The DEA got hold of the records using administrative subpoenas that allowed it to collect records "relevant or material to" federal drug investigations, according to USA Today. Some telecommunications companies were hesitant to provide the information in such volumes, but the subpoenas were not challenged in court. Those companies that were reluctant received letters from the DOJ asking them to comply.
The bulk collection of phone records by the DEA preceded the NSA's own program
The U.S. started keeping from 1992 records of international phone calls made by Americans, under a joint program of the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a newspaper report.
The secret program, which aimed to counter drug trafficking, collected logs of "virtually all telephone calls" from the U.S. to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, according to USA Today, which quoted current and former officials associated with the operation. But the content of the calls was not recorded as part of the collection.
The existence of the program was disclosed in January by a DEA official in testimony to a federal court, but the details were sketchy.
The program preceded the bulk phone records collection by the National Security Agency in the country's fight against terrorism, which came into sharp focus in June 2013 after disclosures by the agency's former contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA was collecting call metadata, which does not include content, from telecommunications companies.
The DEA got hold of the records using administrative subpoenas that allowed it to collect records "relevant or material to" federal drug investigations, according to USA Today. Some telecommunications companies were hesitant to provide the information in such volumes, but the subpoenas were not challenged in court. Those companies that were reluctant received letters from the DOJ asking them to comply.
Read more @ http://www.techworld.com.au/article/572167/us-drug-enforcement-amassed-bulk-phone-records-decades/
Ah.... Bush senior was in charge when the spying on everyone started.... hummmm
The US government started keeping secret records of international phone calls made by Americans in 1992 in a program intended to combat drug trafficking, USA Today reported on Tuesday, citing current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials. The program, run by the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, was halted by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 amid the fallout from revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about NSA data collection, the paper reported. The DEA program was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of US citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime, USA Today said.
The US government started keeping secret records of international phone calls made by Americans in 1992 in a program intended to combat drug trafficking, USA Today reported on Tuesday, citing current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The program, run by the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, was halted by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 amid the fallout from revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about NSA data collection, the paper reported.
The DEA program was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of US citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime, USA Today said.
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-tracked-phone-calls-for-two-decades-in-anti-drug-program-usa-today-2015-4?IR=T
Read more @ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/
The bulk collection of phone data goes back to 1992, with a DEA program that inspired the NSA The bulk collection of phone calls by government agencies didn't start with the programs that Edward Snowden revealed, nor even with the tracking put in place after 9/11. It goes back to the Bush years. The first President Bush.
The bulk collection of phone calls by government agencies didn't start with the programs that Edward Snowden revealed, nor even with the tracking put in place after 9/11. It goes back to the Bush years. The first President Bush.
Read more @ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a14974/dea-phone-surveillance-decades/
Read more @ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/report-dea-monitored-americans-overseas-phone-calls-116745.html
Media coverage of John Oliver’s critique about the lack of discussion surrounding government surveillance programs seems to prove his point. Much, if not most, of the attention given to Sunday night’s episode of Last Week Tonight has focused on Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden instead of focusing on the fact that the law governing one of the most heavily-criticized surveillance programs is up for potential reauthorization in less than two months. We’re talking about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision allowing the NSA to collect vast quantities of Americans’ phone records. Given that Section 215 is on track to sunset in 55 days on June 1 — and because Congress will be out of session starting May 21, which is only 45 days away — we thought it would be useful to provide the following list of Just Security posts on the issue along with government and court documents on the program in hopes of encouraging an informed public debate on the topic. (While it is most commonly known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision is also known as Section 501 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861.)
Media coverage of John Oliver’s critique about the lack of discussion surrounding government surveillance programs seems to prove his point. Much, if not most, of the attention given to Sunday night’s episode of Last Week Tonight has focused on Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden instead of focusing on the fact that the law governing one of the most heavily-criticized surveillance programs is up for potential reauthorization in less than two months. We’re talking about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision allowing the NSA to collect vast quantities of Americans’ phone records.
Given that Section 215 is on track to sunset in 55 days on June 1 — and because Congress will be out of session starting May 21, which is only 45 days away — we thought it would be useful to provide the following list of Just Security posts on the issue along with government and court documents on the program in hopes of encouraging an informed public debate on the topic.
(While it is most commonly known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision is also known as Section 501 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861.)
Read more @ http://justsecurity.org/21828/talking-section-215-readers-guide/
Most Americans have a fuzzy understanding of exactly what the National Security Agency can and cannot see with its surveillance programs, much less what a former NSA contractor named Edward Snowden tried to do about it. That’s the finding, anyway, of informal street interviews by John Oliver’s crew at Last Week Tonight on HBO. Oliver devoted his April 5 show to the NSA spying story. It included an exclusive interview with Snowden, who is living in Russia after the State Department canceled his passport. And it included the topic of this fact-check: Can emails sent between two people living in the United States unwittingly end up on the computer screen of some NSA analyst? Oliver, who blends comedy with journalism, framed the discussion around the NSA peeping on nude pictures. Oliver asked Snowden to describe the capability of various NSA surveillance programs in relation to nude pictures sent by Americans, starting with "702 surveillance." This refers to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section was added in 2008 and was renewed under President Barack Obama in 2012. Could the NSA see a picture of, say, Oliver’s privates under this provision, he asked? "Yes," Snowden said, "the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which section 702 falls under, allows the bulk collection of internet communications that are one-end foreign."
Most Americans have a fuzzy understanding of exactly what the National Security Agency can and cannot see with its surveillance programs, much less what a former NSA contractor named Edward Snowden tried to do about it.
That’s the finding, anyway, of informal street interviews by John Oliver’s crew at Last Week Tonight on HBO.
Oliver devoted his April 5 show to the NSA spying story. It included an exclusive interview with Snowden, who is living in Russia after the State Department canceled his passport. And it included the topic of this fact-check: Can emails sent between two people living in the United States unwittingly end up on the computer screen of some NSA analyst?
Oliver, who blends comedy with journalism, framed the discussion around the NSA peeping on nude pictures.
Oliver asked Snowden to describe the capability of various NSA surveillance programs in relation to nude pictures sent by Americans, starting with "702 surveillance." This refers to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section was added in 2008 and was renewed under President Barack Obama in 2012.
Could the NSA see a picture of, say, Oliver’s privates under this provision, he asked?
"Yes," Snowden said, "the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which section 702 falls under, allows the bulk collection of internet communications that are one-end foreign."
Read more @ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/
The reason I can see so glaringly is that most people are addicted to the latest technology.... so addicted they cannot stop using it....
A lot of readers have seen John Oliver’s amusing interview of Edward Snowden. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth a watch. One of Oliver’s themes is that Snowden actually hasn’t had a major impact on American politics. Surveillance law is too complicated, Oliver suggests, and Snowden doesn’t have a simple message. But I think there are other reasons why Snowden hasn’t had a big impact on American public opinion — and also reasons that probably doesn’t matter for achieving Snowden’s goals. Here are some tentative thoughts on this big topic. I’ll hope to follow up later, with more firm views, in light of comments and responses. I’ll begin with public opinion. Although the Snowden disclosures have impacted public opinion about government surveillance in some ways, they haven’t caused a major shift. Different polls are worded in different ways and suggest different things. But my overall sense is that public opinion has long been roughly evenly divided on U.S. government surveillance and continues to be roughly evenly divided post-Snowden. For example, in 2006, a poll on NSA surveillance suggested that 51% found NSA surveillance acceptable while 47% found it unacceptable. Shortly after the Snowden disclosures began, public opinion was equally divided about the Section 215 program. And just a few weeks ago, a Pew Research poll from last month found public opinion pretty evenly divided again:
A lot of readers have seen John Oliver’s amusing interview of Edward Snowden. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth a watch. One of Oliver’s themes is that Snowden actually hasn’t had a major impact on American politics. Surveillance law is too complicated, Oliver suggests, and Snowden doesn’t have a simple message. But I think there are other reasons why Snowden hasn’t had a big impact on American public opinion — and also reasons that probably doesn’t matter for achieving Snowden’s goals. Here are some tentative thoughts on this big topic. I’ll hope to follow up later, with more firm views, in light of comments and responses.
I’ll begin with public opinion. Although the Snowden disclosures have impacted public opinion about government surveillance in some ways, they haven’t caused a major shift. Different polls are worded in different ways and suggest different things. But my overall sense is that public opinion has long been roughly evenly divided on U.S. government surveillance and continues to be roughly evenly divided post-Snowden. For example, in 2006, a poll on NSA surveillance suggested that 51% found NSA surveillance acceptable while 47% found it unacceptable. Shortly after the Snowden disclosures began, public opinion was equally divided about the Section 215 program. And just a few weeks ago, a Pew Research poll from last month found public opinion pretty evenly divided again:
Read more @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/09/edward-snowdens-impact/
Read more @ http://tallahasseescene.com/2015/04/ugly-truth-government-surveillance/
If you haven't gotten yourself access to HBO yet, it's officially time. John Oliver time, that is. In this week's Last Week Tonight, Oliver makes Edward Snowden very sad by making him face the reality that the average American just isn't sure who he is or what he did*. Oliver showed clips of "man on the street" interviews with New Yorkers who either didn't really recognize Snowden's name or thought he was the guy who runs WikiLeaks. It was interesting and sad—but not as sad as Snowden's face. Poor fella. In this bonus clip from the episode, Snowden reminds us all that our passwords are terrible and it's time to get more creative. All my new passwords: MargretThatcheris110%SEXY
Read more @ http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/04/09/your-passwords-make-edward-snowden-sad
Lawyer Elizabeth Knight is fighting for user protection but fears new European laws won’t go far enough When Edward Snowden’s disclosures of large scale, secretive state surveillance began to emerge via the Guardian newspaper nearly two years ago, human rights lawyer Elizabeth Knight saw her perspective shift. “With Snowden’s revelations, I realised the biggest human rights issue, in the UK certainly – and more broadly – was privacy. That’s really what attracted me to Open Rights Group,” says the solicitor, who a year ago became the legal director of the UK digital rights and civil liberties advocacy organisation. She describes Open Rights Group (ORG) as “an organisation that promotes human rights in the digital age”, with a particular focus on privacy and freedom of expression. In that role, the group has been to the forefront of confronting the UK government over Snowden’s disclosures of mass communications surveillance by Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Some of the 200,000-plus documents handed over by Snowden indicated GCHQ had been routinely tapping all data running over major fibreoptic cables running in and out of Britain, including subsea cables to Ireland. “The reason those disclosures are so important is they were the first revelation of the failure of our own oversight mechanisms,” she says. UK politicians and designated oversight bodies, such as the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, were unaware of the scale of spying and the sheer volume of data-gathering, done wholesale and without any particular target in mind, she says. The UK’s intelligence services can process 21 petabytes – 39 billion pieces of data – a day, according to the Open Rights website. “We had to learn about this from a foreign whistleblower, rather than our own mechanisms,” Knight says.
When Edward Snowden’s disclosures of large scale, secretive state surveillance began to emerge via the Guardian newspaper nearly two years ago, human rights lawyer Elizabeth Knight saw her perspective shift.
“With Snowden’s revelations, I realised the biggest human rights issue, in the UK certainly – and more broadly – was privacy. That’s really what attracted me to Open Rights Group,” says the solicitor, who a year ago became the legal director of the UK digital rights and civil liberties advocacy organisation.
She describes Open Rights Group (ORG) as “an organisation that promotes human rights in the digital age”, with a particular focus on privacy and freedom of expression.
In that role, the group has been to the forefront of confronting the UK government over Snowden’s disclosures of mass communications surveillance by Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Some of the 200,000-plus documents handed over by Snowden indicated GCHQ had been routinely tapping all data running over major fibreoptic cables running in and out of Britain, including subsea cables to Ireland.
“The reason those disclosures are so important is they were the first revelation of the failure of our own oversight mechanisms,” she says.
UK politicians and designated oversight bodies, such as the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, were unaware of the scale of spying and the sheer volume of data-gathering, done wholesale and without any particular target in mind, she says. The UK’s intelligence services can process 21 petabytes – 39 billion pieces of data – a day, according to the Open Rights website.
“We had to learn about this from a foreign whistleblower, rather than our own mechanisms,” Knight says.
A broad group of civil-rights, technology and political groups from across the spectrum has developed a new initiative to advocate for the repeal of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the part that provides the authority for the bulk collection of phone metadata and other information. The new group is calling itself Fight215.org and comprises more than 30 organizations, including the ACLU, the EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Internet Archive, Silent Circle and Human Rights Watch. The members of the coalition are using the upcoming June 1 expiration of Section 215 as the impetus for people to call members of Congress and urge them to vote against the renewal of that provision. Section 215 of the Patriot Act gives the National Security Agency the ability to collect and store massive amounts of bulk data, including metadata associated with cell phone calls. That metadata includes things such as caller and recipient numbers, length of call and other data that privacy advocates argue can be used to build profiles of targets who have nothing to do with any terrorism investigations. A year ago President Barack Obama laid out a plan that would end the Section 215 bulk collection as it’s currently conducted and instead would keep the data at the telecom providers and require agencies to get an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to query a provider about a specific phone number.
If you've been paying attention to officialdom's recent demands for more Internet surveillance and encryption back doors, you may be experiencing 1990s flashbacks. One fine day in 1991, an ambitious senator named Joe Biden introduced legislation declaring that telecommunications companies "shall ensure" that their hardware includes backdoors for government eavesdropping. Biden's proposal was followed by the introduction of the Clipper Chip by the National Security Agency (NSA) and a remarkable bill, approved by a House of Representatives committee in 1997, that would have outlawed encryption without back doors for the feds. The NSA's encryption device was instantly criticized by civil libertarians, of course, but met its doom when cryptographers discovered that the Clipper Chip's built-in backdoors for government surveillance could be easily sealed off. That 1997 legislation also died, but only after Silicon Valley firms scrambled to inform politicians that encryption was now embedded in web browsers, and criminalizing it would likely not boost U.S. firms' international competitiveness. By the end of the decade, Team Crypto seemed to have won: Government officials were no longer calling for a ban, and the White House even backed away from export restrictions. So did the FBI, the NSA, and the other extrusions of the homeland-surveillance complex recognize their '90s errors and change course? Not exactly. Today demands for mandatory back doors and weakened encryption are nearly as loud as they were a quarter-century ago. The feds' disregard for citizens' privacy has been undimmed by the passage of time. "We need our private sector partners to take a step back, to pause, and to consider changing course," FBI Director James Comey said last fall. "We also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard."
If you've been paying attention to officialdom's recent demands for more Internet surveillance and encryption back doors, you may be experiencing 1990s flashbacks.
One fine day in 1991, an ambitious senator named Joe Biden introduced legislation declaring that telecommunications companies "shall ensure" that their hardware includes backdoors for government eavesdropping. Biden's proposal was followed by the introduction of the Clipper Chip by the National Security Agency (NSA) and a remarkable bill, approved by a House of Representatives committee in 1997, that would have outlawed encryption without back doors for the feds.
The NSA's encryption device was instantly criticized by civil libertarians, of course, but met its doom when cryptographers discovered that the Clipper Chip's built-in backdoors for government surveillance could be easily sealed off. That 1997 legislation also died, but only after Silicon Valley firms scrambled to inform politicians that encryption was now embedded in web browsers, and criminalizing it would likely not boost U.S. firms' international competitiveness. By the end of the decade, Team Crypto seemed to have won: Government officials were no longer calling for a ban, and the White House even backed away from export restrictions.
So did the FBI, the NSA, and the other extrusions of the homeland-surveillance complex recognize their '90s errors and change course? Not exactly. Today demands for mandatory back doors and weakened encryption are nearly as loud as they were a quarter-century ago. The feds' disregard for citizens' privacy has been undimmed by the passage of time.
"We need our private sector partners to take a step back, to pause, and to consider changing course," FBI Director James Comey said last fall. "We also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard."
Read more @ http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/09/the-feds-want-a-back-door-into
Sen. Rand Paul vowed Tuesday while announcing his presidential campaign to immediately end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records. "The president created this vast dragnet by executive order. And as president on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance," Paul, speaking before a raucous crowd in Kentucky, said. "I believe we can have liberty and security. And I will not compromise your liberty for a false sense of security, not now, not ever. " Paul has been among the most ardent critics of the NSA's sweeping surveillance programs in Congress—a policy position that has grown more pronounced in the two years since the Edward Snowden disclosures began. Some civil-liberties advocates criticized Paul in November of last year, however, when the Kentucky senator cast a crucial no vote against an NSA reform package that failed to advance in the Senate, claiming that it did not go far enough. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is also running for president, was one of four Republicans to support the Democratic-backed measure. Cruz said last week that he was "dismayed" Paul voted against moving the bill.
Sen. Rand Paul vowed Tuesday while announcing his presidential campaign to immediately end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records.
"The president created this vast dragnet by executive order. And as president on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance," Paul, speaking before a raucous crowd in Kentucky, said. "I believe we can have liberty and security. And I will not compromise your liberty for a false sense of security, not now, not ever. "
Paul has been among the most ardent critics of the NSA's sweeping surveillance programs in Congress—a policy position that has grown more pronounced in the two years since the Edward Snowden disclosures began.
Some civil-liberties advocates criticized Paul in November of last year, however, when the Kentucky senator cast a crucial no vote against an NSA reform package that failed to advance in the Senate, claiming that it did not go far enough. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is also running for president, was one of four Republicans to support the Democratic-backed measure. Cruz said last week that he was "dismayed" Paul voted against moving the bill.
Read more @ http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2015/04/rand-paul-pledges-immediately-end-nsa-mass-surveillance-if-elected-president/109516/
Read more @ http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-vows-to-end-unconstitutional-surveillance-on-his-first-day-as-president/
Metadata apps for the iPhone
A note first on security for Mac users, taking a hint from the Windows side. Recently, Anthony M. Freed wrote on dark matter, "Analysis of Microsoft Patch Tuesday releases from last year reveals that 97%...
After two years of roadblocks in reforming the National Security Agency programs revealed by Edward Snowden, it seems the viral John Oliver segment and impending program deadline are breathing new life into a reform movement that has seemed stagnant since late last year. Privacy advocates experienced a major setback in November when a surveillance reform bill, the FREEDOM Act, died in a Senate procedural vote. But now they’re back, and with a new, simple question for Americans — Can they see your junk? Playing off Oliver’s hilarious skit, one privacy activist built cantheyseemydick.com, which breaks down how each NSA program could be used to access private communications. Despite its flippant tone, the website offers simple explanations of complex programs that are difficult to understand. On a more serious note, a new coalition of privacy groups led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched the Fight 215 campaign calling for an end to the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. EFF activist Nadia Kayyali told TechCrunch the organizations launched the campaign today because of the impending deadline, but they were very excited about the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver skit and the attention it has already brought to surveillance reform. With this campaign, the privacy advocates have taken a direct stance, end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records.
After two years of roadblocks in reforming the National Security Agency programs revealed by Edward Snowden, it seems the viral John Oliver segment and impending program deadline are breathing new life into a reform movement that has seemed stagnant since late last year.
Privacy advocates experienced a major setback in November when a surveillance reform bill, the FREEDOM Act, died in a Senate procedural vote. But now they’re back, and with a new, simple question for Americans — Can they see your junk?
Playing off Oliver’s hilarious skit, one privacy activist built cantheyseemydick.com, which breaks down how each NSA program could be used to access private communications. Despite its flippant tone, the website offers simple explanations of complex programs that are difficult to understand.
On a more serious note, a new coalition of privacy groups led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched the Fight 215 campaign calling for an end to the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records.
EFF activist Nadia Kayyali told TechCrunch the organizations launched the campaign today because of the impending deadline, but they were very excited about the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver skit and the attention it has already brought to surveillance reform.
With this campaign, the privacy advocates have taken a direct stance, end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records.
Read more @ http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/08/surveillance-reform-movement-rallies-ahead-of-june-1-deadline/
Apr 11 15 5:06 PM
IN the last 24 hours of London woman Laura Kitchens’ life she went to work as normal, went out dancing, argued, joked, and made plans over friends over text and WhatsApp messages. She didn’t seem to be in any danger, but just over a month ago, on March 7, 2015, the 23-year-old was murdered and police haven’t yet identified the killer — but you just might be able to.As with most action of the ‘big brother’ age we’re living in, there are easily accessible records of Laura’s movements, relationships and interactions on social media, and all the CCTV footage and other surveillance captured in her final days is freely available online.It seems creepy, but it’s not unusual. What’s different about this case is that Laura didn’t actually exist.The Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and dormant MySpace page of the young woman have all been created over the past two years for the BBC’s groundbreaking immersive murder mystery project, The Last Hours of Laura K.Twenty-four hours of vision has also been staged and can be accessed and reviewed by amateur sleuths wanting to have a go at cracking the case, or just perving on someone’s personal life, in a looping video available online.The series was inspired by a quote from Edward Snowden, and the reality of a hyper-connected world.“I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I saw, everything that I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity, love or friendship, is recorded,” the online surveillance whistleblower said.The extent to which our lives are recorded is examined and exposed in the project, which gives participants access not just to Laura’s social media profiles, but those of her friends and anyone who she interacts with.
IN the last 24 hours of London woman Laura Kitchens’ life she went to work as normal, went out dancing, argued, joked, and made plans over friends over text and WhatsApp messages.
She didn’t seem to be in any danger, but just over a month ago, on March 7, 2015, the 23-year-old was murdered and police haven’t yet identified the killer — but you just might be able to.
As with most action of the ‘big brother’ age we’re living in, there are easily accessible records of Laura’s movements, relationships and interactions on social media, and all the CCTV footage and other surveillance captured in her final days is freely available online.
It seems creepy, but it’s not unusual. What’s different about this case is that Laura didn’t actually exist.
The Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and dormant MySpace page of the young woman have all been created over the past two years for the BBC’s groundbreaking immersive murder mystery project, The Last Hours of Laura K.
Twenty-four hours of vision has also been staged and can be accessed and reviewed by amateur sleuths wanting to have a go at cracking the case, or just perving on someone’s personal life, in a looping video available online.
The series was inspired by a quote from Edward Snowden, and the reality of a hyper-connected world.
“I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I saw, everything that I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity, love or friendship, is recorded,” the online surveillance whistleblower said.
The extent to which our lives are recorded is examined and exposed in the project, which gives participants access not just to Laura’s social media profiles, but those of her friends and anyone who she interacts with.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/the-last-hours-of-laura-k-the-bbc-immersive-murder-mystery-gripping-the-internet/story-fnjwmwrh-1227298348772
Apr 12 15 12:09 PM
Apr 12 15 4:31 PM
icepick wrote:Now does this not just figure? One person from the group comes up with a compromise that might, MIGHT, make this a little more palatable, and it goes nowhere:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-encryption-spreads-us-worries-about-access-to-data-for-investigations/2015/04/10/7c1c7518-d401-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.htmlProbably partially because the suggestion comes from a former military member. The military does not share in their desperate need for this. They have the DIA, which is both more effective, and is relatively uninvolved in this NSA fiasco. They must get involved at times it seems, but then maybe not. Their methods have always succeeded where the NSA failed. Makes one wonder what they do differently, does it not?
Apr 12 15 6:09 PM
Apr 12 15 8:12 PM
icepick wrote:True. But did you catch the compromise? It would actually work. No one person can have the entire key. So they ignore him.
Apr 12 15 8:16 PM
Two monuments to Edward Snowden appeared in New York this week. The first was a giant 100-lb, four-foot high bust glued to a column in a Brooklyn park overnight. Conceived by two anonymous street artists who worked with an also unnamed West coast sculptor, the feat was documented by arts and culture blog, Animal New York. Almost as soon as the Parks Department removed the unsanctioned effigy later that day, another group of guerrilla artists who call themselves “The Illuminator,” projected a ghost-like hologram of Snowden above the same column. The light show lasted for 20 minutes. “For me, Snowden is an interesting subject because he stands as evidence that the people we are intended to honor as advised by the state are becoming divergent from the people we actually consider to be our heroes” says Grayson Earle an artist who worked on the Brooklyn projection. “This kind of break in a culture typically precipitates larger political shifts. People are feeling increasingly comfortable in flying their rebel flag, openly advocating for a man charged with treason,” he tells Quartz. These are just the latest in a string of artists who have paid homage to the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Russia after leaking classified information to the media. Here are some highlights from the burgeoning Edward Snowden art movement.
Two monuments to Edward Snowden appeared in New York this week. The first was a giant 100-lb, four-foot high bust glued to a column in a Brooklyn park overnight. Conceived by two anonymous street artists who worked with an also unnamed West coast sculptor, the feat was documented by arts and culture blog, Animal New York.
Almost as soon as the Parks Department removed the unsanctioned effigy later that day, another group of guerrilla artists who call themselves “The Illuminator,” projected a ghost-like hologram of Snowden above the same column. The light show lasted for 20 minutes.
“For me, Snowden is an interesting subject because he stands as evidence that the people we are intended to honor as advised by the state are becoming divergent from the people we actually consider to be our heroes” says Grayson Earle an artist who worked on the Brooklyn projection. “This kind of break in a culture typically precipitates larger political shifts. People are feeling increasingly comfortable in flying their rebel flag, openly advocating for a man charged with treason,” he tells Quartz.
These are just the latest in a string of artists who have paid homage to the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Russia after leaking classified information to the media. Here are some highlights from the burgeoning Edward Snowden art movement.
Read more @ http://qz.com/380790/photos-the-weird-wild-world-of-edward-snowden-art-tributes/
NEW YORK — Hours after police removed an illicit bust of Edward Snowden from its perch in a Brooklyn park on Monday, artists replaced it with a hologram. The group of artists — who collectively call themselves "The Illuminator" and are not related to the trio behind the original sculpture — used laptops and projection equipment to cast an image of Snowden in a haze of smoke at the spot where the sculpture once stood. They say the action was a message of defiance aimed at the authorities who "censored" the piece, according to a tumblr post.
NEW YORK — Hours after police removed an illicit bust of Edward Snowden from its perch in a Brooklyn park on Monday, artists replaced it with a hologram.
The group of artists — who collectively call themselves "The Illuminator" and are not related to the trio behind the original sculpture — used laptops and projection equipment to cast an image of Snowden in a haze of smoke at the spot where the sculpture once stood.
They say the action was a message of defiance aimed at the authorities who "censored" the piece, according to a tumblr post.
Read more @ http://mashable.com/2015/04/07/edward-snowden-hologram-statue-brooklyn/
Why did the same Internet activists who rally against government in the name of privacy turn around and rally in favor of it when it comes to data prioritization arrangements? Partly because of a deep-seated and wholly understandable dislike of ISP giants. But one problem with today's (and yesterday's) complaints about ISP giants, notes Reason magazine Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch, is that they discount the more competitive developments coming tomorrow—if government gets the hell out of the way.
Read more @ http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/10/matt-welch-why-do-edward-snowdens-suppor
An Oregon software programmer is publicly taunting President Obama to come arrest him after he openly defied an executive order that appears to prohibit Americans from supplying cyber-currency to Edward Snowden. Kristopher Ives, who lives in Lafeyette, sent Snowden about 33 cents worth of bitcoin in defiance of the presidential order. "It's not much but it's the principle of the matter," Ives wrote on the social networking and news site Reddit: "Please come arrest me. I live in Oregon and my name is Kristopher Ives and you can reach me at 503-383-1047." Ives told The Oregonian on Friday that he was on Reddit on Wednesday, April 1, when news of Obama's executive order hit the Internet. At first, he thought it might be an April Fools' Day prank. "I don't want to play the tin foil-hat person," he said, "but it just seemed so odd to (sign an executive order) on April Fools."
An Oregon software programmer is publicly taunting President Obama to come arrest him after he openly defied an executive order that appears to prohibit Americans from supplying cyber-currency to Edward Snowden.
Kristopher Ives, who lives in Lafeyette, sent Snowden about 33 cents worth of bitcoin in defiance of the presidential order.
"It's not much but it's the principle of the matter," Ives wrote on the social networking and news site Reddit: "Please come arrest me. I live in Oregon and my name is Kristopher Ives and you can reach me at 503-383-1047."
Ives told The Oregonian on Friday that he was on Reddit on Wednesday, April 1, when news of Obama's executive order hit the Internet.
At first, he thought it might be an April Fools' Day prank.
"I don't want to play the tin foil-hat person," he said, "but it just seemed so odd to (sign an executive order) on April Fools."
Read more @ http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_man_to_obama_please_com.html
Summary:A new executive order is said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund, which didn't go down so well with one good-spirited community. A new executive order signed into law this week by the president has one online community up in arms, after its loose wording effectively ruled out donating to Edward Snowden and others. In a post on Reddit's Bitcoin subreddit, members pledged to donate to the whistleblower's relief fund, despite the wording of the new executive order suggesting that doing so was illegal. In the new executive order, signed into law on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama declared cyber-threats aimed at the US a "national emergency." The order threatens sanctions against those (including US residents) who engage in cyberattacks and espionage activities that threaten US interests at home and abroad. The wording of the order specifically addresses any person whose "property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States." Redditors were quick to assume (likely correctly) that this includes Edward Snowden, who for more than a year-and-a-half has lived in Russia, evading US justice. "This is almost as bad as the Patriot Act," said the user who first posted the thread. Snowden, a 31-year-old former US government contractor, fled the US to Hong Kong and on to Russia after leaking tens of thousands of classified documents pertaining to the National Security Agency's surveillance operations. Within days, he outed himself, and was subsequently charged with espionage. But in a recent "ask me anything" on Reddit, Snowden regretted only one thing: "I would have come forward sooner," he said. Regardless of the threat of sanctions, one Reddit user Kristopher Ives said he donated to the Snowden fund in bitcoin, a virtual currency used online.
Summary:A new executive order is said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund, which didn't go down so well with one good-spirited community.
A new executive order signed into law this week by the president has one online community up in arms, after its loose wording effectively ruled out donating to Edward Snowden and others.
In a post on Reddit's Bitcoin subreddit, members pledged to donate to the whistleblower's relief fund, despite the wording of the new executive order suggesting that doing so was illegal.
In the new executive order, signed into law on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama declared cyber-threats aimed at the US a "national emergency." The order threatens sanctions against those (including US residents) who engage in cyberattacks and espionage activities that threaten US interests at home and abroad.
The wording of the order specifically addresses any person whose "property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States."
Redditors were quick to assume (likely correctly) that this includes Edward Snowden, who for more than a year-and-a-half has lived in Russia, evading US justice.
"This is almost as bad as the Patriot Act," said the user who first posted the thread.
Snowden, a 31-year-old former US government contractor, fled the US to Hong Kong and on to Russia after leaking tens of thousands of classified documents pertaining to the National Security Agency's surveillance operations.
Within days, he outed himself, and was subsequently charged with espionage. But in a recent "ask me anything" on Reddit, Snowden regretted only one thing: "I would have come forward sooner," he said.
Regardless of the threat of sanctions, one Reddit user Kristopher Ives said he donated to the Snowden fund in bitcoin, a virtual currency used online.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/snowden-donations-rocket-after-obamas-cybersecurity-order-outlaws-fund/
In light of a sudden “executive order” issued by Barack Obama in America, many Bitcoin redditors surmised that it's now illegal to donate money to people like Edward Snowden. But netizens that they are, political boundaries and proclamations mean very little to them. Within just a few hours of the legalese going up at WhiteHouse.gov, a whole swarm of Bitcoin users and miners alike decided to send some extra thanks to Snowden. The monetary gratitude turned out to be even larger than the one elicited by the release of the Snowden documentary Citizenfour:
In light of a sudden “executive order” issued by Barack Obama in America, many Bitcoin redditors surmised that it's now illegal to donate money to people like Edward Snowden.
But netizens that they are, political boundaries and proclamations mean very little to them. Within just a few hours of the legalese going up at WhiteHouse.gov, a whole swarm of Bitcoin users and miners alike decided to send some extra thanks to Snowden.
The monetary gratitude turned out to be even larger than the one elicited by the release of the Snowden documentary Citizenfour:
Read more @ http://cointelegraph.com/news/113865/obama-effect-results-in-200-bitcoin-donations-to-edward-snowden
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley were back on the Snowden set Thursday, but with a slight difference. The stars were sporting slightly more mature hairstyles for the day as they filmed scenes for the political thriller, about the real life of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in Washington. Shailene's hair was shorter and perfectly coiffed while Joseph's barnet had been swept to the side as though these scenes take place at a later time in Snowden's life-changing story.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley were back on the Snowden set Thursday, but with a slight difference.
The stars were sporting slightly more mature hairstyles for the day as they filmed scenes for the political thriller, about the real life of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in Washington.
Shailene's hair was shorter and perfectly coiffed while Joseph's barnet had been swept to the side as though these scenes take place at a later time in Snowden's life-changing story.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3033845/Shailene-Woodley-dons-new-wig-Snowden-set-Washington-Joseph-Gordon-Levitt.html
Edward Snowden’s Russian lawyer writes novel inspired by client
Anatoly Kucherena, U.S. whistleblower and former CIA employee Edward Snowden’ Russian lawyer, has published a detective thriller in Russian called “Vremya Shpruta” (“Time of the Octopus”), whose protagonist is based on his client. All the characters in the book have fictitious names, but Kucherena said that "some of the facts in it are true" at a launch event for the novel. The film adaptation of the book is already in the making, with Oliver Stone as the director. RBTH spoke with the lawyer about the book, Snowden and Hollywood.
Read more @ http://asia.rbth.com/society/2015/04/09/edward_snowdens_russian_lawyer_writes_novel_inspired_by_client_45117.html
Documents leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden reportedly claim Britain spied on Argentina decades after their bloody battle over the Falkland Islands. Britain defeated Argentina in the battle for the South Atlantic islands in 1982 after a 74-day war that claimed the lives of at least 900 people. Despite claiming the islands, Britain carried out "covert interception, intervention operations and other manoeuvres" on Argentina from 2008 to 2011, according to news portal TN, citing documents obtained from Mr Snowden. The website said the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, a British agency, carried out a "long-term, far-reaching" espionage program dubbed Operation Quito. It said that included attempts to spy on military and political leaders' communications and to spread pro-British propaganda online. "The new, never-before-seen documents expose how [Britain's] most secret task forces used a dirty game and systematic disinformation to launch their cyber-offensive," the website claimed. It said the objective was "to prevent Argentina from getting back the islands". Mr Snowden, a former contractor at the US National Security Agency, has lived in exile in Russia since 2013 after revealing mass spying programs by the US and its allies. Tension over the Falklands, which Argentina calls the Malvinas, have been on the rise again since British defence secretary Michael Fallon last week announced plans to spend tens of millions of dollars to counter "continuous intimidation" from Argentina.
Documents leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden reportedly claim Britain spied on Argentina decades after their bloody battle over the Falkland Islands.
Britain defeated Argentina in the battle for the South Atlantic islands in 1982 after a 74-day war that claimed the lives of at least 900 people.
Despite claiming the islands, Britain carried out "covert interception, intervention operations and other manoeuvres" on Argentina from 2008 to 2011, according to news portal TN, citing documents obtained from Mr Snowden.
The website said the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, a British agency, carried out a "long-term, far-reaching" espionage program dubbed Operation Quito.
It said that included attempts to spy on military and political leaders' communications and to spread pro-British propaganda online.
"The new, never-before-seen documents expose how [Britain's] most secret task forces used a dirty game and systematic disinformation to launch their cyber-offensive," the website claimed.
It said the objective was "to prevent Argentina from getting back the islands".
Mr Snowden, a former contractor at the US National Security Agency, has lived in exile in Russia since 2013 after revealing mass spying programs by the US and its allies.
Tension over the Falklands, which Argentina calls the Malvinas, have been on the rise again since British defence secretary Michael Fallon last week announced plans to spend tens of millions of dollars to counter "continuous intimidation" from Argentina.
Read more @ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-04/britain-spied-on-argentina-over-falklands-snowden-documents-say/6370636
The comedian's interview with Edward Snowden delivers a primer on government surveillance programs -- and explains why it matters Can John Oliver do for government surveillance what he did for Net neutrality? Last year, the comedian transformed the debate for many by explaining why everyone should give a damn about Net neutrality. After exhorting viewers to rise up and make their voices heard, comments on Net neutrality flooded the FCC. This week, Oliver took viewers on a tour of the scary world of government surveillance, full of strange-sounding programs like XKeyScore, Muscular, PRISM, and MYSTIC that no one really understands. A subject so massively complex that "it's like the IT guy comes into your office and you go 'Oh s**t, don't teach me anything. I don't want to learn. You smell like canned soup.'" Read Now [ Also InfoWorld: The only Edward Snowden interview you need to watch | Deep Dive: How to rethink security for the new world of IT. | Discover how to secure your systems with InfoWorld's Security newsletter. ] Oliver pointed out with Net neutrality that "if you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring. Advocates should not be talking about protecting Net neutrality ... they should call it 'preventing cable company f**kery,' because that is what it is -- and it might actually compel people to want to do something." While massive, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens could aptly be called "government f**kery," Oliver conjured a new sound bite to capture public interest -- "'Can they see my dick?' Because this is the most visible line in the sand for most people" -- and flew to Russia to get NSA-contractor-turned-leaker Edward Snowden to explain it all. Oliver wants people to care -- and do something about -- government surveillance.
Can John Oliver do for government surveillance what he did for Net neutrality? Last year, the comedian transformed the debate for many by explaining why everyone should give a damn about Net neutrality. After exhorting viewers to rise up and make their voices heard, comments on Net neutrality flooded the FCC.
This week, Oliver took viewers on a tour of the scary world of government surveillance, full of strange-sounding programs like XKeyScore, Muscular, PRISM, and MYSTIC that no one really understands. A subject so massively complex that "it's like the IT guy comes into your office and you go 'Oh s**t, don't teach me anything. I don't want to learn. You smell like canned soup.'"
Read Now
[ Also InfoWorld: The only Edward Snowden interview you need to watch | Deep Dive: How to rethink security for the new world of IT. | Discover how to secure your systems with InfoWorld's Security newsletter. ]
Oliver pointed out with Net neutrality that "if you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring. Advocates should not be talking about protecting Net neutrality ... they should call it 'preventing cable company f**kery,' because that is what it is -- and it might actually compel people to want to do something."
While massive, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens could aptly be called "government f**kery," Oliver conjured a new sound bite to capture public interest -- "'Can they see my dick?' Because this is the most visible line in the sand for most people" -- and flew to Russia to get NSA-contractor-turned-leaker Edward Snowden to explain it all. Oliver wants people to care -- and do something about -- government surveillance.
Read more @ http://www.infoworld.com/article/2908296/government/how-to-decode-john-oliver-edward-snowden-interview.html
We’ve talked a lot about password security, and how you should be using longer, complex passphrases, rather than short passwords. In this video, Edward Snowden explains why you should use passphrases in a way all your friends and family can understand. It can’t be overstated how important it is to use strong passwords, given that we still haven’t figured this mess out. And until we do, PSAs like this one stay important. And it could hardly come from a more relevant source. Edward Snowden famously leaked key details about the NSA’s mass surveillance, so he knows a thing or two about what makes a system secure or not. The best password is one even you don’t know, which is why still recommend augmenting your security strategy with a password manager. However, for the passwords you do have to remember, long pass phrases—that aren’t common, well-known phrases that are likely to be in a dictionary—are the way to go.
We’ve talked a lot about password security, and how you should be using longer, complex passphrases, rather than short passwords. In this video, Edward Snowden explains why you should use passphrases in a way all your friends and family can understand.
It can’t be overstated how important it is to use strong passwords, given that we still haven’t figured this mess out. And until we do, PSAs like this one stay important. And it could hardly come from a more relevant source. Edward Snowden famously leaked key details about the NSA’s mass surveillance, so he knows a thing or two about what makes a system secure or not.
The best password is one even you don’t know, which is why still recommend augmenting your security strategy with a password manager. However, for the passwords you do have to remember, long pass phrases—that aren’t common, well-known phrases that are likely to be in a dictionary—are the way to go.
Read more @ http://lifehacker.com/edward-snowden-explains-why-you-should-use-passphrases-1696958545
Apr 13 15 5:56 PM
Apr 14 15 6:57 AM
icepick wrote:With all of this attention, it would be a deterrent. Which is far better than we have now. While it's not perfect by any means, I am upset that they didn't even debate it.
The National Security Agency is embroiled in a battle with tech companies over access to encrypted data that would allow it to spy (more easily) on millions of Americans and international citizens. Last month, companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple urged the Obama administration to put an end to the NSA's bulk collection of metadata. The NSA, on the other hand, continues to parade the idea that the government needs access to encrypted data on smartphones and other devices to track and prevent criminal activity. Now, NSA director Michael S. Rogers says he might have a solution.
Apr 14 15 7:01 AM
David Davis has a problem. The Tory heavyweight and 2005 leadership contender who was once the face of opposition to ID cards has now focused the full force of his influence on digital freedom, privacy and surveillance. The thing is, everyone knew what an ID card was. But when it comes to digital freedom and surveillance, his problem is getting David Cameron, Theresa May, and the majority of parliament, to even comprehend what he is talking about. Politicians, to put it bluntly, don’t understand the internet. And he is palpably correct. This has been a Parliament where the prime minister suggested he might ban Snapchat, where disastrous and ineffective ‘opt-in’ porn legislation was introduced, and where it emerged a Baroness who sits on the Lords technology committee thought Google Maps kept a camera trained on her home address. “You have the Home Secretary actually saying things like telephone metadata is just the same as your phone bill,” Davis railed in his Portcullis House office. “I can’t imagine she’s telling fibs, so she plainly doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”Davis, 66, blames the glaring lack of any discussion of digital issues at the election by politicians or the media on a “grotesque misunderstanding about it, mostly by people over 40… [they] don’t understand how intrusive the powers are. Most of my colleagues are ignorant of where this is, and where it’s going.” One of the most famous examples Davis can give is the knee-jerk pledge by Cameron to ban all kinds of communication that the government cannot access, immediately drawing references to the photo sharing service Snapchat. “The prime minister talked about ‘banning encryption’,” Davis said. “For everyone? For banks? Suddenly British banking would vanish. Encryption for online sales? All of your Amazon communication has to be encrypted, obviously. “So say it’s OK for commerce. Then what about an Egyptian human rights activist - ban it for him? In which case lots of people will be executed in the Middle East, by their various states. OK, so ban it apart from for commerce and for the Middle East. It becomes just ridiculous.” But Davis is worried that such slip-ups are telling, of the “reflex reactions of political elites - just ‘ban it!’“It is the reaction of a stone age man to the combustion engine.”
David Davis has a problem. The Tory heavyweight and 2005 leadership contender who was once the face of opposition to ID cards has now focused the full force of his influence on digital freedom, privacy and surveillance.
The thing is, everyone knew what an ID card was. But when it comes to digital freedom and surveillance, his problem is getting David Cameron, Theresa May, and the majority of parliament, to even comprehend what he is talking about. Politicians, to put it bluntly, don’t understand the internet. And he is palpably correct. This has been a Parliament where the prime minister suggested he might ban Snapchat, where disastrous and ineffective ‘opt-in’ porn legislation was introduced, and where it emerged a Baroness who sits on the Lords technology committee thought Google Maps kept a camera trained on her home address. “You have the Home Secretary actually saying things like telephone metadata is just the same as your phone bill,” Davis railed in his Portcullis House office. “I can’t imagine she’s telling fibs, so she plainly doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”Davis, 66, blames the glaring lack of any discussion of digital issues at the election by politicians or the media on a “grotesque misunderstanding about it, mostly by people over 40… [they] don’t understand how intrusive the powers are. Most of my colleagues are ignorant of where this is, and where it’s going.”
One of the most famous examples Davis can give is the knee-jerk pledge by Cameron to ban all kinds of communication that the government cannot access, immediately drawing references to the photo sharing service Snapchat. “The prime minister talked about ‘banning encryption’,” Davis said. “For everyone? For banks? Suddenly British banking would vanish. Encryption for online sales? All of your Amazon communication has to be encrypted, obviously. “So say it’s OK for commerce. Then what about an Egyptian human rights activist - ban it for him? In which case lots of people will be executed in the Middle East, by their various states. OK, so ban it apart from for commerce and for the Middle East. It becomes just ridiculous.” But Davis is worried that such slip-ups are telling, of the “reflex reactions of political elites - just ‘ban it!’“It is the reaction of a stone age man to the combustion engine.”
New legislation, designed to monitor would-be Islamist attackers, would allow spies to tap phones and emails without permission from judges French spies could get more powers to bug and track would-be Islamist attackers inside the country and require internet companies to monitor suspicious behaviour under a bill to be debated in parliament on Monday. Web hosting companies have raised concerns that the legislation could frighten away clients, while advocates for civil liberties say it lacks adequate privacy protections – concerns dismissed by the government. More than three months after 17 people were killed in attacks by three gunmen in Paris, the government is pushing measures that would allow spy agencies to tap phones and emails without seeking permission from a judge. Surveillance staff will also be able to bug suspects’ flats with microphones and cameras and add “keyloggers” to their computers to track every keystroke. “The measures proposed are not aimed at installing generalised surveillance,” the interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said in an interview with the newspaper Libération. “On the contrary it aims to target people who we need to monitor to protect the French people.”
New legislation, designed to monitor would-be Islamist attackers, would allow spies to tap phones and emails without permission from judges
French spies could get more powers to bug and track would-be Islamist attackers inside the country and require internet companies to monitor suspicious behaviour under a bill to be debated in parliament on Monday.
Web hosting companies have raised concerns that the legislation could frighten away clients, while advocates for civil liberties say it lacks adequate privacy protections – concerns dismissed by the government.
More than three months after 17 people were killed in attacks by three gunmen in Paris, the government is pushing measures that would allow spy agencies to tap phones and emails without seeking permission from a judge.
Surveillance staff will also be able to bug suspects’ flats with microphones and cameras and add “keyloggers” to their computers to track every keystroke.
“The measures proposed are not aimed at installing generalised surveillance,” the interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said in an interview with the newspaper Libération. “On the contrary it aims to target people who we need to monitor to protect the French people.”
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/french-surveillance-civil-liberty-criticisms
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has defended the much-criticised new laws that would allow spies to hoover masses of data from suspected jihadists. Critics say the proposals will lead to mass surveillance of the French public. France unveils spying rules after terror attacks (19 Mar 15)Liberty or security: Or can France have both? (22 Jan 15)'Free world' countries among worst for spying (12 Mar 14)As he presented the bill to parliament on Monday, Valls insisted that the new powers were not a snap response to the Paris terror attacks in January. He moved to reassure critics, who fear it will lead to mass data gathering of the kind carried out by the NSA and revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. “The means of surveillance to anticipate, detect and prevent threats will be strictly limited,” he said. "Intelligence services are absolutely not allowed to monitor the lawful actions of a just cause. In any democracy, intelligence is in place strictly to protect citizens and their freedom."
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has defended the much-criticised new laws that would allow spies to hoover masses of data from suspected jihadists. Critics say the proposals will lead to mass surveillance of the French public.
As he presented the bill to parliament on Monday, Valls insisted that the new powers were not a snap response to the Paris terror attacks in January.
He moved to reassure critics, who fear it will lead to mass data gathering of the kind carried out by the NSA and revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
“The means of surveillance to anticipate, detect and prevent threats will be strictly limited,” he said.
"Intelligence services are absolutely not allowed to monitor the lawful actions of a just cause. In any democracy, intelligence is in place strictly to protect citizens and their freedom."
Read more @ http://www.thelocal.fr/20150413/french-mps-mull-new-spy-laws-in-wake-of-attacks
Read more @ http://www.france24.com/en/20150413-focus-france-surveillance-bill-data-monitoring-intelligence-counter-terrorism/
Read more @ http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2015/04/13/french-mps-mull-new-spy-laws-in-wake-of-attacks
Almost two years ago, the National Security Agency forever lost its “No Such Agency” nickname at the hands of one of its contractors -- a once-trusted insider by the name of Edward Snowden. Snowden’s stream of leaked NSA secrets about classified surveillance programs shined the public spotlight on the clandestine government organization. Though the stream has now dissipated to a trickle, the impact to the intelligence community continues. To privacy activists, Snowden’s leaks were a godsend. They forced a national discussion on government surveillance and even coaxing the likes of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to admit the intelligence community needs to be more transparent. Yet, the leaks have “had a material impact” on NSA’s ability to generate intelligence around the world, NSA Director Michael Rogers said back in February. Within NSA’s Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, no one wants to face another Snowden. With NSA’s widespread adoption of cloud computing, the spy agency may not have to. Could the Cloud Have Stopped Snowden? NSA bet big on cloud computing as the solution to its data problem several years ago. Following expanded legal authorities enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, NSA and the other 16 agencies within the intelligence community began to collect a gargantuan amount of intelligence data: Internet traffic and emails that traverse fiber optic cables; telephone call metadata; and satellite reconnaissance.
Almost two years ago, the National Security Agency forever lost its “No Such Agency” nickname at the hands of one of its contractors -- a once-trusted insider by the name of Edward Snowden.
Snowden’s stream of leaked NSA secrets about classified surveillance programs shined the public spotlight on the clandestine government organization. Though the stream has now dissipated to a trickle, the impact to the intelligence community continues.
To privacy activists, Snowden’s leaks were a godsend. They forced a national discussion on government surveillance and even coaxing the likes of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to admit the intelligence community needs to be more transparent.
Yet, the leaks have “had a material impact” on NSA’s ability to generate intelligence around the world, NSA Director Michael Rogers said back in February.
Within NSA’s Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, no one wants to face another Snowden. With NSA’s widespread adoption of cloud computing, the spy agency may not have to.
Could the Cloud Have Stopped Snowden?
NSA bet big on cloud computing as the solution to its data problem several years ago.
Following expanded legal authorities enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, NSA and the other 16 agencies within the intelligence community began to collect a gargantuan amount of intelligence data: Internet traffic and emails that traverse fiber optic cables; telephone call metadata; and satellite reconnaissance.
Read more @ http://www.nextgov.com/cloud-computing/2015/04/how-nsa-using-cloud-snowden-proof-its-data/109903/
While Edward Snowden gives interviews to John Oliver and the NSA continues to gobble up our data, local police departments are quietly spying on people without public oversight, often thanks to a little device known as a Stingray. The use of these surveillance tools is apparently widespread, but it's only recently that the general public is becoming aware of it. Last month, a judge that the Erie County, New York, Sheriff's Department had to release unredacted documents about its Stingray use. Last Tuesday, after receiving those documents, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) reported that the department used Stingrays some 47 times, and seemingly on just one of those occasions got a court order for the subsequent surveillance. On Friday, the Guardian published the results of the paper's own Stingray investigation. Thanks to some unredacted documents from the Hillsborough County, Florida, Sheriff's Department, the paper concluded that the FBI is directly involved in preventing police departments from sharing any information about their Stingray use and orders them to tell the Feds when requests for information on them are made so that they have time to "prevent disclosure." Worse still, Stingrays are not to be discussed by Florida law enforcement in warrants, testimony, or anywhere in court ever—even at the cost of dropping a case against a defendant. These revelations are just the latest pieces of concrete proof that spying is being conducted by police departments around the country—and that the federal government has a firm hand in keeping evidence of it far away from the public eye. Stingrays work by tricking cell phones into contacting them as if they were cell towers. This makes it easy for law enforcement to snag metadata, such as numbers dialed and how long conversations were, as well as the location of the phone itself. Stingrays do this indiscriminately to phones in an area, such as an apartment block. They also disrupt phone service for large numbers of people. US Marshals have even taken Stingrays (or devices that achieve a similar effect) to the air, which involves still more indiscriminate data being sucked up. (The CIA played a role in setting that one up.) Privacy advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) call Stingray-style searches general warrants for the digital age, meaning they are at their core unconstitutional.
While Edward Snowden gives interviews to John Oliver and the NSA continues to gobble up our data, local police departments are quietly spying on people without public oversight, often thanks to a little device known as a Stingray.
The use of these surveillance tools is apparently widespread, but it's only recently that the general public is becoming aware of it. Last month, a judge that the Erie County, New York, Sheriff's Department had to release unredacted documents about its Stingray use. Last Tuesday, after receiving those documents, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) reported that the department used Stingrays some 47 times, and seemingly on just one of those occasions got a court order for the subsequent surveillance.
On Friday, the Guardian published the results of the paper's own Stingray investigation. Thanks to some unredacted documents from the Hillsborough County, Florida, Sheriff's Department, the paper concluded that the FBI is directly involved in preventing police departments from sharing any information about their Stingray use and orders them to tell the Feds when requests for information on them are made so that they have time to "prevent disclosure." Worse still, Stingrays are not to be discussed by Florida law enforcement in warrants, testimony, or anywhere in court ever—even at the cost of dropping a case against a defendant.
These revelations are just the latest pieces of concrete proof that spying is being conducted by police departments around the country—and that the federal government has a firm hand in keeping evidence of it far away from the public eye.
Stingrays work by tricking cell phones into contacting them as if they were cell towers. This makes it easy for law enforcement to snag metadata, such as numbers dialed and how long conversations were, as well as the location of the phone itself. Stingrays do this indiscriminately to phones in an area, such as an apartment block. They also disrupt phone service for large numbers of people. US Marshals have even taken Stingrays (or devices that achieve a similar effect) to the air, which involves still more indiscriminate data being sucked up. (The CIA played a role in setting that one up.) Privacy advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) call Stingray-style searches general warrants for the digital age, meaning they are at their core unconstitutional.
Read more @ http://www.vice.com/read/everything-we-know-about-the-stingray-cops-favorite-cell-phone-tracking-tool-413
NSA director suggested tech companies could provide an encryption key in pieces The National Security Agency is embroiled in a battle with tech companies over access to encrypted data that would allow it to spy (more easily) on millions of Americans and international citizens. Last month, companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple urged the Obama administration to put an end to the NSA's bulk collection of metadata. The NSA, on the other hand, continues to parade the idea that the government needs access to encrypted data on smartphones and other devices to track and prevent criminal activity. Now, NSA director Michael S. Rogers says he might have a solution. During a recent speech at Princeton University, Rogers suggested tech companies could create a master multi-part encryption key capable of unlocking any device, The Washington Post reports. That way, if the key were broken into pieces, no single person would have the ability to use it. "I don’t want a back door," Rogers said. "I want a front door. And I want the front door to have multiple locks. Big locks." The suggestion comes as Congress considers a new framework for handling encrypted data. Government and law enforcement officials say total encryption could stand in the way of national security operations, while leaders in the tech industry and advocacy groups say the government shouldn't have complete, unobstructed access to citizens' private communications. During this year's South by Southwest festival, Edward Snowden held a secret meeting in which he said tech companies needed to take a stronger position against NSA surveillance. He said companies should adopt more secure technology that could block surveillance altogether, and championed end-to-end encryption, which would mean no one except the sender and recipient would have access to private communications. A master encryption key still creates vulnerabilities
NSA director suggested tech companies could provide an encryption key in pieces
During a recent speech at Princeton University, Rogers suggested tech companies could create a master multi-part encryption key capable of unlocking any device, The Washington Post reports. That way, if the key were broken into pieces, no single person would have the ability to use it.
"I don’t want a back door," Rogers said. "I want a front door. And I want the front door to have multiple locks. Big locks."
The suggestion comes as Congress considers a new framework for handling encrypted data. Government and law enforcement officials say total encryption could stand in the way of national security operations, while leaders in the tech industry and advocacy groups say the government shouldn't have complete, unobstructed access to citizens' private communications.
During this year's South by Southwest festival, Edward Snowden held a secret meeting in which he said tech companies needed to take a stronger position against NSA surveillance. He said companies should adopt more secure technology that could block surveillance altogether, and championed end-to-end encryption, which would mean no one except the sender and recipient would have access to private communications.
A master encryption key still creates vulnerabilities
Read more @ http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/12/8392769/nsa-front-door-access-encryption-key
Transcript EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: In Australia, no-one outside the Government has seen the text of what's being negotiated for the TPP. But Trade Minister Andrew Robb says over the past four years, there've been more than 1,000 briefings with stakeholders and the public will have months to look at the detail of the deal before it's ratified by the Parliament. Our political correspondent Tom Iggulden has the story. TOM IGGULDEN, REPORTER: Free trade's been a winner for the Government so far, three deals signed with major trade partners in its first year in office. Now the TPP looms as an even bigger trophy in the Coalition's free trade cabinet. Exporters support the deal, saying it'd seal new trading partnerships and build on existing ones. ANDREW HUDSON, EXPORT COUNCIL OF AUST.: Ultimately, Australia is a fairly mature market when it comes to services, when it comes to goods in terms of local consumption and production. So we really need to look outside of that - outside of our borders to increase that trade. TOM IGGULDEN: But outside of business circles, support for the deal dissipates. GED KEARNEY, ACTU: There are community groups, there are church groups, there are a very wide range of people who have very serious concerns about the TPP. TOM IGGULDEN: Those concerns escalated with the most recent WikiLeaks revelation of the confidential text of a controversial chapter of the draft deal. It includes what's called an investor-state dispute resolution clause, giving multinational corporations a way to get compensation for government decisions that affect their bottom lines. KYLA TIENHAARA, AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNI.: We can see that Australia is still holding out on not agreeing to have ISDS apply to Australia, but there's a little - now there's a little footnote there that basically shows that the Government is willing to negotiate on that point. ANDREW HUDSON: Yes, we probably will have one. I don't perceive it as being as difficult - or the Export Council sees it as a reality.TOM IGGULDEN: The revelation confirmed the worst-held fears of those who oppose the deal. Investor clauses, it's argued, give the biggest companies on the planet the power to trump governments' ability to pass law and courts' ability to enforce them.
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: In Australia, no-one outside the Government has seen the text of what's being negotiated for the TPP. But Trade Minister Andrew Robb says over the past four years, there've been more than 1,000 briefings with stakeholders and the public will have months to look at the detail of the deal before it's ratified by the Parliament. Our political correspondent Tom Iggulden has the story. TOM IGGULDEN, REPORTER: Free trade's been a winner for the Government so far, three deals signed with major trade partners in its first year in office. Now the TPP looms as an even bigger trophy in the Coalition's free trade cabinet. Exporters support the deal, saying it'd seal new trading partnerships and build on existing ones. ANDREW HUDSON, EXPORT COUNCIL OF AUST.: Ultimately, Australia is a fairly mature market when it comes to services, when it comes to goods in terms of local consumption and production. So we really need to look outside of that - outside of our borders to increase that trade. TOM IGGULDEN: But outside of business circles, support for the deal dissipates. GED KEARNEY, ACTU: There are community groups, there are church groups, there are a very wide range of people who have very serious concerns about the TPP. TOM IGGULDEN: Those concerns escalated with the most recent WikiLeaks revelation of the confidential text of a controversial chapter of the draft deal. It includes what's called an investor-state dispute resolution clause, giving multinational corporations a way to get compensation for government decisions that affect their bottom lines. KYLA TIENHAARA, AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNI.: We can see that Australia is still holding out on not agreeing to have ISDS apply to Australia, but there's a little - now there's a little footnote there that basically shows that the Government is willing to negotiate on that point. ANDREW HUDSON: Yes, we probably will have one. I don't perceive it as being as difficult - or the Export Council sees it as a reality.TOM IGGULDEN: The revelation confirmed the worst-held fears of those who oppose the deal. Investor clauses, it's argued, give the biggest companies on the planet the power to trump governments' ability to pass law and courts' ability to enforce them.
Read more @ http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4208670.htm
(Reuters) - Opening another front in the legal challenges to U.S. government surveillance, a human rights group has sued the Drug Enforcement Administration for collecting bulk records of Americans' telephone calls to some foreign countries. Lawyers for Human Rights Watch filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The lawsuit asks a judge to declare unlawful the DEA program, which ended in September 2013 after about 15 years, and to bar the DEA from collecting call records in bulk again. U.S. spying programs have come under court scrutiny since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of them in 2013.
(Reuters) - Opening another front in the legal challenges to U.S. government surveillance, a human rights group has sued the Drug Enforcement Administration for collecting bulk records of Americans' telephone calls to some foreign countries.
Lawyers for Human Rights Watch filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The lawsuit asks a judge to declare unlawful the DEA program, which ended in September 2013 after about 15 years, and to bar the DEA from collecting call records in bulk again.
U.S. spying programs have come under court scrutiny since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of them in 2013.
Read more @ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/usa-dea-lawsuit-idUSL2N0X51K320150408
Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA and its surveillance tactics may have riled people up, but the agency apparently took its cue from two other government departments: the DEA and the DoJ. For almost 10 years before 9/11 took place, the agencies secretly kept records of billions of international phone calls placed by Americans, a USA Today investigation has uncovered. Current and ex-officials involved in the clandestine program spoke to the newspaper (mostly anonymously) and say that when the surveillance was in full swing, it was collecting data for calls to more than 100 countries (one official placed the number at 116, out of 195 countries the US recognizes worldwide as independent states). The purpose of the data collection, per USA Today: to flesh out US distribution networks for international drug cartels.
Read more @ http://www.kabc.com/news/us-tracked-billions-of-calls-long-before-911/
After months of scrutiny and anticipation, Hillary Clinton will formally announce that she is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency on Sunday before heading on the campaign trail to meet with voters. The former Secretary of State has already and will continue to walk a fine line between criticizing actions of the Obama administration and paving her own path forward when it comes to issues of foreign policy. So far, Clinton has remained relatively quiet on issues from government surveillance to drones to trade agreements. But now that her campaign is formally launching, here are four issues Clinton will have to address: Surveillance When Edward Snowden first revealed massive domestic surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, Clinton largely kept quiet even as other presidential hopefuls weighed in. She has been critical of National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, suggesting he did not need to flee the country if he wanted to be a whistleblower. But she has also said she would support reforms to ensure that surveillance doesn’t go too far and that the National Security Agency should be “more transparent” about its practices. She has also called for a “full, comprehensive discussion” about the NSA’s spying program. “That’s the discussion that has to happen in a calm atmosphere without people defending everything we’ve done and people absolutely opposing everything we’ve done,” she said in a 2013 appearance. “And we’re not having that conversation yet.” The NSA’s current controversial phone metadata surveillance program expires in June. The reauthorization of the program or similar surveillance measures is already a hot topic among the Republicans vying for their party’s nomination. Now that she is launching her campaign, Clinton could be the one to launch that conversation and establish a solid position on surveillance. If she defends the NSA’s practices, she may alienate progressives, younger voters, and those who have been pushing for more government accountability when it comes to warrantless searches. According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans oppose the government’s collection of phone and internet data under anti-terrorism programs.
After months of scrutiny and anticipation, Hillary Clinton will formally announce that she is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency on Sunday before heading on the campaign trail to meet with voters.
The former Secretary of State has already and will continue to walk a fine line between criticizing actions of the Obama administration and paving her own path forward when it comes to issues of foreign policy. So far, Clinton has remained relatively quiet on issues from government surveillance to drones to trade agreements. But now that her campaign is formally launching, here are four issues Clinton will have to address:
Surveillance
When Edward Snowden first revealed massive domestic surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, Clinton largely kept quiet even as other presidential hopefuls weighed in. She has been critical of National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, suggesting he did not need to flee the country if he wanted to be a whistleblower.
But she has also said she would support reforms to ensure that surveillance doesn’t go too far and that the National Security Agency should be “more transparent” about its practices. She has also called for a “full, comprehensive discussion” about the NSA’s spying program. “That’s the discussion that has to happen in a calm atmosphere without people defending everything we’ve done and people absolutely opposing everything we’ve done,” she said in a 2013 appearance. “And we’re not having that conversation yet.”
The NSA’s current controversial phone metadata surveillance program expires in June. The reauthorization of the program or similar surveillance measures is already a hot topic among the Republicans vying for their party’s nomination.
Now that she is launching her campaign, Clinton could be the one to launch that conversation and establish a solid position on surveillance. If she defends the NSA’s practices, she may alienate progressives, younger voters, and those who have been pushing for more government accountability when it comes to warrantless searches. According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans oppose the government’s collection of phone and internet data under anti-terrorism programs.
Read more @ http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/10/3644602/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy/
Companies have valuable information on citizens that government is happy to access The Patriot Act, the US legislation brought in as an emergency measure after the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, expires in June and many are concerned about what might come next. The Act has been seen as the legal foundation on which mass-scale, secretive surveillance was undertaken by the National Security Agency. These are the programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, such as Prism (which involved data-gathering requests to numerous, compliant technology companies) and the wholesale slurping of telecoms call data from users of Verizon’s service in the US. The disclosure of such snooping might have Congress in the mood to limit such powers. This is particularly likely as there is scant evidence that spying on whole populations is a productive tool in the war on terrorism – security agencies failed to convince congressional committees at hearings. Data retention Alternatively, it might persuade Congress that what the US really needs is a federal data retention law, mandating that companies hang on to metadata – information about, but not the content of, a call, email, text or other communication – for a set period of time. Although a 2009 attempt to pass data retention legislation in the US failed, privacy activists and technology companies are concerned about the possibility that it will be reintroduced as the Patriot Act is reconsidered. Campaigning has begun to keep data retention off the US law books. Mozilla, the community of developers behind web browser Firefox, is among the first to take a firm public stance. It published a policy statement on its blog last week in which it argued for four key points: no more bulk data collection, greater transparency in how surveillance agencies operate, no data retention and no new surveillance powers. It’s a well-formulated statement, but like so many of these types of things, it falls apart on one significant point. Mozilla argues against data-retention laws that would require companies “to hold user data longer than necessary for business purposes” and says that “storing data for longer than it’s useful for any purpose should be avoided”.
The Patriot Act, the US legislation brought in as an emergency measure after the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, expires in June and many are concerned about what might come next.
The Act has been seen as the legal foundation on which mass-scale, secretive surveillance was undertaken by the National Security Agency. These are the programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, such as Prism (which involved data-gathering requests to numerous, compliant technology companies) and the wholesale slurping of telecoms call data from users of Verizon’s service in the US.
The disclosure of such snooping might have Congress in the mood to limit such powers. This is particularly likely as there is scant evidence that spying on whole populations is a productive tool in the war on terrorism – security agencies failed to convince congressional committees at hearings.
Alternatively, it might persuade Congress that what the US really needs is a federal data retention law, mandating that companies hang on to metadata – information about, but not the content of, a call, email, text or other communication – for a set period of time.
Although a 2009 attempt to pass data retention legislation in the US failed, privacy activists and technology companies are concerned about the possibility that it will be reintroduced as the Patriot Act is reconsidered. Campaigning has begun to keep data retention off the US law books.
Mozilla, the community of developers behind web browser Firefox, is among the first to take a firm public stance. It published a policy statement on its blog last week in which it argued for four key points: no more bulk data collection, greater transparency in how surveillance agencies operate, no data retention and no new surveillance powers.
It’s a well-formulated statement, but like so many of these types of things, it falls apart on one significant point. Mozilla argues against data-retention laws that would require companies “to hold user data longer than necessary for business purposes” and says that “storing data for longer than it’s useful for any purpose should be avoided”.
Read more @ http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/federal-data-protection-needed-in-us-but-don-t-expect-it-any-time-soon-1.2168897