ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Jun 16 15 9:32 PM
icepick wrote:That's what I've been thinking. With a slight twist. I think things may have just gotten worse. After watching resistance against the data gathering continue here until it was signed out of law, they've all realized the data they rely on may not be that reliable. Worse yet, if the wheels come off here, anybody involved could become the target of a hit. So instead of getting it from us, now they'll do it themselves.So now there may be some indeterminate number to watch out for instead of just one. There are many indications pointing towards something of this nature .......................
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact
Jun 18 15 7:35 AM
Failure to reform National Security Administration spying programs revealed by Edward Snowden could be more economically taxing than previously thought, says a new study published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The study suggests the programs could be affecting the technology sector as a whole, not just the cloud-computing sector, and that the costs could soar much higher than previously expected. Even modest declines in cloud computing revenues from the revealed surveillance programs, according to a previous report, would cost between $21.5 billion and $35 billion by 2016. New estimates show that the toll “will likely far exceed ITIF’s initial $35 billion estimate.” “The U.S. government’s failure to reform many of the NSA’s surveillance programs has damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. tech sector and cost it a portion of the global market share,” a summary of the report said. Revelations by defense contractor Snowden in June 2013 exposed massive U.S. government surveillance capabilities and showed the NSA collected American phone records in bulk, and without a warrant. The bulk phone-record revelations, and many others in the same vein, including the required complacency of American telecom and Internet companies in providing the data, raised questions about the transparency of American surveillance programs and prompted outrage from privacy advocates. The study, published this week, argues that unless the American government can vigorously reform how NSA surveillance is regulated and overseen, U.S. companies will lose contracts and, ultimately, their competitive edge in a global market as consumers around the world choose cloud computing and technology options that do not have potential ties to American surveillance programs. The report comes amid a debate in Congress on what to do with the Patriot Act, the law that provides much of the authority for the surveillance programs. As of June 1, authority to collect American phone data en masse expired, though questions remain as to whether letting that authority expire is enough to protect privacy. Supporters of the programs argue that they provide the country with necessary capabilities to fight terrorism abroad. A further reform made the phone records collection process illegal for the government, and instead gave that responsibility to the telecom companies.
Failure to reform National Security Administration spying programs revealed by Edward Snowden could be more economically taxing than previously thought, says a new study published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The study suggests the programs could be affecting the technology sector as a whole, not just the cloud-computing sector, and that the costs could soar much higher than previously expected.
Even modest declines in cloud computing revenues from the revealed surveillance programs, according to a previous report, would cost between $21.5 billion and $35 billion by 2016. New estimates show that the toll “will likely far exceed ITIF’s initial $35 billion estimate.”
“The U.S. government’s failure to reform many of the NSA’s surveillance programs has damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. tech sector and cost it a portion of the global market share,” a summary of the report said.
Revelations by defense contractor Snowden in June 2013 exposed massive U.S. government surveillance capabilities and showed the NSA collected American phone records in bulk, and without a warrant. The bulk phone-record revelations, and many others in the same vein, including the required complacency of American telecom and Internet companies in providing the data, raised questions about the transparency of American surveillance programs and prompted outrage from privacy advocates.
The study, published this week, argues that unless the American government can vigorously reform how NSA surveillance is regulated and overseen, U.S. companies will lose contracts and, ultimately, their competitive edge in a global market as consumers around the world choose cloud computing and technology options that do not have potential ties to American surveillance programs.
The report comes amid a debate in Congress on what to do with the Patriot Act, the law that provides much of the authority for the surveillance programs. As of June 1, authority to collect American phone data en masse expired, though questions remain as to whether letting that authority expire is enough to protect privacy. Supporters of the programs argue that they provide the country with necessary capabilities to fight terrorism abroad. A further reform made the phone records collection process illegal for the government, and instead gave that responsibility to the telecom companies.
Former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden on Monday marveled at the puny nature of the surveillance reforms put in place two years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a vast expansion of intrusive U.S. government surveillance at home and abroad. Hayden mocked the loss of the one program that was reined in — the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata information about domestic phone calls — calling it “that little 215 program.” And he said if someone had told him two years ago that the only effect of the Snowden revelations would be losing it, his reaction would have been: “Cool!” Here is the video and the full text of his remarks: If somebody would come up to me and say “Look, Hayden, here’s the thing: This Snowden thing is going to be a nightmare for you guys for about two years. And when we get all done with it, what you’re going to be required to do is that little 215 program about American telephony metadata — and by the way, you can still have access to it, but you got to go to the court and get access to it from the companies, rather than keep it to yourself” — I go: “And this is it after two years? Cool!” Hayden was speaking at the annual meeting of the Wall Street Journal CFO Network, an event hosted “by the Journal’s senior editors” for “an invitation-only group of more than 100 chief financial officers of the world’s largest companies.” Asked if he thought Snowden was a foreign agent, Hayden said: “I’ve got my suspicions,” although he acknowledged, “I’ve got no evidence.” Some opponents of massive government surveillance hailed the passage, earlier this month, of the USA Freedom Act. And it did, in fact, mark the first time that Congress has limited the executive branch’s surveillance authority over four decades of explosive growth.
Former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden on Monday marveled at the puny nature of the surveillance reforms put in place two years after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a vast expansion of intrusive U.S. government surveillance at home and abroad.
Hayden mocked the loss of the one program that was reined in — the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata information about domestic phone calls — calling it “that little 215 program.”
And he said if someone had told him two years ago that the only effect of the Snowden revelations would be losing it, his reaction would have been: “Cool!”
Here is the video and the full text of his remarks:
If somebody would come up to me and say “Look, Hayden, here’s the thing: This Snowden thing is going to be a nightmare for you guys for about two years. And when we get all done with it, what you’re going to be required to do is that little 215 program about American telephony metadata — and by the way, you can still have access to it, but you got to go to the court and get access to it from the companies, rather than keep it to yourself” — I go: “And this is it after two years? Cool!”
Hayden was speaking at the annual meeting of the Wall Street Journal CFO Network, an event hosted “by the Journal’s senior editors” for “an invitation-only group of more than 100 chief financial officers of the world’s largest companies.”
Asked if he thought Snowden was a foreign agent, Hayden said: “I’ve got my suspicions,” although he acknowledged, “I’ve got no evidence.”
Some opponents of massive government surveillance hailed the passage, earlier this month, of the USA Freedom Act. And it did, in fact, mark the first time that Congress has limited the executive branch’s surveillance authority over four decades of explosive growth.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/17/hayden-mocks-extent-post-snowden-surveillance-reform-2-years-cool/
On the second anniversary of his historic act of civil disobedience, we review what has changed (and what has not) Two years ago this month, a 29-year-old government contractor named Edward Snowden became the Daniel Ellsberg of his generation, delivering to journalists a tranche of secret documents shedding light on the government’s national security apparatus. But whereas Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers detailing one specific military conflict in Southeast Asia, Snowden released details of the U.S. government’s sprawling surveillance machine that operates around the globe. On the second anniversary of Snowden’s historic act of civil disobedience, it is worth reviewing what has changed — and what has not. On the change side of the ledger, there is the politics of surveillance. For much of the early 2000s, politicians of both parties competed with one another to show who would be a bigger booster of the NSA’s operations, fearing that any focus on civil liberties risked their being branded soft on terrorism. Since Snowden, though, the political paradigm has dramatically shifted. The most illustrative proof that came last month, when the U.S. Senate failed to muster enough votes to reauthorize the law that aims to allow the NSA to engage in mass surveillance. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s prominent role in that episode underscored the political shift — a decade after the GOP mastered the art of citing 9/11-themed arguments about terrorism to win elections, one of the party’s top presidential candidates proudly led the fight against one of the key legislative initiatives of the so-called war on terror. There has also been a shift in public opinion, as evidenced by a new ACLU-sponsored poll showing that almost two thirds of American voters want Congress to curtail the NSA’s mass surveillance powers. The survey showed that majorities in both parties oppose renewing the old Patriot Act. Monumental as those congressional and public opinion shifts are, though, far fewer changes are evident in the government’s executive branch. For example, the Obama administration is celebrating the two-year anniversary of Snowden’s disclosures by intensifying its crackdown on government whistleblowers. After prosecuting more such whistleblowers than any previous administration, Obama’s appointees are specifically moving forward a rule that the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight says would deny “federal employees in ‘sensitive’ positions the right to appeal a termination or demotion” when they expose wrongdoing. In practice, writes POGO’s Elizabeth Hempowicz, the rule would make “whistleblowers who hold these positions particularly vulnerable to retaliation.” The Obama administration has also not stopped its selective enforcement of laws against those who mislead Congress or leak classified government information. Take the issue of perjury. After prosecuting pitcher Roger Clemens for allegedly lying to Congress, the Obama administration has not similarly prosecuted National Intelligence Director James Clapper for insisting to Congress in 2013 that the government does not collect data on Americans. Clapper’s claim was wholly debunked by Snowden’s documents.
Two years ago this month, a 29-year-old government contractor named Edward Snowden became the Daniel Ellsberg of his generation, delivering to journalists a tranche of secret documents shedding light on the government’s national security apparatus. But whereas Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers detailing one specific military conflict in Southeast Asia, Snowden released details of the U.S. government’s sprawling surveillance machine that operates around the globe.
On the second anniversary of Snowden’s historic act of civil disobedience, it is worth reviewing what has changed — and what has not.
On the change side of the ledger, there is the politics of surveillance. For much of the early 2000s, politicians of both parties competed with one another to show who would be a bigger booster of the NSA’s operations, fearing that any focus on civil liberties risked their being branded soft on terrorism. Since Snowden, though, the political paradigm has dramatically shifted.
The most illustrative proof that came last month, when the U.S. Senate failed to muster enough votes to reauthorize the law that aims to allow the NSA to engage in mass surveillance. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s prominent role in that episode underscored the political shift — a decade after the GOP mastered the art of citing 9/11-themed arguments about terrorism to win elections, one of the party’s top presidential candidates proudly led the fight against one of the key legislative initiatives of the so-called war on terror.
There has also been a shift in public opinion, as evidenced by a new ACLU-sponsored poll showing that almost two thirds of American voters want Congress to curtail the NSA’s mass surveillance powers. The survey showed that majorities in both parties oppose renewing the old Patriot Act.
Monumental as those congressional and public opinion shifts are, though, far fewer changes are evident in the government’s executive branch.
For example, the Obama administration is celebrating the two-year anniversary of Snowden’s disclosures by intensifying its crackdown on government whistleblowers. After prosecuting more such whistleblowers than any previous administration, Obama’s appointees are specifically moving forward a rule that the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight says would deny “federal employees in ‘sensitive’ positions the right to appeal a termination or demotion” when they expose wrongdoing. In practice, writes POGO’s Elizabeth Hempowicz, the rule would make “whistleblowers who hold these positions particularly vulnerable to retaliation.”
The Obama administration has also not stopped its selective enforcement of laws against those who mislead Congress or leak classified government information.
Take the issue of perjury. After prosecuting pitcher Roger Clemens for allegedly lying to Congress, the Obama administration has not similarly prosecuted National Intelligence Director James Clapper for insisting to Congress in 2013 that the government does not collect data on Americans. Clapper’s claim was wholly debunked by Snowden’s documents.
Read more @ http://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/america_hates_its_whistleblowers_the_tortured_legacy_of_edward_snowden_partner/
Read more @ http://www.geektime.com/2015/06/14/edward-snowden-to-speak-at-challengers-conference-in-barcelona/
Who needs the movies when life is full of such spectacular coincidences? On Thursday, David Anderson, the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, condemned snooping laws as “undemocratic, unnecessary and – in the long run – intolerable”, and called for a comprehensive new law incorporating judicial warrants – something for which my organisation, Liberty, has campaigned for many years. This thoughtful intervention brought new hope to us and others, for the rebuilding of public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. And it was only possible thanks to Edward Snowden. Rumblings from No 10 immediately betrayed they were less than happy with many of Anderson’s recommendations – particularly his call for judicial oversight. And three days later, the empire strikes back! An exclusive story in the Sunday Times saying that MI6 “is believed” to have pulled out spies because Russia and China decoded Snowden’s files. The NSA whistleblower is now a man with “blood on his hands” according to one anonymous “senior Home Office official”. Low on facts, high on assertions, this flimsy but impeccably timed story gives us a clear idea of where government spin will go in the coming weeks. It uses scare tactics to steer the debate away from Anderson’s considered recommendations – and starts setting the stage for the home secretary’s new investigatory powers bill. In his report, Anderson clearly states no operational case had yet been made for the snooper’s charter. So it is easy to see why the government isn’t keen on people paying too close attention to it. But then, when it comes to responding to criticism, the approach of the Conservative leadership has been the same for some time: shut down all debate by branding Snowden – or anyone else who dares question the security agencies – as an enemy of the state and an apologist for terror. It’s a technique we at Liberty have felt the full force of. In March, the discredited, and now largely retired, intelligence and security committee produced a report into the legal framework covering surveillance. This was the same toothless committee that failed to spot the dodgy dossier, expose extraordinary rendition or pick up on the sheer scale of blanket intrusion outside of the law – which Snowden did a great public service in revealing.
Who needs the movies when life is full of such spectacular coincidences? On Thursday, David Anderson, the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, condemned snooping laws as “undemocratic, unnecessary and – in the long run – intolerable”, and called for a comprehensive new law incorporating judicial warrants – something for which my organisation, Liberty, has campaigned for many years. This thoughtful intervention brought new hope to us and others, for the rebuilding of public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. And it was only possible thanks to Edward Snowden. Rumblings from No 10 immediately betrayed they were less than happy with many of Anderson’s recommendations – particularly his call for judicial oversight. And three days later, the empire strikes back! An exclusive story in the Sunday Times saying that MI6 “is believed” to have pulled out spies because Russia and China decoded Snowden’s files. The NSA whistleblower is now a man with “blood on his hands” according to one anonymous “senior Home Office official”.
Low on facts, high on assertions, this flimsy but impeccably timed story gives us a clear idea of where government spin will go in the coming weeks. It uses scare tactics to steer the debate away from Anderson’s considered recommendations – and starts setting the stage for the home secretary’s new investigatory powers bill. In his report, Anderson clearly states no operational case had yet been made for the snooper’s charter. So it is easy to see why the government isn’t keen on people paying too close attention to it.
But then, when it comes to responding to criticism, the approach of the Conservative leadership has been the same for some time: shut down all debate by branding Snowden – or anyone else who dares question the security agencies – as an enemy of the state and an apologist for terror.
It’s a technique we at Liberty have felt the full force of. In March, the discredited, and now largely retired, intelligence and security committee produced a report into the legal framework covering surveillance. This was the same toothless committee that failed to spot the dodgy dossier, expose extraordinary rendition or pick up on the sheer scale of blanket intrusion outside of the law – which Snowden did a great public service in revealing.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/edward-snowden-hero-government-scare-tactics
Hillary Clinton needs support from the progressive left. She may not need it to win the Democratic nomination for president, but she needs it to revive her uninspiring candidacy, buttress her sagging poll numbers, and, above all, prevail in the general election. Clinton's campaign kickoff rally Saturday at New York's Roosevelt Island was designed in large part to secure such endorsement. In a carefully orchestrated speech delivered before an estimated 5,500 flag-waving admirers, she promised to sponsor a bucket list of dearly held liberal policy initiatives, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and tax incentives for corporations that offer employee profit-sharing benefits. She also announced she would push for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, and that she would work to establish universal, automatic voter registration and early voting throughout the country.
Hillary Clinton needs support from the progressive left. She may not need it to win the Democratic nomination for president, but she needs it to revive her uninspiring candidacy, buttress her sagging poll numbers, and, above all, prevail in the general election.
Clinton's campaign kickoff rally Saturday at New York's Roosevelt Island was designed in large part to secure such endorsement. In a carefully orchestrated speech delivered before an estimated 5,500 flag-waving admirers, she promised to sponsor a bucket list of dearly held liberal policy initiatives, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and tax incentives for corporations that offer employee profit-sharing benefits.
She also announced she would push for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, and that she would work to establish universal, automatic voter registration and early voting throughout the country.
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-blum/dear-candidate-clinton-pardon-edward-snowden_b_7597390.html
His claims have been vindicated by the courts, Congress, and the US public. It’s time to bring him home. A federal criminal complaint filed against Edward Snowden on June 14, 2013, accused him of stealing and distributing government documents and classified information without authorization. Two years later, it is time for the US government to grant him an official pardon. Amnesty could require Snowden to admit to criminal offenses. But given the limitations on his ability to defend himself in a federal court and the strong likelihood that he would be convicted, I believe he would accept the deal. To understand what’s at stake for Snowden, it is helpful to remember what happened when Daniel Ellsberg leaked a top-secret study about US decision-making in Vietnam. Advising Ellsberg shortly after he took the Pentagon Papers and before he released them, I told him he would most likely be convicted and serve a long sentence in a maximum-security prison. Snowden got the same advice. During the trial that followed the leak of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was not allowed to testify that the government had acted wrongfully or that his motivations justified his release of the documents. Snowden also knows he could not testify as to his motives or the positive results of his actions. With Snowden, as with Ellsberg, government employees originally charged that both American foreign policy and US security had been severely damaged by the release of the classified information. That claim can no longer be seriously made with respect to either man. NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, for example, has claimed that Snowden’s revelations were causing “the greatest damage to our combined nations’ intelligence systems that we have ever suffered.” Similar arguments were made after the release of the Pentagon Papers. Nonetheless, The New York Times and other newspapers were permitted to publish them. Snowden’s information has also been released, and there is no supported claim that the country is worse off for it. Ellsberg’s case ended in a mistrial because of government misconduct. But there is no reason to believe Snowden’s trial would end the same way. Even though the case against him would be weak, there is good reason to doubt he would be acquitted. Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent statement on the floor in Congress, in which he referred to an Associated Press story that said “Snowden had won,” is beside the point. An official pardon would not just be about bringing Snowden home. It would also signal something important about the state of our democracy.
His claims have been vindicated by the courts, Congress, and the US public. It’s time to bring him home.
A federal criminal complaint filed against Edward Snowden on June 14, 2013, accused him of stealing and distributing government documents and classified information without authorization. Two years later, it is time for the US government to grant him an official pardon.
Amnesty could require Snowden to admit to criminal offenses. But given the limitations on his ability to defend himself in a federal court and the strong likelihood that he would be convicted, I believe he would accept the deal.
To understand what’s at stake for Snowden, it is helpful to remember what happened when Daniel Ellsberg leaked a top-secret study about US decision-making in Vietnam. Advising Ellsberg shortly after he took the Pentagon Papers and before he released them, I told him he would most likely be convicted and serve a long sentence in a maximum-security prison. Snowden got the same advice.
During the trial that followed the leak of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was not allowed to testify that the government had acted wrongfully or that his motivations justified his release of the documents. Snowden also knows he could not testify as to his motives or the positive results of his actions.
With Snowden, as with Ellsberg, government employees originally charged that both American foreign policy and US security had been severely damaged by the release of the classified information. That claim can no longer be seriously made with respect to either man.
NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, for example, has claimed that Snowden’s revelations were causing “the greatest damage to our combined nations’ intelligence systems that we have ever suffered.” Similar arguments were made after the release of the Pentagon Papers. Nonetheless, The New York Times and other newspapers were permitted to publish them. Snowden’s information has also been released, and there is no supported claim that the country is worse off for it.
Ellsberg’s case ended in a mistrial because of government misconduct. But there is no reason to believe Snowden’s trial would end the same way. Even though the case against him would be weak, there is good reason to doubt he would be acquitted.
Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent statement on the floor in Congress, in which he referred to an Associated Press story that said “Snowden had won,” is beside the point. An official pardon would not just be about bringing Snowden home. It would also signal something important about the state of our democracy.
Read more @ http://www.thenation.com/article/209649/amnesty-edward-snowden
Thanks to him, Americans know their communications are being monitored, writes Jacob Weisberg What is the responsibility of public servants who believe that the government is abusing its authority? In most cases, US law encourages them to expose wrongdoing. The Whistleblower Protection Act passed in 1989 protects “any disclosure” that an employee reasonably believes indicates the violation of laws or rules, “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety”. Edward Snowden’s revelation of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, including the bulk collection of phone records, would seem to conform to all of the criteria for whistleblowing. Did he expose violations of law? Check. Last month, a federal appeals court held that the phone records collection programme was illegal. Did he reveal abuses of authority? Check. The NSA’s inspector general has acknowledged dozens of incidents in which employees tracked phone calls and emails of former girlfriends, objects of romantic interest, or in one case an “unfaithful husband”. Did he point out gross mismanagement? Check. The mere fact that Mr Snowden was able to walk out with a treasure trove of top-secret information more or less proves the point. Did Mr Snowden bring to light the waste of public funds? Quite possibly, check again. The government has provided no evidence that the costly programme has prevented a single terrorist attack. Unfortunately for Mr Snowden, the Whistleblower Protection Act contains a major exception: it does not apply to people who work for intelligence agencies, including the NSA. The US justice department maintains that Mr Snowden’s actions fall under a very different kind of law, the draconian and anachronistic Espionage Act of 1917. The Whistleblower Protection Act protects you as long as you believe you are doing right in leaking information about government wrongdoing to the press — even if you are wrong. The Espionage Act treats you as a traitor even if you acted with patriotic intent, as Mr Snowden convincingly claims to have done — and even if you are right. The chasm between the government’s encouragement of some whistleblowing and its severe punishment of other whistleblowing constitutes the limbo in which Mr Snowden finds himself.
Thanks to him, Americans know their communications are being monitored, writes Jacob Weisberg
What is the responsibility of public servants who believe that the government is abusing its authority? In most cases, US law encourages them to expose wrongdoing. The Whistleblower Protection Act passed in 1989 protects “any disclosure” that an employee reasonably believes indicates the violation of laws or rules, “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety”.
Edward Snowden’s revelation of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, including the bulk collection of phone records, would seem to conform to all of the criteria for whistleblowing.
Did he expose violations of law? Check. Last month, a federal appeals court held that the phone records collection programme was illegal. Did he reveal abuses of authority? Check. The NSA’s inspector general has acknowledged dozens of incidents in which employees tracked phone calls and emails of former girlfriends, objects of romantic interest, or in one case an “unfaithful husband”. Did he point out gross mismanagement? Check. The mere fact that Mr Snowden was able to walk out with a treasure trove of top-secret information more or less proves the point. Did Mr Snowden bring to light the waste of public funds? Quite possibly, check again. The government has provided no evidence that the costly programme has prevented a single terrorist attack.
Unfortunately for Mr Snowden, the Whistleblower Protection Act contains a major exception: it does not apply to people who work for intelligence agencies, including the NSA. The US justice department maintains that Mr Snowden’s actions fall under a very different kind of law, the draconian and anachronistic Espionage Act of 1917. The Whistleblower Protection Act protects you as long as you believe you are doing right in leaking information about government wrongdoing to the press — even if you are wrong. The Espionage Act treats you as a traitor even if you acted with patriotic intent, as Mr Snowden convincingly claims to have done — and even if you are right.
The chasm between the government’s encouragement of some whistleblowing and its severe punishment of other whistleblowing constitutes the limbo in which Mr Snowden finds himself.
Read more @ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8fec9956-0ad9-11e5-98d3-00144feabdc0.html
As David Anderson QC’s report on the UK’s enormous body of surveillance laws is published, it’s right to remind ourselves that decisions on the extent of surveillance allowed in a democratic society must all reduce to one thing, and that is a risk assessment. How many will lose their lives if the government doesn’t get its way on the so-called snoopers’ charter – which will grant increased access to numerous authorities to data from everyone’s communications? Since Tony Blair’s second term as prime minister, we have listened to ministers intone that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. And who can argue with that? In less than a month we will mark the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks on London transport, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. But in the 10 years since those attacks we have lost just one person on British soil to a terrorist attack – Private Lee Rigby. That’s one life too many, and no doubt there would have been more without the work of MI5 and the counter-terrorist police. But think of that death in the context of other tolls. Since 2005 about 17,000 people have been killed on the UK’s roads, as many as a million people are estimated to have died prematurely from the effects of smoking and 300,000 from conditions related to obesity. That’s quite a casualty list. Yet in this context you never hear ministers talking about the primary duty of the state to protect life. There are campaigns to improve health and road safety, but they are not imposed with the strident absolutism of those who call for increased surveillance. The reason is obvious: terrorist attacks hold a particular horror for us and distort our sense of proportion. Fear overwhelms reflection about adding to the sweeping powers that the state already possesses, and what those might mean for democracy. One purpose of Anderson’s report is to return proportion to the debate and he has done so by carefully extolling the value of privacy, dismissing on the way the Silicon Valley mantra that privacy is dead. Privacy, he writes, enables the expression of individuality. “Without privacy, concepts such as identity, dignity, autonomy, independence, imagination and creativity are more difficult to realise and maintain.” Second, it “facilitates trust, friendship and intimacy: qualities that allow us to relate freely”. Third, it secures “other human rights, ranging from the freedom of political expression to the right to a fair trial”.
As David Anderson QC’s report on the UK’s enormous body of surveillance laws is published, it’s right to remind ourselves that decisions on the extent of surveillance allowed in a democratic society must all reduce to one thing, and that is a risk assessment. How many will lose their lives if the government doesn’t get its way on the so-called snoopers’ charter – which will grant increased access to numerous authorities to data from everyone’s communications?
Since Tony Blair’s second term as prime minister, we have listened to ministers intone that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. And who can argue with that? In less than a month we will mark the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks on London transport, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. But in the 10 years since those attacks we have lost just one person on British soil to a terrorist attack – Private Lee Rigby. That’s one life too many, and no doubt there would have been more without the work of MI5 and the counter-terrorist police. But think of that death in the context of other tolls.
Since 2005 about 17,000 people have been killed on the UK’s roads, as many as a million people are estimated to have died prematurely from the effects of smoking and 300,000 from conditions related to obesity. That’s quite a casualty list. Yet in this context you never hear ministers talking about the primary duty of the state to protect life. There are campaigns to improve health and road safety, but they are not imposed with the strident absolutism of those who call for increased surveillance. The reason is obvious: terrorist attacks hold a particular horror for us and distort our sense of proportion. Fear overwhelms reflection about adding to the sweeping powers that the state already possesses, and what those might mean for democracy.
One purpose of Anderson’s report is to return proportion to the debate and he has done so by carefully extolling the value of privacy, dismissing on the way the Silicon Valley mantra that privacy is dead. Privacy, he writes, enables the expression of individuality. “Without privacy, concepts such as identity, dignity, autonomy, independence, imagination and creativity are more difficult to realise and maintain.” Second, it “facilitates trust, friendship and intimacy: qualities that allow us to relate freely”. Third, it secures “other human rights, ranging from the freedom of political expression to the right to a fair trial”.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/uk-surveillance-debate-david-anderson-report
Claims that Russia and China have accessed documents stolen by Edward Snowden are a "smear" by "cowards" inside the UK government, a journalist who worked with the whistleblower says. The Sunday Times reported that Moscow and Beijing had "cracked" a secret cache of files taken by Mr Snowden. It said some Western intelligence agents had been removed from "hostile countries" because information leaked by Mr Snowden showed how they work. The Sunday Times stands by its story. Mr Snowdon's leaks in 2013 revealed surveillance carried out by US intelligence. Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped break the original stories, told the BBC there was "zero evidence" to support claims Russia and China had gained access to the documents. He criticised what he called "anonymous cowards in the British government" who had spoken to the Sunday Times. Mr Snowden, now living in Russia, left the US in 2013 after leaking to the media details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence. 'Zero evidence' His information made international headlines in June 2013 when the Guardian newspaper reported the US National Security Agency was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans.
Claims that Russia and China have accessed documents stolen by Edward Snowden are a "smear" by "cowards" inside the UK government, a journalist who worked with the whistleblower says.
The Sunday Times reported that Moscow and Beijing had "cracked" a secret cache of files taken by Mr Snowden.
It said some Western intelligence agents had been removed from "hostile countries" because information leaked by Mr Snowden showed how they work.
The Sunday Times stands by its story.
Mr Snowdon's leaks in 2013 revealed surveillance carried out by US intelligence.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped break the original stories, told the BBC there was "zero evidence" to support claims Russia and China had gained access to the documents.
He criticised what he called "anonymous cowards in the British government" who had spoken to the Sunday Times.
Mr Snowden, now living in Russia, left the US in 2013 after leaking to the media details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence.
His information made international headlines in June 2013 when the Guardian newspaper reported the US National Security Agency was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans.
Read more @ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33131173
Glenn Greenwald, a US journalist who published the first reports on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, says allegations in the British press that Russian and Chinese spies accessed Snowden’s documents are lies aimed at smearing the whistleblower. Greenwald, writing in the Intercept, said that reports by the BBC and the Sunday Times that claimed Chinese and Russian intelligence services had access to Snowden’s files is based on the false premise that he kept them. The Sunday Times cited a UK government source claiming that British agents in Russia and China had to be removed after Beijing and Moscow had gained access to Snowden’s top secret documents. "We know Russia and China have access to Snowden's material and will be going through it for years to come, searching for clues to identify potential targets," an intelligence source told the newspaper. Greenwald was one of the very first journalists to have met Snowden in 2013 at his hotel in Hong Kong, before the revelations on the US and its allies’ mass spying program were published by the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Glenn Greenwald, a US journalist who published the first reports on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, says allegations in the British press that Russian and Chinese spies accessed Snowden’s documents are lies aimed at smearing the whistleblower.
Greenwald, writing in the Intercept, said that reports by the BBC and the Sunday Times that claimed Chinese and Russian intelligence services had access to Snowden’s files is based on the false premise that he kept them.
The Sunday Times cited a UK government source claiming that British agents in Russia and China had to be removed after Beijing and Moscow had gained access to Snowden’s top secret documents.
"We know Russia and China have access to Snowden's material and will be going through it for years to come, searching for clues to identify potential targets," an intelligence source told the newspaper.
Greenwald was one of the very first journalists to have met Snowden in 2013 at his hotel in Hong Kong, before the revelations on the US and its allies’ mass spying program were published by the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Read more @ http://rt.com/news/267382-snowden-smear-sunday-times/
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major U.S. and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials — laundered through their media — as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting. We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article (behind a paywall: full text here) claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries “have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.” It continues: Western intelligence agencies say they have been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in U.S. history. Senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified. One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having “blood on his hands,” although Downing Street said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed.” Aside from the serious retraction-worthy fabrications on which this article depends — more on those in a minute — the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of Western journalism.
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major U.S. and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials — laundered through their media — as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.
We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article (behind a paywall: full text here) claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries “have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.” It continues:
Western intelligence agencies say they have been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in U.S. history.
Senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified.
One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having “blood on his hands,” although Downing Street said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed.”
Aside from the serious retraction-worthy fabrications on which this article depends — more on those in a minute — the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of Western journalism.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/
By hacking the NSA computers. So says security analyst Bruce Schneier. British surveillance functionaries placed a story over the weekend in the Sunday Times (London) claiming that the Russians and Chinese had gotten hold of the documents that Edward Snowden sneaked out of the NSA computers and had broken their encryption. As my colleague Scott Shackford points out the Sunday Times offered nothing more than the assertions of unnamed British spy agency sources as evidence. He noted that one of the Sunday Times' reporters actually admitted on CNN: "We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment."
British surveillance functionaries placed a story over the weekend in the Sunday Times (London) claiming that the Russians and Chinese had gotten hold of the documents that Edward Snowden sneaked out of the NSA computers and had broken their encryption. As my colleague Scott Shackford points out the Sunday Times offered nothing more than the assertions of unnamed British spy agency sources as evidence. He noted that one of the Sunday Times' reporters actually admitted on CNN: "We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment."
Read more @ http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/16/russians-and-chinese-got-snowden-documen
And some journalists are more than happy to let them. Can Edward Snowden have "blood on his hands" despite a subsequent admission that nobody has actually been harmed as a result of his leaks about the overbroad, privacy-destroying surveillance tactics of Western powers like the United States and the United Kingdom? Painting such a picture certainly appears to be the goal of a bunch of unidentified British "senior government sources" that told the Sunday Times (paywalled) in the United Kingdom that the Russian and Chinese governments have gotten their hands on the files that Snowden had copied from the United States and have cracked the encryption, allowing them to read (allegedly) millions of Western intelligence documents. To be clear, no actual sources are named in the story. No actual evidence is provided to show that this claim that the British government has had to pull agents out of the field to protect them from the Russians and the Chinese is true. And the newspaper seems happy to have just carried water for the government. There is no evidence they attempted to contact Edward Snowden (or even Glenn Greenwald, who reported the initial stories). In fact, the story even vaguely floats this unattributed, explosive claim:
Can Edward Snowden have "blood on his hands" despite a subsequent admission that nobody has actually been harmed as a result of his leaks about the overbroad, privacy-destroying surveillance tactics of Western powers like the United States and the United Kingdom?
Painting such a picture certainly appears to be the goal of a bunch of unidentified British "senior government sources" that told the Sunday Times (paywalled) in the United Kingdom that the Russian and Chinese governments have gotten their hands on the files that Snowden had copied from the United States and have cracked the encryption, allowing them to read (allegedly) millions of Western intelligence documents.
To be clear, no actual sources are named in the story. No actual evidence is provided to show that this claim that the British government has had to pull agents out of the field to protect them from the Russians and the Chinese is true. And the newspaper seems happy to have just carried water for the government. There is no evidence they attempted to contact Edward Snowden (or even Glenn Greenwald, who reported the initial stories). In fact, the story even vaguely floats this unattributed, explosive claim:
Read more @ http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/15/two-years-after-snowdens-revelations-wes
I do not believe this story……
Twitter will ‘tip off’ terror suspects and criminals if the security services ask for information about them, a bombshell report reveals. The social media giant will keep an investigation secret only if compelled to do so by a court, Britain’s terror watchdog found. It is one of a string of US tech companies which have decided that – in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks – customer ‘privacy’ and protecting their ‘brand’ takes priority.
Twitter will ‘tip off’ terror suspects and criminals if the security services ask for information about them, a bombshell report reveals.
The social media giant will keep an investigation secret only if compelled to do so by a court, Britain’s terror watchdog found.
It is one of a string of US tech companies which have decided that – in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks – customer ‘privacy’ and protecting their ‘brand’ takes priority.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3120571/Twitter-tip-criminals-Edward-Snowden-leaks-scandal.html
An independent review of the UK’s mass surveillance system might not make online libertarians happy, but lands somewhere in the middle by criticising the broad, unregulated nature of the GCHQ’s surveillance. It comes at a good time, too — close to when new legislation will potentially expand surveillance powers. The review, conducted by QC David Anderson, supports the practice of mass surveillance — provided there are sufficient checks to the system in place, and they are sufficiently transparent. While this isn’t the win that internet security advocates would be hoping for, it still brands the current system as one of reckless overreach. Crucial to the recommendation is that every interception should require a warrant, authorised by a newly created government body. The report also specifies when metadata should be used, and calls for tighter definitions on what targeted surveillance will be used for, to minimise language loopholes that effectively allow operators to surveil whatever they want.
An independent review of the UK’s mass surveillance system might not make online libertarians happy, but lands somewhere in the middle by criticising the broad, unregulated nature of the GCHQ’s surveillance. It comes at a good time, too — close to when new legislation will potentially expand surveillance powers.
The review, conducted by QC David Anderson, supports the practice of mass surveillance — provided there are sufficient checks to the system in place, and they are sufficiently transparent. While this isn’t the win that internet security advocates would be hoping for, it still brands the current system as one of reckless overreach.
Crucial to the recommendation is that every interception should require a warrant, authorised by a newly created government body. The report also specifies when metadata should be used, and calls for tighter definitions on what targeted surveillance will be used for, to minimise language loopholes that effectively allow operators to surveil whatever they want.
Read more @ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/uk-review-recommends-checking-mass-surveillance-powers-with-mandatory-warrants/
Edward Snowden says we should support Apple’s newly emphasized commitment to privacy rather than a business model driven by personal data collection, whether or not Tim Cook is being genuine. Snowden spoke over video conference during the Challenge.rs conference in Barcelona today. I asked Snowden his thoughts on Cook’s recent acceptance speech for an Electronic Privacy Information Center award, saying: “CEO Tim Cook recently took a stand on privacy and Apple’s business, saying “some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information. They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.” Do you think Cook’s perspective genuine and honest, and how do you think it will play out long-term with regards to it hurting or helping Apple’s business, or whether Apple will keep this promise to privacy?” Snowden responded: “I think in the current situation, it doesn’t matter if he’s being honest or dishonest. What really matters is that he’s obviously got a commercial incentive to differentiate himself from competitors like Google. But if he does that, if he directs Apple’s business model to be different, to say “we’re not in the business of collecting and selling information. We’re in the business of creating and selling devices that are superior”, then that’s a good thing for privacy. That’s a good thing for customers. And we should support vendors who are willing to innovate. Who are willing to take positions like that, and go “You know, just because it’s popular to collect everybody’s information and resell it..to advertisers and whatever, it’s going to serve our reputation, it’s going to serve our relationship with our customers, and it’s going to serve society better. If instead we just align ourselves with our customers and what they really want, if we can outcompete people on the value of our products without needing to subsidize that by information that we’ve basically stolen from our customers, that’s absolutely something that should be supported. And regardless of whether it’s honest or dishonest, for the moment, now, that’s something we should support, that’s something we should incentivize, and it’s actually something we should emulate. And if that position comes to be reversed in the future, I think that should be a much bigger hammer that comes against Apple because then that’s a betrayal of trust, that’s a betrayal of a promise to its customers. But I would like to think that based on the leadership that Tim Cook has shown on this position so far, he’s spoken very passionately about private issues, that we’re going to see that continue and he’ll keep those promises.
Edward Snowden says we should support Apple’s newly emphasized commitment to privacy rather than a business model driven by personal data collection, whether or not Tim Cook is being genuine. Snowden spoke over video conference during the Challenge.rs conference in Barcelona today.
I asked Snowden his thoughts on Cook’s recent acceptance speech for an Electronic Privacy Information Center award, saying:
“CEO Tim Cook recently took a stand on privacy and Apple’s business, saying “some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information. They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”
Do you think Cook’s perspective genuine and honest, and how do you think it will play out long-term with regards to it hurting or helping Apple’s business, or whether Apple will keep this promise to privacy?”
Snowden responded:
“I think in the current situation, it doesn’t matter if he’s being honest or dishonest. What really matters is that he’s obviously got a commercial incentive to differentiate himself from competitors like Google. But if he does that, if he directs Apple’s business model to be different, to say “we’re not in the business of collecting and selling information. We’re in the business of creating and selling devices that are superior”, then that’s a good thing for privacy. That’s a good thing for customers.
And we should support vendors who are willing to innovate. Who are willing to take positions like that, and go “You know, just because it’s popular to collect everybody’s information and resell it..to advertisers and whatever, it’s going to serve our reputation, it’s going to serve our relationship with our customers, and it’s going to serve society better. If instead we just align ourselves with our customers and what they really want, if we can outcompete people on the value of our products without needing to subsidize that by information that we’ve basically stolen from our customers, that’s absolutely something that should be supported. And regardless of whether it’s honest or dishonest, for the moment, now, that’s something we should support, that’s something we should incentivize, and it’s actually something we should emulate.
And if that position comes to be reversed in the future, I think that should be a much bigger hammer that comes against Apple because then that’s a betrayal of trust, that’s a betrayal of a promise to its customers. But I would like to think that based on the leadership that Tim Cook has shown on this position so far, he’s spoken very passionately about private issues, that we’re going to see that continue and he’ll keep those promises.
Read more @ http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/but-bring-the-hammer-if-it-betrays-us/#.64qabt:zxd2
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/edward-snowden-supports-apples-pledge-to-protect-user-privacy-2015-6
In the neocon journal Commentary, Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published an op-ed by Edward Snowden. Boot’s objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a “traitor.” In objecting, Boot made these claims: Oddly enough nowhere in his article — which is datelined Moscow — does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host, Vladimir Putin, which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as Kim Philby. . . . But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to. It’s much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB’s thugs. The only mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform. It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice. Unlike Snowden — who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs — the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself. All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it’s of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. But it’s so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden’s NYT op-ed today:
In the neocon journal Commentary, Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published an op-ed by Edward Snowden. Boot’s objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a “traitor.” In objecting, Boot made these claims:
Oddly enough nowhere in his article — which is datelined Moscow — does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host, Vladimir Putin, which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as Kim Philby. . . .
But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to. It’s much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB’s thugs. The only mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform.
It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice. Unlike Snowden — who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs — the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself.
All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it’s of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. But it’s so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden’s NYT op-ed today:
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/05/max-boot-commentary-magazine-lie-edward-snowden-decide/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/582338/Edward-Snowden-Argentina-Cristina-Kirchner-Falklands-Falkland-Islands
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.com/edward-snowden-discussed-us-surveillance-argentine-president-russia-1955699
US counter-intelligence expert, Keith Lowry, who led investigations into intelligence stolen by Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, is in Australia advising business and government on insider threats reports Christopher Joye. In 2009 a senior Treasury official, Godwin Grech, triggered a political crisis when he claimed one of the Prime Minister's advisers had emailed him demanding special assistance for a friendly car dealer. Yet harnessing investigative software produced by a little-known Australian technology firm, Nuix, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and The Australian Federal Police established that the email was in fact a forgery created by Grech that had never actually been sent. The US Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, INTERPOL, the United Nations, Australia's Department of Defence, and our Independent Commission Against Corruption all use the same technology. The "Nuix Engine" is an ultra-fast data processing and analysis platform that enables organisations to investigate the life-cycle of "unstructured data" produced on any machine or network, including information originating from emails, images, Microsoft products, local or cloud-based storage systems, and other applications. It's like fusing Google with a tracking device on every bit and byte and is understood to have been used by ASIC in interrogating the activities of the National Australia Bank and Australian Bureau of Statistics employees who made $7 million in insider trading profits and by the Australian Taxation Office in its "Project Wickenby" battle against international money laundering.
In 2009 a senior Treasury official, Godwin Grech, triggered a political crisis when he claimed one of the Prime Minister's advisers had emailed him demanding special assistance for a friendly car dealer. Yet harnessing investigative software produced by a little-known Australian technology firm, Nuix, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and The Australian Federal Police established that the email was in fact a forgery created by Grech that had never actually been sent.
The US Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, INTERPOL, the United Nations, Australia's Department of Defence, and our Independent Commission Against Corruption all use the same technology.
The "Nuix Engine" is an ultra-fast data processing and analysis platform that enables organisations to investigate the life-cycle of "unstructured data" produced on any machine or network, including information originating from emails, images, Microsoft products, local or cloud-based storage systems, and other applications.
It's like fusing Google with a tracking device on every bit and byte and is understood to have been used by ASIC in interrogating the activities of the National Australia Bank and Australian Bureau of Statistics employees who made $7 million in insider trading profits and by the Australian Taxation Office in its "Project Wickenby" battle against international money laundering.
Read more @ http://www.afr.com/technology/snowden-investigator-briefs-aussie-government-and-business-on-insider-threats-20150615-ghmmng
Government lawyers fear that mentioning the mass surveillance whistleblower in Adel Daoud’s case could bias jurors against prosecution evidence Prosecutors want a federal judge in a Chicago terrorism case to prohibit the defence from mentioning Edward Snowden at a 21-year-old suspect’s upcoming trial. The government filing is in Adel Daoud’s case. He has pleaded not guilty to trying to set off a bomb outside a Chicago bar. An appeals court in 2014 denied a defence request to go through foreign intelligence surveillance court (Fisa) records on Daoud. The defence had argued the records could help with trial preparation. It was Snowden who disclosed how that court secretly approved expanded US surveillance methods.
Government lawyers fear that mentioning the mass surveillance whistleblower in Adel Daoud’s case could bias jurors against prosecution evidence
Prosecutors want a federal judge in a Chicago terrorism case to prohibit the defence from mentioning Edward Snowden at a 21-year-old suspect’s upcoming trial.
The government filing is in Adel Daoud’s case. He has pleaded not guilty to trying to set off a bomb outside a Chicago bar.
An appeals court in 2014 denied a defence request to go through foreign intelligence surveillance court (Fisa) records on Daoud. The defence had argued the records could help with trial preparation.
It was Snowden who disclosed how that court secretly approved expanded US surveillance methods.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/04/terror-prosecutors-want-edward-snowdens-name-banned-from-trial
NYT op-ed also wags a finger at Canada, France and Australia for expanding surveillance powers after fatal terror attacks. Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new home, accusing Russia of ‘arbitrarily passing’ new anti-privacy laws. The sideswipe struck an odd note in an otherwise triumphant op-ed published in the New York Times Friday, in which Snowden celebrated recent moves by Congress and the U.S. courts to end the NSA’s call-tracking program, which Snowden said followed “nearly every phone call in the United States.”
NYT op-ed also wags a finger at Canada, France and Australia for expanding surveillance powers after fatal terror attacks.
Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new home, accusing Russia of ‘arbitrarily passing’ new anti-privacy laws.
The sideswipe struck an odd note in an otherwise triumphant op-ed published in the New York Times Friday, in which Snowden celebrated recent moves by Congress and the U.S. courts to end the NSA’s call-tracking program, which Snowden said followed “nearly every phone call in the United States.”
Read more @ http://fortune.com/2015/06/05/ed-snowden-just-took-a-dainty-little-bite-of-the-hand-that-feeds-him/
Haven’t they always done this anyway?
Police and intelligence agencies will turn to hacking in a bid to get round the use of strong encryption. Police will join intelligence agencies in deploying hacking techniques to get past the use of strong encryption by their targets, according to a report into the UK's surveillance powers. The report by the UK government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, is calling for a revamp of the patchwork of existing legislation around internet surveillance. The report also addresses the use of encryption - and law enforcement's desire to bypass it to further their investigations. The use of encryption to protect communications has been increasing recently - largely fuelled by NSA-contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations about the pervasive interception of private communications by surveillance agencies such as the NSA and GCHQ.
Police and intelligence agencies will turn to hacking in a bid to get round the use of strong encryption.
Police will join intelligence agencies in deploying hacking techniques to get past the use of strong encryption by their targets, according to a report into the UK's surveillance powers.
The report by the UK government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, is calling for a revamp of the patchwork of existing legislation around internet surveillance.
The report also addresses the use of encryption - and law enforcement's desire to bypass it to further their investigations.
The use of encryption to protect communications has been increasing recently - largely fuelled by NSA-contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations about the pervasive interception of private communications by surveillance agencies such as the NSA and GCHQ.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/hacking-by-police-inevitable-thanks-to-use-of-encryption/
During a recent interview with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed his thoughts on Edward Snowden and how a Paul presidency would handle the NSA whistleblower's return. Go here for the full interview. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic updates. Approx. 2.30 minutes. Edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg. This is a rush transcript. All quotes should be checked against the audio for accuracy. Reason: If on the day after inauguration, you get a phone call and it's Edward Snowden saying, "Alright, I'm ready to come back," what are you going to do? Rand Paul: You know, I think justice is about making punishment proportional to the crime. And I think his intentions were to reveal something that he felt like the people in government were lying about. And it turns out they were lying. The director of national intelligence committed perjury in front of the Senate committee. My understanding is it's about a five-year sentence, but instead of getting any kind of sentence, instead of getting a slap on the wrist, or instead of even being fired, he's been rewarded, and he's still in charge of intelligence. And I think he's done a great deal to damage trust. On the other side of the coin, can you let people who have sensitive data just make the decision to reveal it to the world? I think you have to have laws against that. So I think there have to be laws against what Snowden did. Did he do it for a higher purpose? Does he have a high moral ground? All of that I think history will judge. But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time. That's not a serious question, but I think it'd be an interesting debate they might have about liberty versus security.
During a recent interview with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed his thoughts on Edward Snowden and how a Paul presidency would handle the NSA whistleblower's return.
Go here for the full interview.
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic updates.
Approx. 2.30 minutes.
Edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg.
This is a rush transcript. All quotes should be checked against the audio for accuracy.
Reason: If on the day after inauguration, you get a phone call and it's Edward Snowden saying, "Alright, I'm ready to come back," what are you going to do?
Rand Paul: You know, I think justice is about making punishment proportional to the crime. And I think his intentions were to reveal something that he felt like the people in government were lying about. And it turns out they were lying.
The director of national intelligence committed perjury in front of the Senate committee. My understanding is it's about a five-year sentence, but instead of getting any kind of sentence, instead of getting a slap on the wrist, or instead of even being fired, he's been rewarded, and he's still in charge of intelligence. And I think he's done a great deal to damage trust.
On the other side of the coin, can you let people who have sensitive data just make the decision to reveal it to the world? I think you have to have laws against that. So I think there have to be laws against what Snowden did. Did he do it for a higher purpose? Does he have a high moral ground? All of that I think history will judge. But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time. That's not a serious question, but I think it'd be an interesting debate they might have about liberty versus security.
Read more @ http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/06/04/rand-paul-on-edward-snowden
Posts: 14359
Jun 18 15 4:56 PM
Jun 18 15 7:39 PM
icepick wrote:What's wrong with today's reporters? Here's how you blow a hole in this story:If Snowden wanted the Chinese and Russians to have these documents, then why did they have to crack them? He also had the encryption cypher, which he would have passed right along with them.Why can they not see this?
Jun 19 15 4:12 AM
Jun 19 15 7:50 AM
icepick wrote:This is nothing short of amazing. They have every possible clue telling them they should dig deeper, yet they ignore them. Why?
Jun 19 15 8:57 AM
Jun 21 15 8:06 AM
The federal government has refused to recognise a decision by a US appeals court which ruled that mass collection of telecommunications metadata. Parliament today rejected a motion by Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam that the senate take note the ruling and recognise that “Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs”. The Greens also recognise the work of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in exposing mass surveillance programs among the so-called ‘five eyes’ allies of which Australia is a member. The motion was overwhelmingly rejected by 38 votes to 15. Senator Ludlam said that Labor and the Liberals continued to collude on mass surveillance. “This motion called on the Senate, which just months ago passed a data retention scheme, to acknowledge the reality that the US Court of Appeals has ruled the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies to be unlawful,” Senator Ludlam said.
The federal government has refused to recognise a decision by a US appeals court which ruled that mass collection of telecommunications metadata.
Parliament today rejected a motion by Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam that the senate take note the ruling and recognise that “Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs”.
The Greens also recognise the work of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in exposing mass surveillance programs among the so-called ‘five eyes’ allies of which Australia is a member.
The motion was overwhelmingly rejected by 38 votes to 15.
Senator Ludlam said that Labor and the Liberals continued to collude on mass surveillance.
“This motion called on the Senate, which just months ago passed a data retention scheme, to acknowledge the reality that the US Court of Appeals has ruled the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies to be unlawful,” Senator Ludlam said.
Read more @ http://www.cso.com.au/article/577660/senate-rejects-us-ruling-metadata-snowden-investigation/
The secretive federal court that oversees the nation’s spies is laying the groundwork for temporarily reauthorizing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) sweeping collection of U.S. phone records. In an order released on Friday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said that a brief lapse in some Patriot Act provisions would not bar the court from renewing the NSA's powers. Although the court asserted its ability to renew the controversial NSA program, it has yet to issue an order giving a green light to the spy agency. The court also decided that it doesn’t need the advice of a new expert panel, in its first ever opportunity to use the friend-of-the-court analysis. Earlier this month, President Obama signed the US Freedom Act, giving the NSA six months to end its bulk phone records collection. The program picks up metadata about which numbers people dial, how long their conversation last and when the calls occurred — but not the actual conversations. Passage of the law, however, came after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a two-day lapse of parts of the Patriot Act, drawing attention to the GOP presidential candidate's opposition to NSA powers and dealing a humiliating setback for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has endorsed his White House bid. Before temporarily renewing the NSA’s powers, as the Obama administration urged the court to do this month, the judges first need to decide whether that temporary lapse forced any permanent changes in the law.
The secretive federal court that oversees the nation’s spies is laying the groundwork for temporarily reauthorizing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) sweeping collection of U.S. phone records.
In an order released on Friday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said that a brief lapse in some Patriot Act provisions would not bar the court from renewing the NSA's powers. Although the court asserted its ability to renew the controversial NSA program, it has yet to issue an order giving a green light to the spy agency.
The court also decided that it doesn’t need the advice of a new expert panel, in its first ever opportunity to use the friend-of-the-court analysis.
Earlier this month, President Obama signed the US Freedom Act, giving the NSA six months to end its bulk phone records collection. The program picks up metadata about which numbers people dial, how long their conversation last and when the calls occurred — but not the actual conversations.
Passage of the law, however, came after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a two-day lapse of parts of the Patriot Act, drawing attention to the GOP presidential candidate's opposition to NSA powers and dealing a humiliating setback for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has endorsed his White House bid.
Before temporarily renewing the NSA’s powers, as the Obama administration urged the court to do this month, the judges first need to decide whether that temporary lapse forced any permanent changes in the law.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/245537-spy-court-clears-path-to-renewing-nsa-powers
The secretive court that oversees U.S. spying programs selected to not consult a panel of privacy advocates in its first decision made since the enactment earlier this month of major surveillance reform, according to an opinion declassified Friday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opted to forgo appointing a so-called "amicus" of privacy advocates as it considered whether the USA Freedom Act could reinstate spying provisions of the Patriot Act even though they expired on June 1 amid an impasse in the Senate. The Court ruled that the Freedom Act's language—which will restore the National Security Agency's bulk collection of U.S. call data for six months before transitioning to a more limited program—could revive those lapsed provisions, but in assessing that narrow legal question, Judge Dennis Saylor concluded that the Court did not first need confer with a privacy panel as proscribed under the reform law.
The secretive court that oversees U.S. spying programs selected to not consult a panel of privacy advocates in its first decision made since the enactment earlier this month of major surveillance reform, according to an opinion declassified Friday.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opted to forgo appointing a so-called "amicus" of privacy advocates as it considered whether the USA Freedom Act could reinstate spying provisions of the Patriot Act even though they expired on June 1 amid an impasse in the Senate.
The Court ruled that the Freedom Act's language—which will restore the National Security Agency's bulk collection of U.S. call data for six months before transitioning to a more limited program—could revive those lapsed provisions, but in assessing that narrow legal question, Judge Dennis Saylor concluded that the Court did not first need confer with a privacy panel as proscribed under the reform law.
Read more @ http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/06/secretive-surveillance-court-skips-talking-privacy-advocates/115864/
The secretive court that oversees US government spying requests has indicated that it will temporarily renew the National Security Agency's bulk phone records collection authority despite a new reform law that ended the dragnet. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – often seen as a compliant "rubber stamp" for US government spying requests – released an order on Friday positing that lapsed spying powers vested in the Patriot Act – which expired without renewal on June 1 -- would not restrict the court from reauthorizing for six months the phone metadata collection program. The FISC order, though, is not yet an official revival of the NSA's surveillance program. FISC Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that it “has the authority to grant the applications and issue the requested orders.”
The secretive court that oversees US government spying requests has indicated that it will temporarily renew the National Security Agency's bulk phone records collection authority despite a new reform law that ended the dragnet.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – often seen as a compliant "rubber stamp" for US government spying requests – released an order on Friday positing that lapsed spying powers vested in the Patriot Act – which expired without renewal on June 1 -- would not restrict the court from reauthorizing for six months the phone metadata collection program. The FISC order, though, is not yet an official revival of the NSA's surveillance program.
FISC Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that it “has the authority to grant the applications and issue the requested orders.”
Read more @ http://rt.com/usa/268441-surveillance-court-nsa-spying/
The long-running dispute is over: Congress has passed a new incarnation of the Patriot Act. So what has changed in the new version? And what does it say about the place of intelligence in our society, and about the future of counterterrorism? As most people know by now, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering the metadata of American phone calls — meaning the "externals" of a call: what number called what other number, when the call was made, how long it lasted. Contrary to popular belief, this does not include the content of what people are saying on the calls or the names of people calling. To even get a whiff of this data up close, the NSA needed permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — and that court even had to approve the foreign numbers NSA thought to be terrorist-related. If the NSA got a "hit," it typically turned that over to the FBI, where they ran through a whole new set of approvals and a separate new court order before being allowed to look deeper. The demonized program was not illegal; its inner workings and scope were merely secret — until Edward Snowden leaked it two years ago. And in all the ink spilled since then, no one has documented abuses in the program.
The long-running dispute is over: Congress has passed a new incarnation of the Patriot Act. So what has changed in the new version? And what does it say about the place of intelligence in our society, and about the future of counterterrorism?
As most people know by now, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering the metadata of American phone calls — meaning the "externals" of a call: what number called what other number, when the call was made, how long it lasted. Contrary to popular belief, this does not include the content of what people are saying on the calls or the names of people calling. To even get a whiff of this data up close, the NSA needed permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — and that court even had to approve the foreign numbers NSA thought to be terrorist-related. If the NSA got a "hit," it typically turned that over to the FBI, where they ran through a whole new set of approvals and a separate new court order before being allowed to look deeper. The demonized program was not illegal; its inner workings and scope were merely secret — until Edward Snowden leaked it two years ago. And in all the ink spilled since then, no one has documented abuses in the program.
Read more @ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/18/ozy-new-patriot-act-making-us-safer/28917357/
Legitimizing State Violence
In spite of their differing perceptions of the architecture of the totalitarian superstate and how it exercised power and control over its residents, George Orwell and Aldus Huxley shared a fundamental conviction. They both argued that the established democracies of the West were moving quickly toward an historical moment when they would willingly relinquish the noble promises and ideals of liberal democracy and enter that menacing space where totalitarianism perverts the modern ideals of justice, freedom, and political emancipation. Both believed that Western democracies were devolving into pathological states in which politics was recognized in the interest of death over life and justice. Both were unequivocal in the shared understanding that the future of civilization was on the verge of total domination or what Hannah Arendt called “dark times.” While Neil Postman and other critical descendants have pitted Orwell and Huxley against each other because of their distinctively separate notions of a future dystopian society,[1] I believe that the dark shadow of authoritarianism that shrouds American society like a thick veil can be lifted by re-examining Orwell’s prescient dystopian fable 1984 as well as Huxley’s Brave New World in light of contemporary neoliberal ascendancy. Rather than pit their dystopian visions against each other, it might be more productive to see them as complementing each other, especially at a time when to quote Antonio Gramsci “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”[2] Both authors provide insights into the merging of the totalitarian elements that constitute a new and more hybridized form of authoritarian control, appearing less as fiction than a threatening portend of the unfolding 21st century. Consumer fantasies and authoritarian control, “Big Brother” intelligence agencies and the voracious seductions of privatized pleasures, along with the rise of the punishing state—which criminalizes an increasing number of behaviors and invests in institutions that incarcerate and are organized principally for the production of violence–and the collapse of democratic public spheres into narrow market-driven orbits of privatization–these now constitute the new order of authoritarianism.
In spite of their differing perceptions of the architecture of the totalitarian superstate and how it exercised power and control over its residents, George Orwell and Aldus Huxley shared a fundamental conviction. They both argued that the established democracies of the West were moving quickly toward an historical moment when they would willingly relinquish the noble promises and ideals of liberal democracy and enter that menacing space where totalitarianism perverts the modern ideals of justice, freedom, and political emancipation. Both believed that Western democracies were devolving into pathological states in which politics was recognized in the interest of death over life and justice. Both were unequivocal in the shared understanding that the future of civilization was on the verge of total domination or what Hannah Arendt called “dark times.”
While Neil Postman and other critical descendants have pitted Orwell and Huxley against each other because of their distinctively separate notions of a future dystopian society,[1] I believe that the dark shadow of authoritarianism that shrouds American society like a thick veil can be lifted by re-examining Orwell’s prescient dystopian fable 1984 as well as Huxley’s Brave New World in light of contemporary neoliberal ascendancy. Rather than pit their dystopian visions against each other, it might be more productive to see them as complementing each other, especially at a time when to quote Antonio Gramsci “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”[2]
Both authors provide insights into the merging of the totalitarian elements that constitute a new and more hybridized form of authoritarian control, appearing less as fiction than a threatening portend of the unfolding 21st century. Consumer fantasies and authoritarian control, “Big Brother” intelligence agencies and the voracious seductions of privatized pleasures, along with the rise of the punishing state—which criminalizes an increasing number of behaviors and invests in institutions that incarcerate and are organized principally for the production of violence–and the collapse of democratic public spheres into narrow market-driven orbits of privatization–these now constitute the new order of authoritarianism.
Read more @ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/19/orwell-huxley-and-americas-plunge-into-authoritarianism/
In the pink, not à l'orange, for this no-peeking Duck SECURE SEARCH ENGINE DuckDuckGo has seen a 600 percent increase in use since the public disclosure of NSA spying practices in 2013. Head DuckDuckGo honcho Gabe Weinberg told CNBC that the Edward Snowden revelations about initiatives such as the PRISM public data collection project had left people craving a way to search the internet without being tracked. "It's a myth that you need to track people to make money in search. We use keywords. If you type in 'car' you get a car ad," he said. DuckDuckGo had its best day ever on the Friday after the initial Snowden revelations appeared, scoring 2.54 million direct searches in a single 24-hour period. "Already we're doing around three billion searches a year, so we're already pretty mainstream," said Weinberg before going on to quote figures suggesting that 40 percent of Americans would rather use a search engine that isn't tracked. "If you concentrate on search you don't need to track people. That's what most people don't even realise," he explained. Weinberg was referring to the fact that most metadata collection revolves around the additional services companies offer, such as photo storage and personal assistants. DuckDuckGo, on the other hand, has taken things back to basics and has been rewarded with a current Alexa rating of 520. Mozilla employs a similar approach in its business model, which uses keywords to populate sponsored tiles on the new tab page of its browser - its first foray into advertising.
In the pink, not à l'orange, for this no-peeking Duck
SECURE SEARCH ENGINE DuckDuckGo has seen a 600 percent increase in use since the public disclosure of NSA spying practices in 2013.
Head DuckDuckGo honcho Gabe Weinberg told CNBC that the Edward Snowden revelations about initiatives such as the PRISM public data collection project had left people craving a way to search the internet without being tracked.
"It's a myth that you need to track people to make money in search. We use keywords. If you type in 'car' you get a car ad," he said.
DuckDuckGo had its best day ever on the Friday after the initial Snowden revelations appeared, scoring 2.54 million direct searches in a single 24-hour period.
"Already we're doing around three billion searches a year, so we're already pretty mainstream," said Weinberg before going on to quote figures suggesting that 40 percent of Americans would rather use a search engine that isn't tracked.
"If you concentrate on search you don't need to track people. That's what most people don't even realise," he explained.
Weinberg was referring to the fact that most metadata collection revolves around the additional services companies offer, such as photo storage and personal assistants.
DuckDuckGo, on the other hand, has taken things back to basics and has been rewarded with a current Alexa rating of 520.
Mozilla employs a similar approach in its business model, which uses keywords to populate sponsored tiles on the new tab page of its browser - its first foray into advertising.
Read more @ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2413997/duckduckgo-has-seen-600-percent-rise-in-trackless-searches-post-snowden
[JURIST] United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression [UN backgrounder] David Kaye on Wednesday issued a report [text, DOC; press release] calling the use of anonymity and encryption software in digital communication vital to free speech. Kaye noted that due to heightened online security and mass and targeted surveillance and data collection, individuals use encryption and anonymity to provide themselves with "online security." However, he recognized such encryption and anonymity have the potential to inhibit criminal investigations pertaining to financial crimes, illicit drugs, child pornography, and terrorism. In concluding, Kaye urged that restrictions on encryption and anonymity must be "strictly limited according to principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimacy in objective."
At The Wall Street Journal’s CFO conference, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden disparaged the idea that the leaking of data collection documents by Edward Snowden was a two-year “nightmare” for the agency. It all came down to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Hayden explained. At the end of the day, he said, the NSA still has access to the cellphone metadata simply by going to court, and then retrieving the data from the phone companies. “And this is it after two years?” Hayden said. “Cool.”
At The Wall Street Journal’s CFO conference, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden disparaged the idea that the leaking of data collection documents by Edward Snowden was a two-year “nightmare” for the agency.
It all came down to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Hayden explained. At the end of the day, he said, the NSA still has access to the cellphone metadata simply by going to court, and then retrieving the data from the phone companies.
“And this is it after two years?” Hayden said. “Cool.”
Read more @ http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/former_nsa_director_hayden_dismisses_snowdens_impact_20150616
I am honestly thinking that this man is possessed by something very dark indeed…..
Michael Hayden laughs off reform of ‘that little 215 programme’. A former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) hailed the lack of progress in rolling back the US surveillance state in the wake of the leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden. Speaking at the Wall Street Journal's CFO Network conference, Michael Hayden claimed the only substantive change for the American surveillance group was the so-called 215 programme, which allowed spies to collect American phone metadata en masse. That scheme was based on the Patriot Act's Section 215 which Congress failed to renew this month due to opposition from both the rightwing Republican and leftwing Democrat parties, in a move that was condemned by the American president Barack Obama. However the country's legislature did pass a provision in the so-called USA Freedom Act that lets spies go to court to ask for such data from telecoms companies, which are obliged to retain such records under the bill. Hayden said that if somebody had told him "this Snowden thing" was "going to be a nightmare" for the two years after the leaks in summer of 2013, but would only lead to "that little 215 programme" being altered, his response would be: "Cool!" He also commented on the allegations that China had attacked the US Office of Personal Management, describing the stolen civil service staff records as "a legitimate foreign intelligence target". "If I as director of CIA or NSA would have had the opportunity to grab the equivalent from the Chinese system, I would not have thought twice," he said.
Michael Hayden laughs off reform of ‘that little 215 programme’.
A former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) hailed the lack of progress in rolling back the US surveillance state in the wake of the leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Speaking at the Wall Street Journal's CFO Network conference, Michael Hayden claimed the only substantive change for the American surveillance group was the so-called 215 programme, which allowed spies to collect American phone metadata en masse.
That scheme was based on the Patriot Act's Section 215 which Congress failed to renew this month due to opposition from both the rightwing Republican and leftwing Democrat parties, in a move that was condemned by the American president Barack Obama.
However the country's legislature did pass a provision in the so-called USA Freedom Act that lets spies go to court to ask for such data from telecoms companies, which are obliged to retain such records under the bill.
Hayden said that if somebody had told him "this Snowden thing" was "going to be a nightmare" for the two years after the leaks in summer of 2013, but would only lead to "that little 215 programme" being altered, his response would be: "Cool!"
He also commented on the allegations that China had attacked the US Office of Personal Management, describing the stolen civil service staff records as "a legitimate foreign intelligence target".
"If I as director of CIA or NSA would have had the opportunity to grab the equivalent from the Chinese system, I would not have thought twice," he said.
Read more @ http://www.cbronline.com/news/cybersecurity/data/former-nsa-chief-celebrates-two-years-of-failed-reform-after-snowden-leaks-4604184
NEW YORK – Marketed as pro-privacy reform of the rancid Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act is about to become law. Though nothing could be further from the truth, many Americans will believe that the National Security Agency (NSA) is being reined in, and move on another issue. The Freedom Act has been characterized as another vindication of Edward Snowden — and, considering the fact that we wouldn’t be discussing the balance between individual privacy rights and national security if he hadn’t made the NSA’s spying against us public, it is. We’re also being told that the Freedom Act will protect us from the NSA. It won’t. “This is more than symbolic,” said Georgia Tech professor Peter Swire, who worked on an Obama task force that studied NSA surveillance in the wake of the Snowden revelations. No. It isn’t. Symbolic is exactly what the Freedom Act is. As The New York Times reports, most of the fascism-lite Patriot Act will remain in force under the Freedom Act: “only three provisions that temporarily expired Monday are now at issue, two of which have apparently been used only rarely.” The Freedom Act mainly affects the collection of “telephony metadata”: times of phone calls, the numbers of you called and were called from, how long you were on the phone, where you were, and so on. Telephony metadata is the tip of the iceberg. Programs like Gumfish, through which NSA agents turn on Americans’ computer cameras to spy on them at their homes — and take photos of them nude and/or while having sex — are unaffected. So will programs like Mystic, which records and stores the voice recordings of your calls for at least five years. As I write in my upcoming biography of Snowden, so do many, many of the NSA’s Orwellian assaults on decency and personal freedoms. Within the narrow sphere of telephony metadata, the Freedom Act creates one major reform: “It would take the government out of the business of bulk collection of telephone and Internet data like the numbers, times and duration of phone calls, leaving that information in the hands of telecommunications companies instead. But the government would still have the power to systematically gain access to the data in order to analyze indirect links between callers, just as it had under the old program.” How exactly will the NSA “systematically gain access” to metadata under the Freedom Act? It will file a request with the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court. Which will always say yes.
NEW YORK – Marketed as pro-privacy reform of the rancid Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act is about to become law. Though nothing could be further from the truth, many Americans will believe that the National Security Agency (NSA) is being reined in, and move on another issue.
The Freedom Act has been characterized as another vindication of Edward Snowden — and, considering the fact that we wouldn’t be discussing the balance between individual privacy rights and national security if he hadn’t made the NSA’s spying against us public, it is.
We’re also being told that the Freedom Act will protect us from the NSA.
It won’t.
“This is more than symbolic,” said Georgia Tech professor Peter Swire, who worked on an Obama task force that studied NSA surveillance in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
No. It isn’t.
Symbolic is exactly what the Freedom Act is.
As The New York Times reports, most of the fascism-lite Patriot Act will remain in force under the Freedom Act: “only three provisions that temporarily expired Monday are now at issue, two of which have apparently been used only rarely.”
The Freedom Act mainly affects the collection of “telephony metadata”: times of phone calls, the numbers of you called and were called from, how long you were on the phone, where you were, and so on.
Telephony metadata is the tip of the iceberg.
Programs like Gumfish, through which NSA agents turn on Americans’ computer cameras to spy on them at their homes — and take photos of them nude and/or while having sex — are unaffected. So will programs like Mystic, which records and stores the voice recordings of your calls for at least five years. As I write in my upcoming biography of Snowden, so do many, many of the NSA’s Orwellian assaults on decency and personal freedoms.
Within the narrow sphere of telephony metadata, the Freedom Act creates one major reform: “It would take the government out of the business of bulk collection of telephone and Internet data like the numbers, times and duration of phone calls, leaving that information in the hands of telecommunications companies instead. But the government would still have the power to systematically gain access to the data in order to analyze indirect links between callers, just as it had under the old program.”
How exactly will the NSA “systematically gain access” to metadata under the Freedom Act? It will file a request with the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court.
Which will always say yes.
Read more @ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/06/07/commentary/world-commentary/why-the-new-usa-freedom-act-is-worthless/
A new groundbreaking report undermines the lawfulness of the NSA’s invasive snooping. Around the world repressive governments are trying to stop Internet users from either posting anonymously or using encryption to communicate securely. Russia requires bloggers with more than 3,000 visitors to register with the state and identify themselves; pseudonyms are outlawed in Vietnam; Ecuador requires commenters on websites to use their real name; Pakistan’s government must grant approval for the use of encryption; and Ethiopia convicted members of the dissident blogging collective Zone 9 on terrorism charges based in part on participation in an online encryption workshop. In a groundbreaking report that was formally presented to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council on Wednesday (and is already available on its website now), David Kaye, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for the freedom of expression, has determined that such actions violate international law. Kaye’s argument is simple and elegant and basically goes like this: The ability to seek and receive information is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law. In order to fully exercise this right—particularly in an environment of growing state surveillance and targeted violence perpetrated by criminal and militant groups—people must be able to communicate securely. A government may only breach this private realm when its actions are established in law; when they serve to achieve a legitimate state objective, such as thwarting a terror plot or investigating criminal activity; when they are necessary to achieving this objective; and when they are a proportionate response, meaning the objective cannot be achieved through some less intrusive means. The opinions of the Special Rapporteur are non-binding, but highly influential. While Kaye’s report won’t stop repressive governments from doing whatever they want to do to restrict speech, it makes clear that such actions are neither legitimate nor legal. In the best-case scenario, his findings will spur countries committed to international legal principles to loosen restrictions on the use of anonymous speech and encryption to bring themselves into compliance. But what is not stated explicitly in Kaye’s report may be the most consequential finding. The legal reasoning that Kaye uses to conclude encryption and anonymity are necessary to the exercise of freedom of expression leads pretty much in a straight line to the conclusion that mass surveillance violates international law. “The right to hold opinions without interference also includes the right to form opinions,” Kaye notes. “Surveillance systems, both targeted and mass, may undermine the right to form an opinion.” Targeted surveillance—in which governments monitor the communication of a specific individual—may be necessary and proportionate to thwart an identifiable threat. But mass surveillance by its nature is not proportionate because it involves governments sucking up vast quantities of information in response to vague threats in the hope of finding useful intelligence at some point in the future.
Around the world repressive governments are trying to stop Internet users from either posting anonymously or using encryption to communicate securely. Russia requires bloggers with more than 3,000 visitors to register with the state and identify themselves; pseudonyms are outlawed in Vietnam; Ecuador requires commenters on websites to use their real name; Pakistan’s government must grant approval for the use of encryption; and Ethiopia convicted members of the dissident blogging collective Zone 9 on terrorism charges based in part on participation in an online encryption workshop.
In a groundbreaking report that was formally presented to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council on Wednesday (and is already available on its website now), David Kaye, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for the freedom of expression, has determined that such actions violate international law.
Kaye’s argument is simple and elegant and basically goes like this: The ability to seek and receive information is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law. In order to fully exercise this right—particularly in an environment of growing state surveillance and targeted violence perpetrated by criminal and militant groups—people must be able to communicate securely. A government may only breach this private realm when its actions are established in law; when they serve to achieve a legitimate state objective, such as thwarting a terror plot or investigating criminal activity; when they are necessary to achieving this objective; and when they are a proportionate response, meaning the objective cannot be achieved through some less intrusive means.
The opinions of the Special Rapporteur are non-binding, but highly influential. While Kaye’s report won’t stop repressive governments from doing whatever they want to do to restrict speech, it makes clear that such actions are neither legitimate nor legal. In the best-case scenario, his findings will spur countries committed to international legal principles to loosen restrictions on the use of anonymous speech and encryption to bring themselves into compliance.
But what is not stated explicitly in Kaye’s report may be the most consequential finding. The legal reasoning that Kaye uses to conclude encryption and anonymity are necessary to the exercise of freedom of expression leads pretty much in a straight line to the conclusion that mass surveillance violates international law. “The right to hold opinions without interference also includes the right to form opinions,” Kaye notes. “Surveillance systems, both targeted and mass, may undermine the right to form an opinion.”
Targeted surveillance—in which governments monitor the communication of a specific individual—may be necessary and proportionate to thwart an identifiable threat. But mass surveillance by its nature is not proportionate because it involves governments sucking up vast quantities of information in response to vague threats in the hope of finding useful intelligence at some point in the future.
Read more @ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/06/mass_surveillance_violates_international_law_david_kaye_s_report_to_the.html
New York lawyer Ben Wizner told chief reporter Martin Shipton his views on the state of world civil liberties and whistleblower Edward Snowden's situation Ben Wizner, a New York lawyer representing Edward Snowden, the former American security agent who exposed the extent of state surveillance in the western world, has been speaking at a major conference at Cardiff University. Chief Reporter Martin Shipton asked Wizner what had changed as a result of Snowden’s disclosures and what comes next for the fugitive whistle-blower, who currently lives in Moscow. Q What is your core message for the conference? I think we hear from some quarters that for all of the drama of the Snowden disclosures, not much has actually changed. We hear that from some sincere people who are concerned there has not been enough reform, but we also hear it from defenders of the security state who essentially want to show their strength and show that Snowden’s act of conscience was in vain, to deter future conduct like that and to demoralise the reform community. I want to give the perspective from across the pond that in the United States there have actually been extraordinary changes, and some of them are more changes in atmosphere than changes in law. Nonetheless they’re very important. In four areas – how the courts in the US have responded to the Snowden disclosures, our legislature, the technology community and the media –the public has emerged stronger and the security state weaker. Q How do you react to those people who say we face a threat of global terrorism and need to have strong security and surveillance to ensure the terrorists don’t get away with it. The debate is not about whether there should be surveillance or not. Surely there are people who are against all surveillance, but you won’t find many of them in the human rights community. The question is surveillance under law – targeted surveillance authorised by judges or these kind of mass, bulk surveillance programmes that passively collect all the communications of everyone, which not only violate rights, we think, but also are demonstrably ineffective in stopping terrorism. If you collect the world’s biggest haystack, it’s harder to find needles. But I also think we need our leaders to have a more mature conversation with the public about what terrorism is – a non-existential but non-eradicable threat. The biggest surveillance system in the world can’t stop two people with guns who want to cause mayhem. Our leaders should be talking to us about resilience and about how strong our societies are, not about how frightened we should be and how powerful terrorists are. Q There have been situations in the UK, including actually in Cardiff, where police forces have infiltrated civil liberty groups, environmental groups, to the extent where some of these people have established sexual relationships with environmentalists in order to spy on them. Has anything like that happened in the US? As far as we know, to that extent not recently. Certainly the US has had a history of that kind of infiltration and manipulation by security services, by the FBI.
Ben Wizner, a New York lawyer representing Edward Snowden, the former American security agent who exposed the extent of state surveillance in the western world, has been speaking at a major conference at Cardiff University.
Chief Reporter Martin Shipton asked Wizner what had changed as a result of Snowden’s disclosures and what comes next for the fugitive whistle-blower, who currently lives in Moscow.
I think we hear from some quarters that for all of the drama of the Snowden disclosures, not much has actually changed.
We hear that from some sincere people who are concerned there has not been enough reform, but we also hear it from defenders of the security state who essentially want to show their strength and show that Snowden’s act of conscience was in vain, to deter future conduct like that and to demoralise the reform community.
I want to give the perspective from across the pond that in the United States there have actually been extraordinary changes, and some of them are more changes in atmosphere than changes in law.
Nonetheless they’re very important. In four areas – how the courts in the US have responded to the Snowden disclosures, our legislature, the technology community and the media –the public has emerged stronger and the security state weaker.
The debate is not about whether there should be surveillance or not. Surely there are people who are against all surveillance, but you won’t find many of them in the human rights community.
The question is surveillance under law – targeted surveillance authorised by judges or these kind of mass, bulk surveillance programmes that passively collect all the communications of everyone, which not only violate rights, we think, but also are demonstrably ineffective in stopping terrorism. If you collect the world’s biggest haystack, it’s harder to find needles.
But I also think we need our leaders to have a more mature conversation with the public about what terrorism is – a non-existential but non-eradicable threat.
The biggest surveillance system in the world can’t stop two people with guns who want to cause mayhem. Our leaders should be talking to us about resilience and about how strong our societies are, not about how frightened we should be and how powerful terrorists are.
As far as we know, to that extent not recently. Certainly the US has had a history of that kind of infiltration and manipulation by security services, by the FBI.
Read more @ http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/fugitive-security-agent-edward-snowdens-9482339
A new official report suggests the UK intelligence agencies should be allowed to keep mass spying activities including its metadata gathering powers. In a 373-page report published on Thursday, official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws has also proposed some changes saying the power to issue interception warrants should be transferred from ministers to judges. The report was commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron last year. The findings are likely to feed into proposed legislative changes on spying announced in the Queen’s speech at the beginning of Cameron’s second term in office. “But trust requires verification. Each intrusive power must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelled out in law, limited in accordance with human rights standards and subject to demanding and visible safeguards”, David Anderson QC said while introducing his report entitled “A Question of Trust”. “I think there is one positive aspect because David Anderson who has done this report has gone some way to identify the defect in the current system and what he actually said that the current system is undemocratic and in the long run it will be intolerable. But we have to wait and see that how much protection the new system they are putting together may provide” Alan Hart, a London-based researcher and author told Press TV. ‘Breach of privacy’ The report which comes in response to revelations by former CIA-NSA contractor Edward Snowden includes enough points to make GCHQ and other British spy agencies happy as they successfully fought to retain their metadata collection powers.
A new official report suggests the UK intelligence agencies should be allowed to keep mass spying activities including its metadata gathering powers.
In a 373-page report published on Thursday, official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws has also proposed some changes saying the power to issue interception warrants should be transferred from ministers to judges.
The report was commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron last year. The findings are likely to feed into proposed legislative changes on spying announced in the Queen’s speech at the beginning of Cameron’s second term in office.
“But trust requires verification. Each intrusive power must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelled out in law, limited in accordance with human rights standards and subject to demanding and visible safeguards”, David Anderson QC said while introducing his report entitled “A Question of Trust”.
“I think there is one positive aspect because David Anderson who has done this report has gone some way to identify the defect in the current system and what he actually said that the current system is undemocratic and in the long run it will be intolerable. But we have to wait and see that how much protection the new system they are putting together may provide” Alan Hart, a London-based researcher and author told Press TV.
‘Breach of privacy’
The report which comes in response to revelations by former CIA-NSA contractor Edward Snowden includes enough points to make GCHQ and other British spy agencies happy as they successfully fought to retain their metadata collection powers.
Read more @ http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/06/11/415385/Let-UK-intel-agencies-do-mass-spying
Belgium follows other EU countries that have already scrapped their own data retention laws A Belgian law requiring telecommunications operators and ISPs to store customer metadata for police investigations was axed by the Constitutional Court of Belgium on Thursday because it violates fundamental privacy rights. Under the law, customer metadata such as call logs as well as location and Internet data had to be stored for one year for law enforcement to use when investigating serious crimes and terrorism. The law went into effect in 2013 and was based on the now defunct EU Data Retention Directive that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) last year, also because it violated fundamental privacy rights. The Belgian law was challenged by the League for Human Rights and the Order of French-speaking and German-speaking Lawyers shortly after it was introduced. They wanted the law annulled, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated European human rights. In its verdict, the Constitutional Court said it decided to scrap the law for the same reasons as the CJEU invalidated the Data Retention Directive. The Belgian law also violates articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which cover the right of individuals to privacy in their lives and communications as well as the protection of their personal data. The law also violates article 52, which states that limitations on people's freedoms may only be made if they are necessary and genuinely meet the objectives of general interest.
Belgium follows other EU countries that have already scrapped their own data retention laws
A Belgian law requiring telecommunications operators and ISPs to store customer metadata for police investigations was axed by the Constitutional Court of Belgium on Thursday because it violates fundamental privacy rights.
Under the law, customer metadata such as call logs as well as location and Internet data had to be stored for one year for law enforcement to use when investigating serious crimes and terrorism.
The law went into effect in 2013 and was based on the now defunct EU Data Retention Directive that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) last year, also because it violated fundamental privacy rights.
The Belgian law was challenged by the League for Human Rights and the Order of French-speaking and German-speaking Lawyers shortly after it was introduced. They wanted the law annulled, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated European human rights.
In its verdict, the Constitutional Court said it decided to scrap the law for the same reasons as the CJEU invalidated the Data Retention Directive.
Read more @ http://www.techworld.com.au/article/577249/belgian-data-retention-law-axed-by-constitutional-court/
Jun 21 15 7:08 PM
As many as 600 million Samsung phones may be vulnerable to attacks that allow hackers to surreptitiously monitor the camera and microphone, read incoming and outgoing text messages, and install malicious apps, a security researcher said. The vulnerability is in the update mechanism for a Samsung-customized version of SwiftKey, available on the Samsung Galaxy S6, S5, and several other Galaxy models. When downloading updates, the Samsung devices don't encrypt the executable file, making it possible for attackers in a position to modify upstream traffic—such as those on the same Wi-Fi network—to replace the legitimate file with a malicious payload. The exploit was demonstrated Tuesday at the Blackhat security conference in London by Ryan Welton, a researcher with security firm NowSecure. A video of his exploit is here.
As many as 600 million Samsung phones may be vulnerable to attacks that allow hackers to surreptitiously monitor the camera and microphone, read incoming and outgoing text messages, and install malicious apps, a security researcher said.
The vulnerability is in the update mechanism for a Samsung-customized version of SwiftKey, available on the Samsung Galaxy S6, S5, and several other Galaxy models. When downloading updates, the Samsung devices don't encrypt the executable file, making it possible for attackers in a position to modify upstream traffic—such as those on the same Wi-Fi network—to replace the legitimate file with a malicious payload. The exploit was demonstrated Tuesday at the Blackhat security conference in London by Ryan Welton, a researcher with security firm NowSecure. A video of his exploit is here.
Read more @ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/new-exploit-turns-samsung-galaxy-phones-into-remote-bugging-devices/
Jun 26 15 8:45 AM
What on earth!!! If churches have this kind of technology I can’t even begin to imagine what the spies have to track and monitor people. Very darn scary!
Face-tracking tech knows when you skip church services
More than two dozen churches around the world have installed a facial-recognition system that monitors which members of the flock have actually shown up for the Sunday sermon. The system is called Churchix and was developed by Israeli software company, Face-six. It continually scans the religious center's CCTV feed and matches congregation members to a pre-existing database of their faces -- reportedly with 99 percent accuracy.
And the same goes for Facebook!
You may have thought that Facebook knew a lot about you before, but now the company doesn't even need your face to spot you in photos. As part of its extensive machine vision research to improve facial recognition, the social network has developed a new algorithm that can recognize people based on things like hair, personal style, and body shape. New Scientist reports that Facebook researchers presented the new system at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition conference in Boston earlier this month. The group used 40,000 publicly available photos from Flickr to develop a neural network that recognized both faces and other physiological characteristics. Once it was finalized, the algorithm was able to identify people 83 percent of the time. There are a lot of cues we use. People have characteristic aspects, even if you look at them from the back," said Yann LeCun, the head of artificial intelligence at Facebook. "For example, you can recognize Mark Zuckerberg very easily, because he always wears a gray T-shirt."
You may have thought that Facebook knew a lot about you before, but now the company doesn't even need your face to spot you in photos. As part of its extensive machine vision research to improve facial recognition, the social network has developed a new algorithm that can recognize people based on things like hair, personal style, and body shape.
New Scientist reports that Facebook researchers presented the new system at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition conference in Boston earlier this month. The group used 40,000 publicly available photos from Flickr to develop a neural network that recognized both faces and other physiological characteristics. Once it was finalized, the algorithm was able to identify people 83 percent of the time.
There are a lot of cues we use. People have characteristic aspects, even if you look at them from the back," said Yann LeCun, the head of artificial intelligence at Facebook. "For example, you can recognize Mark Zuckerberg very easily, because he always wears a gray T-shirt."
Read more @ http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/23/facebook_s_new_machine_vision_algorithm_can_identify_people_without_their.html
The once-secretive, now-notorious Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group ran its online propaganda and manipulation operations at home as well as abroad. JTRIG's domestic operations used fake accounts to "deter," "promote distrust" and "discredit" in political discussions on social media, uploaded fake book/magazine articles with "incorrect information," hacked websites, set up ecommerce sites that were fraudulent operations designed to rip off their adversaries and so on. They relied on psychological research on inspiring "obedience" and "conformity" to inform their work. Most of the groups targeted by JTRIG are ones I have little time for -- Islamic extremists, neo-Nazis, etc -- but the right way for a state to intervene in political debates isn't through secret misinformation campaigns. The philosophies of these groups are laughable on their face, and it's alarming to learn that the UK establishment's go-to rebuttal for ideas this dumb is to create fake newspaper articles. If that's how debate works at Eton and Oxbridge, it's no wonder Prime Minister's Question Time is such a clownshow. JTRIG’s domestic and law enforcement operations are made clear. The report states that the controversial unit “currently collaborates with other agencies” including the Metropolitan police, Security Service (MI5), Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Border Agency, Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and National Public Order and Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). The document highlights that key JTRIG objectives include “providing intelligence for judicial outcomes;” monitoring “domestic extremist groups such as the English Defence League by conducting online HUMINT;” “denying, deterring or dissuading” criminals and “hacktivists;” and “deterring, disrupting or degrading online consumerism of stolen data or child porn.” It touts the fact that the unit “may cover all areas of the globe.” Specifically, “operations are currently targeted at” numerous countries and regions including Argentina, Eastern Europe and the UK. JTRIG’s domestic operations fit into a larger pattern of UK-focused and traditional law enforcement activities within GCHQ.
The once-secretive, now-notorious Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group ran its online propaganda and manipulation operations at home as well as abroad.
JTRIG's domestic operations used fake accounts to "deter," "promote distrust" and "discredit" in political discussions on social media, uploaded fake book/magazine articles with "incorrect information," hacked websites, set up ecommerce sites that were fraudulent operations designed to rip off their adversaries and so on. They relied on psychological research on inspiring "obedience" and "conformity" to inform their work.
Most of the groups targeted by JTRIG are ones I have little time for -- Islamic extremists, neo-Nazis, etc -- but the right way for a state to intervene in political debates isn't through secret misinformation campaigns. The philosophies of these groups are laughable on their face, and it's alarming to learn that the UK establishment's go-to rebuttal for ideas this dumb is to create fake newspaper articles. If that's how debate works at Eton and Oxbridge, it's no wonder Prime Minister's Question Time is such a clownshow.
JTRIG’s domestic and law enforcement operations are made clear. The report states that the controversial unit “currently collaborates with other agencies” including the Metropolitan police, Security Service (MI5), Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Border Agency, Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and National Public Order and Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). The document highlights that key JTRIG objectives include “providing intelligence for judicial outcomes;” monitoring “domestic extremist groups such as the English Defence League by conducting online HUMINT;” “denying, deterring or dissuading” criminals and “hacktivists;” and “deterring, disrupting or degrading online consumerism of stolen data or child porn.”
It touts the fact that the unit “may cover all areas of the globe.” Specifically, “operations are currently targeted at” numerous countries and regions including Argentina, Eastern Europe and the UK.
JTRIG’s domestic operations fit into a larger pattern of UK-focused and traditional law enforcement activities within GCHQ.
Read more @ http://boingboing.net/2015/06/22/gchqs-psy-ops-squad-targette.html?fk_bb
The spy unit responsible for some of the United Kingdom’s most controversial tactics of surveillance, online propaganda and deceit focuses extensively on traditional law enforcement and domestic activities — even though officials typically justify its activities by emphasizing foreign intelligence and counterterrorism operations. Documents published today by The Intercept demonstrate how the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), a unit of the signals intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), is involved in efforts against political groups it considers “extremist,” Islamist activity in schools, the drug trade, online fraud and financial scams. Though its existence was secret until last year, JTRIG quickly developed a distinctive profile in the public understanding, after documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the unit had engaged in “dirty tricks” like deploying sexual “honey traps” designed to discredit targets, launching denial-of-service attacks to shut down Internet chat rooms, pushing veiled propaganda onto social networks and generally warping discourse online. Early official claims attempted to create the impression that JTRIG’s activities focused on international targets in places like Iran, Afghanistan and Argentina. The closest the group seemed to get to home was in its targeting of transnational “hacktivist” group Anonymous. While some of the unit’s activities are focused on the claimed areas, JTRIG also appears to be intimately involved in traditional law enforcement areas and U.K.-specific activity, as previously unpublished documents demonstrate. An August 2009 JTRIG memo entitled “Operational Highlights” boasts of “GCHQ’s first serious crime effects operation” against a website that was identifying police informants and members of a witness protection program. Another operation investigated an Internet forum allegedly “used to facilitate and execute online fraud.” The document also describes GCHQ advice provided “to assist the UK negotiating team on climate change.” Particularly revealing is a fascinating 42-page document from 2011 detailing JTRIG’s activities. It provides the most comprehensive and sweeping insight to date into the scope of this unit’s extreme methods. Entitled “Behavioral Science Support for JTRIG’s Effects and Online HUMINT [Human Intelligence] Operations,” it describes the types of targets on which the unit focuses, the psychological and behavioral research it commissions and exploits, and its future organizational aspirations. It is authored by a psychologist, Mandeep K. Dhami.
The spy unit responsible for some of the United Kingdom’s most controversial tactics of surveillance, online propaganda and deceit focuses extensively on traditional law enforcement and domestic activities — even though officials typically justify its activities by emphasizing foreign intelligence and counterterrorism operations.
Documents published today by The Intercept demonstrate how the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), a unit of the signals intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), is involved in efforts against political groups it considers “extremist,” Islamist activity in schools, the drug trade, online fraud and financial scams.
Though its existence was secret until last year, JTRIG quickly developed a distinctive profile in the public understanding, after documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the unit had engaged in “dirty tricks” like deploying sexual “honey traps” designed to discredit targets, launching denial-of-service attacks to shut down Internet chat rooms, pushing veiled propaganda onto social networks and generally warping discourse online.
Early official claims attempted to create the impression that JTRIG’s activities focused on international targets in places like Iran, Afghanistan and Argentina. The closest the group seemed to get to home was in its targeting of transnational “hacktivist” group Anonymous.
While some of the unit’s activities are focused on the claimed areas, JTRIG also appears to be intimately involved in traditional law enforcement areas and U.K.-specific activity, as previously unpublished documents demonstrate. An August 2009 JTRIG memo entitled “Operational Highlights” boasts of “GCHQ’s first serious crime effects operation” against a website that was identifying police informants and members of a witness protection program. Another operation investigated an Internet forum allegedly “used to facilitate and execute online fraud.” The document also describes GCHQ advice provided “to assist the UK negotiating team on climate change.”
Particularly revealing is a fascinating 42-page document from 2011 detailing JTRIG’s activities. It provides the most comprehensive and sweeping insight to date into the scope of this unit’s extreme methods. Entitled “Behavioral Science Support for JTRIG’s Effects and Online HUMINT [Human Intelligence] Operations,” it describes the types of targets on which the unit focuses, the psychological and behavioral research it commissions and exploits, and its future organizational aspirations. It is authored by a psychologist, Mandeep K. Dhami.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/22/controversial-gchq-unit-domestic-law-enforcement-propaganda/
The federal government has refused to recognise a decision by a US appeals court which ruled that mass collection of telecommunications metadata. Parliament today rejected a motion by Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam that the senate take note the ruling and recognise that “Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs”. The Greens also recognise the work of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in exposing mass surveillance programs among the so-called ‘five eyes’ allies of which Australia is a member. The motion was overwhelmingly rejected by 38 votes to 15. Senator Ludlam said that Labor and the Liberals continued to collude on mass surveillance. “This motion called on the Senate, which just months ago passed a data retention scheme, to acknowledge the reality that the US Court of Appeals has ruled the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies to be unlawful,” Senator Ludlam said. “Australians and users of telecommunications services everywhere have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of indiscriminate surveillance programs.
“Australians and users of telecommunications services everywhere have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of indiscriminate surveillance programs.
It looks to me that governments are becoming more and more insecure….. I did read an old prophecy many years ago that said that governments will end….. are we witness to seeing the death throes of governments in their bid to keep power over the people?
[JURIST] The French Parliament [official website] on Wednesday adopted a surveillance bill [materials, in French] that would give French intelligence services the authority to monitor Internet use metadata. It is reported [AP report] that the bill also allows for court ordered surveillance of suspects homes and cars utilizing beacons and tracking devices. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has commented [JURIST report] on the new law and it's provisions stating,"[t]hese are legal tools, but not tools of exception, nor of generalized surveillance of citizens. There will not be a French Patriot Act." France's previous surveillance law was passed in 1991, before much of today's mobile and internet technology.
Read more @ http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/06/france-parliament-adopts-new-surveillance-bill.php
Government leaders have no compunction in writing laws to spy on everyone but when it’s them being spied on they get all uppity….. what a joke. It just shows how much they think they are better than everyone else.
PARIS — WikiLeaks published documents late Tuesday that it says show the U.S. National Security Agency eavesdropped on the last three French presidents, releasing material which appeared to capture officials in Paris talking candidly about Greece's economy, relations with Germany — and, ironically, American espionage. The release caused an uproar among French politicians, although it didn't reveal any huge surprises or secrets. France itself is on the verge of approving broad new surveillance powers and is among several U.S. allies that rely heavily on American spying powers when trying to prevent terrorist and other threats. There was no instant confirmation of the accuracy of the documents released in collaboration with French daily newspaper Liberation and investigative website Mediapart, but WikiLeaks has a track record of publishing intelligence and diplomatic material. It appeared serious enough to prompt an emergency meeting of President Francois Hollande's defense council, according to presidential aides. The council, convening Wednesday morning, includes top French security officials. WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told The Associated Press he was confident the documents were authrance entic, noting that WikiLeaks' previous mass disclosures — including a large cache of Saudi diplomatic memos released last week — have proven to be accurate.
PARIS — WikiLeaks published documents late Tuesday that it says show the U.S. National Security Agency eavesdropped on the last three French presidents, releasing material which appeared to capture officials in Paris talking candidly about Greece's economy, relations with Germany — and, ironically, American espionage.
The release caused an uproar among French politicians, although it didn't reveal any huge surprises or secrets. France itself is on the verge of approving broad new surveillance powers and is among several U.S. allies that rely heavily on American spying powers when trying to prevent terrorist and other threats.
There was no instant confirmation of the accuracy of the documents released in collaboration with French daily newspaper Liberation and investigative website Mediapart, but WikiLeaks has a track record of publishing intelligence and diplomatic material. It appeared serious enough to prompt an emergency meeting of President Francois Hollande's defense council, according to presidential aides. The council, convening Wednesday morning, includes top French security officials.
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told The Associated Press he was confident the documents were authrance entic, noting that WikiLeaks' previous mass disclosures — including a large cache of Saudi diplomatic memos released last week — have proven to be accurate.
Read more @ http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/new-wikileaks-docs-nsa-eavesdropped-on-past-3-french-presidents-1.354160
France summons U.S. ambassador after reports U.S. spied on presidents
PARIS (AP) — Embarrassed by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents and angered by new evidence of uninhibited American spying, France demanded answers Wednesday and called for an intelligence "code of conduct" between allies. France's foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, while President Barack Obama spoke by phone with his French counterpart. And all eyes were fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy after reports that a nest of NSA surveillance equipment was concealed there, just down the block from the presidential Elysee Palace. "Commitments were made by our American allies. They must be firmly recalled and strictly respected," Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. "Being loyal doesn't mean falling into line." Obama told Hollande in the phone conversation Wednesday that the U.S. wasn't targeting his communications, the White House said. Obama said the U.S. was abiding by a commitment that he made in 2013 not to spy on the French leader after Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of NSA surveillance powers. That pledge came a year after the last of the revelations in the new Wikileaks trove, which date from 2006 to 2012 and appear to capture top French officials talking candidly about relations with Germany, Greece's economy and American spying on allies.
PARIS (AP) — Embarrassed by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents and angered by new evidence of uninhibited American spying, France demanded answers Wednesday and called for an intelligence "code of conduct" between allies.
France's foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, while President Barack Obama spoke by phone with his French counterpart. And all eyes were fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy after reports that a nest of NSA surveillance equipment was concealed there, just down the block from the presidential Elysee Palace.
"Commitments were made by our American allies. They must be firmly recalled and strictly respected," Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. "Being loyal doesn't mean falling into line."
Obama told Hollande in the phone conversation Wednesday that the U.S. wasn't targeting his communications, the White House said. Obama said the U.S. was abiding by a commitment that he made in 2013 not to spy on the French leader after Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of NSA surveillance powers.
That pledge came a year after the last of the revelations in the new Wikileaks trove, which date from 2006 to 2012 and appear to capture top French officials talking candidly about relations with Germany, Greece's economy and American spying on allies.
Read more @ http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=35214540
French officials have reacted with outrage to new WikiLeaks revelations that the US spied on French presidents. But some analysts say the response is just an act of political theatre from a nation that does some significant spying of its own. French officials were quick to condemn new WikiLeaks revelations this week that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on the last three French presidents – incumbent François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac – as well as other high-level officials. A special session of the Defense Council was called at the Elysée presidential palace and the US ambassador was duly summoned. France’s intelligence coordinator and the director general of France’s external security agency, the DGSE, were dispatched to Washington, ostensibly to demand an explanation from their American counterparts.
French officials were quick to condemn new WikiLeaks revelations this week that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on the last three French presidents – incumbent François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac – as well as other high-level officials.
A special session of the Defense Council was called at the Elysée presidential palace and the US ambassador was duly summoned. France’s intelligence coordinator and the director general of France’s external security agency, the DGSE, were dispatched to Washington, ostensibly to demand an explanation from their American counterparts.
Read more @ http://www.france24.com/en/20150625-wikileaks-france-nsa-victim-intelligence-game-spying-espionage-hollande
The United States ambassador to France is reiterating American pledges of close cooperation in intelligence and security after revelations that the NSA was eavesdropping on three French presidents. Ambassador Jane Hartley released a statement Thursday, a day after she was summoned by France's foreign minister to answer for the WikiLeaks revelations. US President Barack Obama told French President François Hollande that the isn't targeting his communications, according to the White House. Obama said the is abiding by a commitment that he made in 2013 not to spy on the French leader after Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of NSA surveillance powers. On Wednesday, the French parliament passed a law giving the state intelligence services more latitude to eavesdrop on the public, amid outrage over revelations that the US spied on the last three French presidents. Despite vocal opposition from civil rights groups, Hollande's government rushed the bill out earlier this year, after Islamist militant attacks that killed 17 people in January.
The United States ambassador to France is reiterating American pledges of close cooperation in intelligence and security after revelations that the NSA was eavesdropping on three French presidents.
Ambassador Jane Hartley released a statement Thursday, a day after she was summoned by France's foreign minister to answer for the WikiLeaks revelations.
US President Barack Obama told French President François Hollande that the isn't targeting his communications, according to the White House. Obama said the is abiding by a commitment that he made in 2013 not to spy on the French leader after Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of NSA surveillance powers.
On Wednesday, the French parliament passed a law giving the state intelligence services more latitude to eavesdrop on the public, amid outrage over revelations that the US spied on the last three French presidents.
Despite vocal opposition from civil rights groups, Hollande's government rushed the bill out earlier this year, after Islamist militant attacks that killed 17 people in January.
Read more @ http://www.todayszaman.com/world_us-envoy-in-paris-pledges-cooperation-after-spy-allegations_391874.html
Government spokesman Stephane Le Foll called the revelations "incomprehensible." (TRNS)- French President Francois Hollande met with his Defense Council Wednesday following the release of documents by WikiLeaks which say the United States spied on the last three French presidents. The documents were published in the French paper Liberation and on the investigative website Mediapart late Tuesday. The materials allege that from at least 2006 to 2012, the NSA eavesdropped on the secret communications of Hollande and his predecessors, including discussions on Greece and France’s relationship with Germany. The Elysee Palace, or French presidential palace, issued a statement Wednesday calling the alleged spying “unacceptable” and that France “will not tolerate any activity that threatens its security and the protection of its interests.” U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry, government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters. “France does not listen in on its allies,” Le Foll said.
Government spokesman Stephane Le Foll called the revelations "incomprehensible."
(TRNS)- French President Francois Hollande met with his Defense Council Wednesday following the release of documents by WikiLeaks which say the United States spied on the last three French presidents.
The documents were published in the French paper Liberation and on the investigative website Mediapart late Tuesday. The materials allege that from at least 2006 to 2012, the NSA eavesdropped on the secret communications of Hollande and his predecessors, including discussions on Greece and France’s relationship with Germany.
The Elysee Palace, or French presidential palace, issued a statement Wednesday calling the alleged spying “unacceptable” and that France “will not tolerate any activity that threatens its security and the protection of its interests.”
U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry, government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters.
“France does not listen in on its allies,” Le Foll said.
Read more @ http://www.talkradionews.com/white-house/2015/06/24/french-president-blasts-u-s-over-spying-allegations.html
PARIS – Embarrassed by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents and angered by new evidence of uninhibited American spying, France demanded answers Wednesday and called for an intelligence “code of conduct” between allies. France’s foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, while President Barack Obama spoke by phone with his French counterpart. And all eyes were fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy after reports that a nest of NSA surveillance equipment was concealed there, just down the block from the presidential Elysee Palace. “Commitments were made by our American allies. They must be firmly recalled and strictly respected,” Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. “Being loyal doesn’t mean falling into line.”
PARIS – Embarrassed by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents and angered by new evidence of uninhibited American spying, France demanded answers Wednesday and called for an intelligence “code of conduct” between allies.
France’s foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, while President Barack Obama spoke by phone with his French counterpart. And all eyes were fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy after reports that a nest of NSA surveillance equipment was concealed there, just down the block from the presidential Elysee Palace.
“Commitments were made by our American allies. They must be firmly recalled and strictly respected,” Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. “Being loyal doesn’t mean falling into line.”
Read more @ http://www.570news.com/2015/06/24/anger-no-surprises-as-us-is-accused-of-spying-on-an-ally-this-time-france/
Opposition lawmaker says Islamabad should protest to London over the illegal intrusion. Pakistani rights campaigners and opposition lawmakers have urged Islamabad to protect the privacy of its citizens after leaked top-secret documents appeared to show British intelligence had gained access to almost all the country’s Internet users. The revelations were based on a cache of files from 2008 released by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden and reported by journalists Andrew Fishman and Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept, an online news outlet, this week. In a document marked “TOP SECRET STRAP2 UK EYES ONLY” allegedly issued by Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the spy agency discusses its computer network exploitation (CNE) and software reverse engineering efforts abroad. “Capability against Cisco routers developed by this means has allowed a CNE presence on the Pakistan Internet Exchange which affords access to almost any user of the Internet inside Pakistan,” it said, referring to a U.S. technology company that provides most of the world’s network infrastructure. “Our presence on routers likewise allows us to re-route selected traffic across international links towards GCHQ’s passive collection systems.” Pakistan’s Digital Rights Foundation, a non-profit that campaigns for online privacy, said in a statement Tuesday: “This hacking operation, at a scale never previously seen before from the British intelligence agency, seriously undermines the right to privacy of all users of the internet in Pakistan.”
Pakistani rights campaigners and opposition lawmakers have urged Islamabad to protect the privacy of its citizens after leaked top-secret documents appeared to show British intelligence had gained access to almost all the country’s Internet users.
The revelations were based on a cache of files from 2008 released by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden and reported by journalists Andrew Fishman and Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept, an online news outlet, this week.
In a document marked “TOP SECRET STRAP2 UK EYES ONLY” allegedly issued by Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the spy agency discusses its computer network exploitation (CNE) and software reverse engineering efforts abroad.
“Capability against Cisco routers developed by this means has allowed a CNE presence on the Pakistan Internet Exchange which affords access to almost any user of the Internet inside Pakistan,” it said, referring to a U.S. technology company that provides most of the world’s network infrastructure. “Our presence on routers likewise allows us to re-route selected traffic across international links towards GCHQ’s passive collection systems.”
Pakistan’s Digital Rights Foundation, a non-profit that campaigns for online privacy, said in a statement Tuesday: “This hacking operation, at a scale never previously seen before from the British intelligence agency, seriously undermines the right to privacy of all users of the internet in Pakistan.”
Read more @ http://newsweekpakistan.com/pakistani-activists-slam-unethical-british-hacking-claims/
ISLAMABAD: Pakistani rights campaigners and opposition lawmakers have urged Islamabad to protect the privacy of its citizens after leaked top-secret documents appeared to show British intelligence had gained access to almost all the country’s Internet users. The revelations were based on a cache of files from 2008 released by former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden and reported by journalists Andrew Fishman and Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept, an online news outlet, this week. In a document marked “TOP SECRET STRAP2 UK EYES ONLY” allegedly issued by Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the spy agency discusses its computer network exploitation (CNE) and software reverse engineering efforts abroad.
ISLAMABAD: Concerns among digital rights activists and lawmakers have increased after the Britain Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) claimed to have gained access to Pakistan’s Internet Exchange under its computer network exploitation (CNE). The disclosures, made by journalists Glenn Grennwald and Andrew Fishman in a recent article for The Intercept, clue that by utilizing vulnerabilities in ‘Cisco routers’ and software reveres-engineering (SRE), the agency was capable to access ‘almost any user of the Internet’ inside Pakistan and also able ‘to re-route selective traffic across international links towards GCHQ’s passive collection systems.’
ISLAMABAD: Concerns among digital rights activists and lawmakers have increased after the Britain Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) claimed to have gained access to Pakistan’s Internet Exchange under its computer network exploitation (CNE).
The disclosures, made by journalists Glenn Grennwald and Andrew Fishman in a recent article for The Intercept, clue that by utilizing vulnerabilities in ‘Cisco routers’ and software reveres-engineering (SRE), the agency was capable to access ‘almost any user of the Internet’ inside Pakistan and also able ‘to re-route selective traffic across international links towards GCHQ’s passive collection systems.’
Read more @ http://www.thenewsteller.com/tech/internet-world-in-pakistan-pried-by-uk-gchq-claims/18297/
This month, we discuss American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper,1 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Gerard E. Lynch and joined by Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack and Vernon S. Broderick (Southern District of New York, sitting by designation), with Sack issuing a concurring opinion, found that the collection of telephone metadata by the National Security Agency (NSA) exceeded the authority granted to it by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),2 as amended by Section 215 of the U.S. Patriot Act.3 Specifically, the court ruled that the government's interpretation of Section 215 was overly broad and that Section 215 did not permit the collection of telephone metadata undertaken by the NSA. The court, however, found that its finding was insufficient to merit the court granting a preliminary injunction. In so ruling, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case to the district court. Background Congress enacted FISA in the 1970s against a backdrop of warrantless surveillance programs being conducted by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA. These early surveillance programs were struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Keith).4 In response to these surveillance programs and the Supreme Court's decision in Keith, the Senate created the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "church committee"), to investigate the surveillance programs and to determine whether legislation was needed. FISA resulted from these efforts. FISA created a statutory scheme whereby the government makes applications to a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which conducts its proceedings ex parte and in secret. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress enacted the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001, which amended various surveillance laws, including FISA. Section 215 of this act substantially revised FISA to authorize the director of the FBI or his designee to request from the FISC orders for the production of "any tangible things…for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."5 An order under Section 215 is limited to the production of anything that "can be obtained with a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation" or any other court order.6 This provision contained a sunset provision and has required subsequent renewals by Congress, with the most recent renewal expiring on June 1, 2015.7 Since at least May 2006, the FBI and NSA have been involved in a program of bulk collection of telephone metadata pursuant to a Section 215 order obtained from the FISC. This order became public as a result of the leaked classified material from former government contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013, when Snowden revealed a FISC order directed at Verizon to produce call detail records of all telephone calls made using Verizon's systems or services where one or both ends of the call were located within the United States. Since FISC orders must be renewed every 90 days, the program has been renewed 41 times since May 2006, with the most recent reauthorization occurring on Feb. 26, 2015, which lasted until June 1, 2015.
This month, we discuss American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper,1 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Gerard E. Lynch and joined by Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack and Vernon S. Broderick (Southern District of New York, sitting by designation), with Sack issuing a concurring opinion, found that the collection of telephone metadata by the National Security Agency (NSA) exceeded the authority granted to it by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),2 as amended by Section 215 of the U.S. Patriot Act.3 Specifically, the court ruled that the government's interpretation of Section 215 was overly broad and that Section 215 did not permit the collection of telephone metadata undertaken by the NSA. The court, however, found that its finding was insufficient to merit the court granting a preliminary injunction. In so ruling, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case to the district court.
Congress enacted FISA in the 1970s against a backdrop of warrantless surveillance programs being conducted by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA. These early surveillance programs were struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Keith).4 In response to these surveillance programs and the Supreme Court's decision in Keith, the Senate created the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "church committee"), to investigate the surveillance programs and to determine whether legislation was needed. FISA resulted from these efforts.
FISA created a statutory scheme whereby the government makes applications to a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which conducts its proceedings ex parte and in secret. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress enacted the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001, which amended various surveillance laws, including FISA. Section 215 of this act substantially revised FISA to authorize the director of the FBI or his designee to request from the FISC orders for the production of "any tangible things…for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."5
An order under Section 215 is limited to the production of anything that "can be obtained with a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation" or any other court order.6 This provision contained a sunset provision and has required subsequent renewals by Congress, with the most recent renewal expiring on June 1, 2015.7
Since at least May 2006, the FBI and NSA have been involved in a program of bulk collection of telephone metadata pursuant to a Section 215 order obtained from the FISC. This order became public as a result of the leaked classified material from former government contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013, when Snowden revealed a FISC order directed at Verizon to produce call detail records of all telephone calls made using Verizon's systems or services where one or both ends of the call were located within the United States. Since FISC orders must be renewed every 90 days, the program has been renewed 41 times since May 2006, with the most recent reauthorization occurring on Feb. 26, 2015, which lasted until June 1, 2015.
Read more @ http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202730150541/Government-Collection-of-Telephone-Metadata-Exceeds-Statutes-Authority?slreturn=20150525192710
It has been a little more than two years since the whistleblower Edward Snowden’s first leaks of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents revealing unchecked mass surveillance practices by the U.S. government, and it is safe to say that we now live in a totally different world. The core questions first raised by the Snowden leaks – whether or not governments should have power to wiretap and hack citizens without the burden of probable cause and warrants – have not disappeared or been forgotten, like so many other news stories. In fact, privacy advocates just recently celebrated the first tangible political victory with the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, which although an exceedingly modest step, represents the first time in history that Congress has acted to restrain the powers of the NSA. And we didn’t have to wait long to see a response from the intelligence community. Last week the UK newspaper The Sunday Times published its story “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese” citing a number of anonymous government sources who claimed Snowden had caused irreparable, far-reaching damage because foreign powers had allegedly “cracked” Snowden’s encrypted document cache. According to the unnamed officials, Snowden has “blood on his hands,” though the article acknowledges there’s no evidence backing it up. Snowden’s opponents rejoiced – finally here was the proof that the NSA leaks have caused more harm than benefit. One opinion piece published in the German newspaper Bild slammed Snowden for his recklessness, arguing that he “does not fully understand” the scope of what he has revealed, and further, that his discrediting of the U.S. intelligence apparatus has enabled even worse abuses of espionage by less free governments – though I’m not so sure about this leap of logic. It’s not my place to debate the journalistic standards of the Sunday Times report, though many others have picked it apart, including Glenn Greenwald. Writing at Wired, journalist Bruce Schneier argues that China and Russia likely already had access to this intelligence, and not because of Snowden. The Sunday Times author, Tom Harper, told CNN that he had seen no evidence that the files were breached, that he had no details about how it had been accomplished, nor did he have any information on what files were allegedly accessed, so the story appears rather weak.
It has been a little more than two years since the whistleblower Edward Snowden’s first leaks of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents revealing unchecked mass surveillance practices by the U.S. government, and it is safe to say that we now live in a totally different world.
The core questions first raised by the Snowden leaks – whether or not governments should have power to wiretap and hack citizens without the burden of probable cause and warrants – have not disappeared or been forgotten, like so many other news stories. In fact, privacy advocates just recently celebrated the first tangible political victory with the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, which although an exceedingly modest step, represents the first time in history that Congress has acted to restrain the powers of the NSA.
And we didn’t have to wait long to see a response from the intelligence community. Last week the UK newspaper The Sunday Times published its story “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese” citing a number of anonymous government sources who claimed Snowden had caused irreparable, far-reaching damage because foreign powers had allegedly “cracked” Snowden’s encrypted document cache. According to the unnamed officials, Snowden has “blood on his hands,” though the article acknowledges there’s no evidence backing it up.
Snowden’s opponents rejoiced – finally here was the proof that the NSA leaks have caused more harm than benefit. One opinion piece published in the German newspaper Bild slammed Snowden for his recklessness, arguing that he “does not fully understand” the scope of what he has revealed, and further, that his discrediting of the U.S. intelligence apparatus has enabled even worse abuses of espionage by less free governments – though I’m not so sure about this leap of logic.
It’s not my place to debate the journalistic standards of the Sunday Times report, though many others have picked it apart, including Glenn Greenwald. Writing at Wired, journalist Bruce Schneier argues that China and Russia likely already had access to this intelligence, and not because of Snowden. The Sunday Times author, Tom Harper, told CNN that he had seen no evidence that the files were breached, that he had no details about how it had been accomplished, nor did he have any information on what files were allegedly accessed, so the story appears rather weak.
Read more @ http://www.eurasiareview.com/22062015-edward-snowden-and-the-strategy-of-tension-oped/
In his book Skating on Stilts, former US Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker examines the numerous ways—air travel, biotech, the Internet—that America has left itself vulnerable to threats. Baker has been one of the most vocal proponents of the Patriot Act—especially section 215, the program to collect telephone records and other digital information. A litany of opponents, including everyone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to Senator Rand Paul, consider the secretive program a gross invasion of privacy—on May 31, the program expired. Baker, on the other hand, is of the mind that Americans don’t realize how much programs like 215 and other methods of government surveillance actually protect people from outside threats and bad guys—whether they’re Al Qaeda terrorists or North Korean hackers. And he’s not afraid to say it: Baker is often the counter-voice to those wanting to reign in or create more transparent government surveillance programs.
In his book Skating on Stilts, former US Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker examines the numerous ways—air travel, biotech, the Internet—that America has left itself vulnerable to threats. Baker has been one of the most vocal proponents of the Patriot Act—especially section 215, the program to collect telephone records and other digital information. A litany of opponents, including everyone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to Senator Rand Paul, consider the secretive program a gross invasion of privacy—on May 31, the program expired.
Baker, on the other hand, is of the mind that Americans don’t realize how much programs like 215 and other methods of government surveillance actually protect people from outside threats and bad guys—whether they’re Al Qaeda terrorists or North Korean hackers. And he’s not afraid to say it: Baker is often the counter-voice to those wanting to reign in or create more transparent government surveillance programs.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/06/oh-kiss-ass-thats-not-true-stewart-baker-calls-cyber-surveillance-myths/
The recent showdown over renewal of certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act (often called simply the Patriot Act) and the subsequent enactment of the USA Freedom Act have raised a number of questions about the ongoing impact of these laws on data traversing or being stored in the United States. While the new law takes the NSA out of the direct business of maintaining metadata (which includes phone number called, the time and duration of the call, and location information) on all phone calls originating or terminating in the US (with a declared intent of transitioning instead to a program that will allow court-moderated access to phone company data) and reinstates provisions that enable so-called “roving wiretaps” and monitoring of “lone wolves,” it essentially leaves unchanged the underlying laws that govern the US authorities access to data stored in the cloud. A look back at the history of the Patriot Act and then the specifics of the USA Freedom Act are helpful in evaluating the impact of recent events. First, the Patriot Act. Rather than create new means of access to data, the Patriot Act primarily streamlined and consolidated various processes that had long been in place—processes similar to those found, it is worth noting, in the laws of many other countries. The Patriot Act made many changes to existing laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), with the stated intent of allowing investigators to “connect the dots” to stop terrorists. From the perspective of a non-US person using a cloud service run by an entity subject to US jurisdiction, perhaps the most significant changes made concerned various thresholds of proof or nexus to gain access to data. These changes broadened the scope of existing authority and lowered the burden on the government to show the need for access. Despite being passed in the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act’s enactment was not without controversy and among the compromises made was the inclusion of automatic sun-set for some provisions (in the absence of Congressional reauthorization), including the changes to FISA authorizing enhanced data collection and access. These changes, in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, were largely the basis for the telephone metadata collection program disclosed by Edward Snowden, but are also relevant to access to other data. So, with the expiration of the most recent extension to Section 215, the changes it made to FISA were swept away, leaving the prior provisions of the underlying statutes in place.
The recent showdown over renewal of certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act (often called simply the Patriot Act) and the subsequent enactment of the USA Freedom Act have raised a number of questions about the ongoing impact of these laws on data traversing or being stored in the United States. While the new law takes the NSA out of the direct business of maintaining metadata (which includes phone number called, the time and duration of the call, and location information) on all phone calls originating or terminating in the US (with a declared intent of transitioning instead to a program that will allow court-moderated access to phone company data) and reinstates provisions that enable so-called “roving wiretaps” and monitoring of “lone wolves,” it essentially leaves unchanged the underlying laws that govern the US authorities access to data stored in the cloud.
A look back at the history of the Patriot Act and then the specifics of the USA Freedom Act are helpful in evaluating the impact of recent events. First, the Patriot Act.
Rather than create new means of access to data, the Patriot Act primarily streamlined and consolidated various processes that had long been in place—processes similar to those found, it is worth noting, in the laws of many other countries. The Patriot Act made many changes to existing laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), with the stated intent of allowing investigators to “connect the dots” to stop terrorists. From the perspective of a non-US person using a cloud service run by an entity subject to US jurisdiction, perhaps the most significant changes made concerned various thresholds of proof or nexus to gain access to data. These changes broadened the scope of existing authority and lowered the burden on the government to show the need for access. Despite being passed in the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act’s enactment was not without controversy and among the compromises made was the inclusion of automatic sun-set for some provisions (in the absence of Congressional reauthorization), including the changes to FISA authorizing enhanced data collection and access. These changes, in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, were largely the basis for the telephone metadata collection program disclosed by Edward Snowden, but are also relevant to access to other data. So, with the expiration of the most recent extension to Section 215, the changes it made to FISA were swept away, leaving the prior provisions of the underlying statutes in place.
Read more @ http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7b101392-691b-45fa-b0a8-ac3f2603b73e
Jun 26 15 2:28 PM
PeacefulSwannie wrote:What on earth!!! If churches have this kind of technology I can’t even begin to imagine what the spies have to track and monitor people. Very darn scary! Face-tracking tech knows when you skip church services More than two dozen churches around the world have installed a facial-recognition system that monitors which members of the flock have actually shown up for the Sunday sermon. The system is called Churchix and was developed by Israeli software company, Face-six. It continually scans the religious center's CCTV feed and matches congregation members to a pre-existing database of their faces -- reportedly with 99 percent accuracy. Hi Pen;If they really have it. I can't speak on this one, but I've been catching the pundits where this story is concerned quite a bit lately. I get the impression that so much has been written about it that they're beginning to feel safe to skip the research, and print everything they hear. Especially on slow news days.And should it surprise us? Look at how many times we've caught them in error about all sorts of stories over the past few years ................. and then you have the way they cover for Obama ............... not only has our press become at least as dishonest as anybody else, but now they're getting sloppy ............. very sloppy in some cases. It has gotten to the point that we no longer know what to believe .............. who to believe .................. whether or not we're reading an editorial or a news article ................ just who taught and trained these turkeys anyway?Sorry. I just tried to verify another wild sounding article about AGW for over an hour, only to discover that their source was a freaking tabloid! I'll probably be jumping all over wild sounding stories for a few days as a result. Especially when it targets as popular a whipping boy for the press as the church has become. How I would love to be able to trust articles as read again .............. wouldn't you?Tim
Jun 27 15 3:20 PM
Jun 27 15 7:45 PM
Jun 28 15 10:37 AM
Privacy advocates claim always-listening component was involuntarily activated within Chromium, potentially exposing private conversationsPrivacy campaigners and open source developers are up in arms over the secret installing of Google software which is capable of listening in on conversations held in front of a computer. First spotted by open source developers, the Chromium browser – the open source basis for Google’s Chrome – began remotely installing audio-snooping code that was capable of listening to users. It was designed to support Chrome’s new “OK, Google” hotword detection – which makes the computer respond when you talk to it – but was installed, and, some users have claimed, it is activated on computers without their permission. “Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”
Privacy advocates claim always-listening component was involuntarily activated within Chromium, potentially exposing private conversations
Privacy campaigners and open source developers are up in arms over the secret installing of Google software which is capable of listening in on conversations held in front of a computer.
First spotted by open source developers, the Chromium browser – the open source basis for Google’s Chrome – began remotely installing audio-snooping code that was capable of listening to users.
It was designed to support Chrome’s new “OK, Google” hotword detection – which makes the computer respond when you talk to it – but was installed, and, some users have claimed, it is activated on computers without their permission.
“Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computers-without-permission
Jul 3 15 10:43 PM
France's Justice Minister has canvassed possible asylum for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden as WikiLeaks and French newspapers promise further revelations of US espionage against the French government and private companies. Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said on Thursday that she "wouldn't be surprised" if France decided to offer political asylum to Mr Assange, who is living at Ecuador's embassy in London, and Mr Snowden, who remains in exile in Russia.
France's Justice Minister has canvassed possible asylum for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden as WikiLeaks and French newspapers promise further revelations of US espionage against the French government and private companies.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said on Thursday that she "wouldn't be surprised" if France decided to offer political asylum to Mr Assange, who is living at Ecuador's embassy in London, and Mr Snowden, who remains in exile in Russia.
Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/world/france-mulls-offering-asylum-to-julian-assange-and-edward-snowden-20150626-ghyg7i.html
WASHINGTON — Early in 2012, worried that suicide bombers might pass through airline security undetected, American counterterrorism officials ordered a drone strike in Yemen to kill a doctor they believed was working with Al Qaeda to surgically implant explosives in operatives, according to British intelligence documents. The documents, previously undisclosed, include details about how terrorism suspects are targeted in drone strikes and how strikes can go wrong at times. The documents also show how closely the National Security Agency has worked in Pakistan and Yemen with its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or G.C.H.Q. Britain has carried out drone strikes only in war zones in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The documents raise the possibility that in addition, British intelligence may have helped guide American strikes outside conventional war zones. Drone strikes carried out by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command have received fresh scrutiny after President Obama disclosed in April that a strike had killed two Western aid workers held hostage by Al Qaeda in Pakistan. In that case, intelligence officers targeting the Qaeda compound had no idea the hostages were there, illustrating how incomplete or faulty information has led to civilian deaths in the drone campaign. Last week offered two more examples of the uncertain outcomes of airstrikes. A prominent Algerian terrorist, widely reported dead in a Pentagon strike by F-15s, appears to still be alive. And only several days after a strike in Yemen did American officials learn that an attack had killed the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who was also the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda’s global terror network.
WASHINGTON — Early in 2012, worried that suicide bombers might pass through airline security undetected, American counterterrorism officials ordered a drone strike in Yemen to kill a doctor they believed was working with Al Qaeda to surgically implant explosives in operatives, according to British intelligence documents.
The documents, previously undisclosed, include details about how terrorism suspects are targeted in drone strikes and how strikes can go wrong at times. The documents also show how closely the National Security Agency has worked in Pakistan and Yemen with its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or G.C.H.Q.
Britain has carried out drone strikes only in war zones in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The documents raise the possibility that in addition, British intelligence may have helped guide American strikes outside conventional war zones.
Drone strikes carried out by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command have received fresh scrutiny after President Obama disclosed in April that a strike had killed two Western aid workers held hostage by Al Qaeda in Pakistan. In that case, intelligence officers targeting the Qaeda compound had no idea the hostages were there, illustrating how incomplete or faulty information has led to civilian deaths in the drone campaign.
Last week offered two more examples of the uncertain outcomes of airstrikes. A prominent Algerian terrorist, widely reported dead in a Pentagon strike by F-15s, appears to still be alive. And only several days after a strike in Yemen did American officials learn that an attack had killed the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who was also the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda’s global terror network.
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/world/middleeast/us-drone-strike-said-to-kill-doctor-trying-to-implant-bombs.html?_r=0
Talking points prepared in March for Canada’s surveillance chief accuse NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden of severely damaging Canada’s spy operations. The newly disclosed briefing document was prepared by the staff of the Communications Security Establishment — the Canadian counterpart to the National Security Agency — in anticipation of the appearance of newly arrived CSE chief, Greta Bossenmaier, before a House of Commons committee. The document includes the familiar, unsupported assertions about how Snowden’s “unauthorized disclosures” have “diminished the advantage we have had” over foreign targets, “both in the short term but more worryingly in the long term.” But what’s most interesting about the document is the part where Bossenmaier is advised on how to deal with any questions she might be asked by her overseers, should they request evidence to support her assertions. The section is headed: “IF PRESSED ON THIS OR ANY OTHER DISCLOSURE.” And here is everything that follows: We do not comment on the operations, methods, or capabilities of Canada or our allies. Bossenmaier followed instructions. When taking questions from the members of the House of Commons, she refused to clarify, respond to or elaborate on allegations of CSE’s illegal or unethical spying. “I hope you can appreciate that I cannot comment on the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” she told Canadian parliamentarian Élaine Michaud.
Talking points prepared in March for Canada’s surveillance chief accuse NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden of severely damaging Canada’s spy operations.
The newly disclosed briefing document was prepared by the staff of the Communications Security Establishment — the Canadian counterpart to the National Security Agency — in anticipation of the appearance of newly arrived CSE chief, Greta Bossenmaier, before a House of Commons committee.
The document includes the familiar, unsupported assertions about how Snowden’s “unauthorized disclosures” have “diminished the advantage we have had” over foreign targets, “both in the short term but more worryingly in the long term.”
But what’s most interesting about the document is the part where Bossenmaier is advised on how to deal with any questions she might be asked by her overseers, should they request evidence to support her assertions.
The section is headed: “IF PRESSED ON THIS OR ANY OTHER DISCLOSURE.”
And here is everything that follows:
We do not comment on the operations, methods, or capabilities of Canada or our allies.
Bossenmaier followed instructions. When taking questions from the members of the House of Commons, she refused to clarify, respond to or elaborate on allegations of CSE’s illegal or unethical spying. “I hope you can appreciate that I cannot comment on the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” she told Canadian parliamentarian Élaine Michaud.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/01/canadian-security-agency-says-snowden-leaks-dangerous-say/
Long term advantage over friends too!
OTTAWA - Canada's electronic spy agency says leaks by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden have "diminished the advantage" it enjoyed over terrorists and other targets, both in the short term and — of more concern — well into the future. In newly released briefing notes, the Communications Security Establishment says Snowden's disclosures about CSE's intelligence capabilities and those of its allies "have a cumulative detrimental effect" on its operations. The Ottawa-based CSE monitors foreign communications of intelligence interest to Canada, and exchanges a large amount of information with partner agencies in the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The notes, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, were among the briefing materials prepared for CSE chief Greta Bossenmaier's March 25 appearance before the House of Commons committee on national defence. Documents Snowden handed to the media revealed the U.S. National Security Agency — the CSE's American counterpart — had quietly obtained access to a huge volume of emails, chat logs and other information from major Internet companies, as well as massive amounts of data about telephone calls.
OTTAWA - Canada's electronic spy agency says leaks by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden have "diminished the advantage" it enjoyed over terrorists and other targets, both in the short term and — of more concern — well into the future.
In newly released briefing notes, the Communications Security Establishment says Snowden's disclosures about CSE's intelligence capabilities and those of its allies "have a cumulative detrimental effect" on its operations.
The Ottawa-based CSE monitors foreign communications of intelligence interest to Canada, and exchanges a large amount of information with partner agencies in the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
The notes, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, were among the briefing materials prepared for CSE chief Greta Bossenmaier's March 25 appearance before the House of Commons committee on national defence.
Documents Snowden handed to the media revealed the U.S. National Security Agency — the CSE's American counterpart — had quietly obtained access to a huge volume of emails, chat logs and other information from major Internet companies, as well as massive amounts of data about telephone calls.
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/26/cse-says-snowden-leaks-er_n_7669178.html
Anonymous official sources go after Edward Snowden in the UK's media; plus, 30 years of covering Cuba from Miami. Last week, the front page of Britain's Sunday Times bore the headline: British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese. For the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper's largely conservative audience, the implied breach of security perpetrated by former US National Surveillance Agency (NSA) analyst Edward Snowden could not have been more alarming. However, standing behind that headline was not a shred of evidence, not one provable fact. Rather, the Sunday Times' bold statement was founded on unnamed government sources making unsubstantiated claims which the journalists involved apparently left unquestioned. Critics panned the piece for swallowing the official line whole - something that Tom Harper of the Sunday Times saw no reason to deny. "We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment," Harper told CNN in an interview. The idea that a whistleblower may have put national security at risk is a useful one for governments facing ever more scrutiny over the legal and moral basis for mass surveillance and other repressive domestic policies. Daniel Ellsberg and Chelsea Manning will know how Edward Snowden feels. Joining us to talk about the national security narrative and the line between stenography and journalism are Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian; Ryan Gallagher of the Intercept; as well as Snowden sceptics Michael Cohen from the Boston Globe; and Anthony Glees, the director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham.
Last week, the front page of Britain's Sunday Times bore the headline: British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.
For the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper's largely conservative audience, the implied breach of security perpetrated by former US National Surveillance Agency (NSA) analyst Edward Snowden could not have been more alarming.
However, standing behind that headline was not a shred of evidence, not one provable fact. Rather, the Sunday Times' bold statement was founded on unnamed government sources making unsubstantiated claims which the journalists involved apparently left unquestioned. Critics panned the piece for swallowing the official line whole - something that Tom Harper of the Sunday Times saw no reason to deny.
"We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment," Harper told CNN in an interview.
The idea that a whistleblower may have put national security at risk is a useful one for governments facing ever more scrutiny over the legal and moral basis for mass surveillance and other repressive domestic policies. Daniel Ellsberg and Chelsea Manning will know how Edward Snowden feels.
Joining us to talk about the national security narrative and the line between stenography and journalism are Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian; Ryan Gallagher of the Intercept; as well as Snowden sceptics Michael Cohen from the Boston Globe; and Anthony Glees, the director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham.
Read more @ http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2015/06/sunday-times-snowden-saga-150620094101938.html
The National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are not just infiltrating cell phone networks. They are hacking into the very thing that protects us from surveillance too. A new report from The Intercept describes the agencies' extensive efforts to reverse-engineer a total of 23 antivirus and security software applications to find new malware that they can "repurpose" for their own means. Most prominent among the antivirus companies named in the report is Kaspersky Labs, the Moscow-based security firm that is well-known for exposing state-sponsored malware. Other firms targeted by the agencies include Slovakian Eset, Romanian Bit-Defender, Finnish F-Secure and Czech Avast. Notably, security firms from the United States and United Kingdom, such as Symantec, Intel Security Group previously known as McAfee, and Sophos, are not in the list of targets. Remarkably, the agencies, especially GCHQ, are also willing to go through the legal hoops to obtain permission to subvert the antivirus software. One of the files taken from the Snowden archives is a top-secret warrant renewal request, which reveals the agencies' motivations for subverting security software. The document was filed in 2008 and issued to GCHQ by the U.K. Foreign Service Secretary under the Intelligence Services Act of 1994. "Personal security products such as the Russian antivirus software Kaspersky continue to pose a challenge to GCHQ's CNE [computer network exploitation] capability and SRE [software reverse-engineering] is essential in order to be able to exploit such software and to prevent detection of our activities," the document said.
The National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are not just infiltrating cell phone networks. They are hacking into the very thing that protects us from surveillance too.
A new report from The Intercept describes the agencies' extensive efforts to reverse-engineer a total of 23 antivirus and security software applications to find new malware that they can "repurpose" for their own means.
Most prominent among the antivirus companies named in the report is Kaspersky Labs, the Moscow-based security firm that is well-known for exposing state-sponsored malware. Other firms targeted by the agencies include Slovakian Eset, Romanian Bit-Defender, Finnish F-Secure and Czech Avast. Notably, security firms from the United States and United Kingdom, such as Symantec, Intel Security Group previously known as McAfee, and Sophos, are not in the list of targets.
Remarkably, the agencies, especially GCHQ, are also willing to go through the legal hoops to obtain permission to subvert the antivirus software. One of the files taken from the Snowden archives is a top-secret warrant renewal request, which reveals the agencies' motivations for subverting security software. The document was filed in 2008 and issued to GCHQ by the U.K. Foreign Service Secretary under the Intelligence Services Act of 1994.
"Personal security products such as the Russian antivirus software Kaspersky continue to pose a challenge to GCHQ's CNE [computer network exploitation] capability and SRE [software reverse-engineering] is essential in order to be able to exploit such software and to prevent detection of our activities," the document said.
Read more @ http://www.techtimes.com/articles/62861/20150624/edward-snowden-files-reveal-nsa-and-gchq-operated-to-subvert-antivirus-and-security-software-to-spy-on-users.htm
During his time as Foreign Secretary in 2008, David Miliband allowed British spy agency GCHQ to bypass software copyright law to help it infiltrate computers, according to newly released leaks by Edward Snowden David Miliband, during his time as Foreign Secretary, granted British spy agency GCHQ permission to exploit popular software programs without being detected in order to learn new ways to hack computers. That was the revelation today after 23 new documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden were publicly released. GCHQ carried out ‘reverse engineering’ – a technique that allows hackers to find weak points in computer programs – on anti-virus and encryption software used by some of the world’s largest organisations, according to The Intercept. The leaked documents expose GCHQ’s attempts in 2008, when Miliband headed up the Foreign Office, to obtain warrants that allowed it to infringe software copyrights and breach licensing agreements. According to 'top-secret documents' obtained by The Intercept, GCHQ avoided its authorisation protocol for 'some continuous period of time'. When it did eventually obtain a warrant for reverse engineering, it did so through a section of British intelligence law that ‘does not explicitly authorise’ such activity, as shown in a 2008 warrant renewal application to Miliband. >See also: Brace yourself, Britain – totalitarianism is upon us, and David Cameron is leading it “The agency’s slippery legal maneuvers to enable computer hacking call into question U.K. government assurances about mass surveillance,” said Andrew Fishman and Glenn Greenwald, authors of today’s report from The Intercept. “To assuage public concern over such activity, the government frequently says spies are subject to rigorous oversight, including an obligation to obtain warrants.
During his time as Foreign Secretary in 2008, David Miliband allowed British spy agency GCHQ to bypass software copyright law to help it infiltrate computers, according to newly released leaks by Edward Snowden
David Miliband, during his time as Foreign Secretary, granted British spy agency GCHQ permission to exploit popular software programs without being detected in order to learn new ways to hack computers.
That was the revelation today after 23 new documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden were publicly released.
GCHQ carried out ‘reverse engineering’ – a technique that allows hackers to find weak points in computer programs – on anti-virus and encryption software used by some of the world’s largest organisations, according to The Intercept.
The leaked documents expose GCHQ’s attempts in 2008, when Miliband headed up the Foreign Office, to obtain warrants that allowed it to infringe software copyrights and breach licensing agreements.
According to 'top-secret documents' obtained by The Intercept, GCHQ avoided its authorisation protocol for 'some continuous period of time'.
When it did eventually obtain a warrant for reverse engineering, it did so through a section of British intelligence law that ‘does not explicitly authorise’ such activity, as shown in a 2008 warrant renewal application to Miliband.
>See also: Brace yourself, Britain – totalitarianism is upon us, and David Cameron is leading it
“The agency’s slippery legal maneuvers to enable computer hacking call into question U.K. government assurances about mass surveillance,” said Andrew Fishman and Glenn Greenwald, authors of today’s report from The Intercept. “To assuage public concern over such activity, the government frequently says spies are subject to rigorous oversight, including an obligation to obtain warrants.
Read more @ http://www.information-age.com/technology/security/123459685/new-snowden-leaks-show-david-miliband-gave-gchq-permission-hack-popular-software-programs
The US NSA and the UK’s GCHQ are understood to have worked together to subvert popular anti-virus software products like Kaspersky Labs’ software, according to the latest Edward Snowden revelations. The spy agencies are understood to have reverse-engineered popular anti-virus software packages and monitored email and web traffic to discreetly get past the software and obtain intelligence. According to The Intercept, the spy agencies paid particular attention to Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab, which is used by more than 400m people and includes more than 270,000 corporate clients. Snowden claims the NSA obtained sensitive customer information by monitoring email and web traffic on Kaspersky’s servers. While the security companies are engaged in a game of cat and mouse against hackers and creators of malware, the spy agencies are engaged with a game of cat and mouse with the security software companies. The most dangerous malware introduced to the internet is often created by spy agencies as part of cyber warfare, such as the Stuxnet virus, which is understood to have been created by a joint US/Israeli team codenamed “Operation Olympic Games” to take down industrial plants in Iran. Instead, the malware went viral, threatening industrial complexes worldwide.
The US NSA and the UK’s GCHQ are understood to have worked together to subvert popular anti-virus software products like Kaspersky Labs’ software, according to the latest Edward Snowden revelations.
The spy agencies are understood to have reverse-engineered popular anti-virus software packages and monitored email and web traffic to discreetly get past the software and obtain intelligence.
According to The Intercept, the spy agencies paid particular attention to Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab, which is used by more than 400m people and includes more than 270,000 corporate clients.
Snowden claims the NSA obtained sensitive customer information by monitoring email and web traffic on Kaspersky’s servers.
While the security companies are engaged in a game of cat and mouse against hackers and creators of malware, the spy agencies are engaged with a game of cat and mouse with the security software companies.
The most dangerous malware introduced to the internet is often created by spy agencies as part of cyber warfare, such as the Stuxnet virus, which is understood to have been created by a joint US/Israeli team codenamed “Operation Olympic Games” to take down industrial plants in Iran. Instead, the malware went viral, threatening industrial complexes worldwide.
Read more @ https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/2015/06/23/nsa-and-gchq-reverse-engineered-popular-anti-virus-software-snowden-reveals
First trailer for Oliver Stone's Edward Snowden movie is all drama
Technically Incorrect: Teasing the new movie "Snowden" with a trailer is no easy task. So the producers merely whet your appetite. Oliver Stone makes the sort of pleasant, sedate movies that even Merchant Ivory, those merchants of subtle stories from history, aspire to. He takes a character, delves into their deepest (and perhaps imagined) emotions and disinters them with the help of a well-designed pickax and trowel. You have, perhaps, seen his "JFK," "Nixon" and "W" movies, each of which don't exactly shy from stating an opinion. So when I heard he was making a movie about Edward Snowden -- the former NSA contractor who caused world consternation when leaked many classified US government documents to journalists who published some of their contents -- I felt sure this would be a touch more dramatic than the already-existing documentary, Citizenfour.
Technically Incorrect: Teasing the new movie "Snowden" with a trailer is no easy task. So the producers merely whet your appetite.
Oliver Stone makes the sort of pleasant, sedate movies that even Merchant Ivory, those merchants of subtle stories from history, aspire to.
He takes a character, delves into their deepest (and perhaps imagined) emotions and disinters them with the help of a well-designed pickax and trowel.
You have, perhaps, seen his "JFK," "Nixon" and "W" movies, each of which don't exactly shy from stating an opinion.
So when I heard he was making a movie about Edward Snowden -- the former NSA contractor who caused world consternation when leaked many classified US government documents to journalists who published some of their contents -- I felt sure this would be a touch more dramatic than the already-existing documentary, Citizenfour.
Read more @ http://www.cnet.com/news/first-trailer-for-oliver-stones-edward-snowden-movie-is-dramatic/
We live in a post-Snowden world. For many, that means assuming none of your digital assets are safe from surveillance. There are ways, however, to use the internet and insane mathematics in your favor to ensure that no one can see whatever it is that you're sending to someone else. It's called PGP, which stands for "pretty good encryption," and it's a way to encrypt your messages. Encryption, at its most basic form, is a way to cypher a message so that if anyone that sees the data in transit they have no way to know what the message says. OpenPGP is the most popular standard for digital encryption. In fact, Edward Snowden first contacted journalist Laura Poitras to inform her of his trove of documents using PGP. So let's take a look at what PGP is and how easy it is to use.See Here's how to send super-secure messages like Edward Snowden >>
We live in a post-Snowden world. For many, that means assuming none of your digital assets are safe from surveillance.
There are ways, however, to use the internet and insane mathematics in your favor to ensure that no one can see whatever it is that you're sending to someone else.
It's called PGP, which stands for "pretty good encryption," and it's a way to encrypt your messages. Encryption, at its most basic form, is a way to cypher a message so that if anyone that sees the data in transit they have no way to know what the message says. OpenPGP is the most popular standard for digital encryption.
In fact, Edward Snowden first contacted journalist Laura Poitras to inform her of his trove of documents using PGP.
So let's take a look at what PGP is and how easy it is to use.
See Here's how to send super-secure messages like Edward Snowden >>
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.in/Heres-how-to-send-super-secure-messages-like-Edward-Snowden/articleshow/47790978.cms
DRESDEN, Germany -- When tourist Lars Lewandowski passed Edward Snowden Square in the eastern German city of Dresden on Tuesday afternoon, it took him a few moments to realize there was something special about the name. German street or square names usually honor only long-dead figures. But Snowden, the former U.S. government contractor who leaked sensitive information on the National Security Agency two years ago, is very much alive, even though U.S. authorities saw the need to offer assurances that they would not seek the death penalty for him if he ever returned home. On Sunday, German activists inaugurated the square to honor the whistleblower who has been celebrated as a hero by some and denounced as a criminal by others. "I think it's a good idea, although I'd say that more such initiatives are needed to really recognize Snowden's courage," Lewandowski said, reflecting a sentiment shared by many other passersby. "I think Snowden would deserve even a more impressive monument," one woman said. She did not want her name published, a not-uncommon request in privacy-obsessed Germany, where citizens frequently enforce their privacy rights in courts and have pressured Internet companies to protect their data. The renaming of the square in Dresden's Neustadt district is not the first mark of respect accorded the controversial American, and it is unlikely to be the last. However, Edward Snowden Square is distinct from previous gestures because it's probably there to stay. Its renaming was not officially approved by the city, but authorities have announced they will not take the sign down because it was legally put up on the property of a privately owned arcade. "Our message is that citizens should follow their consciences and not simply obey rules," Markwart Faussner, the owner of the arcade and the square, told The Washington Post. Faussner, who is a real estate businessman and certainly does not fit the stereotype of a typical leftist activist, had previously discussed the initiative with Snowden's German lawyer, who approved the idea.
DRESDEN, Germany -- When tourist Lars Lewandowski passed Edward Snowden Square in the eastern German city of Dresden on Tuesday afternoon, it took him a few moments to realize there was something special about the name. German street or square names usually honor only long-dead figures.
But Snowden, the former U.S. government contractor who leaked sensitive information on the National Security Agency two years ago, is very much alive, even though U.S. authorities saw the need to offer assurances that they would not seek the death penalty for him if he ever returned home.
On Sunday, German activists inaugurated the square to honor the whistleblower who has been celebrated as a hero by some and denounced as a criminal by others.
"I think it's a good idea, although I'd say that more such initiatives are needed to really recognize Snowden's courage," Lewandowski said, reflecting a sentiment shared by many other passersby.
"I think Snowden would deserve even a more impressive monument," one woman said. She did not want her name published, a not-uncommon request in privacy-obsessed Germany, where citizens frequently enforce their privacy rights in courts and have pressured Internet companies to protect their data.
The renaming of the square in Dresden's Neustadt district is not the first mark of respect accorded the controversial American, and it is unlikely to be the last. However, Edward Snowden Square is distinct from previous gestures because it's probably there to stay. Its renaming was not officially approved by the city, but authorities have announced they will not take the sign down because it was legally put up on the property of a privately owned arcade.
"Our message is that citizens should follow their consciences and not simply obey rules," Markwart Faussner, the owner of the arcade and the square, told The Washington Post. Faussner, who is a real estate businessman and certainly does not fit the stereotype of a typical leftist activist, had previously discussed the initiative with Snowden's German lawyer, who approved the idea.
Read more @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/06/23/the-global-cult-of-edward-snowden-keeps-growing/
A Democratic presidential contender raises a provocative issue. It’s time to have this debate. Lincoln Chafee launched his 2016 campaign with a perfect illustration of why it is so vitally important that the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency be contested and vibrant, with lots of debates, and serious interchanges not just on questions of economic inequality—which the candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will spotlight and define—but on issues such as mass surveillance and privacy rights. Chafee launched his candidacy several weeks ago with a takeaway statement about how “Our sacred Constitution requires a warrant before unreasonable searches, which includes our phone records. Let’s enforce that and while we’re at it, allow Edward Snowden to come home.” This has remained a steady focus for the former Rhode Island senator and governor as he has framed a decidedly uphill challenge to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and the other contenders for the party’s nomination. Like all candidates, Chafee says he is in it to win it. But he also says that “the first goal” of his candidacy is to assure that a wider range of issues is “discussed within the Democratic Party.” Just as Sanders has gone big on economic populism and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has gone big on immigration reform, Chafee has gone big on privacy rights in general and the Snowden case in particular. After Congress moved to place some restrictions on the mass surveillance that Snowden exposed—as a former Central Intelligence Agency officer and National Security Agency contractor who two years ago revealed that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States—Chafee tweeted: “Congratulations to Congress for standing tall for civil liberties! Now let’s bring Snowden home. He has done his time.”
Lincoln Chafee launched his 2016 campaign with a perfect illustration of why it is so vitally important that the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency be contested and vibrant, with lots of debates, and serious interchanges not just on questions of economic inequality—which the candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will spotlight and define—but on issues such as mass surveillance and privacy rights.
Chafee launched his candidacy several weeks ago with a takeaway statement about how “Our sacred Constitution requires a warrant before unreasonable searches, which includes our phone records. Let’s enforce that and while we’re at it, allow Edward Snowden to come home.”
This has remained a steady focus for the former Rhode Island senator and governor as he has framed a decidedly uphill challenge to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and the other contenders for the party’s nomination. Like all candidates, Chafee says he is in it to win it. But he also says that “the first goal” of his candidacy is to assure that a wider range of issues is “discussed within the Democratic Party.”
Just as Sanders has gone big on economic populism and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has gone big on immigration reform, Chafee has gone big on privacy rights in general and the Snowden case in particular.
After Congress moved to place some restrictions on the mass surveillance that Snowden exposed—as a former Central Intelligence Agency officer and National Security Agency contractor who two years ago revealed that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States—Chafee tweeted: “Congratulations to Congress for standing tall for civil liberties! Now let’s bring Snowden home. He has done his time.”
Read more @ http://www.thenation.com/article/lincoln-chafee-adds-a-proposal-to-the-2016-debate-lets-bring-edward-snowden-home/
Continuing the search for secure, cross-platform, end-to-end encrypted chat and VoIP communication software, this article is part 2 of a series on encrypted Skype alternatives. Skype, Microsoft's voice over IP (VoIP) software, has been shown to be insecure on various levels over the years. The Snowden leaks have revealed it to be more of a mass surveillance malware than a secure communications platform. Secure communications like those between you and a friend as you sip coffee in your backyard are the ideal of end-to-end (E2E) encrypted online communications. Continue Reading...
Continuing the search for secure, cross-platform, end-to-end encrypted chat and VoIP communication software, this article is part 2 of a series on encrypted Skype alternatives.
Skype, Microsoft's voice over IP (VoIP) software, has been shown to be insecure on various levels over the years. The Snowden leaks have revealed it to be more of a mass surveillance malware than a secure communications platform.
Secure communications like those between you and a friend as you sip coffee in your backyard are the ideal of end-to-end (E2E) encrypted online communications.
Read more @ http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/2015/06/skype_alternatives_part_2_edwa/
At Apple’s recent Worldwide Developers Conference, the company placed a special focus on a topic that Re/Code’s Walt Mossberg terms Apple’s latest product: privacy. Senior vice president of software engineering Craig Federighi presented the new “Proactive Assistant” artificial intelligence features of iOS 9, emphasizing how Siri and Spotlight Search will be able to complete tasks already supported by Google Now, but without the obvious privacy drawbacks of Google’s services. Onstage, Federighi noted that the new software to be introduced with iOS 9 will try to anticipate the information you need, based on your calendar and location, as Google’s software already does. But he added that “we do it in a way that does not compromise your privacy. We don’t mine your email, your photos, or your contacts in the cloud to learn things about you. We honestly just don’t wanna know.” He told the developers at the event and a broader audience around the world that all of the information processing is done on the device and stays on the device, “under your control.” If Apple does need to perform a search online, it’s anonymous, not associated with your Apple ID, and not shared with third parties. Even as privacy becomes a key marketing point for Apple — the prominence of the topic at the company’s annual developers conference coincides with its campaign of speeches, TV appearances, and other messages to emphasize that Apple stands for privacy and, by default, its top rival Google does not — Mossberg points out that Apple’s argument for privacy isn’t airtight. While Mossberg thinks that the company is sincere in bolstering users’ privacy and believes that Apple’s hardware and software is, in fact, designed to keep sensitive data on the device rather than in the cloud, its case isn’t impregnable. It’s able to use privacy as a marketing point because privacy fits in with Apple’s business model and is harder to reconcile with that of Google, a company that relies on the collection of massive amounts of user data for ad targeting. Apple’s business model depends on selling hardware and software.
At Apple’s recent Worldwide Developers Conference, the company placed a special focus on a topic that Re/Code’s Walt Mossberg terms Apple’s latest product: privacy. Senior vice president of software engineering Craig Federighi presented the new “Proactive Assistant” artificial intelligence features of iOS 9, emphasizing how Siri and Spotlight Search will be able to complete tasks already supported by Google Now, but without the obvious privacy drawbacks of Google’s services.
Onstage, Federighi noted that the new software to be introduced with iOS 9 will try to anticipate the information you need, based on your calendar and location, as Google’s software already does. But he added that “we do it in a way that does not compromise your privacy. We don’t mine your email, your photos, or your contacts in the cloud to learn things about you. We honestly just don’t wanna know.” He told the developers at the event and a broader audience around the world that all of the information processing is done on the device and stays on the device, “under your control.” If Apple does need to perform a search online, it’s anonymous, not associated with your Apple ID, and not shared with third parties.
Even as privacy becomes a key marketing point for Apple — the prominence of the topic at the company’s annual developers conference coincides with its campaign of speeches, TV appearances, and other messages to emphasize that Apple stands for privacy and, by default, its top rival Google does not — Mossberg points out that Apple’s argument for privacy isn’t airtight.
While Mossberg thinks that the company is sincere in bolstering users’ privacy and believes that Apple’s hardware and software is, in fact, designed to keep sensitive data on the device rather than in the cloud, its case isn’t impregnable. It’s able to use privacy as a marketing point because privacy fits in with Apple’s business model and is harder to reconcile with that of Google, a company that relies on the collection of massive amounts of user data for ad targeting. Apple’s business model depends on selling hardware and software.
Read more @ http://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-style/why-edward-snowden-supports-apples-stance-on-privacy.html/?a=viewall
“Bullshit.” That’s how Hodding Carter III now describes the NSA surveillance program. But in an interview with WhoWhatWhy, the former Carter Administration official recalled how that same word could have just as easily described his initial reaction to Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing revelations in 2013. “I felt like Snowden was giving away the family jewels,” says Carter, his conversation a mix of old southern colloquialism, Yogi Berra-isms and sobering intellectualism. And even today, Carter worries that the anger and fear generated by Snowden could doom the former NSA contractor to some nefarious “unforeseen event,” like a helicopter crash. “We’re at the point in which we have elements of our security state who believe they must go way beyond the laws,” Carter says. “Killing what they consider to be a hard-core traitor would not be a big deal for them.” The only thing clear about Edward Snowden is that America’s perception of him is still very much unclear. And it might be that way for a long time. A Changing View of Snowden Two years after Snowden’s bombshell, Carter’s own journey is complete with his co-authorship of a new book fiercely defending Snowden, After Snowden: Privacy, Secrecy, and Security in the Information Age. What changed? Carter says he was initially torn between two allegiances—his time as an Assistant Secretary of State, protecting national security secrets, and his years as an investigative journalist. Eventually, the deep-digging reporter in him sided with Snowden. Carter doesn’t consider all leaks the same. He draws a clear distinction between Chelsea Manning’s torrential release of surveillance secrets through WikiLeaks, and the measured publication of Snowden’s secrets by journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. He calls the massive release of Manning’s secret files—with no attempt to provide context—“like dumping flopping fish all over the floor.” By contrast, he says, instead of leaking raw files, Snowden’s camp vetted and curated the information first. “[They] took their long path to publication in order not to pull a Manning dump.”
“Bullshit.”
That’s how Hodding Carter III now describes the NSA surveillance program.
But in an interview with WhoWhatWhy, the former Carter Administration official recalled how that same word could have just as easily described his initial reaction to Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing revelations in 2013.
“I felt like Snowden was giving away the family jewels,” says Carter, his conversation a mix of old southern colloquialism, Yogi Berra-isms and sobering intellectualism.
And even today, Carter worries that the anger and fear generated by Snowden could doom the former NSA contractor to some nefarious “unforeseen event,” like a helicopter crash.
“We’re at the point in which we have elements of our security state who believe they must go way beyond the laws,” Carter says. “Killing what they consider to be a hard-core traitor would not be a big deal for them.”
The only thing clear about Edward Snowden is that America’s perception of him is still very much unclear. And it might be that way for a long time.
A Changing View of Snowden
Two years after Snowden’s bombshell, Carter’s own journey is complete with his co-authorship of a new book fiercely defending Snowden, After Snowden: Privacy, Secrecy, and Security in the Information Age.
What changed?
Carter says he was initially torn between two allegiances—his time as an Assistant Secretary of State, protecting national security secrets, and his years as an investigative journalist.
Eventually, the deep-digging reporter in him sided with Snowden.
Carter doesn’t consider all leaks the same. He draws a clear distinction between Chelsea Manning’s torrential release of surveillance secrets through WikiLeaks, and the measured publication of Snowden’s secrets by journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. He calls the massive release of Manning’s secret files—with no attempt to provide context—“like dumping flopping fish all over the floor.”
By contrast, he says, instead of leaking raw files, Snowden’s camp vetted and curated the information first. “[They] took their long path to publication in order not to pull a Manning dump.”
Read more @ http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/06/22/edward-snowden-vindicated-by-the-usa-freedom-act-or-marked-for-death/
The Council of Europe declared its support of National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden on Tuesday and called on the European Union to offer whistleblowers asylum from “retaliation in their home countries.” From The Intercept: The call for Snowden to be allowed a “public interest defense” — something not available to whistleblowers charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, as Snowden has been — was part of a resolution to improve international protections for whistleblowers passed overwhelmingly by the 47-nation council’s parliamentary assembly at its meeting in Strasbourg, France. After the vote, Snowden spoke to the assembly by video from Moscow, where he has temporary asylum. “It would be committing a crime by discussing your defense,” Snowden said of his current legal prospects if he returned to the U.S. “I think it’s incredibly strong,” he said of the council’s resolution. “It’s a major step forward. … If you can’t mount a full and effective defense — make the case that you are revealing information in the public interest — you can’t have a fair trial.” U.S. government officials have repeatedly said that Snowden should return home to face the consequences of his actions. Snowden should “come back, be sent back, and he should have his day in court,” said National Security Advisor Susan Rice on “60 Minutes” in December 2013. Read more.
The Council of Europe declared its support of National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden on Tuesday and called on the European Union to offer whistleblowers asylum from “retaliation in their home countries.”
From The Intercept:
The call for Snowden to be allowed a “public interest defense” — something not available to whistleblowers charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, as Snowden has been — was part of a resolution to improve international protections for whistleblowers passed overwhelmingly by the 47-nation council’s parliamentary assembly at its meeting in Strasbourg, France.
After the vote, Snowden spoke to the assembly by video from Moscow, where he has temporary asylum. “It would be committing a crime by discussing your defense,” Snowden said of his current legal prospects if he returned to the U.S.
“I think it’s incredibly strong,” he said of the council’s resolution. “It’s a major step forward. … If you can’t mount a full and effective defense — make the case that you are revealing information in the public interest — you can’t have a fair trial.”
U.S. government officials have repeatedly said that Snowden should return home to face the consequences of his actions. Snowden should “come back, be sent back, and he should have his day in court,” said National Security Advisor Susan Rice on “60 Minutes” in December 2013.
Read more.
Read more @ http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/european_authorities_ask_america_let_edward_snowden_come_home_20150625
French artists called on French President Francois Hollande in an open letter to grant asylum to the whistleblowers Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Wikileaks founder Julian Assange currently resides at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, fearing extradition to the United States over espionage charges for publishing secret documents. Former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, who faces similar charges, lives in Russia on a temporary residence permit. "For several years, Assange and Snowden have been paying in exile for their bravery. While the fairness of their struggle is accepted by general consent, the situation they face continues to cause resentment. They repeatedly appealed to France after offering France important services, revealing the scandalous practices that the United States used against our country," the letter published on Thursday on the online journal Mediapart, reads. French artists, including actor Vincent Cassel and philosopher Edgar Morin, urged Hollande to exercise the country’s right to grant asylum to the people “persecuted for their fight for freedom.”
French artists called on French President Francois Hollande in an open letter to grant asylum to the whistleblowers Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Wikileaks founder Julian Assange currently resides at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, fearing extradition to the United States over espionage charges for publishing secret documents. Former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, who faces similar charges, lives in Russia on a temporary residence permit.
"For several years, Assange and Snowden have been paying in exile for their bravery. While the fairness of their struggle is accepted by general consent, the situation they face continues to cause resentment. They repeatedly appealed to France after offering France important services, revealing the scandalous practices that the United States used against our country," the letter published on Thursday on the online journal Mediapart, reads.
French artists, including actor Vincent Cassel and philosopher Edgar Morin, urged Hollande to exercise the country’s right to grant asylum to the people “persecuted for their fight for freedom.”
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150703/1024155465.html
I feel that once Snowden was on home soil all the promises would be broken, and they would find a loophole around anything written….. Remember what happened to the President of Bolivia’s plane….. And the death threats on Snowden…..
The Council of Europe, the self-proclaimed “democratic conscience of Greater Europe,” urged the United States on Tuesday to allow NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to return home and make the case that his actions had positive effects. The call for Snowden to be allowed a “public interest defense” — something not available to whistleblowers charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, as Snowden has been — was part of a resolution to improve international protections for whistleblowers passed overwhelmingly by the 47-nation council’s parliamentary assembly at its meeting in Strasbourg, France. After the vote, Snowden spoke to the assembly by video from Moscow, where he has temporary asylum. “It would be committing a crime by discussing your defense,” Snowden said of his current legal prospects if he returned to the U.S.
The Council of Europe, the self-proclaimed “democratic conscience of Greater Europe,” urged the United States on Tuesday to allow NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to return home and make the case that his actions had positive effects.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/23/european-council-calls-u-s-let-snowden-fair-trial/
"My country is on the wrong side of history," says director Laura Poitras as she accepts the German Film Award for best documentary Friday night in Berlin. Citizenfour director Laura Poitras has called on Germany to grant political asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Poitras made the comment at the gala ceremony for the German Film Awards on Friday, June 19, after Citizenfour, a German-U.S. co-production, won the trophy for best documentary. "My country is on the wrong side of history," Poitras said, adding she hoped Germany "would lead the way and grant asylum to Edward Snowden." Poitras also thanked her German co-production partners for giving her "a safe place" to make Citizenfour. Much of the editing and post-production of the Oscar-winning film was done in Berlin in part to protect the film from censorship before its release.
Citizenfour director Laura Poitras has called on Germany to grant political asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Poitras made the comment at the gala ceremony for the German Film Awards on Friday, June 19, after Citizenfour, a German-U.S. co-production, won the trophy for best documentary.
"My country is on the wrong side of history," Poitras said, adding she hoped Germany "would lead the way and grant asylum to Edward Snowden."
Poitras also thanked her German co-production partners for giving her "a safe place" to make Citizenfour. Much of the editing and post-production of the Oscar-winning film was done in Berlin in part to protect the film from censorship before its release.
Read more @ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/citizenfour-director-calls-germany-grant-803720
The NSA whistleblower continues to inspire as he speaks out against American imperialism from Russia, where he’s been since June 23, 2013. MINNEAPOLIS — It’s been two years since Edward Snowden fled the United States and began disclosing classified documents to the media, proving the existence of the NSA’s mass surveillance program which had only been the subject of rumor and speculation before. In early June 2013, Snowden began sharing thousands of documents he took as a Booz Allen Hamilton analyst working on a National Security agency contract with journalists Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald. He went public with his identity on June 9, and the U.S. government canceled his passport on June 22, leading Snowden to seek asylum in Russia, where he remains to this day. Whether he’s speaking to the tech industry about the importance of encryption at SXSW, or remotely diagnosing a reporter with epilepsy during an interview, Snowden continues to inspire with his words despite his exile. Here are a few of his best quotations. On NSA spying and whistleblowing: “These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.” — “An Open Letter to the People of Brazil,” December 2013“The NSA set fire to the Internet’s future. The people in this room are all the firefighters.” — “Edward Snowden speaks to SXSW,” March 2014“Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American.” — “Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions,” Oct. 3, 2014 On Privacy: “Privacy matters. Privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.” — “Snowden Sends Christmas Message To USA,” Dec. 25, 2013“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” — Edward Snowden’s “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit, May 21, 2015“Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we’ve been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.” — “Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions,” Oct. 3, 2014“I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded.” — “Edward Snowden: ‘The US government will say I aided our enemies,’” July 8, 2013 On the future: “A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought. And that’s a problem because privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.” — “Snowden Sends Christmas Message To USA,” Dec. 25, 2013“The tide has turned, and we can finally see a future where we can enjoy security without sacrificing our privacy. Our rights cannot be limited by a secret organization … Even the defenders of mass surveillance, those who may not be persuaded that our surveillance technologies have dangerously outpaced democratic controls, now agree that in democracies, surveillance of the public must be debated by the public.” — “An Open Letter to the People of Brazil,” Dec. 17, 2013“The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance, and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying.” — “Snowden Sends Christmas Message To USA,” Dec. 25, 2013
The NSA whistleblower continues to inspire as he speaks out against American imperialism from Russia, where he’s been since June 23, 2013.
MINNEAPOLIS — It’s been two years since Edward Snowden fled the United States and began disclosing classified documents to the media, proving the existence of the NSA’s mass surveillance program which had only been the subject of rumor and speculation before.
In early June 2013, Snowden began sharing thousands of documents he took as a Booz Allen Hamilton analyst working on a National Security agency contract with journalists Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald. He went public with his identity on June 9, and the U.S. government canceled his passport on June 22, leading Snowden to seek asylum in Russia, where he remains to this day.
Whether he’s speaking to the tech industry about the importance of encryption at SXSW, or remotely diagnosing a reporter with epilepsy during an interview, Snowden continues to inspire with his words despite his exile. Here are a few of his best quotations.
On NSA spying and whistleblowing:
On Privacy:
On the future:
Jul 4 15 10:11 AM
SHOPPERS will soon be able to pay for purchases by taking a selfie. Facial recognition software is expected to be ready by the end of the year to link your MasterCard account to the image of your face — so all you have to do at the register is snap a photo of your face and off you go.The technology, which the credit card company announced on Thursday, is more secure than the passwords now used to prove one’s ID — and you won’t ever forget your face at home when you go shopping.The biometric system, called ID Check, created by MasterCard in partnership with Google, Apple and Samsung, will digitise your face into a series of zeros and ones, convert that image into a hash and compare it to the hash stored on MasterCard’s servers, the company said. Users will employ an app on their smartphones.The app will use a fingerprint or the facial biometrics — activated by staring into the smartphone and blinking once.The blink is used to prevent someone from simply holding up a picture of you to spoof the system.For those who don’t want images of their face circulating around MasterCard’s servers, don’t worry, the company said.The credit card company won’t be able to re-create your face from the data on their servers, ensuring you keep the image of your face to yourself, Ajay Bhalla, MasterCard’s president for enterprise safety and security, told CNN Money, which first reported on the MasterCard tech move.People who are into selfies — and who isn’t these days? — may opt for ID Check instead of a password, Bhalla predicts.
SHOPPERS will soon be able to pay for purchases by taking a selfie.
Facial recognition software is expected to be ready by the end of the year to link your MasterCard account to the image of your face — so all you have to do at the register is snap a photo of your face and off you go.
The technology, which the credit card company announced on Thursday, is more secure than the passwords now used to prove one’s ID — and you won’t ever forget your face at home when you go shopping.
The biometric system, called ID Check, created by MasterCard in partnership with Google, Apple and Samsung, will digitise your face into a series of zeros and ones, convert that image into a hash and compare it to the hash stored on MasterCard’s servers, the company said.
Users will employ an app on their smartphones.
The app will use a fingerprint or the facial biometrics — activated by staring into the smartphone and blinking once.
The blink is used to prevent someone from simply holding up a picture of you to spoof the system.
For those who don’t want images of their face circulating around MasterCard’s servers, don’t worry, the company said.
The credit card company won’t be able to re-create your face from the data on their servers, ensuring you keep the image of your face to yourself, Ajay Bhalla, MasterCard’s president for enterprise safety and security, told CNN Money, which first reported on the MasterCard tech move.
People who are into selfies — and who isn’t these days? — may opt for ID Check instead of a password, Bhalla predicts.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/facial-recognition-software-is-expected-to-link-your-mastercard-account-to-the-image-of-your-face/story-fn6vihic-1227427607073
Jul 8 15 1:50 PM
Now that he's left office, former attorney general Eric Holder appears to have softened a bit on how he'd handle Edward Snowden. Holder told Yahoo News on Monday that he thinks his former Justice Department should strike a deal with Snowden, whose revelations of government spying on foreigners and Americans put our country "in a different place," according to Holder. As Andrea Peterson makes clear over at The Switch, that's not quite the line Holder was toeing while in office. While never ruling out a plea deal, Holder had previously said Snowden "is a person that we lodged criminal charges against." Now, Holder joins a small crowd of current and former politicians to defend or show leniency to the former National Security Agency contractor. Here are six more well-known Snowden defenders: Jimmy Carter: He deserves leniency Al Gore: What the government did was worse than what Snowden did Sen. Chris Coons: Snowden's contributions should be recognized Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.): He's a whistleblower Rep. John Conyers: His revelations were important
Now that he's left office, former attorney general Eric Holder appears to have softened a bit on how he'd handle Edward Snowden.
Holder told Yahoo News on Monday that he thinks his former Justice Department should strike a deal with Snowden, whose revelations of government spying on foreigners and Americans put our country "in a different place," according to Holder.
As Andrea Peterson makes clear over at The Switch, that's not quite the line Holder was toeing while in office. While never ruling out a plea deal, Holder had previously said Snowden "is a person that we lodged criminal charges against."
Now, Holder joins a small crowd of current and former politicians to defend or show leniency to the former National Security Agency contractor. Here are six more well-known Snowden defenders:
Jimmy Carter: He deserves leniency
Al Gore: What the government did was worse than what Snowden did
Sen. Chris Coons: Snowden's contributions should be recognized
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.): He's a whistleblower
Rep. John Conyers: His revelations were important
Read more @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/07/a-list-of-the-well-known-politicians-who-have-defended-edward-snowden/
Edward Snowden has once again provided fodder for the surveillance fears of American citizens: New leaked documents show that the National Security Agency's (NSA's) XKeyscore search engine hoovers up vast amounts of private communications information, to the tune of 700,000 voice, fax and video files every day. According to a report in The Intercept, XKeyscore doesn’t bother with intercepting last-mile telephone calls and the like. Oh no. It drinks directly from the hose: it taps into the billions off bits that are carried on the long-haul fiber-optic cables that make up the global communications network, including data on people's internet searches, documents, usernames, passwords, emails and chats, pictures, voice calls, webcam photos, advertising analytics traffic, social media traffic, botnet traffic, logged keystrokes, computer network exploitation (CNE) targeting, intercepted username and password pairs, file uploads to online services, VOIP streams taken from Skype sessions, etc. etc. In other words, it absorbs everything. XKeyscore is used by NSA intelligence agents as well as spooks in Canada, New Zealand and the UK (and possibly other allies) to target people by location, nationality and browsing histories. The NSA itself calls it "a fully distributed processing and query system that runs on machines around the world" with "the ability to scale in both processing power and storage." The Intercept reported that in reality, the system collects vast amounts of the aforementioned data and keeps it for up to five days—what the NSA calls “full-take” data on people’s communications. And, it stores the metadata of this traffic for up to 45 days. Storage facilities consist of 700+ servers scattered around the world, including in the US, Mexico, Brazil, UK, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, and many other countries. In a statement, the NSA told The Intercept that there’s nothing untoward going on:
Edward Snowden has once again provided fodder for the surveillance fears of American citizens: New leaked documents show that the National Security Agency's (NSA's) XKeyscore search engine hoovers up vast amounts of private communications information, to the tune of 700,000 voice, fax and video files every day.
According to a report in The Intercept, XKeyscore doesn’t bother with intercepting last-mile telephone calls and the like. Oh no. It drinks directly from the hose: it taps into the billions off bits that are carried on the long-haul fiber-optic cables that make up the global communications network, including data on people's internet searches, documents, usernames, passwords, emails and chats, pictures, voice calls, webcam photos, advertising analytics traffic, social media traffic, botnet traffic, logged keystrokes, computer network exploitation (CNE) targeting, intercepted username and password pairs, file uploads to online services, VOIP streams taken from Skype sessions, etc. etc.
In other words, it absorbs everything.
XKeyscore is used by NSA intelligence agents as well as spooks in Canada, New Zealand and the UK (and possibly other allies) to target people by location, nationality and browsing histories. The NSA itself calls it "a fully distributed processing and query system that runs on machines around the world" with "the ability to scale in both processing power and storage."
The Intercept reported that in reality, the system collects vast amounts of the aforementioned data and keeps it for up to five days—what the NSA calls “full-take” data on people’s communications. And, it stores the metadata of this traffic for up to 45 days. Storage facilities consist of 700+ servers scattered around the world, including in the US, Mexico, Brazil, UK, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, and many other countries.
In a statement, the NSA told The Intercept that there’s nothing untoward going on:
Read more @ http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/nsa-search-engine-taps-into-global/
Updated | "The more things change, the more they stay the same." That’s the (translated) opening line of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s ruling, released today, which gives the NSA the go-ahead to temporarily resume its controversial bulk collection of telephone metadata. The practice briefly came to an end earlier this month when provisions of the post-9/11 Patriot Act expired. As per the ruling, the agency is only permitted to restart the once-secret practice, uncovered by leaker Edward Snowden, for 180 days—the amount of time allotted by Congress in the USA Freedom Act.
Updated | "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
That’s the (translated) opening line of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s ruling, released today, which gives the NSA the go-ahead to temporarily resume its controversial bulk collection of telephone metadata.
The practice briefly came to an end earlier this month when provisions of the post-9/11 Patriot Act expired. As per the ruling, the agency is only permitted to restart the once-secret practice, uncovered by leaker Edward Snowden, for 180 days—the amount of time allotted by Congress in the USA Freedom Act.
Read more @ http://www.newsweek.com/nsa-keep-collecting-your-telephone-metadata-6-more-months-court-rules-348847
Remember Paul’s filibuster, and then they let the Patriot Act fall by the wayside in a very strange turn of events…… I think that is because they were told the FISA court will reinstate the spying on everyone….. so they let the Patriot Act drop…… it’s what it looks like to me anyway.
A secret US tribunal ruled late Monday that the National Security Agency is free to continue its bulk telephone metadata surveillance program—the same spying that Congress voted to terminate weeks ago. Congress disavowed the program NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed when passing the USA Freedom Act, which President Barack Obama signed June 2. The act, however, allowed for the program to be extended for six months to allow "for an orderly transition" to a less-invasive telephone metadata spying program. For that to happen, the Obama administration needed the blessing of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). The government just revealed the order. In setting aside an appellate court's ruling that the program was illegal, the FISA Court ruled that "Congress deliberately carved out a 180-day period following the date of enactment in which such collection was specially authorized. For this reason, the Court approves the application (PDF) in this case." The government urged the FISA Court not to acquiesce to a federal appellate court's May decision that declared illegal the collection of metadata from every call in and out of the United States. That court had ruled that Congress did not clearly authorize the spying. The Justice Department also told the secret court that the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions "do not constitute controlling precedent for this Court."
A secret US tribunal ruled late Monday that the National Security Agency is free to continue its bulk telephone metadata surveillance program—the same spying that Congress voted to terminate weeks ago.
Congress disavowed the program NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed when passing the USA Freedom Act, which President Barack Obama signed June 2. The act, however, allowed for the program to be extended for six months to allow "for an orderly transition" to a less-invasive telephone metadata spying program.
For that to happen, the Obama administration needed the blessing of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). The government just revealed the order.
In setting aside an appellate court's ruling that the program was illegal, the FISA Court ruled that "Congress deliberately carved out a 180-day period following the date of enactment in which such collection was specially authorized. For this reason, the Court approves the application (PDF) in this case."
The government urged the FISA Court not to acquiesce to a federal appellate court's May decision that declared illegal the collection of metadata from every call in and out of the United States. That court had ruled that Congress did not clearly authorize the spying. The Justice Department also told the secret court that the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions "do not constitute controlling precedent for this Court."
Read more @ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/secret-us-court-allows-resumption-of-bulk-phone-metadata-spying/
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court), which supervises the activity of the National Security Agency and grants surveillance warrants against international spies, ruled on Monday that the agency may resume its bulk telephone data collection activities. Yet the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in and filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had previously decided that the program was unlawful, and requested an injunction. The NSA program was due on June 1, but the Congress revived it a day later by passing the USA Freedom bill. The new law stated that bulk collection of phone record could not be resumed until six months have passed. The six-month rest was necessary to allow the NSA switch to a different type of surveillance program – one in which phone records are kept by phone companies but federal agents have access to them. Bulk collection of phone data only involves keeping track of phone numbers and call duration with no info on the content of conversations, officials say.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court), which supervises the activity of the National Security Agency and grants surveillance warrants against international spies, ruled on Monday that the agency may resume its bulk telephone data collection activities.
Yet the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in and filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had previously decided that the program was unlawful, and requested an injunction.
The NSA program was due on June 1, but the Congress revived it a day later by passing the USA Freedom bill. The new law stated that bulk collection of phone record could not be resumed until six months have passed.
The six-month rest was necessary to allow the NSA switch to a different type of surveillance program – one in which phone records are kept by phone companies but federal agents have access to them.
Bulk collection of phone data only involves keeping track of phone numbers and call duration with no info on the content of conversations, officials say.
Read more @ http://www.wallstreetotc.com/fisa-court-authorizes-nsa-to-resume-bulk-collection-of-domestic-phone-calls/219336/
Personally I think a secret court is highly fishy….. courts should not be secret because there is far too much corruption going on worldwide!
Read more @ http://www.voanews.com/content/us-court-nsa-can-resume-bulk-data-collection/2844037.html
Read more @ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/court-rules-nsa-resume-phone-metadata-collection/
The USA Freedom Act of 2015, enacted June 2, sharply curtails the ability of the National Security Agency and FBI to obtain, without judicial approval, transactional telephone records from carriers and to search the metadata contained in those records without judicial approval as well. Privacy advocates in both parties fought hard for the act (as well as for more restrictions, which did not pass, on the government's ability to perform such surveillance). The revelations of Edward Snowden, a former CIA analyst and NSA contract analyst, regarding the surveillance are well known and need no general summary. What is interesting, from a Fourth Amendment point of view, is whether the act renders moot the famous two-part test for determining whether an area enjoys privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment, announced in Justice John Marshall Harlan II's concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), under which a court is first to determine whether the subject evinced a subjective expectation of privacy, and second to determine whether society finds that expectation to be reasonable (hence, the famous "reasonable expectation of privacy").
The USA Freedom Act of 2015, enacted June 2, sharply curtails the ability of the National Security Agency and FBI to obtain, without judicial approval, transactional telephone records from carriers and to search the metadata contained in those records without judicial approval as well. Privacy advocates in both parties fought hard for the act (as well as for more restrictions, which did not pass, on the government's ability to perform such surveillance).
The revelations of Edward Snowden, a former CIA analyst and NSA contract analyst, regarding the surveillance are well known and need no general summary. What is interesting, from a Fourth Amendment point of view, is whether the act renders moot the famous two-part test for determining whether an area enjoys privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment, announced in Justice John Marshall Harlan II's concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), under which a court is first to determine whether the subject evinced a subjective expectation of privacy, and second to determine whether society finds that expectation to be reasonable (hence, the famous "reasonable expectation of privacy").
Read more @ http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202731358280/The-USA-Freedom-Act-and-Fourth-Amendment-Jurisprudence?slreturn=20150608002440
What a joke…. America has been hit by terrorist attacks in the past and all the spying did not stop them…..
Gov. Chris Christie on Monday escalated his criticism of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul over his stance against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone call records, saying his rival for the Republican presidential nomination should be forced to testify before Congress if the U.S. suffers a terrorist attack. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program Monday morning, Mr. Christie said that Mr. Paul’s opposition to the NSA’s metadata program had made the U.S. “weaker and more vulnerable.” “He should be in hearings in front of Congress if there’s another attack, not the director of the FBI or the director of the CIA,” said Mr. Christie, a former U.S. Attorney who launched his presidential campaign last week.
Gov. Chris Christie on Monday escalated his criticism of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul over his stance against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone call records, saying his rival for the Republican presidential nomination should be forced to testify before Congress if the U.S. suffers a terrorist attack.
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program Monday morning, Mr. Christie said that Mr. Paul’s opposition to the NSA’s metadata program had made the U.S. “weaker and more vulnerable.”
“He should be in hearings in front of Congress if there’s another attack, not the director of the FBI or the director of the CIA,” said Mr. Christie, a former U.S. Attorney who launched his presidential campaign last week.
Read more @ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/06/chris-christie-if-u-s-hit-by-terror-attack-haul-rand-paul-before-congress/
CHENNAI: “When you guys go to a doctor for a medical check-up, do you think that’s a private conversation?” Alan Rusbridger asks the audience of teachers and students. The query is met with a unanimous ‘yes’ from the sea of 196 students listening in rapt attention to the former Editor-in-chief of The Guardian, who became popular after he broke the news of the National Surveillance Agency (NSA) snooping, brought to light by American whistleblower Edward Snowden. “To a journalist, a source is something sacred, and information that comes our way is sensitive,” said the veteran, speaking at the orientation session of the Asian College of Journalism which welcomed its newest batch of students on Monday. Rusbridger, who will be conducting sessions for the students during his three-week-long stint, will be speaking under three themes - ‘Climate Change’, ‘Snowden’ and ‘Other modes of Journalism’. “If it becomes easy to trace who all a journalist met with and spoke to, in the coming future, the profession will soon dry up,” he noted, speaking on ‘Journalism since Edward Snowden’. He points out that it is in this current era of international espionage and privacy being a premium, that the whistle-blower made his case known through The Guardian. Rusbridger says that it is easy for a government to figure out what every single person at a given room of audience is up to. “It won’t take more than minutes to tell what each one of you does, your background and your activities,” he told the students whose interest was piqued further. Metadata, for instance, was revealed to be a treasure trove for information-siphoning. Although it differs from ‘data’ in some technical respects, it is still perused by international spies putting people in the risk of being snooped on and data-theft. In layman’s language, Metadata is data about data (data about a text message for example like time, date, sender) and if “only need metadata, not your personal data” is an institutional disclaimer that used to put people at ease, we might have to think again. Because, as Alan reveals, “If you ask spies, they’ll say ‘that’s all we need’. Just metadata can help in drawing the pattern of a person’s life and habits.” He rues that at the international level, the technology engaged by governments in scouring its own citizen’s personal data is shockingly beyond the knowledge and comprehension of even legislators and judiciary. “And in the midst of political and commercial affiliations, the decision to publish something comes down to the story itself. The decision stands on the folds of the material,” he says, answering the plethora of questions from the students. “You’re here to think! If there’s time for it after your lessons that is..” he adds in jest.
CHENNAI: “When you guys go to a doctor for a medical check-up, do you think that’s a private conversation?” Alan Rusbridger asks the audience of teachers and students. The query is met with a unanimous ‘yes’ from the sea of 196 students listening in rapt attention to the former Editor-in-chief of The Guardian, who became popular after he broke the news of the National Surveillance Agency (NSA) snooping, brought to light by American whistleblower Edward Snowden. “To a journalist, a source is something sacred, and information that comes our way is sensitive,” said the veteran, speaking at the orientation session of the Asian College of Journalism which welcomed its newest batch of students on Monday.
Rusbridger, who will be conducting sessions for the students during his three-week-long stint, will be speaking under three themes - ‘Climate Change’, ‘Snowden’ and ‘Other modes of Journalism’.
“If it becomes easy to trace who all a journalist met with and spoke to, in the coming future, the profession will soon dry up,” he noted, speaking on ‘Journalism since Edward Snowden’. He points out that it is in this current era of international espionage and privacy being a premium, that the whistle-blower made his case known through The Guardian.
Rusbridger says that it is easy for a government to figure out what every single person at a given room of audience is up to. “It won’t take more than minutes to tell what each one of you does, your background and your activities,” he told the students whose interest was piqued further. Metadata, for instance, was revealed to be a treasure trove for information-siphoning. Although it differs from ‘data’ in some technical respects, it is still perused by international spies putting people in the risk of being snooped on and data-theft. In layman’s language, Metadata is data about data (data about a text message for example like time, date, sender) and if “only need metadata, not your personal data” is an institutional disclaimer that used to put people at ease, we might have to think again. Because, as Alan reveals, “If you ask spies, they’ll say ‘that’s all we need’. Just metadata can help in drawing the pattern of a person’s life and habits.” He rues that at the international level, the technology engaged by governments in scouring its own citizen’s personal data is shockingly beyond the knowledge and comprehension of even legislators and judiciary. “And in the midst of political and commercial affiliations, the decision to publish something comes down to the story itself. The decision stands on the folds of the material,” he says, answering the plethora of questions from the students. “You’re here to think! If there’s time for it after your lessons that is..” he adds in jest.
Read more @ http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Journalism-as-a-Profession-May-Soon-Dry-Up-If-Sources-Can-Be-Easily-Traced/2015/07/07/article2906689.ece
One of the National Security Agency’s most powerful tools of mass surveillance makes tracking someone’s Internet usage as easy as entering an email address, and provides no built-in technology to prevent abuse. Today, The Intercept is publishing 48 top-secret and other classified documents about XKEYSCORE dated up to 2013, which shed new light on the breadth, depth and functionality of this critical spy system — one of the largest releases yet of documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The NSA’s XKEYSCORE program, first revealed by The Guardian, sweeps up countless people’s Internet searches, emails, documents, usernames and passwords, and other private communications. XKEYSCORE is fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fiber optic cables that make up the backbone of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing. As of 2008, the surveillance system boasted approximately 150 field sites in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, as well as many other countries, consisting of over 700 servers. These servers store “full-take data” at the collection sites — meaning that they captured all of the traffic collected — and, as of 2009, stored content for 3 to 5 days and metadata for 30 to 45 days. NSA documents indicate that tens of billions of records are stored in its database. “It is a fully distributed processing and query system that runs on machines around the world,” an NSA briefing on XKEYSCORE says. “At field sites, XKEYSCORE can run on multiple computers that gives it the ability to scale in both processing power and storage.”
One of the National Security Agency’s most powerful tools of mass surveillance makes tracking someone’s Internet usage as easy as entering an email address, and provides no built-in technology to prevent abuse. Today, The Intercept is publishing 48 top-secret and other classified documents about XKEYSCORE dated up to 2013, which shed new light on the breadth, depth and functionality of this critical spy system — one of the largest releases yet of documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA’s XKEYSCORE program, first revealed by The Guardian, sweeps up countless people’s Internet searches, emails, documents, usernames and passwords, and other private communications. XKEYSCORE is fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fiber optic cables that make up the backbone of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing. As of 2008, the surveillance system boasted approximately 150 field sites in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, as well as many other countries, consisting of over 700 servers.
These servers store “full-take data” at the collection sites — meaning that they captured all of the traffic collected — and, as of 2009, stored content for 3 to 5 days and metadata for 30 to 45 days. NSA documents indicate that tens of billions of records are stored in its database. “It is a fully distributed processing and query system that runs on machines around the world,” an NSA briefing on XKEYSCORE says. “At field sites, XKEYSCORE can run on multiple computers that gives it the ability to scale in both processing power and storage.”
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/01/nsas-google-worlds-private-communications/
Every time anyone uses a computer to send an e-mail, watch a video, do a Google search, or update a Facebook status, the National Security Agency (NSA) is probably collecting and collating that activity on one of its many servers. XKEYSCORE — the codename of the computer code used by the NSA to perform these actions — is massive and more intrusive than most people understand. On July 2, Micah Lee, Glenn Greenwald, and Morgan Marquis-Boire of The Intercept published the second of a two-part exposé of the inner-workings of this system that should shock the consciences of constitutionalists and civil libertarians. The revelations are based on information gleaned from documents leaked to Greenwald (and others) by Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor turned whistleblower who uncovered and then revealed the massive violations of the Constitution being carried out by the government of the United States. How wide is the net cast by the NSA’s XKEYSCORE system? The Intercept reports: XKEYSCORE is fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fiber optic cables that make up the backbone of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing. As of 2008, the surveillance system boasted approximately 150 field sites in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, as well as many other countries, consisting of over 700 servers. Surprisingly, the second installment reveals that XKEYSCORE is powerful, despite being built on some rather simple software. The Intercept reports: This global Internet surveillance network is powered by a somewhat clunky piece of software running on clusters of Linux servers. Analysts access XKEYSCORE’s web interface to search its wealth of private information, similar to how ordinary people can search Google for public information. It is tempting to assume that expensive, proprietary operating systems and software must power XKEYSCORE, but it actually relies on an entirely open source stack. In fact, according to an analysis of an XKEYSCORE manual for new systems administrators from the end of 2012, the system may have design deficiencies that could leave it vulnerable to attack by an intelligence agency insider. XKEYSCORE is a piece of Linux software that is typically deployed on Red Hat servers. It uses the Apache web server and stores collected data in MySQL databases. File systems in a cluster are handled by the NFS distributed file system and the autofs service, and scheduled tasks are handled by the cron scheduling service. Systems administrators who maintain XKEYSCORE servers use SSH to connect to them, and they use tools such as rsync and vim, as well as a comprehensive command-line tool, to manage the software. While the vulnerabilities of the NSA’s XKEYSCORE system are disturbing, the way it is used to gobble up gigabytes of personal data and online habits of millions of people never suspected of any crime should certainly be more alarming. Greenwald first described the details of the program in July 2013 after examining a PowerPoint presentation included in the information he received from Snowden. In his first report, he explained the scope of XKEYSCORE. One presentation claims the [XKEYSCORE] program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet," including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata. Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual’s internet activity. Exactly how does it work? Greenwald explained that, too: “An NSA tool called DNI Presenter, used to read the content of stored emails, also enables an analyst using XKEYSCORE to read the content of Facebook chats or private messages. Analysts can also search by name, telephone number, IP address, keywords, the language in which the internet activity was conducted or the type of browser used.” The New American published information earlier that the NSA uses XKEYSCORE to save gigabytes of Internet traffic data; however, that is a gross understatement.
Every time anyone uses a computer to send an e-mail, watch a video, do a Google search, or update a Facebook status, the National Security Agency (NSA) is probably collecting and collating that activity on one of its many servers.
XKEYSCORE — the codename of the computer code used by the NSA to perform these actions — is massive and more intrusive than most people understand.
On July 2, Micah Lee, Glenn Greenwald, and Morgan Marquis-Boire of The Intercept published the second of a two-part exposé of the inner-workings of this system that should shock the consciences of constitutionalists and civil libertarians.
The revelations are based on information gleaned from documents leaked to Greenwald (and others) by Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor turned whistleblower who uncovered and then revealed the massive violations of the Constitution being carried out by the government of the United States.
How wide is the net cast by the NSA’s XKEYSCORE system? The Intercept reports:
XKEYSCORE is fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fiber optic cables that make up the backbone of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing. As of 2008, the surveillance system boasted approximately 150 field sites in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, as well as many other countries, consisting of over 700 servers.
Surprisingly, the second installment reveals that XKEYSCORE is powerful, despite being built on some rather simple software. The Intercept reports:
This global Internet surveillance network is powered by a somewhat clunky piece of software running on clusters of Linux servers. Analysts access XKEYSCORE’s web interface to search its wealth of private information, similar to how ordinary people can search Google for public information.
It is tempting to assume that expensive, proprietary operating systems and software must power XKEYSCORE, but it actually relies on an entirely open source stack. In fact, according to an analysis of an XKEYSCORE manual for new systems administrators from the end of 2012, the system may have design deficiencies that could leave it vulnerable to attack by an intelligence agency insider.
XKEYSCORE is a piece of Linux software that is typically deployed on Red Hat servers. It uses the Apache web server and stores collected data in MySQL databases. File systems in a cluster are handled by the NFS distributed file system and the autofs service, and scheduled tasks are handled by the cron scheduling service. Systems administrators who maintain XKEYSCORE servers use SSH to connect to them, and they use tools such as rsync and vim, as well as a comprehensive command-line tool, to manage the software.
While the vulnerabilities of the NSA’s XKEYSCORE system are disturbing, the way it is used to gobble up gigabytes of personal data and online habits of millions of people never suspected of any crime should certainly be more alarming.
Greenwald first described the details of the program in July 2013 after examining a PowerPoint presentation included in the information he received from Snowden. In his first report, he explained the scope of XKEYSCORE.
One presentation claims the [XKEYSCORE] program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet," including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata. Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual’s internet activity.
Exactly how does it work? Greenwald explained that, too: “An NSA tool called DNI Presenter, used to read the content of stored emails, also enables an analyst using XKEYSCORE to read the content of Facebook chats or private messages. Analysts can also search by name, telephone number, IP address, keywords, the language in which the internet activity was conducted or the type of browser used.”
The New American published information earlier that the NSA uses XKEYSCORE to save gigabytes of Internet traffic data; however, that is a gross understatement.
Read more @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/21193-the-shocking-scope-of-the-nsa-s-xkeyscore-surveillance
The sheer quantity of communications that XKEYSCORE processes, filters and queries is stunning. Around the world, when a person gets online to do anything — write an email, post to a social network, browse the web or play a video game — there’s a decent chance that the Internet traffic her device sends and receives is getting collected and processed by one of XKEYSCORE’s hundreds of servers scattered across the globe. In order to make sense of such a massive and steady flow of information, analysts working for the National Security Agency, as well as partner spy agencies, have written thousands of snippets of code to detect different types of traffic and extract useful information from each type, according to documents dating up to 2013. For example, the system automatically detects if a given piece of traffic is an email. If it is, the system tags if it’s from Yahoo or Gmail, if it contains an airline itinerary, if it’s encrypted with PGP, or if the sender’s language is set to Arabic, along with myriad other details. This global Internet surveillance network is powered by a somewhat clunky piece of software running on clusters of Linux servers. Analysts access XKEYSCORE’s web interface to search its wealth of private information, similar to how ordinary people can search Google for public information. Based on documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept is shedding light on the inner workings of XKEYSCORE, one of the most extensive programs of mass surveillance in human history. How XKEYSCORE works under the hood It is tempting to assume that expensive, proprietary operating systems and software must power XKEYSCORE, but it actually relies on an entirely open source stack. In fact, according to an analysis of an XKEYSCORE manual for new systems administrators from the end of 2012, the system may have design deficiencies that could leave it vulnerable to attack by an intelligence agency insider.
The sheer quantity of communications that XKEYSCORE processes, filters and queries is stunning. Around the world, when a person gets online to do anything — write an email, post to a social network, browse the web or play a video game — there’s a decent chance that the Internet traffic her device sends and receives is getting collected and processed by one of XKEYSCORE’s hundreds of servers scattered across the globe.
In order to make sense of such a massive and steady flow of information, analysts working for the National Security Agency, as well as partner spy agencies, have written thousands of snippets of code to detect different types of traffic and extract useful information from each type, according to documents dating up to 2013. For example, the system automatically detects if a given piece of traffic is an email. If it is, the system tags if it’s from Yahoo or Gmail, if it contains an airline itinerary, if it’s encrypted with PGP, or if the sender’s language is set to Arabic, along with myriad other details.
Based on documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept is shedding light on the inner workings of XKEYSCORE, one of the most extensive programs of mass surveillance in human history.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/02/look-under-hood-xkeyscore/
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau plans to monitor 95% of all credit-card transactions by 2016 Since Edward Snowden leaked details of the National Security Agency’s electronic surveillance program two years ago, the controversy over privacy and domestic spying has crossed party lines, embarrassed senior officials and launched presidential campaigns. The political furor led to passage of the USA Freedom Act in early June. It will stop the NSA from collecting information on millions of American citizens’ phone calls. A Pew survey in May showed bipartisan majority disapproval of the NSA program—including 56% of Republicans, 48% of Democrats and 57% of independents. Yet the NSA at least was trying to protect Americans from terrorism. Another, far more pernicious data-collection program run by another huge, secretive and unaccountable government bureaucracy exists instead for the purpose of limiting Americans’ freedom. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, through its 12 data-mining programs, collects and monitors information for nearly 600 million personal credit-card accounts on a monthly basis. The CFPB is gearing up to monitor 95% of all credit-card transactions by 2016 (more about this below). The NSA surveillance program that stirred controversy gathered “metadata”—not the content of the calls, but information like the numbers dialed, the call duration, and the cellphone towers involved. According to the NSA and President Obama, the data collected was anonymous. But researchers at Stanford have demonstrated that linking supposedly anonymous phone numbers back to real people is simple. At that point, the data allows for inferences about those people, their relationships and activities. If your cellphone bill can reveal that much personal information, imagine how much is contained in your credit-card bill. Every restaurant you visit, every drugstore purchase, every trip you go on, every time you fill up your car—all potentially scooped up by a government agency. And earlier this year MIT researchers demonstrated a method to “re-identify” anonymous credit-card data. Every month the CFPB also gathers data on 22 million mortgages, 5.5 million student loans, two million bank accounts with overdraft fees, and hundreds of thousands of auto sales, credit scores and deposit advance loans. The agency claims most of the data it acquires through third parties is anonymous. But as in the case with the NSA surveillance, anonymous means only that the CFPB hasn’t connected the data with a name at the time they collect it. All of the data the CFPB is accumulating adds up to millions of detailed profiles of American citizens. Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act—the 2010 law that created the CFPB—specifically bars the agency from collecting data “for purposes of gathering or analyzing the personally identifiable financial information of consumers.” But Section 1031 does give the CFPB broad power to prohibit what the agency determines to be “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.”The express purpose of the data collection, according to the agency, is to decide what it will prohibit. That’s a far cry from trying to prevent another 9/11. It’s also a far cry from the private information that we entrust to companies like Visa V -0.51 % and Google. GOOG 0.41 % To the extent that these companies data-mine, they do so to better serve us as consumers. CFPB’s snooping is about deciding what financial services or products—such as auto loans or payment processors like PayPal—consumers shouldn’t be able to choose.
Since Edward Snowden leaked details of the National Security Agency’s electronic surveillance program two years ago, the controversy over privacy and domestic spying has crossed party lines, embarrassed senior officials and launched presidential campaigns. The political furor led to passage of the USA Freedom Act in early June. It will stop the NSA from collecting information on millions of American citizens’ phone calls.
A Pew survey in May showed bipartisan majority disapproval of the NSA program—including 56% of Republicans, 48% of Democrats and 57% of independents. Yet the NSA at least was trying to protect Americans from terrorism. Another, far more pernicious data-collection program run by another huge, secretive and unaccountable government bureaucracy exists instead for the purpose of limiting Americans’ freedom.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, through its 12 data-mining programs, collects and monitors information for nearly 600 million personal credit-card accounts on a monthly basis. The CFPB is gearing up to monitor 95% of all credit-card transactions by 2016 (more about this below).
The NSA surveillance program that stirred controversy gathered “metadata”—not the content of the calls, but information like the numbers dialed, the call duration, and the cellphone towers involved. According to the NSA and President Obama, the data collected was anonymous. But researchers at Stanford have demonstrated that linking supposedly anonymous phone numbers back to real people is simple. At that point, the data allows for inferences about those people, their relationships and activities.
If your cellphone bill can reveal that much personal information, imagine how much is contained in your credit-card bill. Every restaurant you visit, every drugstore purchase, every trip you go on, every time you fill up your car—all potentially scooped up by a government agency. And earlier this year MIT researchers demonstrated a method to “re-identify” anonymous credit-card data.
Every month the CFPB also gathers data on 22 million mortgages, 5.5 million student loans, two million bank accounts with overdraft fees, and hundreds of thousands of auto sales, credit scores and deposit advance loans.
The agency claims most of the data it acquires through third parties is anonymous. But as in the case with the NSA surveillance, anonymous means only that the CFPB hasn’t connected the data with a name at the time they collect it. All of the data the CFPB is accumulating adds up to millions of detailed profiles of American citizens.
Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act—the 2010 law that created the CFPB—specifically bars the agency from collecting data “for purposes of gathering or analyzing the personally identifiable financial information of consumers.” But Section 1031 does give the CFPB broad power to prohibit what the agency determines to be “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.”The express purpose of the data collection, according to the agency, is to decide what it will prohibit.
That’s a far cry from trying to prevent another 9/11. It’s also a far cry from the private information that we entrust to companies like Visa V -0.51 % and Google. GOOG 0.41 % To the extent that these companies data-mine, they do so to better serve us as consumers. CFPB’s snooping is about deciding what financial services or products—such as auto loans or payment processors like PayPal—consumers shouldn’t be able to choose.
Read more @ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10907564710791284872504581070502004499610
I do not believe this….. if spying stops the terrorists then why did 9/11 happen, they were spying on everyone long before that happened….. and what about the Boston Bombings….. sorry, I believe Snowden who said the spying isn’t about catching terrorists…. Its about power, and control and economic espionage etc…. Snowden’s honesty shines like a beacon of light in the darkness that is sweeping the earth….. It didn’t stop the recent terrorist attacks in France, and they spy on everyone there too, and it didn’t stop the recent lone wolf terrorist in Australia….. and the spies here spy on everyone too….. which pretty much proves the point of what Snowden made about it not being about terrorism. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding….. what has come of it is more laws to protect the spying which I think is highly suspicious…
Only good intelligence gathering can stop terror attacks before they begin, and that’s harder to do post-Snowden. Meanwhile jihadist targets are getting ever more random. The photograph of Seifeddine Rezgui that surfaced after he slaughtered dozens of mainly Western vacationers in the Tunisian resort of Sousse is a picture of beachside nonchalance. Take away the Kalashnikov held languidly in his right hand with the barrel pointed down and he looks like just another beachcomber going for a stroll, kicking up some spray by the Mediterranean’s edge.
Only good intelligence gathering can stop terror attacks before they begin, and that’s harder to do post-Snowden. Meanwhile jihadist targets are getting ever more random.
The photograph of Seifeddine Rezgui that surfaced after he slaughtered dozens of mainly Western vacationers in the Tunisian resort of Sousse is a picture of beachside nonchalance. Take away the Kalashnikov held languidly in his right hand with the barrel pointed down and he looks like just another beachcomber going for a stroll, kicking up some spray by the Mediterranean’s edge.
Read more @ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/01/from-church-to-a-beach-the-new-terrorist-target-is-you.html
Journalists now compete with spooks and spies, and the spooks have the home-field advantage. ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA—A smiling woman I don’t know greets me by first name. The conference room has been swept for surveillance devices, she explains, and everyone who enters will get a brief pat-down. With three other journalists and a computer security expert, I am about to begin a two-day training in pre-electronic spycraft. Our instructors: two military police veterans. The goal: Learn how to protect people who risk their jobs or freedom to share information with the public—aka whistleblowers. After we all get settled in, class starts. “Once you realize that what’s possible in electronic surveillance today has basically reached the realm of science fiction, you have to take a different route,” says Larry Jones, a former intelligence analyst for the Marines and one of the workshop’s leaders. His partner, Daryl Baginski, guides us through pen-and-paper cryptosystems—ways to encrypt and decrypt short messages. When we’ve encrypted a note, we mail it or leave it for someone to pick up. These techniques date back thousands of years, but even simple ciphers can stump today’s best code-breaking computers for days. A cipher called the “one-time pad” can defeat computer analysis entirely and is still used by spies. However, to get around its limitations (it requires a long key of random letters), Baginski invented his own cipher and teaches it in class. The aim, Baginski says, is “making it prohibitively laborious and expensive to keep a tab on you.” “Governments from all over the world are [acting] against journalists, human rights activists, human rights defenders and political dissidents,” explains Bruce Schneier, widely considered the foremost U.S. electronic-security expert (Congress called him in to explain the implications of the Edward Snowden leaks). “There’s an arms race here, and journalists are losing.” In November 2014, for example, The Intercept reported that the U.K.’s top intelligence agencies gave their employees authority to ignore attorney-client privilege and review the private documents of anyone in “sensitive professions,” including journalists. In February 2014, the Washington Post reported that state actors from Ethiopia were the “likely culprits” in a campaign to spy on U.S. journalists with “off-the-shelf ” spyware. Meanwhile, under the Obama administration, the U.S. government has subpoenaed or snooped on reporters from Fox News to the New York Times and, according to an analysis by PolitiFact, prosecuted more employees for press leaks than all previous administrations combined. In this climate, journalists must take precautions when communicating with sensitive sources. In 2012, reporters from Vice News failed to strip metadata from a photo of John McAfee, a famous fugitive with whom they were traveling, and inadvertently revealed his location. But even the best electronic security practices have their limits. “Journalists now compete with spooks and spies,” Tom Lowenthal, the resident security expert for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), wrote in a recent post on CPJ’s website, “and the spooks have the home-field advantage.” Someone monitoring power lines can tell what sequence of keys are being pressed on a plugged-in keyboard. That includes the passwords necessary to unlock encrypted communications and files. Another device can, from a short distance away, read the electromagnetic waves emanating from computer monitors. So anything on screen is potentially vulnerable. Still wackier are the programs that can listen to the tiny sounds of a computer processor. A technician with sufficient software can, in theory, enlist your cell phone to listen to the data being handled by your nearby laptop—including, again, encryption keys. In this age of technological wizardry, the humble passing of notes may be the last way to communicate with guaranteed privacy.
Journalists now compete with spooks and spies, and the spooks have the home-field advantage.
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA—A smiling woman I don’t know greets me by first name.
The conference room has been swept for surveillance devices, she explains, and everyone who enters will get a brief pat-down.
With three other journalists and a computer security expert, I am about to begin a two-day training in pre-electronic spycraft. Our instructors: two military police veterans. The goal: Learn how to protect people who risk their jobs or freedom to share information with the public—aka whistleblowers.
After we all get settled in, class starts. “Once you realize that what’s possible in electronic surveillance today has basically reached the realm of science fiction, you have to take a different route,” says Larry Jones, a former intelligence analyst for the Marines and one of the workshop’s leaders.
His partner, Daryl Baginski, guides us through pen-and-paper cryptosystems—ways to encrypt and decrypt short messages. When we’ve encrypted a note, we mail it or leave it for someone to pick up. These techniques date back thousands of years, but even simple ciphers can stump today’s best code-breaking computers for days. A cipher called the “one-time pad” can defeat computer analysis entirely and is still used by spies. However, to get around its limitations (it requires a long key of random letters), Baginski invented his own cipher and teaches it in class. The aim, Baginski says, is “making it prohibitively laborious and expensive to keep a tab on you.”
“Governments from all over the world are [acting] against journalists, human rights activists, human rights defenders and political dissidents,” explains Bruce Schneier, widely considered the foremost U.S. electronic-security expert (Congress called him in to explain the implications of the Edward Snowden leaks). “There’s an arms race here, and journalists are losing.”
In November 2014, for example, The Intercept reported that the U.K.’s top intelligence agencies gave their employees authority to ignore attorney-client privilege and review the private documents of anyone in “sensitive professions,” including journalists. In February 2014, the Washington Post reported that state actors from Ethiopia were the “likely culprits” in a campaign to spy on U.S. journalists with “off-the-shelf ” spyware. Meanwhile, under the Obama administration, the U.S. government has subpoenaed or snooped on reporters from Fox News to the New York Times and, according to an analysis by PolitiFact, prosecuted more employees for press leaks than all previous administrations combined.
In this climate, journalists must take precautions when communicating with sensitive sources. In 2012, reporters from Vice News failed to strip metadata from a photo of John McAfee, a famous fugitive with whom they were traveling, and inadvertently revealed his location. But even the best electronic security practices have their limits. “Journalists now compete with spooks and spies,” Tom Lowenthal, the resident security expert for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), wrote in a recent post on CPJ’s website, “and the spooks have the home-field advantage.”
Someone monitoring power lines can tell what sequence of keys are being pressed on a plugged-in keyboard. That includes the passwords necessary to unlock encrypted communications and files. Another device can, from a short distance away, read the electromagnetic waves emanating from computer monitors. So anything on screen is potentially vulnerable. Still wackier are the programs that can listen to the tiny sounds of a computer processor. A technician with sufficient software can, in theory, enlist your cell phone to listen to the data being handled by your nearby laptop—including, again, encryption keys. In this age of technological wizardry, the humble passing of notes may be the last way to communicate with guaranteed privacy.
Read more @ http://inthesetimes.com/article/18035/a-spys-guide-to-protecting-whistleblowers
A global grid-down blackout explodes into an international meltdown. Panic and inflation soar even while medicine and food supplies dwindle. And a small, scattered insurgency takes up arms against what's left of the U.S. military. This is the grim near-future imagined by an active-duty Navy intelligence expert in his new post-apocalyptic page-turner "Tomorrow War." Out today, it's billed by publisher Simon & Schuster as an "ultrarealistic" account of an "alternate dystopian America located just down the tracks of oblivion." This is, of course, a novel and, by definition, fiction. But like a modern-day prophet weaving deeper truth into the darkest of parables, the author says he also hopes his book serves as a wake-up call about an all-too-possible future. "At its core, 'Tomorrow War' is a warning, based on the current snapshot of America today. This is about how things might look if we don't turn things around and start getting serious about freedom and liberty," author J.L. Bourne tells OFFduty.
A global grid-down blackout explodes into an international meltdown. Panic and inflation soar even while medicine and food supplies dwindle. And a small, scattered insurgency takes up arms against what's left of the U.S. military.
This is the grim near-future imagined by an active-duty Navy intelligence expert in his new post-apocalyptic page-turner "Tomorrow War."
Out today, it's billed by publisher Simon & Schuster as an "ultrarealistic" account of an "alternate dystopian America located just down the tracks of oblivion."
This is, of course, a novel and, by definition, fiction. But like a modern-day prophet weaving deeper truth into the darkest of parables, the author says he also hopes his book serves as a wake-up call about an all-too-possible future.
"At its core, 'Tomorrow War' is a warning, based on the current snapshot of America today. This is about how things might look if we don't turn things around and start getting serious about freedom and liberty," author J.L. Bourne tells OFFduty.
Read more @ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/entertainment/2015/06/30/tomorrow-war-jl-bourne-grid-down-constitution/29106569/
Few news events can unleash more schadenfreude within the security community than watching a notorious firm of hackers-for-hire become a hack target themselves. In the case of the freshly disemboweled Italian surveillance firm Hacking Team, the company may also serve as a dark example of a global surveillance industry that often sells to any government willing to pay, with little regard for that regime’s human rights record. On Sunday night, unidentified hackers published a massive, 400 gigabyte trove on bittorrent of internal documents from the Milan-based Hacking Team, a firm long accused of unethical sales of tools that help governments break into target computers and phones. The breached trove includes executive emails, customer invoices and even source code; the company’s twitter feed was hacked, controlled by the intruders for nearly 12 hours, and used to distribute samples of the company’s hacked files. The security community spent Sunday night picking through the spy firm’s innards and in some cases finding what appear to be new confirmations that Hacking Team sold digital intrusion tools to authoritarian regimes. Those revelations may be well timed to influence an ongoing U.S. policy debate over how to control spying software, with a deadline for public debate on new regulations coming this month. One document pulled from the breached files, for instance, appears to be a list of Hacking Team customers along with the length of their contracts. These customers include Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and several United States agencies including the DEA, FBI and Department of Defense. Other documents show that Hacking Team issued an invoice for $1 million to Ethiopia’s Information Network Security Agency (the spy agency of a country known to surveil and censor its journalists and political dissidents) for licensing its Remote Control System, a spyware tool. For Sudan, a country that’s the subject of a UN embargo, the documents show a $480,000 invoice to its National Intelligence and Security Services for the same software.
Few news events can unleash more schadenfreude within the security community than watching a notorious firm of hackers-for-hire become a hack target themselves. In the case of the freshly disemboweled Italian surveillance firm Hacking Team, the company may also serve as a dark example of a global surveillance industry that often sells to any government willing to pay, with little regard for that regime’s human rights record.
On Sunday night, unidentified hackers published a massive, 400 gigabyte trove on bittorrent of internal documents from the Milan-based Hacking Team, a firm long accused of unethical sales of tools that help governments break into target computers and phones. The breached trove includes executive emails, customer invoices and even source code; the company’s twitter feed was hacked, controlled by the intruders for nearly 12 hours, and used to distribute samples of the company’s hacked files. The security community spent Sunday night picking through the spy firm’s innards and in some cases finding what appear to be new confirmations that Hacking Team sold digital intrusion tools to authoritarian regimes. Those revelations may be well timed to influence an ongoing U.S. policy debate over how to control spying software, with a deadline for public debate on new regulations coming this month.
One document pulled from the breached files, for instance, appears to be a list of Hacking Team customers along with the length of their contracts. These customers include Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and several United States agencies including the DEA, FBI and Department of Defense. Other documents show that Hacking Team issued an invoice for $1 million to Ethiopia’s Information Network Security Agency (the spy agency of a country known to surveil and censor its journalists and political dissidents) for licensing its Remote Control System, a spyware tool. For Sudan, a country that’s the subject of a UN embargo, the documents show a $480,000 invoice to its National Intelligence and Security Services for the same software.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hacking-team-breach-shows-global-spying-firm-run-amok/
So many hacks, so few days in the week to write alarming stories about every one. Here’s our roundup of what you have may missed this week. First, some news: a shocking revelation that the GCHQ, England’s spy organization, has been spying on Amnesty International. This is ironic, considering the UK government is party to the Wassenaar Agreement, which explicitly forbids regimes from spying on human rights groups. The MIT media lab, along with two bitcoin entrepreneurs, revealed a prototype for Enigma, a system designed to encrypt data that can be shared with untrusted computers to run computations without being decrypted. Researcher Ben Caudill will unveil a hardware proxy at DefCon designed to move you up to two and a half miles away from your IP address using a radio connection. In movie news, a mysterious teaser trailer has finally been released for Snowden, the Oliver Stone-directed flick about the whistleblower and former NSA contractor. And you may have noticed a slight anomaly: Tuesday’s leap second caused some sporadic outages across the Internet just after midnight.
So many hacks, so few days in the week to write alarming stories about every one. Here’s our roundup of what you have may missed this week.
First, some news: a shocking revelation that the GCHQ, England’s spy organization, has been spying on Amnesty International. This is ironic, considering the UK government is party to the Wassenaar Agreement, which explicitly forbids regimes from spying on human rights groups.
The MIT media lab, along with two bitcoin entrepreneurs, revealed a prototype for Enigma, a system designed to encrypt data that can be shared with untrusted computers to run computations without being decrypted.
Researcher Ben Caudill will unveil a hardware proxy at DefCon designed to move you up to two and a half miles away from your IP address using a radio connection.
In movie news, a mysterious teaser trailer has finally been released for Snowden, the Oliver Stone-directed flick about the whistleblower and former NSA contractor.
And you may have noticed a slight anomaly: Tuesday’s leap second caused some sporadic outages across the Internet just after midnight.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/security-news-this-week-070215/
Jul 8 15 8:38 PM
GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush said former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden should receive “no leniency” for his leak of government surveillance programs. Snowden broke the law, recklessly endangered nat'l security, & fled to China/Russia. He should be given no leniency https://t.co/9RHNGsHZnx The former Florida governor has been a strong defender of the NSA surveillance programs, the details of which Snowden leaked to journalists in 2013. Bush has also been highly critical of Snowden. Bush on Monday night was reacting to an interview in which former Attorney General Eric Holder suggested the possibility exists for the government and Snowden to reach some kind of resolution. “I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists,” Holder told Yahoo News. Holder said Snowden’s disclosures “spurred a necessary debate” and that the country is “in a different place” because of them. A spokesman for the Justice Department said, however, that its position had not changed. The government has charged Snowden with multiple crimes under the Espionage Act. Following his leaks, Snowden fled to Hong Kong and then to Russia, where he has received temporary asylum. He has expressed the desire to return to the United States. But he has refrained because he doesn't think he would receive a fair trial. Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who received the leaked documents, shot back at Bush’s comments.
GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush said former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden should receive “no leniency” for his leak of government surveillance programs.
Snowden broke the law, recklessly endangered nat'l security, & fled to China/Russia. He should be given no leniency https://t.co/9RHNGsHZnx
The former Florida governor has been a strong defender of the NSA surveillance programs, the details of which Snowden leaked to journalists in 2013. Bush has also been highly critical of Snowden.
Bush on Monday night was reacting to an interview in which former Attorney General Eric Holder suggested the possibility exists for the government and Snowden to reach some kind of resolution.
“I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists,” Holder told Yahoo News.
Holder said Snowden’s disclosures “spurred a necessary debate” and that the country is “in a different place” because of them.
A spokesman for the Justice Department said, however, that its position had not changed. The government has charged Snowden with multiple crimes under the Espionage Act.
Following his leaks, Snowden fled to Hong Kong and then to Russia, where he has received temporary asylum. He has expressed the desire to return to the United States. But he has refrained because he doesn't think he would receive a fair trial.
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who received the leaked documents, shot back at Bush’s comments.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/247023-bush-no-leniency-for-snowden
Nope, this is a ploy….. I hope Edward sees that….
In a subtle yet remarkable shift in tone, former Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the "possibility exists" that the Justice Department could forge a deal with fugitive leaker Edward Snowden that could bring him home. Speaking to Yahoo News, Holder said "we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures," adding that Snowden's revelations about the size and scope of the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance programs "spurred a necessary debate. "I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists," Holder said. Holder, who just returned to the private sector as a lawyer for the firm Covington & Burling after spending six years at the helm of President Obama's Justice Department, has suggested before that a deal could take place that would allow Snowden to return to the U.S. from Moscow, where he is living under asylum. But Holder's previous comments, in January 2014, made clear that "the notion of clemency was not something we were willing to consider."
In a subtle yet remarkable shift in tone, former Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the "possibility exists" that the Justice Department could forge a deal with fugitive leaker Edward Snowden that could bring him home.
Speaking to Yahoo News, Holder said "we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures," adding that Snowden's revelations about the size and scope of the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance programs "spurred a necessary debate.
"I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists," Holder said.
Holder, who just returned to the private sector as a lawyer for the firm Covington & Burling after spending six years at the helm of President Obama's Justice Department, has suggested before that a deal could take place that would allow Snowden to return to the U.S. from Moscow, where he is living under asylum. But Holder's previous comments, in January 2014, made clear that "the notion of clemency was not something we were willing to consider."
Read more @ http://www.govexec.com/defense/2015/07/eric-holder-possibility-exists-edward-snowden-could-come-home/117073/
Jeb Bush said Tuesday that he was infuriated by the possibility of a plea bargain for Edward Snowden that would allow the former government contractor to return to the United States from Moscow. The 2016 Republican presidential candidate tweeted that Snowden, “should be given no leniency” for his actions. Snowden broke the law, recklessly endangered nat’l security, & fled to China/Russia. He should be given no leniency https://t.co/9RHNGsHZnx — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) July 7, 2015 On Monday, former Attorney General Eric Holder told Yahoo that the United States benefited from Snowden’s leak of classified documents, and that a consensus could be reached on a plea deal. “We are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures,” Holder said. “His actions spurred a necessary debate. I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with—I think the possibility exists.” Several others have spoken out about the potential plea deal. Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director during the George W. Bush administration, told Yahoo he was appalled by the idea and believes Snowden should return to criminal charges.
Jeb Bush said Tuesday that he was infuriated by the possibility of a plea bargain for Edward Snowden that would allow the former government contractor to return to the United States from Moscow.
The 2016 Republican presidential candidate tweeted that Snowden, “should be given no leniency” for his actions.
Snowden broke the law, recklessly endangered nat’l security, & fled to China/Russia. He should be given no leniency https://t.co/9RHNGsHZnx
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) July 7, 2015
On Monday, former Attorney General Eric Holder told Yahoo that the United States benefited from Snowden’s leak of classified documents, and that a consensus could be reached on a plea deal.
“We are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures,” Holder said. “His actions spurred a necessary debate. I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with—I think the possibility exists.”
Several others have spoken out about the potential plea deal. Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director during the George W. Bush administration, told Yahoo he was appalled by the idea and believes Snowden should return to criminal charges.
Read more @ http://freebeacon.com/national-security/jeb-bush-snowden-should-be-given-no-leniency/
I think they are using tricks to get him to come home… goodness knows they have tried everything else, including begging….. so trickery is the next option…..
US Justice Department may agree to a plea bargain for fugitive ex-government contractor, former attorney-general Eric Holder says. Washington: It's no secret Edward Snowden would like to come home to the United States. But the former government contractor who helped disclose details about government surveillance programs is facing three criminal charges that could mean decades in prison. Yet now there are rumblings that the Obama administration could soften its stance. Former attorney-general Eric Holder hinted as much during an interview with Yahoo News – saying the "possibility exists" that the Justice Department would agree to a plea bargain. "I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with." The Yahoo story, written by investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, also cited three unnamed sources familiar with the Snowden case to report that Robert Litt, the chief counsel to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "recently privately floated the idea that the government might be open to a plea bargain in which Snowden returns to the United States, pleads guilty to one felony count and receives a prison sentence of three to five years in exchange for full co-operation with the government." But the Justice Department, which Mr Holder recently left to return to the private sector, says it is still pressing forward. "This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed," agency spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.
US Justice Department may agree to a plea bargain for fugitive ex-government contractor, former attorney-general Eric Holder says.
Washington: It's no secret Edward Snowden would like to come home to the United States. But the former government contractor who helped disclose details about government surveillance programs is facing three criminal charges that could mean decades in prison.
Yet now there are rumblings that the Obama administration could soften its stance. Former attorney-general Eric Holder hinted as much during an interview with Yahoo News – saying the "possibility exists" that the Justice Department would agree to a plea bargain. "I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with."
The Yahoo story, written by investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, also cited three unnamed sources familiar with the Snowden case to report that Robert Litt, the chief counsel to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "recently privately floated the idea that the government might be open to a plea bargain in which Snowden returns to the United States, pleads guilty to one felony count and receives a prison sentence of three to five years in exchange for full co-operation with the government."
But the Justice Department, which Mr Holder recently left to return to the private sector, says it is still pressing forward. "This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed," agency spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.
Read more @ http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-the-obama-administration-softening-on-edward-snowden-20150707-gi7bgh.html
Well we already know that isn’t true and from the look of it many in congress are making money off it…. There is a Salon article naming the different people in congress….. These are the people that wanted Snowden dead for springing them….. I cannot see that will change….
WASHINGTON -- Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden could have spurred a "useful" and necessary debate about government data collection if he had taken his concerns to members of Congress instead of giving documents to journalists, former Attorney General Eric Holder told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. Holder said in an interview with Yahoo's Michael Isikoff earlier this week that Snowden's disclosures had resulted in a "necessary debate” about the government's bulk data collection. On Tuesday, Holder told The Huffington Post that he believes the same discussion could have taken place if Snowden had taken his concerns to lawmakers. "Yeah, I do," Holder said when asked whether this debate could have occurred without Snowden's public disclosures. "If Snowden, for instance, had gone to certain members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and made disclosure to them, that debate could have occurred in a way that was less harmful to the interests of the United States."
WASHINGTON -- Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden could have spurred a "useful" and necessary debate about government data collection if he had taken his concerns to members of Congress instead of giving documents to journalists, former Attorney General Eric Holder told The Huffington Post on Tuesday.
Holder said in an interview with Yahoo's Michael Isikoff earlier this week that Snowden's disclosures had resulted in a "necessary debate” about the government's bulk data collection. On Tuesday, Holder told The Huffington Post that he believes the same discussion could have taken place if Snowden had taken his concerns to lawmakers.
"Yeah, I do," Holder said when asked whether this debate could have occurred without Snowden's public disclosures. "If Snowden, for instance, had gone to certain members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and made disclosure to them, that debate could have occurred in a way that was less harmful to the interests of the United States."
Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/eric-holder-snowden_n_7745004.html
An intelligence official informally floated the idea of potentially offering Edward Snowden a specific plea bargain to return home, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reports. Isikoff, citing three "sources familiar with informal discussions of Snowden’s case," writes that the chief counsel to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Robert Litt, "recently privately floated the idea that the government might be open to" the former NSA contractor returning to the US, pleading guilty to one felony count, and receiving a prison sentence of three to five years "in exchange for full cooperation with the government." Snowden, who has lived in Russia since June 23, 2013, is charged with three felonies: Theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person. ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner, one of Snowden's legal advisers, told Yahoo that any deal involving a felony sentence and prison time would be rejected. “Our position is he should not be reporting to prison as a felon and losing his civil rights as a result of his act of conscience,” Wizner said.
An intelligence official informally floated the idea of potentially offering Edward Snowden a specific plea bargain to return home, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reports.
Isikoff, citing three "sources familiar with informal discussions of Snowden’s case," writes that the chief counsel to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Robert Litt, "recently privately floated the idea that the government might be open to" the former NSA contractor returning to the US, pleading guilty to one felony count, and receiving a prison sentence of three to five years "in exchange for full cooperation with the government."
Snowden, who has lived in Russia since June 23, 2013, is charged with three felonies: Theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person.
ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner, one of Snowden's legal advisers, told Yahoo that any deal involving a felony sentence and prison time would be rejected.
“Our position is he should not be reporting to prison as a felon and losing his civil rights as a result of his act of conscience,” Wizner said.
Read more @ http://www.stuttgartdailyleader.com/article/20150706/BUSINESS/307069980/-1/News
Glenn Greenwald, Call Your Office (And Bring Smelling Salts): In an interview with Yahoo News, former Attorney General Eric Holder says that Edward Snowden, the exiled National Security Agency leaker who dished the dirt on U.S. spying on its own citizens, could get a Justice Department deal that might allow him to return to the U.S. -- and not via the Guantanamo Bay detention center. In fact, Holder seemed to imply that Snowden deserved a hearty round of applause rather than a decade behind bars. The nation, he said, is “in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and that “his actions spurred a necessary debate.” A spokeswoman for Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw a big bucket of ice water on any talk of a deal, pointing out that Snowden is still under indictment. Still, clemency doesn’t seem so far-fetched. Consider: Holder, President Barack Obama’s self-described “wingman,” has only been out of office for two months and change, and probably still has back-channel access to his old boss and longtime friend; at the same time, after slamming him for doing “unnecessary damage” to the national security apparatus Obama grudgingly acknowledged Snowden probably did the nation a solid by prompting “a conversation we needed to have” as one nation under surveillance. Not to mention the White House probably considers two winters spent in Russia, not exactly a bastion of freedom and democracy, is probably punishment enough.
Read more @ http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2015/07/07/could-edward-snowden-go-home-a-hero
In the words of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Michael Mosman: “Plus ya change, plus c’est la meme chose” – for, as he cheerfully points out, the next 180 days. NSA’s very big ears are up and at it again, courtesy of Judge Mosman. Mosman has granted permission for the spy agency to collect phone call records of pretty much everyone, everywhere in the U.S. for the next six months. This comes only weeks after Congress killed off this key part of the phone spying program and a federal appeals court ruled it unlawful. Mosman concluded the 180-day grace period Congress gave NSA to wind things down specifically allows for continued phone spying. That may or may not have been unexpected. (And what the NSA is apparently allowed to keep and use is much broader and more personal than even the billions of phone calls it has collected to date.) But what was a surprise – certainly to the federal appeals court which last month took exception to the program’s legality- was Mosman’s emphasis on how his fellow jurists were dead wrong, just plain wrong, utterly wrong and really, very totally wrong. Of course, he didn’t put it quite that way. “This Court respectfully disagrees with that Court’s analysis,” Mosman wrote. In fact, Mosman’s respectful disagreement goes on for quite a few paragraphs, though was perhaps best summed up in a single sentence: “To a considerable extent, the Second Circuit’s analysis rests on mischaracterizations of how this program works.”
In the words of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Michael Mosman: “Plus ya change, plus c’est la meme chose” – for, as he cheerfully points out, the next 180 days.
NSA’s very big ears are up and at it again, courtesy of Judge Mosman. Mosman has granted permission for the spy agency to collect phone call records of pretty much everyone, everywhere in the U.S. for the next six months.
This comes only weeks after Congress killed off this key part of the phone spying program and a federal appeals court ruled it unlawful.
Mosman concluded the 180-day grace period Congress gave NSA to wind things down specifically allows for continued phone spying.
That may or may not have been unexpected. (And what the NSA is apparently allowed to keep and use is much broader and more personal than even the billions of phone calls it has collected to date.)
But what was a surprise – certainly to the federal appeals court which last month took exception to the program’s legality- was Mosman’s emphasis on how his fellow jurists were dead wrong, just plain wrong, utterly wrong and really, very totally wrong.
Of course, he didn’t put it quite that way.
“This Court respectfully disagrees with that Court’s analysis,” Mosman wrote.
In fact, Mosman’s respectful disagreement goes on for quite a few paragraphs, though was perhaps best summed up in a single sentence: “To a considerable extent, the Second Circuit’s analysis rests on mischaracterizations of how this program works.”
Read more @ http://theinsider.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2015/07/01/spy-agency-to-hoover-up-phone-call-info-again-despite-congress-court-ruling/
The shadowy federal agency that wants to know what you’re buying with your credit card finds itself the subject of wide-ranging discrimination allegations. Employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau charge that a culture of sexism, ageism and racism permeates the quasi-governmental agency. Two CFPB whistleblowers recently testified before the House Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Democratic members of the committee attempted to turn the tables on the whistleblowers, charging that anyone complaining of discrimination in an agency created by the Obama White House is quite clearly racist. “The opposite side of the aisle hates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., the committee’s ranking member. “They would like to destroy it. We have to take pause when it appears that (Republicans) would simply like to use discrimination as a way by which they continue to attack the bureau.”
The shadowy federal agency that wants to know what you’re buying with your credit card finds itself the subject of wide-ranging discrimination allegations.
Employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau charge that a culture of sexism, ageism and racism permeates the quasi-governmental agency.
Two CFPB whistleblowers recently testified before the House Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Democratic members of the committee attempted to turn the tables on the whistleblowers, charging that anyone complaining of discrimination in an agency created by the Obama White House is quite clearly racist.
“The opposite side of the aisle hates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., the committee’s ranking member. “They would like to destroy it. We have to take pause when it appears that (Republicans) would simply like to use discrimination as a way by which they continue to attack the bureau.”
Read more @ http://watchdog.org/227457/federal-discrimination-cfpb/
Jul 10 15 8:12 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency tapped phone calls involving German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her closest advisers for years and spied on the staff of her predecessors, according to WikiLeaks. A report released by the group suggested NSA spying on Merkel and her staff had gone on far longer and more widely than previously realised. WikiLeaks said the NSA targeted for long-term surveillance 125 phone numbers of top German officials. The release risks renewing tensions between Germany and the United States a month after they sought to put a row over spying behind them, with U.S. President Barack Obama declaring in Bavaria that the two nations were "inseparable allies". A German government spokesman said on Thursday Berlin was looking into the latest report and reiterated that such events strained German and American intelligence cooperation. The United States repeated its position that it did not undertake foreign intelligence unless there was "a specific and validated national security purpose." State Department Spokesman John Kirby said in an email, "This applies to ordinary citizens and world leaders alike. Germany is a close friend and partner on a range of issues, and we look forward to continuing and deepening this important relationship." Friends and associates of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have denied he is the source of the latest WikiLeaks revelations, suggesting that they likely came from a different and still unidentified leaker deep inside U.S. intelligence. His friends have said Snowden avoided giving the large tranches of classified documents he downloaded while working at NSA installations to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, even though Assange helped arrange for Snowden's flight to and current exile in Moscow. However, some U.S. officials familiar with the latest leaks said they were unaware of other leakers and believe that one way or another the material newly published by WikiLeaks did somehow originate with Snowden, even if he did not give it directly to Assange.
BERLIN (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency tapped phone calls involving German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her closest advisers for years and spied on the staff of her predecessors, according to WikiLeaks.
A report released by the group suggested NSA spying on Merkel and her staff had gone on far longer and more widely than previously realised. WikiLeaks said the NSA targeted for long-term surveillance 125 phone numbers of top German officials.
The release risks renewing tensions between Germany and the United States a month after they sought to put a row over spying behind them, with U.S. President Barack Obama declaring in Bavaria that the two nations were "inseparable allies".
A German government spokesman said on Thursday Berlin was looking into the latest report and reiterated that such events strained German and American intelligence cooperation.
The United States repeated its position that it did not undertake foreign intelligence unless there was "a specific and validated national security purpose."
State Department Spokesman John Kirby said in an email, "This applies to ordinary citizens and world leaders alike. Germany is a close friend and partner on a range of issues, and we look forward to continuing and deepening this important relationship."
Friends and associates of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have denied he is the source of the latest WikiLeaks revelations, suggesting that they likely came from a different and still unidentified leaker deep inside U.S. intelligence.
His friends have said Snowden avoided giving the large tranches of classified documents he downloaded while working at NSA installations to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, even though Assange helped arrange for Snowden's flight to and current exile in Moscow.
However, some U.S. officials familiar with the latest leaks said they were unaware of other leakers and believe that one way or another the material newly published by WikiLeaks did somehow originate with Snowden, even if he did not give it directly to Assange.
Read more @ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-spy-agency-tapped-german-210348345.html#rWO2PaF
New leak? I remember reading about this when the first wave or second wave of news came out in the Snowden revelations...not going to search back through thousands of links to find it...... its in them somewhere..... However the numbers and fax numbers etc were not included in the news articles on it.... so it seems someone has slipped Wikileaks the info or they have been doing some hacking themselves..... I have no idea.... They are quick to blame Snowden though..... too quick.
Jul 12 15 9:30 AM
When you pick up the phone, who you’re calling is none of the government’s business. The NSA’s domestic surveillance of phone metadata was the first program to be disclosed based on documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Americans have been furious about it ever since. The courts ruled it illegal, and Congress let the section of the Patriot Act that justified it expire (though the program lives on in a different form as part of the USA Freedom Act). Yet XKEYSCORE, the secret program that converts all the data it can see into searchable events like web pages loaded, files downloaded, forms submitted, emails and attachments sent, porn videos watched, TV shows streamed, and advertisements loaded, demonstrates how Internet traffic can be even more sensitive than phone calls. And unlike the Patriot Act’s phone metadata program, Congress has failed to limit the scope of programs like XKEYSCORE, which is presumably still operating at full speed. Maybe Verizon stopped giving phone metadata to the NSA, but if a Verizon engineer uploads a spreadsheet full of this metadata without proper encryption, the NSA may well get it anyway by spying directly on the cables that the spreadsheet travels over. The outrage over bulk collection of our phone metadata makes sense: Metadata is private. Americans call suicide prevention hotlines, HIV testing services, phone sex services, advocacy groups for gun rights and for abortion rights, and the people they’re having affairs with. We use the phone to schedule job interviews without letting our current employer know, and to manage long-distance relationships. Most of us, at one point or another, have spent long hours on the phone discussing the most intimate details about our lives. There isn’t an American alive today who didn’t grow up with at least some access to a telephone, so Americans understand this well. But Americans don’t understand the Internet yet. Bulk collection of phone metadata is, without a doubt, a violation of your privacy, but bulk surveillance of Internet traffic is orders of magnitude more invasive. People also use the Internet in all the ways they use phones — often inadvertently sharing even more intimate details through online searches. In fact, the phone network itself is starting to go over the Internet, without customers even noticing. XKEYSCORE, as well as NSA’s programs that tap the Internet directly and feed data into it, have some legal problems: They violate First Amendment rights to freedom of association; they violate the Wiretap Act. But the biggest and most obvious concerns are with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is short and concise: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It means that Americans have a right to privacy. If government agents want to search you or seize your data, they must have a warrant. The warrant can only be issued if they have probable cause, and the warrant must be specific. It can’t say, “We want to seize everyone’s Internet traffic to see what’s in it.” Instead, it must say something like, “We want to seize a specific incriminating document from a specific suspect.” But this is exactly what’s happening: The government is indiscriminately seizing Internet traffic to see what’s in it, without probable cause. The ostensible justification is that, while tens of millions of Americans may be swept up in this dragnet, the real targets are foreigners. In a legal document called USSID 18, the NSA sets out policies and procedures that purportedly prevent unreasonable searches of data from U.S. persons.
When you pick up the phone, who you’re calling is none of the government’s business. The NSA’s domestic surveillance of phone metadata was the first program to be disclosed based on documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Americans have been furious about it ever since. The courts ruled it illegal, and Congress let the section of the Patriot Act that justified it expire (though the program lives on in a different form as part of the USA Freedom Act).
Yet XKEYSCORE, the secret program that converts all the data it can see into searchable events like web pages loaded, files downloaded, forms submitted, emails and attachments sent, porn videos watched, TV shows streamed, and advertisements loaded, demonstrates how Internet traffic can be even more sensitive than phone calls. And unlike the Patriot Act’s phone metadata program, Congress has failed to limit the scope of programs like XKEYSCORE, which is presumably still operating at full speed. Maybe Verizon stopped giving phone metadata to the NSA, but if a Verizon engineer uploads a spreadsheet full of this metadata without proper encryption, the NSA may well get it anyway by spying directly on the cables that the spreadsheet travels over.
The outrage over bulk collection of our phone metadata makes sense: Metadata is private. Americans call suicide prevention hotlines, HIV testing services, phone sex services, advocacy groups for gun rights and for abortion rights, and the people they’re having affairs with. We use the phone to schedule job interviews without letting our current employer know, and to manage long-distance relationships. Most of us, at one point or another, have spent long hours on the phone discussing the most intimate details about our lives. There isn’t an American alive today who didn’t grow up with at least some access to a telephone, so Americans understand this well.
But Americans don’t understand the Internet yet. Bulk collection of phone metadata is, without a doubt, a violation of your privacy, but bulk surveillance of Internet traffic is orders of magnitude more invasive. People also use the Internet in all the ways they use phones — often inadvertently sharing even more intimate details through online searches. In fact, the phone network itself is starting to go over the Internet, without customers even noticing.
XKEYSCORE, as well as NSA’s programs that tap the Internet directly and feed data into it, have some legal problems: They violate First Amendment rights to freedom of association; they violate the Wiretap Act. But the biggest and most obvious concerns are with the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is short and concise:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It means that Americans have a right to privacy. If government agents want to search you or seize your data, they must have a warrant. The warrant can only be issued if they have probable cause, and the warrant must be specific. It can’t say, “We want to seize everyone’s Internet traffic to see what’s in it.” Instead, it must say something like, “We want to seize a specific incriminating document from a specific suspect.”
But this is exactly what’s happening:
The government is indiscriminately seizing Internet traffic to see what’s in it, without probable cause. The ostensible justification is that, while tens of millions of Americans may be swept up in this dragnet, the real targets are foreigners. In a legal document called USSID 18, the NSA sets out policies and procedures that purportedly prevent unreasonable searches of data from U.S. persons.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/09/spying-internet-orders-magnitude-invasive-phone-metadata/
The debate between the federal government and technology industry over encryption has largely focused on national security implications: Terrorism organizations could use encrypted messages to recruit supporters or hatch attacks and the federal government would be left in the dark if investigators aren’t granted access to those communications. Indeed, that was a central point in the testimony that Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates and FBI Director James Comey gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. But the impact on local law enforcement agencies could be felt more directly and broadly as messages, photos and videos stored on mobile devices have emerged as key pieces of evidence in criminal investigations over the past decade. Without access to that information, one witness told committee members, it would become more difficult to investigate and persecute robberies, sexual assaults, murders and other forms of violent crime. “Smartphones are ubiquitous, and there is almost no kind of case in which prosecutors have not used evidence from smartphones,” New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in written testimony. “Indeed, it is the rare case in which information from a smartphone is not useful,” One example Vance provided was a New York man who was capturing video on his iPhone at the time he was fatally shot. The evidence allowed police to more easily identify the killer and helped prosecutors to put him behind bars, he said. But the strong encryption policies that leading smartphone companies have put in place over the past year increasingly prevent law enforcement from legally searching devices. Both Apple and Google have changed the security measures on smartphones running the latest version of their operating systems such that only individuals with the pass code can unlock the phone and view its contents. The companies themselves no longer have that ability, and thus cannot comply with requests for information stored on the device.
The debate between the federal government and technology industry over encryption has largely focused on national security implications: Terrorism organizations could use encrypted messages to recruit supporters or hatch attacks and the federal government would be left in the dark if investigators aren’t granted access to those communications.
Indeed, that was a central point in the testimony that Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates and FBI Director James Comey gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
But the impact on local law enforcement agencies could be felt more directly and broadly as messages, photos and videos stored on mobile devices have emerged as key pieces of evidence in criminal investigations over the past decade. Without access to that information, one witness told committee members, it would become more difficult to investigate and persecute robberies, sexual assaults, murders and other forms of violent crime.
“Smartphones are ubiquitous, and there is almost no kind of case in which prosecutors have not used evidence from smartphones,” New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in written testimony. “Indeed, it is the rare case in which information from a smartphone is not useful,”
One example Vance provided was a New York man who was capturing video on his iPhone at the time he was fatally shot. The evidence allowed police to more easily identify the killer and helped prosecutors to put him behind bars, he said.
But the strong encryption policies that leading smartphone companies have put in place over the past year increasingly prevent law enforcement from legally searching devices. Both Apple and Google have changed the security measures on smartphones running the latest version of their operating systems such that only individuals with the pass code can unlock the phone and view its contents. The companies themselves no longer have that ability, and thus cannot comply with requests for information stored on the device.
Read more @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/08/why-phone-encryption-could-stymie-local-law-enforcement/
Now how on earth did they catch criminals before the internet and smart phones…. ?
Manhattan DA: iPhone Crypto Locked Out Cops 74 Times The debate over encryption and backdoors for law enforcement has long had a surplus of opinions and a deficit of data. On Wednesday, however, New York district attorney Cyrus Vance offered one actual number into the mix: The Manhattan DA’s office has encountered 74 iPhones whose full-disk encryption locked out a law enforcement investigation. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the FBI, Justice Department and Manhattan DA’s office all asked for action from Congress to persuade or compel companies like Google and Apple to add law enforcement backdoors into their operating systems’ encryption. But only District attorney Vance put a number to what he described as the growing problem that iPhone security represents for his office’s investigators. Vance testified that in a total of 92 cases involving an iPhone running iOS 8, 74—or about 80 percent of all cases where an iOS 8 phone was involved—had been locked such that law enforcement couldn’t access the phone’s contents, thanks to Apple’s full-disk encryption upgrade, which it put into effect in September of last year. (A spokesperson for the Manhattan DA’s office clarified in an email that those 74 cases took place over the nine months ending on June 30.)1 “If that’s my experience in one office in Manhattan, it’s going to be a parallel experience across the country,” Vance told the panel of Senators. “I don’t believe that the option we should pursue when faced with inaccessibility to locked smartphones…is to say from a law enforcement perspective, ‘there’s nothing we can do.’ There has to be something we can do.”
The debate over encryption and backdoors for law enforcement has long had a surplus of opinions and a deficit of data. On Wednesday, however, New York district attorney Cyrus Vance offered one actual number into the mix: The Manhattan DA’s office has encountered 74 iPhones whose full-disk encryption locked out a law enforcement investigation.
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the FBI, Justice Department and Manhattan DA’s office all asked for action from Congress to persuade or compel companies like Google and Apple to add law enforcement backdoors into their operating systems’ encryption. But only District attorney Vance put a number to what he described as the growing problem that iPhone security represents for his office’s investigators. Vance testified that in a total of 92 cases involving an iPhone running iOS 8, 74—or about 80 percent of all cases where an iOS 8 phone was involved—had been locked such that law enforcement couldn’t access the phone’s contents, thanks to Apple’s full-disk encryption upgrade, which it put into effect in September of last year. (A spokesperson for the Manhattan DA’s office clarified in an email that those 74 cases took place over the nine months ending on June 30.)1
“If that’s my experience in one office in Manhattan, it’s going to be a parallel experience across the country,” Vance told the panel of Senators. “I don’t believe that the option we should pursue when faced with inaccessibility to locked smartphones…is to say from a law enforcement perspective, ‘there’s nothing we can do.’ There has to be something we can do.”
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/manhattan-da-iphone-crypto-foiled-cops-74-times/
Read more @ http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/08/iphone-encryption-police-data/
"Criminal defendants across the nation are the principal beneficiaries of iOS 8." Following the leaks by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden that began in the summer of 2013, encryption and encryption backdoors have become hot-button topics of discussion. That's because many companies, including Apple and Google, have been going out of their way to encrypt products after the public learned that the US had embarked on a massive, legally and morally suspect electronic spying operation against its own citizenry and the global community at large. Fearing encryption is undermining their surveillance capabilities, government officials from the US and across the pond in the UK have been increasingly decrying encryption or at least demanding a government-accessible backdoor to unlock said encryption. One of the latest rants against encryption occurred Wednesday. FBI Director James Comey complained to a Senate panel that companies, like Apple, are building products in which the keys necessary to decrypt communications and electronic devices are being left "solely in the hands of the end user." In a joint statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey and a Justice Department official essentially told lawmakers that we're all doomed unless companies bake encryption backdoors into their products to allow for lawful access by the government. Comey said the problems backdoor-less encryption presents to law enforcement "are grave, growing, and extremely complex." But that doomsday scenario was tame compared to what New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr told the panel. He said his office handles some 100,000 criminal cases a year spanning murder, rape, robbery, identity theft, financial fraud, and terrorism.
Following the leaks by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden that began in the summer of 2013, encryption and encryption backdoors have become hot-button topics of discussion.
That's because many companies, including Apple and Google, have been going out of their way to encrypt products after the public learned that the US had embarked on a massive, legally and morally suspect electronic spying operation against its own citizenry and the global community at large. Fearing encryption is undermining their surveillance capabilities, government officials from the US and across the pond in the UK have been increasingly decrying encryption or at least demanding a government-accessible backdoor to unlock said encryption.
One of the latest rants against encryption occurred Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey complained to a Senate panel that companies, like Apple, are building products in which the keys necessary to decrypt communications and electronic devices are being left "solely in the hands of the end user." In a joint statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey and a Justice Department official essentially told lawmakers that we're all doomed unless companies bake encryption backdoors into their products to allow for lawful access by the government. Comey said the problems backdoor-less encryption presents to law enforcement "are grave, growing, and extremely complex."
But that doomsday scenario was tame compared to what New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr told the panel. He said his office handles some 100,000 criminal cases a year spanning murder, rape, robbery, identity theft, financial fraud, and terrorism.
Read more @ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/this-is-the-most-outrageous-government-tirade-against-ios-8-encryption/
FBI's director says he's not a "maniac" about encryption. The experts disagree. It's the conversation that just won't end. In case you hadn't noticed, in recent months there's been fervent discussion both for and against encryption, which has law enforcement and experts at odds. The debate began in the wake of the Edward Snowden affair after Apple began encrypting iPhones and iPads running the latest software. By cutting out Apple from the data demand process, law enforcement must go directly to the device owner. That -- as you might imagine -- incensed law enforcement and intelligence agencies, because that requires informing suspects that they're under investigation. Without any congressional backing, the feds asked for the only thing they could: "backdoor" access to tech companies' systems to pull data on suspected criminals and terrorists. On Tuesday, more than a dozen elite cryptographers and security experts penned a letter effectively calling on the feds to stop flogging an already dead horse. From the report in The New York Times:
FBI's director says he's not a "maniac" about encryption. The experts disagree.
It's the conversation that just won't end.
In case you hadn't noticed, in recent months there's been fervent discussion both for and against encryption, which has law enforcement and experts at odds.
The debate began in the wake of the Edward Snowden affair after Apple began encrypting iPhones and iPads running the latest software. By cutting out Apple from the data demand process, law enforcement must go directly to the device owner. That -- as you might imagine -- incensed law enforcement and intelligence agencies, because that requires informing suspects that they're under investigation.
Without any congressional backing, the feds asked for the only thing they could: "backdoor" access to tech companies' systems to pull data on suspected criminals and terrorists.
On Tuesday, more than a dozen elite cryptographers and security experts penned a letter effectively calling on the feds to stop flogging an already dead horse.
From the report in The New York Times:
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/because-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-secure-backdoor-gosh-darn-it/
WASHINGTON — Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified before Congress Wednesday that encryption technology from Apple and Google has made it almost impossible for crime fighters to access phones, laptops and data of criminals even with search warrants. “This digital world is, in fact, the 21st Century crime scene,” Vance told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “(And) criminals are literally and figuratively laughing in the face of law enforcement.” Both Google and Apple have deployed new operating systems that hide users’ passcode from the tech giants – so despite a search warrant the companies could not unlock a suspected criminal’s phone. The tech leaders and a long list of other companies and cyber experts have pushed back against calls to scale back encryption – especially following post-Edward Snowden privacy concerns and regular threats from hackers. “We urge you to reject any proposal that US companies deliberately weaken the security of their products,” Apple, Google and others wrote to President Obama in May.
WASHINGTON — Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified before Congress Wednesday that encryption technology from Apple and Google has made it almost impossible for crime fighters to access phones, laptops and data of criminals even with search warrants.
“This digital world is, in fact, the 21st Century crime scene,” Vance told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “(And) criminals are literally and figuratively laughing in the face of law enforcement.”
Both Google and Apple have deployed new operating systems that hide users’ passcode from the tech giants – so despite a search warrant the companies could not unlock a suspected criminal’s phone.
The tech leaders and a long list of other companies and cyber experts have pushed back against calls to scale back encryption – especially following post-Edward Snowden privacy concerns and regular threats from hackers.
“We urge you to reject any proposal that US companies deliberately weaken the security of their products,” Apple, Google and others wrote to President Obama in May.
Read more @ http://nypost.com/2015/07/08/da-blames-digital-world-for-delay-in-crime-investigations/
The data encryption that Apple and Google use in their smart phones is making it harder for local law-enforcement officials to do their jobs, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said Wednesday during testimony before the U.S. Senate judiciary committee in Washington, D.C. Vance’s prepared testimony, provided to Capital, argued that local law-enforcement officials are paying the price for concerns over the federal government's mass collection of phone data. “I want to emphasize I am testifying from a state and local perspective," Vance said. "I am not advocating bulk data collection or unauthorized surveillance. Instead, I am concerned about protecting local law enforcement’s ability to conduct targeted requests for information, scrutinized by an impartial judge for his or her evaluation as to whether probable cause has been established." The new data encryption deployed by Google and Apple in their phone software is, according to Vance, “engineered…such that they can no longer assist law enforcement with search warrants written for passcode-protected smartphones.”
The data encryption that Apple and Google use in their smart phones is making it harder for local law-enforcement officials to do their jobs, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said Wednesday during testimony before the U.S. Senate judiciary committee in Washington, D.C.
Vance’s prepared testimony, provided to Capital, argued that local law-enforcement officials are paying the price for concerns over the federal government's mass collection of phone data.
“I want to emphasize I am testifying from a state and local perspective," Vance said. "I am not advocating bulk data collection or unauthorized surveillance. Instead, I am concerned about protecting local law enforcement’s ability to conduct targeted requests for information, scrutinized by an impartial judge for his or her evaluation as to whether probable cause has been established."
The new data encryption deployed by Google and Apple in their phone software is, according to Vance, “engineered…such that they can no longer assist law enforcement with search warrants written for passcode-protected smartphones.”
Read more @ http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/07/8571632/vance-says-phone-encryption-hurts-crime-victims
“Encryption works,” said Edward Snowden in June 2013, in reply to a question from a Guardian reader about how he could protect his communications from NSA/GCHQ surveillance. “Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.” Mr Snowden is a smart and thoughtful guy and he chooses his words with care. So note the qualifications in that sentence: “strong crypto” and “properly implemented”. By strong crypto, he meant public-key cryptography, which works by using two separate keys, one of which is private and one of which is public. Although different, the two parts of the key pair are mathematically linked. The concept originated, ironically, in GCHQ in 1973, but only reached the public domain four years later after three MIT researchers, Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, independently invented a way to implement it. Their algorithm was christened RSA, based on the first letters of their surnames. In 1991, an American geek and activist named Phil Zimmermann implemented an open-source implementation of RSA and called it “Pretty Good Privacy” or PGP. Its significance was that, for the first time in history, it enabled citizens to protect the privacy of their communications with military-grade cryptography. The US government was not amused, defined PGP as a “munition” and prosecuted Zimmermann for exporting munitions without a licence. With characteristic chutzpah, Zimmermann found a way round the government ban. Harnessing the power of the First Amendment, he published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book that was distributed by MIT Press. Anyone purchasing the book could then rip off the covers and scan the code, thereby enabling him or her to build and compile their own version of PGP.
“Encryption works,” said Edward Snowden in June 2013, in reply to a question from a Guardian reader about how he could protect his communications from NSA/GCHQ surveillance. “Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.” Mr Snowden is a smart and thoughtful guy and he chooses his words with care. So note the qualifications in that sentence: “strong crypto” and “properly implemented”.
By strong crypto, he meant public-key cryptography, which works by using two separate keys, one of which is private and one of which is public. Although different, the two parts of the key pair are mathematically linked. The concept originated, ironically, in GCHQ in 1973, but only reached the public domain four years later after three MIT researchers, Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, independently invented a way to implement it. Their algorithm was christened RSA, based on the first letters of their surnames.
In 1991, an American geek and activist named Phil Zimmermann implemented an open-source implementation of RSA and called it “Pretty Good Privacy” or PGP. Its significance was that, for the first time in history, it enabled citizens to protect the privacy of their communications with military-grade cryptography. The US government was not amused, defined PGP as a “munition” and prosecuted Zimmermann for exporting munitions without a licence.
With characteristic chutzpah, Zimmermann found a way round the government ban. Harnessing the power of the First Amendment, he published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book that was distributed by MIT Press. Anyone purchasing the book could then rip off the covers and scan the code, thereby enabling him or her to build and compile their own version of PGP.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/05/encryption-humans-weakest-link
President Barack Obama wears a FitBit monitor on his wrist to count his steps and calories, and has waxed poetic about the power of wearable technology to “give each of us information that allows us to stay healthier.” On Capitol Hill, 13 members have joined together across party lines this year to launch the Internet of Things Caucus. Started by a former Microsoft marketing executive and a Republican who made his fortune in electronics, the caucus pledges to help foster the coming explosion of “products, services and interconnected opportunities that didn’t exist a generation ago and will be taken for granted by the end of this generation.” Then again, the caucus hasn't even held its first meeting yet. Obama's own government panel has warned of a "small — and rapidly closing — window" for the U.S. government to successfully figure out how to deal with the tech explosion everyone is so excited about.The number of web-linked gadgets surpassed the number of humans on the planet seven years ago, and today the Internet of Things, the profusion of networked objects and sensors that increasingly touch our lives, is quickly turning our physical world into something totally new. As American consumers start filling their homes and businesses with networked technology — smart watches sending health data wirelessly, cars that can take over for their human drivers, and drones tracking wildfires and cattle — POLITICO set out to determine how well government was keeping up. Beyond one fledgling caucus, how is Washington grappling with this sweeping new force? The short answer: It's not. This first-of-its-kind investigation involved reviewing hundreds of pages of federal reports and hearing transcripts, attending many of the inside-the-Beltway events now proliferating on the Internet of Things and conducting interviews with more than 50 senators and members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, federal, state and local agency officials, privacy advocates and tech whizzes all feeling their way into this new frontier. I also wired myself up to see just what it felt like to move through this new world as an early adopter. What I found, overall, is that the government doesn’t have any single mechanism to address the Internet of Things or the challenges it’s presenting. Instead, the new networked-object technologies are covered by at least two dozen separate federal agencies — from the Food and Drug Administration to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, from aviation to agriculture — and more than 30 different congressional committees. Congress has written no laws or any kind of overarching national strategy specifically for the Internet of Things. The Federal Trade Commission has emerged as the government's de facto police force for dubious business practices related to the Internet of Things. But it faces serious questions about its mandate, given the lack of underlying laws, standards and policies that apply. And numerous other offices have grabbed onto their own piece of the elephant, often without treating it as the same animal. For instance, NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration are both grappling with controversial Internet of Things-related rules, on driverless cars and drones, respectively, though their work isn’t closely coordinated. One of the few government documents specifically to address the IOT was a report by a White House-chartered task force published last November. After examining the cybersecurity implications of new networked technology for national security and emergency preparedness, the group warned that the U.S. had until the end of the decade to really influence whether it becomes a success or a catastrophic failure. "If the country fails to do so, it will be coping with the consequences for generations," the report by the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee concluded. So far, we seem to be letting the window close. While the tech companies behind the IOT are working hard to make their case in Washington, the budding controversies and challenges the industry faces has barely shown up as a coherent problem on the government’s radar. That day may be coming. “If you think you’ve got a cybersecurity problem now, wait for the cold winter day when a hacker halfway around the world turns down the thermostat on 100,000 homes in Washington D.C.,” said Marc Rotenberg, the head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Stung by years of Republican criticism that his administration is too quick to regulate, Obama's Cabinet has gone out of its way to show how friendly it is to the innovation potential of the Internet of Things without talking much about its consumer and public-sector risks. Congress has been friendly, too, which is not the same thing as informed. “There’s 435 members of the House, 100 members of the Senate, and most of them still don’t know what the Internet of Things is,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who co-chairs the recently created Internet of Things Caucus, and counts himself an industry evangelist. Where government involvement is concerned, many of the most plugged-in legislators belong in the "wait-and-see" camp. “I don’t think we should wait 15 years until this thing is fully operational before we start making public policy,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat who has taken a leading role on the issue. “But I think we could wait 15 months.” But the Internet of Things isn't waiting. Every second, as tech CTO Dave Evans calculates elsewhere in this special report, 127 items are added to the Internet. Toasters and heart monitors; trucking fleets and individual cows. The world we inhabit is becoming a digital landscape, one that tracks and responds to each of us. Is anyone in Washington paying attention? IN MAY 1869, on a promontory in northwest Utah, America changed forever. That’s when railroad tycoons and their workers drove in the ceremonial "Golden Spike" that completed the first transcontinental railroad and knit the East Coast to the expanding West. The railroad was a phenomenal driver of economic growth and created fortunes — but its unprecedented power also created monopolies and complaints of corruption and unfairness. Two decades later, it led Congress to create the first U.S. regulatory agency: the Interstate Commerce Commission. Other big moments in American innovation history have followed similar patterns. Washington has tended to play the role of cheerleader-in-chief — standing aside as new markets grew, and watching the consequences of each new technology lead to messy patchworks of local and state rules, before finally deciding they required federal attention as a coherent national issue.
President Barack Obama wears a FitBit monitor on his wrist to count his steps and calories, and has waxed poetic about the power of wearable technology to “give each of us information that allows us to stay healthier.”
On Capitol Hill, 13 members have joined together across party lines this year to launch the Internet of Things Caucus. Started by a former Microsoft marketing executive and a Republican who made his fortune in electronics, the caucus pledges to help foster the coming explosion of “products, services and interconnected opportunities that didn’t exist a generation ago and will be taken for granted by the end of this generation.”
Then again, the caucus hasn't even held its first meeting yet. Obama's own government panel has warned of a "small — and rapidly closing — window" for the U.S. government to successfully figure out how to deal with the tech explosion everyone is so excited about.The number of web-linked gadgets surpassed the number of humans on the planet seven years ago, and today the Internet of Things, the profusion of networked objects and sensors that increasingly touch our lives, is quickly turning our physical world into something totally new. As American consumers start filling their homes and businesses with networked technology — smart watches sending health data wirelessly, cars that can take over for their human drivers, and drones tracking wildfires and cattle — POLITICO set out to determine how well government was keeping up. Beyond one fledgling caucus, how is Washington grappling with this sweeping new force?
The short answer: It's not.
This first-of-its-kind investigation involved reviewing hundreds of pages of federal reports and hearing transcripts, attending many of the inside-the-Beltway events now proliferating on the Internet of Things and conducting interviews with more than 50 senators and members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, federal, state and local agency officials, privacy advocates and tech whizzes all feeling their way into this new frontier. I also wired myself up to see just what it felt like to move through this new world as an early adopter.
What I found, overall, is that the government doesn’t have any single mechanism to address the Internet of Things or the challenges it’s presenting. Instead, the new networked-object technologies are covered by at least two dozen separate federal agencies — from the Food and Drug Administration to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, from aviation to agriculture — and more than 30 different congressional committees. Congress has written no laws or any kind of overarching national strategy specifically for the Internet of Things.
The Federal Trade Commission has emerged as the government's de facto police force for dubious business practices related to the Internet of Things. But it faces serious questions about its mandate, given the lack of underlying laws, standards and policies that apply. And numerous other offices have grabbed onto their own piece of the elephant, often without treating it as the same animal. For instance, NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration are both grappling with controversial Internet of Things-related rules, on driverless cars and drones, respectively, though their work isn’t closely coordinated.
One of the few government documents specifically to address the IOT was a report by a White House-chartered task force published last November. After examining the cybersecurity implications of new networked technology for national security and emergency preparedness, the group warned that the U.S. had until the end of the decade to really influence whether it becomes a success or a catastrophic failure. "If the country fails to do so, it will be coping with the consequences for generations," the report by the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee concluded.
So far, we seem to be letting the window close. While the tech companies behind the IOT are working hard to make their case in Washington, the budding controversies and challenges the industry faces has barely shown up as a coherent problem on the government’s radar. That day may be coming. “If you think you’ve got a cybersecurity problem now, wait for the cold winter day when a hacker halfway around the world turns down the thermostat on 100,000 homes in Washington D.C.,” said Marc Rotenberg, the head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Stung by years of Republican criticism that his administration is too quick to regulate, Obama's Cabinet has gone out of its way to show how friendly it is to the innovation potential of the Internet of Things without talking much about its consumer and public-sector risks. Congress has been friendly, too, which is not the same thing as informed.
“There’s 435 members of the House, 100 members of the Senate, and most of them still don’t know what the Internet of Things is,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who co-chairs the recently created Internet of Things Caucus, and counts himself an industry evangelist.
Where government involvement is concerned, many of the most plugged-in legislators belong in the "wait-and-see" camp. “I don’t think we should wait 15 years until this thing is fully operational before we start making public policy,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat who has taken a leading role on the issue. “But I think we could wait 15 months.”
But the Internet of Things isn't waiting. Every second, as tech CTO Dave Evans calculates elsewhere in this special report, 127 items are added to the Internet. Toasters and heart monitors; trucking fleets and individual cows. The world we inhabit is becoming a digital landscape, one that tracks and responds to each of us. Is anyone in Washington paying attention?
IN MAY 1869, on a promontory in northwest Utah, America changed forever. That’s when railroad tycoons and their workers drove in the ceremonial "Golden Spike" that completed the first transcontinental railroad and knit the East Coast to the expanding West. The railroad was a phenomenal driver of economic growth and created fortunes — but its unprecedented power also created monopolies and complaints of corruption and unfairness. Two decades later, it led Congress to create the first U.S. regulatory agency: the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Other big moments in American innovation history have followed similar patterns. Washington has tended to play the role of cheerleader-in-chief — standing aside as new markets grew, and watching the consequences of each new technology lead to messy patchworks of local and state rules, before finally deciding they required federal attention as a coherent national issue.