ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Jul 14 15 8:37 PM
Following a massive security breach over the weekend, Hacking Team has issued a warning that its surveillance and remote access software could now be used by anyone -- including terrorists. The Italian security and surveillance firm fell victim to an attack that relieved it of 400GB of company data, including source code for its software. Whoever was responsible for the security breach made this data available via torrent, meaning that anyone was able to get hold of it. Hacking Team's software is favoured by governments around the world for mounting NSA-style surveillance and monitoring programs and the company has now issued a stark warning: "Terrorists, extortionists and others can deploy this technology at will if they have the technical ability to do so". Hacking Team says that "a major threat exists" as a result of the source code having been made available online. The security outfit launched an investigation in the wake of the breach and has since determined that "sufficient code was released to permit anyone to deploy the software against any target of their choice". 'Anyone' includes not only the likes of you and I, but also script-kiddies, criminally-minded hackers, and terrorists. The full repercussion of the leak is not yet known, but Hacking Team's technology was sold exclusively to governments and their agencies and this technology is now in the wrong hands. As a result of this, the company says the "ability to control who uses the technology has been lost". Put bluntly, Hacking Team says: We believe this is an extremely dangerous situation. Work is underway to determine if anything can be done to limit any potential damage, but the prognosis is not good. These are tools that were designed to evade detection, to circumvent security measures, and to provide access to just about anything; they were not designed to be reined in. There has been talk recently about governments wanting backdoors to be built in security products, but this is not something that applied to Hacking Team's arsenal:
Following a massive security breach over the weekend, Hacking Team has issued a warning that its surveillance and remote access software could now be used by anyone -- including terrorists. The Italian security and surveillance firm fell victim to an attack that relieved it of 400GB of company data, including source code for its software.
Whoever was responsible for the security breach made this data available via torrent, meaning that anyone was able to get hold of it. Hacking Team's software is favoured by governments around the world for mounting NSA-style surveillance and monitoring programs and the company has now issued a stark warning: "Terrorists, extortionists and others can deploy this technology at will if they have the technical ability to do so".
Hacking Team says that "a major threat exists" as a result of the source code having been made available online. The security outfit launched an investigation in the wake of the breach and has since determined that "sufficient code was released to permit anyone to deploy the software against any target of their choice".
'Anyone' includes not only the likes of you and I, but also script-kiddies, criminally-minded hackers, and terrorists. The full repercussion of the leak is not yet known, but Hacking Team's technology was sold exclusively to governments and their agencies and this technology is now in the wrong hands. As a result of this, the company says the "ability to control who uses the technology has been lost".
Put bluntly, Hacking Team says:
We believe this is an extremely dangerous situation.
Work is underway to determine if anything can be done to limit any potential damage, but the prognosis is not good. These are tools that were designed to evade detection, to circumvent security measures, and to provide access to just about anything; they were not designed to be reined in. There has been talk recently about governments wanting backdoors to be built in security products, but this is not something that applied to Hacking Team's arsenal:
Read more @ http://betanews.com/2015/07/09/terrorists-have-hacking-team-spying-tools/
USA FREEDOM Act: Protector of Civil Liberties or Window Dressing?
For the first time since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Congress has scaled back the scope of its provisions. On June 2, 2015, Congress enacted and President Barack Obama signed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, which renewed several of the USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions but added restraints to government surveillance activities, particularly the controversial bulk collection of telephone metadata. In the month since Congress’ action, however, debate has continued about whether the USA FREEDOM Act actually curtailed government surveillance programs or whether it is mere window dressing. The USA PATRIOT Act The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act was a response to perceived weaknesses in the government’s ability to investigate and identify terrorists and terrorist activity following 9/11. It amended the pre-existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulated the gathering of foreign intelligence. The USA PATRIOT Act modified FISA by expanding the definition of terrorist activity and lowering the threshold for launching a terrorist-related investigation. It also expanded a section of the law covering “business records” to allow the government to seek an order requiring the production of “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items). …” The government must obtain the court order to access these kinds of records through a secret court—created by FISA and continued by the USA PATRIOT Act—known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Unlike most other courts in the country, the FISC operates in near-complete secrecy. Proceedings before the court typically involve only the government’s representatives and the judge—the person or business whose information is being sought does not participate and often does not know that the order was obtained. After learning about the order, the person or business can challenge it, but is legally prevented from discussing it with anyone. Reportedly, 99% of surveillance orders requested by the government are approved. The FISC approved one such order in April 2013 requiring Verizon to turn over telephone metadata about all calls made through its cellular and landline networks, both those calls made within the U.S. and those between the U.S. and abroad. The metadata includes the phone numbers making and receiving the call, the length of the call, and routing information that can be used to provide a general location of the caller and recipient. The National Security Agency (NSA) collected the information and maintained it in a massive database. When the NSA came to believe that a particular phone number merited investigation, the database was searched and the metadata was used to reveal all the phone numbers connected with the target number—the numbers that the target called and those that called the target—as well as the length of the conversations and where the conversations came from. All this was permitted because the metadata was considered a “tangible thing” under the USA PATRIOT Act. It would have remained secret except for the wide-ranging and controversial disclosure of this order and other secret NSA information by Edward Snowden in summer 2013. The disclosure created a firestorm about the program, resulting in congressional hearings, government agency defenses and back-pedaling, and unprecedented media attention. The uproar continued through 2013 and 2014 and served as the framework for the debate over the 2015 USA FREEDOM Act. The USA FREEDOM Act The USA FREEDOM (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring) Act again renewed the business records provision of FISA, but with several important restrictions that were included largely in response to the telephone metadata collection program disclosure. Key among the restrictions is that the NSA will no longer be collecting the data and maintaining the database; instead, the data will be maintained by the telephone companies. In order to initiate a search of those records, the government will need to articulate to the FISC that there is “reasonable suspicion” that a particular person, address, or phone number is relevant to an authorized terrorism investigation. The search is also limited to two “hops”: The first is the targeted number, and the second is connections to the targeted number. Under the NSA program, there was no limit on the number of connected “hops” that could be searched. The act also somewhat reduces the level of secrecy associated with the FISC, in requiring that some opinions be declassified and others summarized when declassification isn’t possible. The FISC must designate “friends of the court” to advocate the public’s interest, and private companies are allowed to report on the number of FISC orders they receive. There are also increased requirements for the government to publicly report various statistics about FISC court orders for call detail records, although not specific information such as the targets of the searches or holders of the information.
For the first time since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Congress has scaled back the scope of its provisions. On June 2, 2015, Congress enacted and President Barack Obama signed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, which renewed several of the USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions but added restraints to government surveillance activities, particularly the controversial bulk collection of telephone metadata. In the month since Congress’ action, however, debate has continued about whether the USA FREEDOM Act actually curtailed government surveillance programs or whether it is mere window dressing.
The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act was a response to perceived weaknesses in the government’s ability to investigate and identify terrorists and terrorist activity following 9/11. It amended the pre-existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulated the gathering of foreign intelligence. The USA PATRIOT Act modified FISA by expanding the definition of terrorist activity and lowering the threshold for launching a terrorist-related investigation. It also expanded a section of the law covering “business records” to allow the government to seek an order requiring the production of “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items). …”
The government must obtain the court order to access these kinds of records through a secret court—created by FISA and continued by the USA PATRIOT Act—known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Unlike most other courts in the country, the FISC operates in near-complete secrecy. Proceedings before the court typically involve only the government’s representatives and the judge—the person or business whose information is being sought does not participate and often does not know that the order was obtained. After learning about the order, the person or business can challenge it, but is legally prevented from discussing it with anyone. Reportedly, 99% of surveillance orders requested by the government are approved.
The FISC approved one such order in April 2013 requiring Verizon to turn over telephone metadata about all calls made through its cellular and landline networks, both those calls made within the U.S. and those between the U.S. and abroad. The metadata includes the phone numbers making and receiving the call, the length of the call, and routing information that can be used to provide a general location of the caller and recipient. The National Security Agency (NSA) collected the information and maintained it in a massive database. When the NSA came to believe that a particular phone number merited investigation, the database was searched and the metadata was used to reveal all the phone numbers connected with the target number—the numbers that the target called and those that called the target—as well as the length of the conversations and where the conversations came from. All this was permitted because the metadata was considered a “tangible thing” under the USA PATRIOT Act.
It would have remained secret except for the wide-ranging and controversial disclosure of this order and other secret NSA information by Edward Snowden in summer 2013. The disclosure created a firestorm about the program, resulting in congressional hearings, government agency defenses and back-pedaling, and unprecedented media attention. The uproar continued through 2013 and 2014 and served as the framework for the debate over the 2015 USA FREEDOM Act.
The USA FREEDOM (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring) Act again renewed the business records provision of FISA, but with several important restrictions that were included largely in response to the telephone metadata collection program disclosure. Key among the restrictions is that the NSA will no longer be collecting the data and maintaining the database; instead, the data will be maintained by the telephone companies. In order to initiate a search of those records, the government will need to articulate to the FISC that there is “reasonable suspicion” that a particular person, address, or phone number is relevant to an authorized terrorism investigation. The search is also limited to two “hops”: The first is the targeted number, and the second is connections to the targeted number. Under the NSA program, there was no limit on the number of connected “hops” that could be searched.
The act also somewhat reduces the level of secrecy associated with the FISC, in requiring that some opinions be declassified and others summarized when declassification isn’t possible. The FISC must designate “friends of the court” to advocate the public’s interest, and private companies are allowed to report on the number of FISC orders they receive. There are also increased requirements for the government to publicly report various statistics about FISC court orders for call detail records, although not specific information such as the targets of the searches or holders of the information.
Read more @ http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/USA-FREEDOM-Act-Protector-of-Civil-Liberties-or-Window-Dressing-105047.asp
Few advocates of digital privacy, and condemning voices of the national security state, are as visible, heard, or uncompromising, as Glenn Greenwald. Known for years, writing in publications various and sundry, Greenwald’s entry into a higher realm of visibility, and scrutiny, came with the revelations brought to him by former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden about massive government overreach into private communications. For those thoroughly unplugged since the summer of 2013, the information about the NSA was both shocking and voluminous, encyclopedic in its amount of lawbreaking and amendment disregarding. Of course, Snowden’s story is far from over. However, as Greenwald details in his latest work, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, this story isn’t meant to be about the leaker, it’s about the leak itself. Snowden is emphatic that the focus remain on the information he revealed to Greenwald and other journalists. And this has been somewhat successful, given the whistleblower’s evasion of interview or comment. What Greenwald attempts to do is satisfy a need that has dogged the Snowden reveals since the start: who is this guy, what happened when you met, and how do you know he’s for real? In a way, it’s attempting to make a groundbreaking leak about abstract and distant digital forces personal, grounded, and real. Along the way, the author works to explain just what was revealed and why it’s so inimical to an open and free democracy. Finally, Greenwald turns his critical eye towards his own profession and how the vaunted Fourth Estate has fallen from its entrusted perch as truth-teller. Conviction is key with Greenwald. No Place to Hide is filled with rousing statements such as: “From the time that it first began to be widely used, the Internet has been seen by many as possessing an extraordinary potential: the ability to liberate hundreds of millions of people by democratizing political discourse and leveling the playing field between the powerful and the powerless.” Whether that was ever true is debatable. Technology, despite the occasional blip, usually magnifies and solidifies existing power and social relations, rather than destroying or reconfiguring them completely. Sure, the crossbow gave commoners a shot, literally, against heavily armored nobility on the battlefield, but commoners they remained. As Richard II declared, “rustics you were and rustics you are still.” Regardless, what Greenwald writes gets at how the Internet is perceived, if not, necessarily, how it works. And who knows, maybe he’s right, in the end. Like Snowden, the Internet’s story is far from over.
Few advocates of digital privacy, and condemning voices of the national security state, are as visible, heard, or uncompromising, as Glenn Greenwald. Known for years, writing in publications various and sundry, Greenwald’s entry into a higher realm of visibility, and scrutiny, came with the revelations brought to him by former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden about massive government overreach into private communications. For those thoroughly unplugged since the summer of 2013, the information about the NSA was both shocking and voluminous, encyclopedic in its amount of lawbreaking and amendment disregarding.
Of course, Snowden’s story is far from over. However, as Greenwald details in his latest work, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, this story isn’t meant to be about the leaker, it’s about the leak itself. Snowden is emphatic that the focus remain on the information he revealed to Greenwald and other journalists. And this has been somewhat successful, given the whistleblower’s evasion of interview or comment.
What Greenwald attempts to do is satisfy a need that has dogged the Snowden reveals since the start: who is this guy, what happened when you met, and how do you know he’s for real? In a way, it’s attempting to make a groundbreaking leak about abstract and distant digital forces personal, grounded, and real. Along the way, the author works to explain just what was revealed and why it’s so inimical to an open and free democracy. Finally, Greenwald turns his critical eye towards his own profession and how the vaunted Fourth Estate has fallen from its entrusted perch as truth-teller.
Conviction is key with Greenwald. No Place to Hide is filled with rousing statements such as: “From the time that it first began to be widely used, the Internet has been seen by many as possessing an extraordinary potential: the ability to liberate hundreds of millions of people by democratizing political discourse and leveling the playing field between the powerful and the powerless.”
Whether that was ever true is debatable. Technology, despite the occasional blip, usually magnifies and solidifies existing power and social relations, rather than destroying or reconfiguring them completely. Sure, the crossbow gave commoners a shot, literally, against heavily armored nobility on the battlefield, but commoners they remained. As Richard II declared, “rustics you were and rustics you are still.”
Regardless, what Greenwald writes gets at how the Internet is perceived, if not, necessarily, how it works. And who knows, maybe he’s right, in the end. Like Snowden, the Internet’s story is far from over.
Read more @ http://www.popmatters.com/review/194719-no-place-to-hide-edward-snowden-the-nsa-and-the-u.s.-surveillance-st/
To reclaim the lawful, liberal, decent society we once were, we must soon rid ourselves of the turbulent priest, along with those like him, those who support him, and those who appease his kind, urges Dr. Geoff Davies. "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" — Henry II of England IS THERE no-one with eyes that see how the best of Australia is being destroyed? Is there no-one with the will to name it, and the courage to call on our better angels? The rule of law, the freedom to know and debate, privacy, freedom from arbitrary detention and punishment, education for everyone, hospitals for everyone, help for the disadvantaged, family time, community time, social cohesion, the economy, infrastructure and industries to sustain our children, our priceless natural heritage, sovereignty over our own affairs, all are being attacked, undermined or neglected while we writhe in a lather of fear and distraction, jumping at shadows while hiding our faces from the real challenges staring down on us. In one of the most blessed lands on the planet, what happened to the laconic Aussie and the fair go? Until a few decades ago we were working smarter and less, becoming healthier, more creative, more independent, more tolerant, more worldly, and expecting to continue on that path. We have abundant resources and educated, talented people who speak most major languages of the world. Why are we now struggling? US think tank labels Abbott “shockingly incompetent”, compares him with “unhinged” leaders like Kim Jong-un & Putin. http://t.co/PsuTB4Gz76 — ImpératriceSuzTaylor (@suzlette333) June 5, 2015 We could readily afford and manage the things that are supposed to be too hard. We could be calmly working together, preparing for the now-inevitable warmer climate, eliminating our contributions to global warming, producing abundant healthy food without degrading the land, welcoming immigrants no matter what their mode of arrival, avoiding needless provocation of those few who might harm us, making amends for the raw deals some have had, no matter how long it takes, seeing everyone has a fair crack at a decent life. We could do all this while enjoying our barbies, beers, beaches, brilliant sport and brilliant arts. Instead, we are more and more divided against each other, pressed onto an ever-accelerating treadmill, or discarded as useless, and fed unhealthy food, consumer addiction and a saturation diet of alarm and fear. A “law” that is infinitely malleable is no law at all. Every time a legal challenge to government abuses of innocent people looks like succeeding, the law is changed to get around it. This has been going on since John Howard made our borders comically elastic to deny asylum seekers their legal rights. A “law” administered by a politician is not a law, it’s a tyranny. Claiming decisions can be appealed is of little practical relevance to someone who can’t set foot in the country. If a court decision goes against the Government, the court is roundly abused. If an independent monitor says something the Government doesn’t like, the person is accused in the crudest terms of partisan bias. These people, these followers of the turbulent priest, have no respect for the law, and clearly have no understanding of what “the rule of law” means. They preach freedom. Then they create Big Brother to watch all of our communications. It’s not just “metadata”, which would be bad enough, but we know from documents released by Edward Snowden that they can and do access any content they want. See the movie CitizenFour to learn about our governments massively breaching the law with impunity.
To reclaim the lawful, liberal, decent society we once were, we must soon rid ourselves of the turbulent priest, along with those like him, those who support him, and those who appease his kind, urges Dr. Geoff Davies.
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"
— Henry II of England
IS THERE no-one with eyes that see how the best of Australia is being destroyed? Is there no-one with the will to name it, and the courage to call on our better angels?
The rule of law, the freedom to know and debate, privacy, freedom from arbitrary detention and punishment, education for everyone, hospitals for everyone, help for the disadvantaged, family time, community time, social cohesion, the economy, infrastructure and industries to sustain our children, our priceless natural heritage, sovereignty over our own affairs, all are being attacked, undermined or neglected while we writhe in a lather of fear and distraction, jumping at shadows while hiding our faces from the real challenges staring down on us.
In one of the most blessed lands on the planet, what happened to the laconic Aussie and the fair go? Until a few decades ago we were working smarter and less, becoming healthier, more creative, more independent, more tolerant, more worldly, and expecting to continue on that path. We have abundant resources and educated, talented people who speak most major languages of the world. Why are we now struggling?
US think tank labels Abbott “shockingly incompetent”, compares him with “unhinged” leaders like Kim Jong-un & Putin. http://t.co/PsuTB4Gz76
— ImpératriceSuzTaylor (@suzlette333) June 5, 2015
We could readily afford and manage the things that are supposed to be too hard. We could be calmly working together, preparing for the now-inevitable warmer climate, eliminating our contributions to global warming, producing abundant healthy food without degrading the land, welcoming immigrants no matter what their mode of arrival, avoiding needless provocation of those few who might harm us, making amends for the raw deals some have had, no matter how long it takes, seeing everyone has a fair crack at a decent life. We could do all this while enjoying our barbies, beers, beaches, brilliant sport and brilliant arts.
Instead, we are more and more divided against each other, pressed onto an ever-accelerating treadmill, or discarded as useless, and fed unhealthy food, consumer addiction and a saturation diet of alarm and fear.
A “law” that is infinitely malleable is no law at all. Every time a legal challenge to government abuses of innocent people looks like succeeding, the law is changed to get around it. This has been going on since John Howard made our borders comically elastic to deny asylum seekers their legal rights.
A “law” administered by a politician is not a law, it’s a tyranny. Claiming decisions can be appealed is of little practical relevance to someone who can’t set foot in the country.
If a court decision goes against the Government, the court is roundly abused. If an independent monitor says something the Government doesn’t like, the person is accused in the crudest terms of partisan bias.
These people, these followers of the turbulent priest, have no respect for the law, and clearly have no understanding of what “the rule of law” means.
They preach freedom. Then they create Big Brother to watch all of our communications. It’s not just “metadata”, which would be bad enough, but we know from documents released by Edward Snowden that they can and do access any content they want. See the movie CitizenFour to learn about our governments massively breaching the law with impunity.
Read more @ https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/who-will-rid-us-of-this-turbulent-priest,7920
NSA documents leaked to the Guardian in 2013 described a covert program called XKeyscore, which involved a searchable database for intelligence analysts to scan intercepted data. Now, new documents show the breadth of this program and just what sort of data XKeyscore catalogues. According to a new report from The Intercept, the amount of data XKeyscore scoops up as well as the sort of data it collects is much larger than originally thought. Here are a few highlights from the new report: The XKeyescore database is “fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fibre optic cables that make up the back of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing,” the new report writes. Its servers collect all of this data for up to five days, and store the metadata of this traffic for up to 45 days. Web traffic wasn’t XKeyscore’s only target. In fact, according to the documents posted by The Intercept, it was able to gather data like voice recordings. A list of the intercepted data included “pictures, documents, voice calls, webcam photos, web searches, 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, Skype sessions and more.” How the search works is very advanced. The new documents detail ways that analysts can query the database for information on people based on location, nationality, and previous web traffic. XKeyscore was also used to help hack into computer networks for both the US and its spying allies. One document dated in 2009 claims that the program could be used to gain access into unencrypted networks. Using XKeyscore was reportedly insanely easy. “The amount of work an analyst has to perform to actually break into remote computers over the Internet seems ridiculously reduced — we are talking minutes, if not seconds,” security researcher Jonathan Brossard told The Intercept. “Simple. As easy as typing a few words in Google.” While XKeyscore has been known as an intelligence tool for years now, these new documents highlight just how advanced and far-reaching the program’s surveillance is. The NSA, in a statement to The Intercept, claims that all of its intelligence operations are “authorised by law.” It added, “NSA goes to great lengths to narrowly tailor and focus its signals intelligence operations on the collection of communications that are most likely to contain foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information.”
NSA documents leaked to the Guardian in 2013 described a covert program called XKeyscore, which involved a searchable database for intelligence analysts to scan intercepted data.
Now, new documents show the breadth of this program and just what sort of data XKeyscore catalogues.
According to a new report from The Intercept, the amount of data XKeyscore scoops up as well as the sort of data it collects is much larger than originally thought.
Here are a few highlights from the new report:
While XKeyscore has been known as an intelligence tool for years now, these new documents highlight just how advanced and far-reaching the program’s surveillance is.
The NSA, in a statement to The Intercept, claims that all of its intelligence operations are “authorised by law.” It added, “NSA goes to great lengths to narrowly tailor and focus its signals intelligence operations on the collection of communications that are most likely to contain foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information.”
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nsa-xkeyscore-surveillance-program-details-revealed-in-new-snowden-documents-2015-7
Many were not surprised when NSA-contracted analyst Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the government organization, revealing massive, likely illegal domestic spying programs. As the details came out, the government went into full damage control, and one keyword that surfaced was "metadata." It was just metadata they were collecting without a warrant, they said, not the kind of data that would reveal anything personal about its owner. The word left the mouth of every government official who spoke on the subject, and the common belief became that it was not wiretapping going on, just mass surveillance. Until now, when further revelations have come out of the Snowden leak, which amounted to gigabytes of unsorted evidence turned over to journalist Glenn Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras. Although it's been a subject of close inspection by journalists and investigators since the original leak, the depth of one secret program, in particular, XKeyscore, was not known until more recently. XKeyscore is essentially a database for spies to sort through data that has been brought in from the massive nets the government has on all domestic and international communications it can tap. Before now, it was not believed to be overly advanced in the types of information that analysts could derive from it. Also read: 42 Years Before Edward Snowden Leak Finishes But according to the Intercept, the program can monitor a lot more than just the traffic of all the world's major networks. The program can store data from any stream for up to five days after it is initially transmitted. For forty-five days after that, metadata is stored and retrievable by the NSA for later use in investigations. To retain any of the data as evidence, a warrant will have to be obtained. At least according to the program's creators, XKeyscore can monitor such things as Skype calls and webcam feeds, in real time, as they're happening, and the program does this by intercepting literally everything transmitted by fiber optics networks. It has been revealed that in Britain, the main connections going into the country have been forked to GCHQ for years, and a similar fork existing in the United States would probably come as no surprise.
Many were not surprised when NSA-contracted analyst Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the government organization, revealing massive, likely illegal domestic spying programs.
As the details came out, the government went into full damage control, and one keyword that surfaced was "metadata." It was just metadata they were collecting without a warrant, they said, not the kind of data that would reveal anything personal about its owner. The word left the mouth of every government official who spoke on the subject, and the common belief became that it was not wiretapping going on, just mass surveillance.
Until now, when further revelations have come out of the Snowden leak, which amounted to gigabytes of unsorted evidence turned over to journalist Glenn Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras. Although it's been a subject of close inspection by journalists and investigators since the original leak, the depth of one secret program, in particular, XKeyscore, was not known until more recently. XKeyscore is essentially a database for spies to sort through data that has been brought in from the massive nets the government has on all domestic and international communications it can tap. Before now, it was not believed to be overly advanced in the types of information that analysts could derive from it.
Also read: 42 Years Before Edward Snowden Leak Finishes
But according to the Intercept, the program can monitor a lot more than just the traffic of all the world's major networks. The program can store data from any stream for up to five days after it is initially transmitted. For forty-five days after that, metadata is stored and retrievable by the NSA for later use in investigations. To retain any of the data as evidence, a warrant will have to be obtained.
At least according to the program's creators, XKeyscore can monitor such things as Skype calls and webcam feeds, in real time, as they're happening, and the program does this by intercepting literally everything transmitted by fiber optics networks. It has been revealed that in Britain, the main connections going into the country have been forked to GCHQ for years, and a similar fork existing in the United States would probably come as no surprise.
Read more @ https://hacked.com/metadata-doesnt-always-mean-metadata-new-snowden-revelations-reveal-government-spying-went-much-deeper/
For sure, we’ll have the better oversight thing The Dutch government is pushing changes to its national law to enable bulk data surveillance and compelled decryption. The proposed update of the Intelligence & Security Act of 2002 would establish bulk interception powers for “any form of telecom or data transfer”. As well as metadata, the revamp would allow the Dutch intelligence services to compel anyone to help decrypt data, either by providing encryption keys or turning over decrypted data. Domestic interception is explicitly allowed within the proposals, which if enacted, would look to create the most permissive snooping regime in the Western World. With plans like this it’s little wonder that Edward Snowden described the Dutch as “the Surveillance Kings of Europe” earlier this year. The Netherlands is a major exchange point for internet traffic. If the plans go through, the Dutch authorities would gain a wide-ranging ability to monitor global communications. The Daily Beast suggests the resulting intelligence may allow the Dutch – already an affiliate nation in Western spookdom – to barter their way into the Five Eyes spying alliance. One restriction is that bulk interception needs to be “purpose-orientated” and there’ll be improvements to oversight, primarily through the independent Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence & Security Services.
The Dutch government is pushing changes to its national law to enable bulk data surveillance and compelled decryption.
The proposed update of the Intelligence & Security Act of 2002 would establish bulk interception powers for “any form of telecom or data transfer”.
As well as metadata, the revamp would allow the Dutch intelligence services to compel anyone to help decrypt data, either by providing encryption keys or turning over decrypted data.
Domestic interception is explicitly allowed within the proposals, which if enacted, would look to create the most permissive snooping regime in the Western World. With plans like this it’s little wonder that Edward Snowden described the Dutch as “the Surveillance Kings of Europe” earlier this year.
The Netherlands is a major exchange point for internet traffic. If the plans go through, the Dutch authorities would gain a wide-ranging ability to monitor global communications.
The Daily Beast suggests the resulting intelligence may allow the Dutch – already an affiliate nation in Western spookdom – to barter their way into the Five Eyes spying alliance.
One restriction is that bulk interception needs to be “purpose-orientated” and there’ll be improvements to oversight, primarily through the independent Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence & Security Services.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/08/dutch_snooping_law_revamp/
In her complaint, Poitras says her troubles with airport security started in 2006 while she was travelling to the Jerusalem Film Festival to screen My Country, My Country, and continued till 2012, said the Hollywood Reporter. Laura Poitras, the director of Oscar-winning Edward Snowden documentary Citizenfour, has sued the US government over her "Kafkaesque" airport screening and search at airports throughout the world. Poitras filed the complaint in the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, demanding the release of records related to her detainment and questioning on various airports on more than 50 occasions. The director is known for her work on politically sensitive topics, including her chronicling of America post 9/11 in her documentaries. She made My Country, My Country, a documentary on the American military occupation in Iraq, The Oath, on the Guantanamo Bay prison and Citizenfour, on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, which won an Academy Award for best documentary feature this year. In her complaint, Poitras says her troubles with airport security started in 2006 while she was travelling to the Jerusalem Film Festival to screen My Country, My Country, and continued till 2012, said the Hollywood Reporter. The director said she would get held up for hours at a time, would be told that she was on No Fly List, and had her electronic equipment held for 41 days. She was also threatened with handcuffs for taking notes while she was working on a film about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Poitras first filed an FOIA request in January last year and though the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration have acknowledged her requests, they have not been responsive with documents. "I'm filing this lawsuit because the government uses the US border to bypass the rule of law. This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy. "I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted," Poitras said.
Laura Poitras, the director of Oscar-winning Edward Snowden documentary Citizenfour, has sued the US government over her "Kafkaesque" airport screening and search at airports throughout the world.
Poitras filed the complaint in the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, demanding the release of records related to her detainment and questioning on various airports on more than 50 occasions.
The director is known for her work on politically sensitive topics, including her chronicling of America post 9/11 in her documentaries.
She made My Country, My Country, a documentary on the American military occupation in Iraq, The Oath, on the Guantanamo Bay prison and Citizenfour, on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, which won an Academy Award for best documentary feature this year.
In her complaint, Poitras says her troubles with airport security started in 2006 while she was travelling to the Jerusalem Film Festival to screen My Country, My Country, and continued till 2012, said the Hollywood Reporter.
The director said she would get held up for hours at a time, would be told that she was on No Fly List, and had her electronic equipment held for 41 days. She was also threatened with handcuffs for taking notes while she was working on a film about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Poitras first filed an FOIA request in January last year and though the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration have acknowledged her requests, they have not been responsive with documents.
"I'm filing this lawsuit because the government uses the US border to bypass the rule of law. This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy.
"I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted," Poitras said.
Read more @ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/film-director-laura-poitras-of-oscar-winning-edward-snowden-documentary-citizenfour-sues-us-govt-airport-screening/1/451291.html
She's demanding answers to why she was detained on more than 50 occasions in an FOIA suit against the U.S. government. Laura Poitras, the award-winning documentary filmmaker behind Citizenfour, is suing the U.S. government to get records related to the instances she was searched and questioned at airports throughout the world. The complaint, brought in the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, says she was subjected to secondary security screening and detention on more than 50 occasions. Throughout her career, Poitras has worked on politically sensitive topics including the American military occupation in Iraq, the Guantanamo Bay prison and the whistleblower Edward Snowden. Her work on Citizenfour earned an Academy Award for best documentary feature this past year. Poitras says in her complaint that her troubles with airport screening date back to 2006, while she was traveling to the Jerusalem Film Festival to screen My Country, My Country, and continued to 2012, when journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote an article about her experiences being detained at the border. Through that time, she reports being held up to hours at a time, being told she was on the No Fly List, having her electronic equipment held for 41 days and, around the time she was working on a film about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, being threatened with handcuffs for taking notes.
Laura Poitras, the award-winning documentary filmmaker behind Citizenfour, is suing the U.S. government to get records related to the instances she was searched and questioned at airports throughout the world.
The complaint, brought in the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, says she was subjected to secondary security screening and detention on more than 50 occasions.
Throughout her career, Poitras has worked on politically sensitive topics including the American military occupation in Iraq, the Guantanamo Bay prison and the whistleblower Edward Snowden. Her work on Citizenfour earned an Academy Award for best documentary feature this past year.
Poitras says in her complaint that her troubles with airport screening date back to 2006, while she was traveling to the Jerusalem Film Festival to screen My Country, My Country, and continued to 2012, when journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote an article about her experiences being detained at the border. Through that time, she reports being held up to hours at a time, being told she was on the No Fly List, having her electronic equipment held for 41 days and, around the time she was working on a film about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, being threatened with handcuffs for taking notes.
Read more @ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/citizenfour-director-laura-poitras-sues-808444
Documentary filmmaker and journalist Laura Poitras has lodged a lawsuit against the US government over being repeatedly detained, searched and questioned at airports. Citizenfour director Laura Poitras has filed a lawsuit against the United States government, alledging she was targeted for 'harassment' at US and international airports. Poitras claims between 2006 and 2012, when she was travelling extensively for her documentary work, she was detained every time she returned to the US. “I’m filing this lawsuit because the government uses the US border to bypass the rule of law,” said Poitras in a statement published on the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) website. EFF is representing Poitras in the case. The statement outlines she was subjected to lengthy detentions and was searched on more than 50 occasions. “This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy. I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted.” Last year, Poitras filed freedom of information requests seeking records which had been mentioned to her in order to justify the scrutiny at border checkpoints. For example, that she was named on the US 'No Fly List'. The records were not forthcoming, and this court case is an attempt to be awarded access to these documents. According to the statement, the detentions stopped after journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is featured in Citizenfour, published an article detailing the treatment. Poitras won an Academy Award this year for the Citizenfour documentary about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Documentary filmmaker and journalist Laura Poitras has lodged a lawsuit against the US government over being repeatedly detained, searched and questioned at airports.
Citizenfour director Laura Poitras has filed a lawsuit against the United States government, alledging she was targeted for 'harassment' at US and international airports.
Poitras claims between 2006 and 2012, when she was travelling extensively for her documentary work, she was detained every time she returned to the US.
“I’m filing this lawsuit because the government uses the US border to bypass the rule of law,” said Poitras in a statement published on the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) website. EFF is representing Poitras in the case.
The statement outlines she was subjected to lengthy detentions and was searched on more than 50 occasions.
“This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy. I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted.”
Last year, Poitras filed freedom of information requests seeking records which had been mentioned to her in order to justify the scrutiny at border checkpoints. For example, that she was named on the US 'No Fly List'. The records were not forthcoming, and this court case is an attempt to be awarded access to these documents.
According to the statement, the detentions stopped after journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is featured in Citizenfour, published an article detailing the treatment.
Poitras won an Academy Award this year for the Citizenfour documentary about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Read more @ http://www.sbs.com.au/movies/article/2015/07/14/citizenfour-director-laura-poitras-takes-us-government-court
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact
Jul 19 15 10:59 AM
"We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget, and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation's balance of payments." - Sir Colin McColl, MI6 Chief For years public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify the United States' far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it's wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of "trying to hack into everything that doesn't move in America." Clinton's hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the US deep state. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating "global war on terror," which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror. When discussing the NSA's surveillance programs, Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015, President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential "to keep the American people safe and secure." Never mind that decision-makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks. If US political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage, perhaps it would help if they didn't sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks, the entire world knows that US spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage - against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel. These disclosures confirm what Edward Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: Terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around "economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation." Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture. Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011, the European Union's chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China:
"We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget, and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation's balance of payments." - Sir Colin McColl, MI6 Chief
For years public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify the United States' far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it's wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests.
At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of "trying to hack into everything that doesn't move in America." Clinton's hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the US deep state. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating "global war on terror," which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror.
When discussing the NSA's surveillance programs, Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015, President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential "to keep the American people safe and secure." Never mind that decision-makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks.
If US political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage, perhaps it would help if they didn't sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks, the entire world knows that US spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage - against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel.
These disclosures confirm what Edward Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: Terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around "economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation." Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture.
Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011, the European Union's chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China:
Read more @ http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31871-documents-published-by-wikileaks-reveal-the-nsa-s-corporate-priorities#
Spying on the Internet is Orders of Magnitude More Invasive Than Phone Metadata
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:
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:
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/09/spying-internet-orders-magnitude-invasive-phone-metadata/
When you pick up the phone and call someone, or send a text message, or write an email, or send a Facebook message, or chat using Google Hangouts, other people find out what you’re saying, who you’re talking to, and where you’re located. Such private data might only be available to the service provider brokering your conversation, but it might also be visible to the telecom companies carrying your Internet packets, to spy and law enforcement agencies, and even to some nearby teenagers monitoring your Wi-Fi network with Wireshark. But if you take careful steps to protect yourself, it’s possible to communicate online in a way that’s private, secret and anonymous. Today I’m going to explain in precise terms how to do that. I’ll take techniques NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden used when contacting me two and a half years ago and boil them down to the essentials. In a nutshell, I’ll show you how to create anonymous real-time chat accounts and how to chat over those accounts using an encryption protocol called Off-the-Record Messaging, or OTR. If you’re in a hurry, you can skip directly to where I explain, step by step, how to set this up for Mac OS X, Windows, Linux and Android. Then, when you have time, come back and read the important caveats preceding those instructions. One caveat is to make sure the encryption you’re using is the sort known as “end-to-end” encryption. With end-to-end encryption, a message gets encrypted at one endpoint, like a smartphone, and decrypted at the other endpoint, let’s say a laptop. No one at any other point, including the company providing the communication service you’re using, can decrypt the message. Contrast this with encryption that only covers your link to the service provider, like an HTTPS web connection. HTTPS will protect your message from potential snoops on your Wi-Fi network (like the teenager with Wireshark) or working for your telecom company, but not from the company on the other end of that connection, like Facebook or Google, nor from law enforcement or spy agencies requesting information from such companies. A second, bigger caveat is that it’s important to protect not only the content of your communications but also the metadata behind those communications. Metadata, like who is talking to whom, can be incredibly revealing. When a source wants to communicate with a journalist, using encrypted email isn’t enough to protect the fact that they’re talking to a journalist. Likewise, if you’re a star-crossed lover hoping to connect with your romantic partner, and keep your feuding families from finding out about the hook-up, you need to protect not just the content of your love notes and steamy chats, but the very fact that you’re talking in the first place. Let’s take a quick look at how to do that. Secret identities Meet Juliet, who is trying to get in touch with Romeo. Romeo and Juliet know that if they talk on the phone, exchange emails or Skype chats, or otherwise communicate using traditional means, there’s no way to hide from their powerful families the fact that they’re communicating. The trick is not to hide that they’re communicating at all, but rather that they’re Romeo and Juliet. Juliet and Romeo decide to make new chat accounts. Juliet chooses the username “Ceres,” and Romeo chooses the username “Eris.” Now when Ceres and Eris have an encrypted conversation it will be harder for attackers to realize that this is actually Juliet and Romeo. When Juliet’s accounts are later audited for evidence of communicating with Romeo — her short-tempered cousin is a bit overbearing, to say the least — nothing incriminating will show up. Of course, just making up new usernames alone isn’t enough. It’s still possible, and sometimes even trivial, to figure out that Ceres is actually Juliet and Eris is actually Romeo.
When you pick up the phone and call someone, or send a text message, or write an email, or send a Facebook message, or chat using Google Hangouts, other people find out what you’re saying, who you’re talking to, and where you’re located. Such private data might only be available to the service provider brokering your conversation, but it might also be visible to the telecom companies carrying your Internet packets, to spy and law enforcement agencies, and even to some nearby teenagers monitoring your Wi-Fi network with Wireshark.
But if you take careful steps to protect yourself, it’s possible to communicate online in a way that’s private, secret and anonymous. Today I’m going to explain in precise terms how to do that. I’ll take techniques NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden used when contacting me two and a half years ago and boil them down to the essentials. In a nutshell, I’ll show you how to create anonymous real-time chat accounts and how to chat over those accounts using an encryption protocol called Off-the-Record Messaging, or OTR.
If you’re in a hurry, you can skip directly to where I explain, step by step, how to set this up for Mac OS X, Windows, Linux and Android. Then, when you have time, come back and read the important caveats preceding those instructions.
One caveat is to make sure the encryption you’re using is the sort known as “end-to-end” encryption. With end-to-end encryption, a message gets encrypted at one endpoint, like a smartphone, and decrypted at the other endpoint, let’s say a laptop. No one at any other point, including the company providing the communication service you’re using, can decrypt the message. Contrast this with encryption that only covers your link to the service provider, like an HTTPS web connection. HTTPS will protect your message from potential snoops on your Wi-Fi network (like the teenager with Wireshark) or working for your telecom company, but not from the company on the other end of that connection, like Facebook or Google, nor from law enforcement or spy agencies requesting information from such companies.
A second, bigger caveat is that it’s important to protect not only the content of your communications but also the metadata behind those communications. Metadata, like who is talking to whom, can be incredibly revealing. When a source wants to communicate with a journalist, using encrypted email isn’t enough to protect the fact that they’re talking to a journalist. Likewise, if you’re a star-crossed lover hoping to connect with your romantic partner, and keep your feuding families from finding out about the hook-up, you need to protect not just the content of your love notes and steamy chats, but the very fact that you’re talking in the first place. Let’s take a quick look at how to do that.
Meet Juliet, who is trying to get in touch with Romeo. Romeo and Juliet know that if they talk on the phone, exchange emails or Skype chats, or otherwise communicate using traditional means, there’s no way to hide from their powerful families the fact that they’re communicating. The trick is not to hide that they’re communicating at all, but rather that they’re Romeo and Juliet.
Juliet and Romeo decide to make new chat accounts. Juliet chooses the username “Ceres,” and Romeo chooses the username “Eris.” Now when Ceres and Eris have an encrypted conversation it will be harder for attackers to realize that this is actually Juliet and Romeo. When Juliet’s accounts are later audited for evidence of communicating with Romeo — her short-tempered cousin is a bit overbearing, to say the least — nothing incriminating will show up.
Of course, just making up new usernames alone isn’t enough. It’s still possible, and sometimes even trivial, to figure out that Ceres is actually Juliet and Eris is actually Romeo.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/14/communicating-secret-watched/
The agency collected and stored intimate chats, photos, and emails belonging to innocent Americans—and secured them so poorly that reporters can now browse them at will. Consider the latest leak sourced to Edward Snowden from the perspective of his detractors. The National Security Agency’s defenders would have us believe that Snowden is a thief and a criminal at best, and perhaps a traitorous Russian spy. In their telling, the NSA carries out its mission lawfully, honorably, and without unduly compromising the privacy of innocents. For that reason, they regard Snowden’s actions as a wrongheaded slur campaign premised on lies and exaggerations. But their narrative now contradicts itself. The Washington Post’s latest article drawing on Snowden’s leaked cache of documents includes files “described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained” that “tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless.” The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected “medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam …” Have you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your photo in theWashington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward. In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who’d read her correspondence. Snowden defenders see these leaked files as necessary to proving that the NSA does, in fact, massively violate the private lives of American citizens by collecting and storing content—not “just” metadata—when they communicate digitally. They’ll point out that Snowden turned these files over to journalists who promised to protect the privacy of affected individuals and followed through on that oath.
The agency collected and stored intimate chats, photos, and emails belonging to innocent Americans—and secured them so poorly that reporters can now browse them at will.
Consider the latest leak sourced to Edward Snowden from the perspective of his detractors. The National Security Agency’s defenders would have us believe that Snowden is a thief and a criminal at best, and perhaps a traitorous Russian spy. In their telling, the NSA carries out its mission lawfully, honorably, and without unduly compromising the privacy of innocents. For that reason, they regard Snowden’s actions as a wrongheaded slur campaign premised on lies and exaggerations.
But their narrative now contradicts itself. The Washington Post’s latest article drawing on Snowden’s leaked cache of documents includes files “described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained” that “tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless.”
The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected “medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam …”
Have you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your photo in theWashington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward. In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who’d read her correspondence.
Snowden defenders see these leaked files as necessary to proving that the NSA does, in fact, massively violate the private lives of American citizens by collecting and storing content—not “just” metadata—when they communicate digitally. They’ll point out that Snowden turned these files over to journalists who promised to protect the privacy of affected individuals and followed through on that oath.
Read more @ http://www.mintpressnews.com/latest-snowden-leak-devastating-to-defenders-of-nsa/207552/
The nation’s secretive surveillance court should not have reinstated the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone call data even temporarily, because an appellate court ruled that the program was illegal in May, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday. The suit asks the appellate court to overrule the secret court and enjoin the program immediately. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 7 that the NSA program that vacuumed up domestic metadata relating to all American phone calls — who was calling who, when and for how long — was illegal, and that Congress did not intend Section 215 of the Patriot Act to authorize the government to instate such a wide dragnet. Information about every single American’s phone call behavior is not “relevant to an authorized investigation,” the court concluded. Congress let the spying program lapse by failing to renew it before its June 1 expiration date. Then, when reform legislation passed the following day, Congress called for the massive spying program to end — but with a grace period. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court then ruled that the bulk surveillance, first revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden two years ago, could be resumed for five months. But in a motion filed on Tuesday afternoon, the ACLU and its New York branch argue that the NSA is twisting the court’s words, and that bulk collection must be ended immediately because it has been, and continues to be, illegal. “The government says it will wind down this unconstitutional program eventually, but the Constitution doesn’t have a grace period,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo in a statement. “Bulk collection is unconstitutional and must end.” Abdo argued the case before the Second Circuit, where a three-judge panel ruled the program illegal — but noted that Congress was going to reassess the law soon. It did not issue an injunction. The USA Freedom Act, passed on June 2, requires the NSA to get a specific warrant in order to obtain call records or metadata from communications providers — starting on Nov. 29. Anticipating questions about the Second Circuit decision, the surveillance court judge explained in his ruling that only a higher court could tell him what to do: “Second Circuit rulings are not binding on the FISC, and this court respectfully disagrees with that Court’s analysis, especially in view of the intervening enactment of the USA Freedom Act,” wrote Judge Michael Mosman in the court order.
The nation’s secretive surveillance court should not have reinstated the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone call data even temporarily, because an appellate court ruled that the program was illegal in May, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday. The suit asks the appellate court to overrule the secret court and enjoin the program immediately.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 7 that the NSA program that vacuumed up domestic metadata relating to all American phone calls — who was calling who, when and for how long — was illegal, and that Congress did not intend Section 215 of the Patriot Act to authorize the government to instate such a wide dragnet. Information about every single American’s phone call behavior is not “relevant to an authorized investigation,” the court concluded.
Congress let the spying program lapse by failing to renew it before its June 1 expiration date. Then, when reform legislation passed the following day, Congress called for the massive spying program to end — but with a grace period.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court then ruled that the bulk surveillance, first revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden two years ago, could be resumed for five months.
But in a motion filed on Tuesday afternoon, the ACLU and its New York branch argue that the NSA is twisting the court’s words, and that bulk collection must be ended immediately because it has been, and continues to be, illegal.
“The government says it will wind down this unconstitutional program eventually, but the Constitution doesn’t have a grace period,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo in a statement. “Bulk collection is unconstitutional and must end.”
Abdo argued the case before the Second Circuit, where a three-judge panel ruled the program illegal — but noted that Congress was going to reassess the law soon. It did not issue an injunction.
The USA Freedom Act, passed on June 2, requires the NSA to get a specific warrant in order to obtain call records or metadata from communications providers — starting on Nov. 29.
Anticipating questions about the Second Circuit decision, the surveillance court judge explained in his ruling that only a higher court could tell him what to do: “Second Circuit rulings are not binding on the FISC, and this court respectfully disagrees with that Court’s analysis, especially in view of the intervening enactment of the USA Freedom Act,” wrote Judge Michael Mosman in the court order.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/14/aclu-slams-secretive-court-renewing-illegal-bulk-surveillance/
There’s a reason the television show The Wire wasn’t just called “The Cops vs. Drug Dealers Show.” Law enforcement’s surveillance in America—and particularly its ever-increasing use of wiretaps—have been primarily driven for the last 25 years by drug cases. And as the chart above shows, that’s now truer than ever before. Earlier this month the US court system released its annual report of every wiretap over the last year for which it granted law enforcement a warrant. And of those 3,554 wiretaps in 2014, fully 89 percent were for narcotics cases. That’s the highest percentage of wiretaps focused on drugs in the report’s history, and it continues a steady increase in the proportion of drug-focused spying. Twenty-five years ago, just 62 percent of wiretaps were for drug cases. In fact, that constant swell in drug-focused wiretaps may help to explain the general increase in all American wiretaps. In total, the count of US state and federal wiretaps has jumped from 768 in 1989 to more than four times that number today. But take out those drug cases, and the collection of wiretaps of all other kinds increased only 29 percent in those 25 years, from 297 in the year 1989 to just 384 last year.
There’s a reason the television show The Wire wasn’t just called “The Cops vs. Drug Dealers Show.” Law enforcement’s surveillance in America—and particularly its ever-increasing use of wiretaps—have been primarily driven for the last 25 years by drug cases. And as the chart above shows, that’s now truer than ever before.
Earlier this month the US court system released its annual report of every wiretap over the last year for which it granted law enforcement a warrant. And of those 3,554 wiretaps in 2014, fully 89 percent were for narcotics cases. That’s the highest percentage of wiretaps focused on drugs in the report’s history, and it continues a steady increase in the proportion of drug-focused spying. Twenty-five years ago, just 62 percent of wiretaps were for drug cases.
In fact, that constant swell in drug-focused wiretaps may help to explain the general increase in all American wiretaps. In total, the count of US state and federal wiretaps has jumped from 768 in 1989 to more than four times that number today. But take out those drug cases, and the collection of wiretaps of all other kinds increased only 29 percent in those 25 years, from 297 in the year 1989 to just 384 last year.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/drug-war-driving-us-domestic-spying/
Read more @ http://www.techtimes.com/articles/69809/20150717/ibm-supercomputer-watson-now-detect-attitude-writing.htm
On Friday artists Jeff Greenspan and Andrew Tider walked away from We Are Always Listening (WAAL), a National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor, DIY surveillance program, satirical prank, or new media art project, depending on your interpretation. The artists, who anonymously scored a viral hit earlier this year when they clandestinely installed their sculpture bust of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a Brooklyn park, secretly taped the conversations of strangers in New York and Berlin and posted the audio files online. The project fulfilled Greenspan and Tider’s goal, which was to rekindle the widespread anger about unchecked and unauthorized government surveillance of citizens that flared in 2013 at the time of the NSA leaks. News outlets on both sides of the Atlantic covered WAAL — from Gothamist and Wired to the Guardian and Spiegel — fueling further outrage over its invasive nature, which the artists sought to redirect (via the “Angry?” link on the project website) toward an American Civil Liberties Union petition in the lead-up to the expiration of the Patriot Act on June 1. But after a long conversation with another NSA whistleblower, Thomas Drake, the artists reevaluated and ultimately decided to pull the plug (or blow the whistle) on their project. Hyperallergic spoke to Greenspan and Tider about their reasons for starting WAAL, why they think the public was so quick to stop caring about the NSA surveillance scandal, and how activists and artists have to compete with everything from the economic crisis in Greece to Miley Cyrus for people’s attention.
On Friday artists Jeff Greenspan and Andrew Tider walked away from We Are Always Listening (WAAL), a National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor, DIY surveillance program, satirical prank, or new media art project, depending on your interpretation. The artists, who anonymously scored a viral hit earlier this year when they clandestinely installed their sculpture bust of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a Brooklyn park, secretly taped the conversations of strangers in New York and Berlin and posted the audio files online.
The project fulfilled Greenspan and Tider’s goal, which was to rekindle the widespread anger about unchecked and unauthorized government surveillance of citizens that flared in 2013 at the time of the NSA leaks. News outlets on both sides of the Atlantic covered WAAL — from Gothamist and Wired to the Guardian and Spiegel — fueling further outrage over its invasive nature, which the artists sought to redirect (via the “Angry?” link on the project website) toward an American Civil Liberties Union petition in the lead-up to the expiration of the Patriot Act on June 1. But after a long conversation with another NSA whistleblower, Thomas Drake, the artists reevaluated and ultimately decided to pull the plug (or blow the whistle) on their project.
Hyperallergic spoke to Greenspan and Tider about their reasons for starting WAAL, why they think the public was so quick to stop caring about the NSA surveillance scandal, and how activists and artists have to compete with everything from the economic crisis in Greece to Miley Cyrus for people’s attention.
Read more @ http://hyperallergic.com/221997/artists-blow-the-whistle-on-their-nsa-whistleblower-project/
In 2013, Edward Snowden unleashed an earthquake, of which aftershocks are still being felt. The revelation that spy agencies in the US, UK, Canada and Australia were working to undermine online encryption and had built backdoors in to the internet services we all use was shocking. Until Snowden, most of us assumed our private online activity was private. But the disclosures – like that in which Skype had allowed collection of users’ video calls, for example – have shaken everyone’s faith in online anonymity. We used to assume Terms & Conditions had our backs, that the legalese we have little choice but to click on would work in our interests, as well as our software makers’. But that assumption has turned out to be misplaced. Is anyone fighting back? Sometimes it takes a victim to act first. Brazil, whose own president was reportedly a target of NSA spying, last year passed an “internet constitution” limiting gathering and sharing of metadata about internet users by ISPs and other companies. Elsewhere, too, efforts are underway to put our privacy back under lock and key. Unfortunately, however, they are not going so well: ‘Magna Carta’ Last year, Tim Berners-Lee, credited with having “invented” the Web, called for “a global constitution, a bill of rights” for the internet. Berners-Lee is advocating a document like the Magna Carta, England’s “Great Charter” that was amongst the world’s first system of codified rights in the 13th century, and has forwarded his wish through a campaign, The Web We Want. But the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta passed in June with the initiative having gained barely a fraction of the traction of the Web he gave the world – and with good reason. Like John Perry Barlow’s seminal A Declaration Of Independence Of Cyberspace before it, nearly 20 years ago, the global push fails to take in to account that laws which could bring it about are national, not international in nature. Only politicians can bring about the change. EC regulation Europe is trying to write protections in to the laws of its members states. Having decided to write new guidelines to data protection and privacy to update the 20-year-old EU Data Protection Directive, the European Commission has tabled the so-called General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In 2013, Edward Snowden unleashed an earthquake, of which aftershocks are still being felt. The revelation that spy agencies in the US, UK, Canada and Australia were working to undermine online encryption and had built backdoors in to the internet services we all use was shocking.
Until Snowden, most of us assumed our private online activity was private. But the disclosures – like that in which Skype had allowed collection of users’ video calls, for example – have shaken everyone’s faith in online anonymity.
We used to assume Terms & Conditions had our backs, that the legalese we have little choice but to click on would work in our interests, as well as our software makers’. But that assumption has turned out to be misplaced.
Sometimes it takes a victim to act first. Brazil, whose own president was reportedly a target of NSA spying, last year passed an “internet constitution” limiting gathering and sharing of metadata about internet users by ISPs and other companies. Elsewhere, too, efforts are underway to put our privacy back under lock and key. Unfortunately, however, they are not going so well:
‘Magna Carta’
Last year, Tim Berners-Lee, credited with having “invented” the Web, called for “a global constitution, a bill of rights” for the internet. Berners-Lee is advocating a document like the Magna Carta, England’s “Great Charter” that was amongst the world’s first system of codified rights in the 13th century, and has forwarded his wish through a campaign, The Web We Want.
But the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta passed in June with the initiative having gained barely a fraction of the traction of the Web he gave the world – and with good reason. Like John Perry Barlow’s seminal A Declaration Of Independence Of Cyberspace before it, nearly 20 years ago, the global push fails to take in to account that laws which could bring it about are national, not international in nature. Only politicians can bring about the change.
Europe is trying to write protections in to the laws of its members states. Having decided to write new guidelines to data protection and privacy to update the 20-year-old EU Data Protection Directive, the European Commission has tabled the so-called General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Read more @ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/18/no-one-wants-to-protect-your-privacy/?utm_campaign=pro&
When the truth finally comes out about all the spying in all its shocking detail and who is behind it…. people should remember the people who said things like this…… The truth always finally comes out, no matter how much people lie and create diversions to deflect the truth being found out….. The truth will find a way sooner or later. The perpetrators may not be shown any leniency either… at present they feel strong because they can know what every person is saying at any given time…. And have the upper hand. They have everything at their fingertips, but when you look back through life you know that change comes whether you like it or not, and it will happen for them too. What they are creating now will affect the future and create a despotic world for all the generations to come….. They all need to do some self-reflection and start caring about their eternal souls…. And not the life they are currently living which is but like a grain of sand in all eternity….. a flash in the pan.
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/
Jul 22 15 10:53 PM
Feds can read every email you opened last year without a warrant
Lawmakers want the FBI and NSA -- and other federal agencies -- to get a warrant first. It's no longer a surprise that the government is reading your emails. What you might not know is that it can readily read most of your email without a warrant. Any email or social networking message you've opened that's more than six months old can also be accessed by every law enforcement official in government -- without needing to get a warrant. That's because a key provision in a law almost three decades' old allows this kind of access with a mere subpoena, which doesn't require a judge. That includes every email or message you opened last year, and earlier. (Anything under that six-month period still requires a warrant, however.) It's therefore no surprise that in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, hundreds of lawmakers are calling for change. But there's a problem. The committee that would get the bill, dubbed the Email Privacy Act, to the House floor for a vote hasn't yet picked it up. The warrantless email search reform bill was originally introduced in 2013, but stalled in a bureaucratic session despite passing the various congressional committees. The proposed law aims to fix the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is still in effect despite falling behind the curve of the digital age, and has the support from privacy groups and major technology companies alike. Its popularity has rocketed. The House version of the bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS, 3rd), has more than 280 co-sponsors, more than half the entire House of Representatives. That includes big names like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY, 4th), whose election was won on supporting privacy matters. It also includes Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI, 5th), who was a key figure in bringing the Freedom Act to a final vote.
Lawmakers want the FBI and NSA -- and other federal agencies -- to get a warrant first.
It's no longer a surprise that the government is reading your emails. What you might not know is that it can readily read most of your email without a warrant.
Any email or social networking message you've opened that's more than six months old can also be accessed by every law enforcement official in government -- without needing to get a warrant. That's because a key provision in a law almost three decades' old allows this kind of access with a mere subpoena, which doesn't require a judge.
That includes every email or message you opened last year, and earlier. (Anything under that six-month period still requires a warrant, however.)
It's therefore no surprise that in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, hundreds of lawmakers are calling for change. But there's a problem. The committee that would get the bill, dubbed the Email Privacy Act, to the House floor for a vote hasn't yet picked it up.
The warrantless email search reform bill was originally introduced in 2013, but stalled in a bureaucratic session despite passing the various congressional committees. The proposed law aims to fix the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is still in effect despite falling behind the curve of the digital age, and has the support from privacy groups and major technology companies alike.
Its popularity has rocketed. The House version of the bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS, 3rd), has more than 280 co-sponsors, more than half the entire House of Representatives. That includes big names like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY, 4th), whose election was won on supporting privacy matters. It also includes Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI, 5th), who was a key figure in bringing the Freedom Act to a final vote.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/every-email-you-opened-last-year-can-be-read-by-the-fbi-without-a-warrant/
ARLINGTON, Va. — This is not your typical summer sleepaway camp. Bonfires and archery? Try Insecure Direct Object References and A1-Injections. The dozen or so teenagers staring at computers in a Marymount University classroom here on a recent day were learning — thanks to a new National Security Agency cybersecurity program that reaches down into the ranks of American high school and middle school students — the entry-level art of cracking encrypted passwords. “We basically tried a dictionary attack,” Ben Winiger, 16, of Johnson City, Tenn., said as he typed a new command into John The Ripper, a software tool that helps test and break passwords. “Now we’re trying a brute-force attack.” Others in the room stumbled through the exercise more slowly, getting help from faculty instructors who had prepped them with a lecture on the ethics of hacking. In other words, they were effectively told, do not try this at home. “Now, I don’t want anybody getting in trouble now that you know how to use this puppy,” Darrell Andrews, one of the camp’s instructors, warned loudly. “Right? Right?” he added with emphasis.
ARLINGTON, Va. — This is not your typical summer sleepaway camp.
Bonfires and archery? Try Insecure Direct Object References and A1-Injections.
The dozen or so teenagers staring at computers in a Marymount University classroom here on a recent day were learning — thanks to a new National Security Agency cybersecurity program that reaches down into the ranks of American high school and middle school students — the entry-level art of cracking encrypted passwords.
“We basically tried a dictionary attack,” Ben Winiger, 16, of Johnson City, Tenn., said as he typed a new command into John The Ripper, a software tool that helps test and break passwords. “Now we’re trying a brute-force attack.”
Others in the room stumbled through the exercise more slowly, getting help from faculty instructors who had prepped them with a lecture on the ethics of hacking. In other words, they were effectively told, do not try this at home.
“Now, I don’t want anybody getting in trouble now that you know how to use this puppy,” Darrell Andrews, one of the camp’s instructors, warned loudly. “Right? Right?” he added with emphasis.
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/us/nsa-summer-camp-hacking-cyber-defense.html?_r=4
Somewhere in the thousands of towering apartment blocks that ring the Russian capital, whistle-blower Edward Snowden remains in hiding two years after outraging U.S. intelligence agencies with revelations of their snooping into the private communications of millions of ordinary citizens. Snowden's release of classified files he took from his National Security Agency contractor's job blew the lid off programs long said to be aimed at catching terrorists and keeping Americans safe. The leaks triggered a global debate on government trampling of personal liberties and led to last month's congressional action to end the mass collection of telephone records, the first major restrictions on spy agency powers in decades.
Somewhere in the thousands of towering apartment blocks that ring the Russian capital, whistle-blower Edward Snowden remains in hiding two years after outraging U.S. intelligence agencies with revelations of their snooping into the private communications of millions of ordinary citizens.
Snowden's release of classified files he took from his National Security Agency contractor's job blew the lid off programs long said to be aimed at catching terrorists and keeping Americans safe. The leaks triggered a global debate on government trampling of personal liberties and led to last month's congressional action to end the mass collection of telephone records, the first major restrictions on spy agency powers in decades.
Read more @ http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-snowden-future-20150722-story.html#page=1
Instead of governments being for the people they are against the people…. I see a "them and us" attitude and it shouldn't be that way.... Governments were created to be the servants of the people…..
The U.S. should publicly hang leaker Edward Snowden if and when he falls into the government’s hands, according to the former top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “We need to hang him on the courthouse square as soon was we get our hands on him,” retired Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — who served as vice chairman of the powerful intelligence panel before stepping down from Congress last year — said during an appearance at the University of Georgia this month.
The U.S. should publicly hang leaker Edward Snowden if and when he falls into the government’s hands, according to the former top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“We need to hang him on the courthouse square as soon was we get our hands on him,” retired Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — who served as vice chairman of the powerful intelligence panel before stepping down from Congress last year — said during an appearance at the University of Georgia this month.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/248490-ex-top-spy-committee-senator-publicly-hang-snowden
Whistleblower addresses Prague meeting of 'net engineers NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has urged the world's leading group of internet engineers to design a future 'net that puts the user in the center, and so protects people's privacy. Speaking via webcast to a meeting in Prague of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the former spy talked about a range of possible changes to the basic engineering of the global communications network that would make it harder for governments to carry out mass surveillance. The session was not recorded, but a number of attendees live-tweeted the confab. It was not an official IETF session, but one organized by attendees at the Prague event and using the IETF's facilities. It followed a screening of the film Citizenfour, which documents the story of Snowden leaking NSA files to journalists while in a hotel room in Hong Kong. "Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked, rhetorically. The answer was users, not government and not business. But, he said, the current internet protocols were leaking too much data about users. "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way," he argued, highlighting how the widespread use of credit cards online was connecting identity to online activity. "If it's creating more metadata, this is in general a bad thing." Instead, protocols should "follow users' intent." He argued that DNS queries should be encrypted – as well as actual content – so that encryption, rather than surveillance, was the norm. "People are being killed based on metadata," he noted. Spud gun Snowden appeared to have a good understanding of how the internet's protocols work, and pointed to a new protocol called SPUD that combines transport protocols to reduce the number of "middleboxes" that data needs to travel through when users interact online. Snowden noted that the network path was the best place for spies to get access to information and that each middlebox provided another potential point of attack, but also warned that SPUD could make the core UDP internet protocol "a new channel for leaking metadata about users' intents."
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has urged the world's leading group of internet engineers to design a future 'net that puts the user in the center, and so protects people's privacy.
Speaking via webcast to a meeting in Prague of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the former spy talked about a range of possible changes to the basic engineering of the global communications network that would make it harder for governments to carry out mass surveillance.
The session was not recorded, but a number of attendees live-tweeted the confab. It was not an official IETF session, but one organized by attendees at the Prague event and using the IETF's facilities. It followed a screening of the film Citizenfour, which documents the story of Snowden leaking NSA files to journalists while in a hotel room in Hong Kong.
"Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked, rhetorically. The answer was users, not government and not business.
But, he said, the current internet protocols were leaking too much data about users. "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way," he argued, highlighting how the widespread use of credit cards online was connecting identity to online activity.
"If it's creating more metadata, this is in general a bad thing." Instead, protocols should "follow users' intent." He argued that DNS queries should be encrypted – as well as actual content – so that encryption, rather than surveillance, was the norm. "People are being killed based on metadata," he noted.
Snowden appeared to have a good understanding of how the internet's protocols work, and pointed to a new protocol called SPUD that combines transport protocols to reduce the number of "middleboxes" that data needs to travel through when users interact online.
Snowden noted that the network path was the best place for spies to get access to information and that each middlebox provided another potential point of attack, but also warned that SPUD could make the core UDP internet protocol "a new channel for leaking metadata about users' intents."
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/20/edward_snowden_to_the_ietf_please_design_an_internet_for_the_user_not_the_spy/
"Everybody should be safe all the time, else we let others choose who will be safe or not," American whistleblower Edward Snowden tells a meeting of independent internet engineers in Prague. Nadia Prupis reports (via Common Dreams). THE INTERNET is not for businesses, governments, or spies — it's for users and it's up to the independent web engineers to keep it safe for them. That was the most recent message from National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who surprised a meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in Prague, Czech Republic on Monday with a webcast Q&A. "Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked of the roughly 170 engineers in the audience, referring to users. He added that current safety protocols on the web make too much private user data available to the NSA and other intelligence agencies and businesses. Snowden continued: "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way." The IETF is one of the primary bodies creating voluntary standards of use, design and management of the internet, and Monday's meeting gave Snowden a welcome platform to promote a freer and safer web. A frank live chat with Snowden...something that can happen just at an @ietf meeting! Internet democracy on stage. pic.twitter.com/nbAqP6nmRi — Simon Pietro Romano (@spromano) July 19, 2015 As the Register UK reports, IETF members '... have a strong independent streak, and many are still embarrassed by the fact that the NSA managed to crack a number of key internet protocols developed by the IETF and even subvert some of its working groups in their bid to develop new standards that would give the spooks easy access.' Snowden's 2013 revelations that the NSA was collecting bulk telephone and internet metadata prompted an ongoing global debate over the role of government surveillance and the nature of individual privacy — a phenomenon termed by media critic Professor Jay Rosen as "the Snowden Effect". For its part, the IETF responded to the leaks by developing a memorandum, known as a "Request for Comment" (RFC), entitled 'Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack'. In his Q&A with the engineers on Monday, Snowden reiterated the dangers of invasive collection of information. "People are being killed based on metadata, this is real," he said.
"Everybody should be safe all the time, else we let others choose who will be safe or not," American whistleblower Edward Snowden tells a meeting of independent internet engineers in Prague. Nadia Prupis reports (via Common Dreams).
THE INTERNET is not for businesses, governments, or spies — it's for users and it's up to the independent web engineers to keep it safe for them.
That was the most recent message from National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who surprised a meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in Prague, Czech Republic on Monday with a webcast Q&A.
"Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked of the roughly 170 engineers in the audience, referring to users.
He added that current safety protocols on the web make too much private user data available to the NSA and other intelligence agencies and businesses.
Snowden continued:
"We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way."
The IETF is one of the primary bodies creating voluntary standards of use, design and management of the internet, and Monday's meeting gave Snowden a welcome platform to promote a freer and safer web.
A frank live chat with Snowden...something that can happen just at an @ietf meeting! Internet democracy on stage. pic.twitter.com/nbAqP6nmRi
— Simon Pietro Romano (@spromano) July 19, 2015
As the Register UK reports, IETF members
'... have a strong independent streak, and many are still embarrassed by the fact that the NSA managed to crack a number of key internet protocols developed by the IETF and even subvert some of its working groups in their bid to develop new standards that would give the spooks easy access.'
Snowden's 2013 revelations that the NSA was collecting bulk telephone and internet metadata prompted an ongoing global debate over the role of government surveillance and the nature of individual privacy — a phenomenon termed by media critic Professor Jay Rosen as "the Snowden Effect".
For its part, the IETF responded to the leaks by developing a memorandum, known as a "Request for Comment" (RFC), entitled 'Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack'.
In his Q&A with the engineers on Monday, Snowden reiterated the dangers of invasive collection of information.
"People are being killed based on metadata, this is real," he said.
Read more @ https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/edward-snowden-calls-for-technologists-to-build-an-internet-for-the-people,7970
Nearly a year after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed top-secret details about the NSA's vast surveillance programs, the American public came out overwhelmingly in his favor. A poll commissioned by cloud storage service Tresorit in June 2014 found that 55 percent believed he did the right thing, while 29 percent did not. That support stands in stark contrast to American public opinion of another famous (or infamous) leak—the one by Chelsea Manning, the former private first class sentenced to 35 years in prison for handing over sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks. A Rasmussen poll conducted three years after her disclosures found 52 percent of Americans think she is a traitor, while 17 percent view her as a heroic whistleblower.
Nearly a year after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed top-secret details about the NSA's vast surveillance programs, the American public came out overwhelmingly in his favor. A poll commissioned by cloud storage service Tresorit in June 2014 found that 55 percent believed he did the right thing, while 29 percent did not.
That support stands in stark contrast to American public opinion of another famous (or infamous) leak—the one by Chelsea Manning, the former private first class sentenced to 35 years in prison for handing over sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks. A Rasmussen poll conducted three years after her disclosures found 52 percent of Americans think she is a traitor, while 17 percent view her as a heroic whistleblower.
Read more @ http://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-why-americans-prefer-edward-snowden-chelsea-manning-355644
Hear 'Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing' this Sunday afternoon at 5, on the KSUT Sunday Special. You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free. Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing? Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers?
Hear 'Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing' this Sunday afternoon at 5, on the KSUT Sunday Special.
You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest.
However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free.
Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing?
Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers?
Read more @ http://ksut.org/post/ksut-air-first-radio-interview-edward-snowden
Geez what an awful name…. Comey….. isn’t that what they call Communists? Comey short for Communist.
FBI Director James Comey today dismissed the idea of any plea deal with Edward Snowden, calling the ex-NSA contractor a “fugitive” who should be apprehended and brought to justice in the United States. Comey’s comments came two days after former Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to open the door to the idea of a possible deal with Snowden, telling Yahoo News in an interview that Snowden had “spurred a necessary debate” that led the U.S. government to curb the bulk collection of the records of Americans’ phone calls. But Comey took a decidedly different tack when asked about his former boss’ comments during a meeting with reporters at FBI headquarters. “My view is [Snowden is] a fugitive,” Comey said. “I’d love to apprehend him so he can enjoy the benefits of the freest and fairest criminal justice system in the world.”
FBI Director James Comey today dismissed the idea of any plea deal with Edward Snowden, calling the ex-NSA contractor a “fugitive” who should be apprehended and brought to justice in the United States.
Comey’s comments came two days after former Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to open the door to the idea of a possible deal with Snowden, telling Yahoo News in an interview that Snowden had “spurred a necessary debate” that led the U.S. government to curb the bulk collection of the records of Americans’ phone calls.
But Comey took a decidedly different tack when asked about his former boss’ comments during a meeting with reporters at FBI headquarters.
“My view is [Snowden is] a fugitive,” Comey said. “I’d love to apprehend him so he can enjoy the benefits of the freest and fairest criminal justice system in the world.”
Former Attorney General Eric Holder suggested the possibility of a deal exists, but there’s little substantial evidence of a shift in attitude from the Justice Department. WASHINGTON — Recent interviews with Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general, have spurred rumors that the U.S. government might offer Edward Snowden, the exiled NSA whistleblower, a plea bargain. Yet there’s little evidence such a deal actually exists and even less indication that Snowden would be interested if it did. Holder spoke with Yahoo! News last week, admitting that “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate.” Holder went further in an interview with Huffington Post, noting: “A debate has been spurred in our country that I think at the end of the day has been a useful one and resulted in appropriate changes to the way in which we gather information.” However, Holder continues to insist that Snowden’s leaks were “extremely harmful to the United States,” even though no U.S. official has ever offered substantive evidence of this supposed harm. Instead, Holder told HuffPost’s Ryan J. Reilly that Snowden should have disclosed his concerns to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
WASHINGTON — Recent interviews with Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general, have spurred rumors that the U.S. government might offer Edward Snowden, the exiled NSA whistleblower, a plea bargain. Yet there’s little evidence such a deal actually exists and even less indication that Snowden would be interested if it did.
Holder spoke with Yahoo! News last week, admitting that “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate.” Holder went further in an interview with Huffington Post, noting: “A debate has been spurred in our country that I think at the end of the day has been a useful one and resulted in appropriate changes to the way in which we gather information.” However, Holder continues to insist that Snowden’s leaks were “extremely harmful to the United States,” even though no U.S. official has ever offered substantive evidence of this supposed harm. Instead, Holder told HuffPost’s Ryan J. Reilly that Snowden should have disclosed his concerns to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The saga of Edward Snowden (1), the former analyst who purloined top secret NSA files and then went on a world-wide journey from Hawaii to Hong Kong and finally to Russia took an ominous turn recently as the UK Daily Mail reported (2). It seems that Russia and China have cracked encrypted portions of the files and have uncovered the identities of deep cover British and American agents (3) in both of those countries. The revelation has led intelligence agencies to withdraw their agents before they are picked up and interrogated. When Snowden fled from the United States, he presented himself as a whistleblower who uncovered what he believed to be abuses inflicted on the American people by the NSA and the CIA spying on them, gathering phone call and Internet information, and doing all of these things absent the usual protections the American legal system provides. Newsweek recently recounted (4) this aspect of Snowden’s feat in an approving tone, noting that the revelations led to changes in the Patriot Act, now called the Freedom Act, that restrained, to some degree, American ability to conduct spying on American citizens.
The saga of Edward Snowden (1), the former analyst who purloined top secret NSA files and then went on a world-wide journey from Hawaii to Hong Kong and finally to Russia took an ominous turn recently as the UK Daily Mail reported (2).
It seems that Russia and China have cracked encrypted portions of the files and have uncovered the identities of deep cover British and American agents (3) in both of those countries. The revelation has led intelligence agencies to withdraw their agents before they are picked up and interrogated.
When Snowden fled from the United States, he presented himself as a whistleblower who uncovered what he believed to be abuses inflicted on the American people by the NSA and the CIA spying on them, gathering phone call and Internet information, and doing all of these things absent the usual protections the American legal system provides.
Newsweek recently recounted (4) this aspect of Snowden’s feat in an approving tone, noting that the revelations led to changes in the Patriot Act, now called the Freedom Act, that restrained, to some degree, American ability to conduct spying on American citizens.
BERLIN: Germany's domestic intelligence chief said Tuesday that the revelations by Edward Snowden have had at least one positive effect, by raising awareness about the importance of counter-espionage. Hans-Georg Maassen told a gathering of business leaders in the southwestern city of Stuttgart that after the Cold War ended, the issue of counter-espionage was seen as unimportant, German news agency dpa reported. ``So maybe one can be grateful to Snowden that he has put a on the issue of counter-espionage in Germany,'' dpa quoted Maassen as saying. Germany's government reacted angrily two years ago to reports that Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone had been monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency. Although the reports didn't explicitly cite documents leaked to the media by Snowden, they came amid a flurry of similar claims about alleged U.S. surveillance in Germany that were linked to the former NSA contractor.
Israel is responsible for the 2008 murder of a top security aide of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to secret US intelligence files. Brigadier General Mohammed Sleiman was shot in the head and neck on August 1, 2008 by a small team of Israeli commandos as he enjoyed a dinner party at his luxury seaside home on the Syrian coast, said The Intercept website, citing the leaked files. The Israeli military team then escaped by sea. “The internal National Security Agency document, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is the first official confirmation that the assassination of Sleiman was an Israeli military operation,” said the website. The revelation “ends speculation that an internal dispute within the Syrian government led to his death,” it added. The NSA’s internal version of Wikipedia, “Intellipedia,” described the assassination near the port town of Tartus as the “first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official,” according to The Intercept. It cited three former US intelligence officers as saying that the document’s classification markings indicated that the NSA learned of the assassination through surveillance.
Israel is responsible for the 2008 murder of a top security aide of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to secret US intelligence files.
Brigadier General Mohammed Sleiman was shot in the head and neck on August 1, 2008 by a small team of Israeli commandos as he enjoyed a dinner party at his luxury seaside home on the Syrian coast, said The Intercept website, citing the leaked files.
The Israeli military team then escaped by sea.
“The internal National Security Agency document, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is the first official confirmation that the assassination of Sleiman was an Israeli military operation,” said the website.
The revelation “ends speculation that an internal dispute within the Syrian government led to his death,” it added.
The NSA’s internal version of Wikipedia, “Intellipedia,” described the assassination near the port town of Tartus as the “first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official,” according to The Intercept.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., hands me a copy of a letter from James Clapper in which the director of national intelligence complains to two members of the House Intelligence Committee about Massie’s recent attempts to reform one of the NSA’s massive surveillance programs. On the top right, in curly script, Massie has written his response: “Get a warrant.” It’s in red ink. He’s underlined it. “If you assume the worst” about the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices, Massie tells me, “it’s not a bad position to take, given what we’ve found out.” Indeed, for Massie, as with so many others, the information NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave journalists two years ago about the extraordinary sweep of U.S surveillance programs was a huge eye-opener. Prior to the Snowden revelations, Massie says, he knew almost nothing about the NSA’s implementation of the tools Congress gave it to protect national security. When he tried to find out more, in secret briefings and from his friends on the Intelligence Committee, he learned things he isn’t allowed to share. He tells me he is sure that there is more he doesn’t know — because it’s hard to know what to ask. “It’s ’20 questions’ — you don’t know what questions to ask,” he says. “There are concentric rings of knowledge” when it comes to surveillance. “I am on the outer ring.” But what he does know about NSA surveillance, aside from what Snowden released to the public, he doesn’t like. “There are line items we’re paying for …” he says, and shakes his head, unable to finish his sentence. Massie is one of several Tea Party Republicans, including presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and privacy hawk Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who have been fighting against NSA surveillance since soon after Snowden first revealed it. He joined Paul’s attempt to block renewal of portions of the Patriot Act in May, literally cheering him from the sidelines during Paul’s 10-and-a-half hour filibuster on the Senate floor. Eventually, with the passage of the USA Freedom Act in July, Paul and his camp saw their first victory: Section 215 of the Patriot Act , which the NSA had used to justify its bulk collection of American telephone data, was amended, forcing the NSA to shut down the current program in less than five months.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., hands me a copy of a letter from James Clapper in which the director of national intelligence complains to two members of the House Intelligence Committee about Massie’s recent attempts to reform one of the NSA’s massive surveillance programs.
On the top right, in curly script, Massie has written his response: “Get a warrant.” It’s in red ink. He’s underlined it.
“If you assume the worst” about the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices, Massie tells me, “it’s not a bad position to take, given what we’ve found out.”
Indeed, for Massie, as with so many others, the information NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave journalists two years ago about the extraordinary sweep of U.S surveillance programs was a huge eye-opener.
Prior to the Snowden revelations, Massie says, he knew almost nothing about the NSA’s implementation of the tools Congress gave it to protect national security.
When he tried to find out more, in secret briefings and from his friends on the Intelligence Committee, he learned things he isn’t allowed to share. He tells me he is sure that there is more he doesn’t know — because it’s hard to know what to ask. “It’s ’20 questions’ — you don’t know what questions to ask,” he says. “There are concentric rings of knowledge” when it comes to surveillance. “I am on the outer ring.”
But what he does know about NSA surveillance, aside from what Snowden released to the public, he doesn’t like. “There are line items we’re paying for …” he says, and shakes his head, unable to finish his sentence.
Massie is one of several Tea Party Republicans, including presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and privacy hawk Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who have been fighting against NSA surveillance since soon after Snowden first revealed it.
In June 2013, the biggest act of mass surveillance in the Internet age was exposed by Edward Snowden, a security analyst; Glenn Greenwald, a legal blogger; and Laura Poitras, a filmmaker. They collaborated to release the National Security Agency (NSA) files in The Guardian. The revelations raised a huge public debate, both about the ethics of the surveillance as well as the ethics of publishing the story. Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, spoke to Hari Narayan about one of the most important journalistic projects undertaken by the publication. Excerpts: It’s been a little more than two years since the Snowden revelations. Has there been enough debate since then? The USA Freedom Act has done away with some provisions of the Patriot Act. But have the laws gone far enough? Well, I think the penny has dropped that this is a very complex thing; that this is not just about decisions made by security chiefs without anybody else having a say. Has there been enough debate? No, not enough, but at least there has been some debate. We’ve moved from a world in which the security services didn’t want any of this discussed to one in which they say, ‘We feel we can discuss it’. Is the Freedom Act enough? Well, I think it is up to each country to decide what its rules are. America has moved from a position of ‘The state will collect all this information’ to ‘It is not alright for the state to hold all the information. The telecom companies can hold it. We can establish a procedure by which we can ask for information’. That, to me, is an improvement. Whether that answers all the questions that Edward Snowden has raised… I doubt it. And technology is moving so fast that it is quite hard for the laws to keep up. NSA spied even on ally countries: Brazil, India, Germany. Brazil responded by passing an Internet Bill of Rights. Is the debate likely to expand in the rest of the developing world where Internet penetration is low? May be the developing world has an advantage because it has time to discuss this. The problem in the West was that all the technology was suddenly there. They felt ‘because we can do that, we will do it’. Now, the wiser heads in the intelligence community are thinking: ‘Was it right that we did it because we could’? So the advantage of, may be, not being so far down the digital journey for the developing world is that you have time to say, ‘Well, before we rush into it, let’s work out a discussion’. Mr. Greenwald in No Place to Hide says that security officials boasted about how surveillance helps the U.S. to dominate the rest of the world, not just in security but also in financial and economic interests. The U.S., for instance, targeted Petrobras. Will legislation be enough to curb this kind of overreach? How the Internet is governed is something most people have no idea about. I only have a hazy idea about the protocol by which the security and the encryption of the Internet works. The Americans were a bit embarrassed when all of this [revelations about snooping on other countries] came up because they had designed architecture for the Internet. Then other countries found this out and turned on them. For legislation to catch up with surveillance, should MPs hire someone from the security agencies to advise them? My instinct is that a lot of the people on the other side of the world [legislators] are not very technologically clued-up. We need experts from different fields — specialists on encryption, on privacy, on civil liberties — having a voice in that. In the post-Snowden world, we have to work out what that oversight mechanism is going to be. In the U.K., the David Cameron government is not very enthusiastic about the David Anderson report that advocated judicial warrant before mass collection. Have British legislators been somewhat tolerant? There is a general point that applies to legislators around the world: they don’t want to be seen as being soft on security. If a bomb goes off, people are going to turn around and say, ‘Well, you are the one who stopped our agency’. No politician wants to be in that situation. So, politicians generally find this a very difficult subject to deal with. I think politicians are hampered by not wanting to be blamed. Countries do think about these things differently. Germany has had a terrible history. The Germans don’t like Google Street View. Everybody else in the world thinks this is quite interesting. In Germany, this is a horrible idea. Google had to behave differently there. But in Britain, we haven’t had to deal with agencies that behave badly. The Americans have. They have had FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and Hoover.
In June 2013, the biggest act of mass surveillance in the Internet age was exposed by Edward Snowden, a security analyst; Glenn Greenwald, a legal blogger; and Laura Poitras, a filmmaker. They collaborated to release the National Security Agency (NSA) files in The Guardian. The revelations raised a huge public debate, both about the ethics of the surveillance as well as the ethics of publishing the story. Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, spoke to Hari Narayan about one of the most important journalistic projects undertaken by the publication. Excerpts:
It’s been a little more than two years since the Snowden revelations. Has there been enough debate since then? The USA Freedom Act has done away with some provisions of the Patriot Act. But have the laws gone far enough?
Well, I think the penny has dropped that this is a very complex thing; that this is not just about decisions made by security chiefs without anybody else having a say. Has there been enough debate? No, not enough, but at least there has been some debate. We’ve moved from a world in which the security services didn’t want any of this discussed to one in which they say, ‘We feel we can discuss it’.
Is the Freedom Act enough? Well, I think it is up to each country to decide what its rules are. America has moved from a position of ‘The state will collect all this information’ to ‘It is not alright for the state to hold all the information. The telecom companies can hold it. We can establish a procedure by which we can ask for information’. That, to me, is an improvement. Whether that answers all the questions that Edward Snowden has raised… I doubt it. And technology is moving so fast that it is quite hard for the laws to keep up.
NSA spied even on ally countries: Brazil, India, Germany. Brazil responded by passing an Internet Bill of Rights. Is the debate likely to expand in the rest of the developing world where Internet penetration is low?
May be the developing world has an advantage because it has time to discuss this. The problem in the West was that all the technology was suddenly there. They felt ‘because we can do that, we will do it’. Now, the wiser heads in the intelligence community are thinking: ‘Was it right that we did it because we could’? So the advantage of, may be, not being so far down the digital journey for the developing world is that you have time to say, ‘Well, before we rush into it, let’s work out a discussion’.
Mr. Greenwald in No Place to Hide says that security officials boasted about how surveillance helps the U.S. to dominate the rest of the world, not just in security but also in financial and economic interests. The U.S., for instance, targeted Petrobras. Will legislation be enough to curb this kind of overreach?
How the Internet is governed is something most people have no idea about. I only have a hazy idea about the protocol by which the security and the encryption of the Internet works. The Americans were a bit embarrassed when all of this [revelations about snooping on other countries] came up because they had designed architecture for the Internet. Then other countries found this out and turned on them.
For legislation to catch up with surveillance, should MPs hire someone from the security agencies to advise them?
My instinct is that a lot of the people on the other side of the world [legislators] are not very technologically clued-up. We need experts from different fields — specialists on encryption, on privacy, on civil liberties — having a voice in that. In the post-Snowden world, we have to work out what that oversight mechanism is going to be.
In the U.K., the David Cameron government is not very enthusiastic about the David Anderson report that advocated judicial warrant before mass collection. Have British legislators been somewhat tolerant?
There is a general point that applies to legislators around the world: they don’t want to be seen as being soft on security. If a bomb goes off, people are going to turn around and say, ‘Well, you are the one who stopped our agency’. No politician wants to be in that situation. So, politicians generally find this a very difficult subject to deal with. I think politicians are hampered by not wanting to be blamed. Countries do think about these things differently. Germany has had a terrible history. The Germans don’t like Google Street View. Everybody else in the world thinks this is quite interesting. In Germany, this is a horrible idea. Google had to behave differently there. But in Britain, we haven’t had to deal with agencies that behave badly. The Americans have. They have had FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and Hoover.
Businessman and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he’s elected president, Russian President Vladimir Putin would turn over former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. “If I’m president, Putin says ‘hey, boom — you’re gone’ — I guarantee you that,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN. Mr. Trump called Mr. Snowden, who faces Espionage Act charges for his role in leaking information about the NSA’s phone-snooping program, a “total traitor” and said he “would deal with him harshly.” “And if I were president, Putin would give him over. I would get along with Putin. I’ve dealt with Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “He would never keep somebody like Snowden in Russia — he hates [President] Obama; he doesn’t respect Obama. Obama doesn’t like him either. But he has no respect for Obama, has a hatred for Obama, and Snowden is living the life,” he said. Mr. Trump, who is at or near the top of recent polling on the 2016 GOP presidential field, also said he’s not interested in a vice presidential position if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination.
Businessman and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he’s elected president, Russian President Vladimir Putin would turn over former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“If I’m president, Putin says ‘hey, boom — you’re gone’ — I guarantee you that,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN.
Mr. Trump called Mr. Snowden, who faces Espionage Act charges for his role in leaking information about the NSA’s phone-snooping program, a “total traitor” and said he “would deal with him harshly.”
“And if I were president, Putin would give him over. I would get along with Putin. I’ve dealt with Russia,” Mr. Trump said.
“He would never keep somebody like Snowden in Russia — he hates [President] Obama; he doesn’t respect Obama. Obama doesn’t like him either. But he has no respect for Obama, has a hatred for Obama, and Snowden is living the life,” he said.
Mr. Trump, who is at or near the top of recent polling on the 2016 GOP presidential field, also said he’s not interested in a vice presidential position if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination.
Posts: 14359
Jul 23 15 12:21 AM
Jul 23 15 3:30 PM
icepick wrote:Hi TimI can't stand that SOB either Pen. But I feel a powerful need to overcome my feelings as well as some of my beliefs in favor of an (almost ridiculously) open mind right now. Something bad is on the verge of going down right now. Sure, I could be wrong, but one would have a very hard time convincing me that I am.I would prefer to see someone with no money.... no power given to them from the corporate world..... and a person completely for the people with ethics, integrity, honesty, grace, and a few other really good character points run for the US presidency..... I know a pipe dream, Jesus died long ago....... I'm also growing more suspicious of those media sources that are carrying this to the point of a rant right now. I can't understand their motive for dividing the people further yet, now that it's finally clear that there's a struggle taking place behind the scenes regarding this very issue. Why are they not dropping the surveillance story, in favor of supporting the politicians who try to fight it? Instead they work overtime trying to make them sound like idiots .......................... something very serious is not right about any of this. If only I could place my finger directly on what it is ...................Oh! Tim, how right you are ,.... ME TOO!! And twice now I have read some bursters, and wondered if the reporters writing the stories were socialists.... Something is definitely not right, and since when has a reporters opinion been news?Don't worry, Trump won't get in. But he may just shake the fraudulent candidates up enough to cause them to make mistakes. How often do you see a mouth that big provoking a response?TimI don't think he will either...... I don't know why but for some reason he makes the heckles raise on my back. It could be because he is so full of himself.... I don't know. Never been able to stand such arrogance.
I can't stand that SOB either Pen. But I feel a powerful need to overcome my feelings as well as some of my beliefs in favor of an (almost ridiculously) open mind right now. Something bad is on the verge of going down right now. Sure, I could be wrong, but one would have a very hard time convincing me that I am.
I'm also growing more suspicious of those media sources that are carrying this to the point of a rant right now. I can't understand their motive for dividing the people further yet, now that it's finally clear that there's a struggle taking place behind the scenes regarding this very issue. Why are they not dropping the surveillance story, in favor of supporting the politicians who try to fight it? Instead they work overtime trying to make them sound like idiots .......................... something very serious is not right about any of this. If only I could place my finger directly on what it is ...................
Don't worry, Trump won't get in. But he may just shake the fraudulent candidates up enough to cause them to make mistakes. How often do you see a mouth that big provoking a response?Tim
Jul 25 15 9:40 AM
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2]
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Have you ever disliked someone only to become convinced that the person had a vendetta against you? This is a common example of psychological projection.
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday sharpened his verbal attacks on Edward Snowden for his disclosure of classified domestic surveillance programs, blasting the former NSA contractor as a "piece of garbage." And Christie also took a shot at fellow Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul for lauding Snowden. The governor, speaking on Fox News' "The Five," lashed out against Snowden, who's living in Russia to avoid being prosecuted in the United States for leaking thousands of documents to journalists in 2013 that showed the NSA had been collecting millions of Americans' phone records. When asked if he would send Navy SEALs to return him to the United States, Christie said: "No. I wouldn't send the SEALs in to pick up that piece of garbage."
Years after Edwards Snowden exposed the scale of NSA and GCHQ mass surveillance in a series of high profile leaks, UK police are still investigating the journalists involved in the expose to decide whether to prosecute. After refusing to confirm or deny whether the two-year investigation was still underway, the Metropolitan Police have revealed they are still examining the journalists who published the leaks by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The disclosure was reported by the Intercept, who had been engaged in a Freedom of Information battle which has lasted seven months. In 2013 Cressida Dick, a high-ranking UK police officer, told a parliamentary inquiry the force was investigating whether the journalists should be charged for their reportage. In a statement, National Union of Journalists (NUJ) General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet told the Intercept that police should “stop attacking press freedom.” She warned against treating journalist as if their work was breaking the law. “Journalists who reported on the Snowden documents are not criminals, they are not a threat to national security.” “It is totally unacceptable that the authorities have spent the last two years considering whether they will prosecute British journalists reporting in the public interest,” she said. On Monday a court head that Scotland Yard used anti-terror legislation to violate the human rights of three British reporters in 2012 by accessing their private phone records.
With the given security tools, journalists are ill-equipped to protect the identity of their sources, especially after Edward Snowden's leak of classified documents to journalists across the globe about massive government surveillance programmes and threats to personal privacy, says a new study. "Addressing many of the security issues journalists face will require new technical solutions, while many existing secure tools are incompatible with the journalistic process in one way or the other," said lead author Susan McGregor, assistant professor at Columbia University in the US. The researchers probed the computer security habits of 15 journalists across the US and France and found a number of security weaknesses in their technological tools. "If you use your iPhone to translate speech to text, for example, it sends that information to Apple," said senior author Franziska Roesner from University of Washington. "So, if you record a sensitive conversation, you have to trust that Apple is not colluding with an adversary or that Apple's security is good enough that your information is never going to be compromised," said Roesner. News organizations' abilities to build trust with sources and gather sensitive information have been called into question by recent disclosures about surveillance: the US Department of Justice's admission that it secretly obtained phone records from the Associated Press, Microsoft's admission that it read a blogger's personal Hotmail account to find a source of an internal leak, and criminal investigations that have used email traces to identify and prosecute anonymous sources, the study said.
GCHQ days of form-filling and 'bulk' intercept Feature David Anderson QC’s review of Britain’s anti-terrorism laws, published earlier this month, has mostly been examined for its potential impact on the government’s plans for a new act of Parliament on surveillance, known as the Snooper’s Charter to opponents. He made extensive recommendations as to what should be in the legislation, although his proposal that surveillance warrants should be signed off by judges rather than ministers has already been talked down by the government. But the part-time Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who in his day job is a high-flying human rights lawyer, also used his 373-page report to shed light on how spies use electronic surveillance, based on research that included a three-day visit to GCHQ in Cheltenham. This and other recently published documents provide new insights into how Britain’s electronic eavesdroppers work, and come from official sources rather than documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Anderson, who saw informing the public and political debate as a key purpose of his report, outlines the powers of the UK’s secret agencies. In GCHQ’s case, this includes hacking (Computer Network Exploitation or CNE, in the jargon), something disclosed when the government published the Home Office’s Draft Equipment Interference Code in February. The code requires applications for such hacking to include what the operation is expected to deliver, details of “collateral intrusion”, whether it will obtain legally privileged or confidential material, and what will be done to mitigate the surveillance, such as filtering and disregarding personal information. This, along with many other sections of Anderson’s report, suggest that many hours in Cheltenham are spent filling out forms.
"Edward loves America and he would definitely like to return home," said Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden's attorney in Russia, in a statement to the media. "But it is our position, and a very simple one, that as long as his case is politicized and commented on as it is by politicians of all levels, that his return to his motherland is impossible."
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has told of how the U.S. government could topple most others in the world using information from current leaders’ pasts. He also took a swipe at British journalists who he called “gentleman amateurs”, and blasted the Guardian newspaper for abandoning Wikileaks source Edward Snowden. In an interview with Germany’s Der Speigel newspaper, Assange spoke at length on how British and American intelligence agencies work, revealing details about tactics employed by both agencies which could put companies out of business, and even the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, out of work. “If you knew as a German politician that American intelligence agencies have been collecting intensively on 125 top-level politicians and officials over decades, you would recall some of the conversations you had in all these years and you would then understand that the United States has all those conversations, and that it could take down the Merkel cabinet any time it feels like it, by simply leaking portions of those conversations to journalists,” he said.
Jul 30 15 7:11 AM
One of the things that civil liberties activists like to lament about is that the general public seems to care more about Google and Facebook using their personal data to target advertising than the government using it to target drone strikes. The reality is that both types of abuse are dangerous, and they work hand in hand. It’s hard to find a more perfect example of this collusion than in a bill that’s headed for a vote soon in the U.S. Senate: the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA. CISA is an out and out surveillance bill masquerading as a cybersecurity bill. It won’t stop hackers. Instead, it essentially legalizes all forms of government and corporate spying. Here’s how it works. Companies would be given new authority to monitor their users -- on their own systems as well as those of any other entity -- and then, in order to get immunity from virtually all existing surveillance laws, they would be encouraged to share vaguely defined “cyber threat indicators” with the government. This could be anything from email content, to passwords, IP addresses, or personal information associated with an account. The language of the bill is written to encourage companies to share liberally and include as many personal details as possible. That information could then be used to further exploit a loophole in surveillance laws that gives the government legal authority for their holy grail -- “upstream” collection of domestic data directly from the cables and switches that make up the Internet. Thanks to Edwards Snowden, we know that the NSA, FBI, and CIA have already been conducting this type of upstream surveillance on suspected hackers. CISA would give the government tons of new domestic cyber threat indicators to use for their upstream collection of information that passes over the Internet. This means they will be gathering not just data on the alleged threat, but also all of the sensitive data that may have been hacked as part of the threat. So if someone hacks all of Gmail, the hacker doesn’t just get those emails, so does the U.S. government. The information they gather, including all the hacked data and any incidental information that happens to get swept up in the process, would be added to massive databases on people in the U.S. and all over the world that the FBI, CIA, and NSA are free to query at their leisure. This is how CISA would create a huge expansion of the “backdoor” search capabilities that the government uses to skirt the 4th Amendment and spy on Internet users without warrants and with virtually no oversight.
One of the things that civil liberties activists like to lament about is that the general public seems to care more about Google and Facebook using their personal data to target advertising than the government using it to target drone strikes.
The reality is that both types of abuse are dangerous, and they work hand in hand.
It’s hard to find a more perfect example of this collusion than in a bill that’s headed for a vote soon in the U.S. Senate: the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA.
CISA is an out and out surveillance bill masquerading as a cybersecurity bill. It won’t stop hackers. Instead, it essentially legalizes all forms of government and corporate spying.
Here’s how it works. Companies would be given new authority to monitor their users -- on their own systems as well as those of any other entity -- and then, in order to get immunity from virtually all existing surveillance laws, they would be encouraged to share vaguely defined “cyber threat indicators” with the government. This could be anything from email content, to passwords, IP addresses, or personal information associated with an account. The language of the bill is written to encourage companies to share liberally and include as many personal details as possible.
That information could then be used to further exploit a loophole in surveillance laws that gives the government legal authority for their holy grail -- “upstream” collection of domestic data directly from the cables and switches that make up the Internet.
Thanks to Edwards Snowden, we know that the NSA, FBI, and CIA have already been conducting this type of upstream surveillance on suspected hackers. CISA would give the government tons of new domestic cyber threat indicators to use for their upstream collection of information that passes over the Internet. This means they will be gathering not just data on the alleged threat, but also all of the sensitive data that may have been hacked as part of the threat. So if someone hacks all of Gmail, the hacker doesn’t just get those emails, so does the U.S. government.
The information they gather, including all the hacked data and any incidental information that happens to get swept up in the process, would be added to massive databases on people in the U.S. and all over the world that the FBI, CIA, and NSA are free to query at their leisure. This is how CISA would create a huge expansion of the “backdoor” search capabilities that the government uses to skirt the 4th Amendment and spy on Internet users without warrants and with virtually no oversight.
Jul 30 15 10:47 PM
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that although the government is in many cases aware of the value of cryptography, they are opposing it. The UK government is an example they make frequent use of since the country is looking at banning cryptography that does not give the government a back door. Used properly, strong encryption can avoid data leaks from happening. If files are encrypted, then anytime they get out of their proper sphere, they are useless. Governments should be using more cryptography, not discouraging its use. The EFF has determined that governments opposing strong cryptography will ultimately have a negative impact on their economies and overall security. In the United Kingdom, a ban would have further effects. Open source software would have to become illegal. Otherwise, people might be able to compile their own encryption software. Closed source alternatives would still need backdoors from the government. David Cameron has said there should be nothing his government cannot read. The EFF also outlines efforts in both the Netherlands and Australia, which will have similar effects to the efforts in the UK and the US. Governments everywhere are considering how best to get the most control of encryption technology. Citizens everywhere have a chance now to get ahead of the government and acquire a means of encrypting and decrypting files. Weak encryption affects businesses as much as it does political dissidents and governments. Businesses require strong encryption to protect intellectual property as well as sensitive information. International efforts to ban cryptography don't seem to take these uses into account. Instead, governments seem focused on terrorism. David Cameron is not comfortable allowing anything into the hands of terrorists that makes it more difficult to track their activities. He promised
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that although the government is in many cases aware of the value of cryptography, they are opposing it. The UK government is an example they make frequent use of since the country is looking at banning cryptography that does not give the government a back door.
Used properly, strong encryption can avoid data leaks from happening. If files are encrypted, then anytime they get out of their proper sphere, they are useless. Governments should be using more cryptography, not discouraging its use. The EFF has determined that governments opposing strong cryptography will ultimately have a negative impact on their economies and overall security.
In the United Kingdom, a ban would have further effects. Open source software would have to become illegal. Otherwise, people might be able to compile their own encryption software. Closed source alternatives would still need backdoors from the government. David Cameron has said there should be nothing his government cannot read.
The EFF also outlines efforts in both the Netherlands and Australia, which will have similar effects to the efforts in the UK and the US. Governments everywhere are considering how best to get the most control of encryption technology. Citizens everywhere have a chance now to get ahead of the government and acquire a means of encrypting and decrypting files.
Weak encryption affects businesses as much as it does political dissidents and governments. Businesses require strong encryption to protect intellectual property as well as sensitive information. International efforts to ban cryptography don't seem to take these uses into account. Instead, governments seem focused on terrorism. David Cameron is not comfortable allowing anything into the hands of terrorists that makes it more difficult to track their activities. He promised
Read more @ https://hacked.com/eff-war-cryptography-privacy-raging/
Renowned ‘whistleblower’ to present his views LIVE via satellite to Andrew Neil, on the state and future of national cyber security. Renowned former NSA employee Edward Snowden will deliver a keynote speech this year at Europe’s number one IT event, IP EXPO Europe 2015, taking place at London’s ExCel. Joining the event live via satellite on Wednesday 7th October, Snowden will share his views on the implications of national cyber security today. Famous for his ‘whistleblowing’ against NSA in 2013 which has since fuelled thousands of debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy and national security, Snowden will be interviewed live by renowned journalist and broadcaster, Andrew Neil, and will speak out on his views about the current state of cybersecurity worldwide. He is expected to discuss the truth about our privacy on the Web and the implications of recent major security breaches on the future of cyber and national security. Bradley Maule-ffinch, IP EXPO Europe’s Director of Strategy, says: “Our security is increasingly under threat and, following recent events like the Hacking Team breach, there are fresh concerns about how safe we really are on the Web. It’s a global issue, one which was bought to the forefront of the news agenda by Edward Snowden in 2013. For that reason, we are very excited to welcome him to this year’s IP EXPO Europe and hear his views on the matter”. Snowden is also expected to give his views on the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill, or ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, which calls for ISPs and mobile network operators to keep records of individual users’ browsing activity over a 12 month period. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a further extension to the bill which will strengthen powers for security services to intercept the content of communication.
Renowned ‘whistleblower’ to present his views LIVE via satellite to Andrew Neil, on the state and future of national cyber security.
Renowned former NSA employee Edward Snowden will deliver a keynote speech this year at Europe’s number one IT event, IP EXPO Europe 2015, taking place at London’s ExCel. Joining the event live via satellite on Wednesday 7th October, Snowden will share his views on the implications of national cyber security today.
Famous for his ‘whistleblowing’ against NSA in 2013 which has since fuelled thousands of debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy and national security, Snowden will be interviewed live by renowned journalist and broadcaster, Andrew Neil, and will speak out on his views about the current state of cybersecurity worldwide. He is expected to discuss the truth about our privacy on the Web and the implications of recent major security breaches on the future of cyber and national security.
Bradley Maule-ffinch, IP EXPO Europe’s Director of Strategy, says: “Our security is increasingly under threat and, following recent events like the Hacking Team breach, there are fresh concerns about how safe we really are on the Web. It’s a global issue, one which was bought to the forefront of the news agenda by Edward Snowden in 2013. For that reason, we are very excited to welcome him to this year’s IP EXPO Europe and hear his views on the matter”.
Snowden is also expected to give his views on the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill, or ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, which calls for ISPs and mobile network operators to keep records of individual users’ browsing activity over a 12 month period. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a further extension to the bill which will strengthen powers for security services to intercept the content of communication.
Read more @ http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/edward-snowden-joins-line-up-at-ip-expo-europe-2015/
A secretive British police investigation focusing on journalists working with Edward Snowden’s leaked documents remains ongoing two years after it was quietly launched, The Intercept can reveal. London’s Metropolitan Police Service has admitted it is still carrying out the probe, which is being led by its counterterrorism department, after previously refusing to confirm or deny its existence on the grounds that doing so could be “detrimental to national security.” The disclosure was made by police in a letter sent to this reporter Tuesday, concluding a seven-month freedom of information battle that saw the London force repeatedly attempt to withhold basic details about the status of the case. It reversed its position this week only after an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office, the public body that enforces the U.K.’s freedom of information laws. Following Snowden’s disclosures from the National Security Agency in 2013, the Metropolitan Police and a lawyer for the British government separately stated that a criminal investigation had been opened into the leaks. One of the London force’s most senior officers acknowledged during a parliamentary hearing that the investigation was looking at whether reporters at The Guardian had committed criminal offenses for their role in revealing secret surveillance operations exposed in the Snowden documents.
A secretive British police investigation focusing on journalists working with Edward Snowden’s leaked documents remains ongoing two years after it was quietly launched, The Intercept can reveal.
London’s Metropolitan Police Service has admitted it is still carrying out the probe, which is being led by its counterterrorism department, after previously refusing to confirm or deny its existence on the grounds that doing so could be “detrimental to national security.”
The disclosure was made by police in a letter sent to this reporter Tuesday, concluding a seven-month freedom of information battle that saw the London force repeatedly attempt to withhold basic details about the status of the case. It reversed its position this week only after an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office, the public body that enforces the U.K.’s freedom of information laws.
Following Snowden’s disclosures from the National Security Agency in 2013, the Metropolitan Police and a lawyer for the British government separately stated that a criminal investigation had been opened into the leaks. One of the London force’s most senior officers acknowledged during a parliamentary hearing that the investigation was looking at whether reporters at The Guardian had committed criminal offenses for their role in revealing secret surveillance operations exposed in the Snowden documents.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/24/uk-met-police-snowden-investigation-journalists/
Edward Snowden's actions confronts us with a vexing problem. Because of Snowden's actions we are now burdened with the knowledge and evidence that we live in a surveillance state. We are confronted with our complacency. A fundamental question begs an answer. What does it now mean to be an American? Snowden's release of illegal NSA activities under the Obama administration confronts the left with with a moral conundrum. It was easy to have righteous indignation with torture, secret prisons, enhanced interrogation, Guantanamo Bay as the evil work of the dastardly Cheney Bush Rumsfeld Gang but the illegal NSA activities are on Obama's watch. Imagine for a moment, Snowden had released the NSA documents during the Cheney administration. There wouldn't be enough ink in the world to cover the left's outrage. Snowden's actions confronts the conservative fallacy of being a stout defenders of the Constitution. One must suspend logic, reason and commonsense to square the NSA activities with the framers original intent. Patriot Bill, FISA rulings, secret courts? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." is now only meekly mumbled. If Snowden hadn't informed us we could still happily pretend we're exceptional and the rightful heirs to the liberties and American values expressed by our forefathers. But now that we know and still we just sit compliantly.
Edward Snowden's actions confronts us with a vexing problem. Because of Snowden's actions we are now burdened with the knowledge and evidence that we live in a surveillance state. We are confronted with our complacency. A fundamental question begs an answer. What does it now mean to be an American?
Snowden's release of illegal NSA activities under the Obama administration confronts the left with with a moral conundrum. It was easy to have righteous indignation with torture, secret prisons, enhanced interrogation, Guantanamo Bay as the evil work of the dastardly Cheney Bush Rumsfeld Gang but the illegal NSA activities are on Obama's watch. Imagine for a moment, Snowden had released the NSA documents during the Cheney administration. There wouldn't be enough ink in the world to cover the left's outrage.
Snowden's actions confronts the conservative fallacy of being a stout defenders of the Constitution. One must suspend logic, reason and commonsense to square the NSA activities with the framers original intent. Patriot Bill, FISA rulings, secret courts?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." is now only meekly mumbled.
If Snowden hadn't informed us we could still happily pretend we're exceptional and the rightful heirs to the liberties and American values expressed by our forefathers. But now that we know and still we just sit compliantly.
Read more @ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Some-Americans-hate-Ed-by-Bill-Perna-Edward-Snowden_Snowden-150725-623.html
OTTAWA — Canada's electronic spy agency is worried about a Canadian Edward Snowden. The Communications Security Establishment began educating new employees and existing staff about "insider threats" in 2013, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star. The crackdown on "unauthorized disclosures" was tied directly to the whistleblower Snowden, who pulled back the curtain on a pervasive electronic spying apparatus in the United States and its Five Eyes partners, including CSE in Canada. "Following the unauthorized disclosures of Canadian Navy Sub-Lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle (2012) and NSA contractor Edward Snowden (2013), CSE has intensified its efforts to tighten already stringent security," the documents, obtained under access to information law, state. "CSE's security responses to the unauthorized disclosures comprise both new and existing measures as part of ongoing efforts to better safeguard intelligence." Most of those "new and existing measures" have been censored from the heavily redacted document, a 2013-14 annual report to the minister of national defence. Almost everything Canadians know about CSE's modern operations comes from Snowden, who fled the United States with a vast amount of information on the U.S. National Security Agency and its counterparts in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Snowden gave that information to journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been writing about the NSA's operations since. In Canada, Greenwald partnered with the CBC to release select documents on CSE's operations, including:
OTTAWA — Canada's electronic spy agency is worried about a Canadian Edward Snowden.
The Communications Security Establishment began educating new employees and existing staff about "insider threats" in 2013, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star.
The crackdown on "unauthorized disclosures" was tied directly to the whistleblower Snowden, who pulled back the curtain on a pervasive electronic spying apparatus in the United States and its Five Eyes partners, including CSE in Canada.
"Following the unauthorized disclosures of Canadian Navy Sub-Lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle (2012) and NSA contractor Edward Snowden (2013), CSE has intensified its efforts to tighten already stringent security," the documents, obtained under access to information law, state.
"CSE's security responses to the unauthorized disclosures comprise both new and existing measures as part of ongoing efforts to better safeguard intelligence."
Most of those "new and existing measures" have been censored from the heavily redacted document, a 2013-14 annual report to the minister of national defence.
Almost everything Canadians know about CSE's modern operations comes from Snowden, who fled the United States with a vast amount of information on the U.S. National Security Agency and its counterparts in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
Snowden gave that information to journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been writing about the NSA's operations since. In Canada, Greenwald partnered with the CBC to release select documents on CSE's operations, including:
Read more @ http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5751745-a-canadian-snowden-cse-warns-of-insider-threats-/
And they too should be judged by a jury of their peers…… (the general public to whom they are supposed to be working for)
The White House rejected a call on Tuesday to pardon Edward Snowden, saying that the former intelligence contractor should "be judged by a jury of his peers" for leaking US government secrets. The US administration re-iterated its tough stance against the exiled former-NSA contractor, whom supporters regard as a whistleblower, in response to a petition on the White House website which has been signed by more than 167,000 people. Lisa Monaco, an advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, said that Snowden's "dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it." She said that Snowden, who had been granted asylum in Russia after he leaked documents on vast US surveillance programs to journalists, is "running away from the consequences of his actions." "If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions," she wrote. "He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." The US administration has branded Snowden a hacker and a traitor who endangered lives by revealing the extent of the National Security Agency spying programs.
The White House rejected a call on Tuesday to pardon Edward Snowden, saying that the former intelligence contractor should "be judged by a jury of his peers" for leaking US government secrets.
The US administration re-iterated its tough stance against the exiled former-NSA contractor, whom supporters regard as a whistleblower, in response to a petition on the White House website which has been signed by more than 167,000 people.
Lisa Monaco, an advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, said that Snowden's "dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it."
She said that Snowden, who had been granted asylum in Russia after he leaked documents on vast US surveillance programs to journalists, is "running away from the consequences of his actions."
"If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions," she wrote.
"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime."
The US administration has branded Snowden a hacker and a traitor who endangered lives by revealing the extent of the National Security Agency spying programs.
“It is hard to quantify this harm, such as it is, but I think the inflammatory nature of the way the Snowden affair played out really set back our collective discussion on cybersecurity,” said Rajesh De, former general counsel of the NSA in response to a question about Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified information. De now leads Mayer Brown’s privacy and security practice, and was interviewed at the Big Law Business Summit, earlier this month, by Sam Rascoff, faculty director of the NYU Center on Law and Security
Today university campuses lionize those who disclose our secrets The White House is denying that its decision to accede to the parole of Jonathan Pollard is animated by its hopes to assuage Israel in the face of the Iran appeasement, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week. My instinct is with the Journal, but, in any event, the thing to remember about Pollard is that he should never have been given a life sentence in the first place. It’s not that Pollard’s breach of our Espionage Act wasn’t serious. It certainly was. But the charge to which he pled guilty comprised a single count of passing classified secrets to a friendly nation. In exchange for his plea, which saved the government the risk of losing in court or being forced to drop its case rather than disclose the secrets, the government made promises it failed to keep. This came to a head in the early 1990s. Pollard was arrested in 1985. He pled guilty in 1986. He drew life in 1987. He sought to withdraw his plea in 1990. And the Appeals Court judges who ride circuit in the District of Columbia disposed of his claims in 1992. It was an incredibly distinguished panel, including Laurence Silberman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Fain Williams. Yet two of the three judges took what can only be described as a powder, casting Pollard into prison for what the law calls life (30 years) on the grounds that he didn’t appeal the life sentence in a timely manner. The memorable opinion in the case was the dissent of Judge Williams, who concluded that the government that put Pollard away had broken the promises it had made in return for his plea. The promises were that it would bring to the court’s attention the value of Pollard’s cooperation, refrain from seeking a life sentence, and limit its allocution — its statements — regarding “the facts and circumstances” of Pollard’s crimes. Williams concluded that the government “complied in spirit with none of its promises” and, in respect of the third promise, “it complied in neither letter nor spirit.” One of the points Williams marked was the government’s suggestion that Pollard had committed treason. That came in a memo to the court from the defense secretary at the time, Caspar Weinberger, who asked the Court to mete out a punishment reflecting the “magnitude of the treason committed.” Yet Weinberg and the Court knew that whatever Pollard did was not treason. That’s because the Constitution prohibits Congress from defining treason as anything other than levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason, Williams noted, carries the death penalty. It can be committed only with an enemy. The espionage statute to which Pollard pled encompassed aid to friendly nations and carried a maximum of life.
The White House is denying that its decision to accede to the parole of Jonathan Pollard is animated by its hopes to assuage Israel in the face of the Iran appeasement, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week. My instinct is with the Journal, but, in any event, the thing to remember about Pollard is that he should never have been given a life sentence in the first place.
It’s not that Pollard’s breach of our Espionage Act wasn’t serious. It certainly was. But the charge to which he pled guilty comprised a single count of passing classified secrets to a friendly nation. In exchange for his plea, which saved the government the risk of losing in court or being forced to drop its case rather than disclose the secrets, the government made promises it failed to keep.
This came to a head in the early 1990s. Pollard was arrested in 1985. He pled guilty in 1986. He drew life in 1987. He sought to withdraw his plea in 1990. And the Appeals Court judges who ride circuit in the District of Columbia disposed of his claims in 1992. It was an incredibly distinguished panel, including Laurence Silberman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Fain Williams.
Yet two of the three judges took what can only be described as a powder, casting Pollard into prison for what the law calls life (30 years) on the grounds that he didn’t appeal the life sentence in a timely manner. The memorable opinion in the case was the dissent of Judge Williams, who concluded that the government that put Pollard away had broken the promises it had made in return for his plea.
The promises were that it would bring to the court’s attention the value of Pollard’s cooperation, refrain from seeking a life sentence, and limit its allocution — its statements — regarding “the facts and circumstances” of Pollard’s crimes. Williams concluded that the government “complied in spirit with none of its promises” and, in respect of the third promise, “it complied in neither letter nor spirit.”
One of the points Williams marked was the government’s suggestion that Pollard had committed treason. That came in a memo to the court from the defense secretary at the time, Caspar Weinberger, who asked the Court to mete out a punishment reflecting the “magnitude of the treason committed.” Yet Weinberg and the Court knew that whatever Pollard did was not treason.
That’s because the Constitution prohibits Congress from defining treason as anything other than levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason, Williams noted, carries the death penalty. It can be committed only with an enemy. The espionage statute to which Pollard pled encompassed aid to friendly nations and carried a maximum of life.
Read more @ http://time.com/3973135/jonathan-pollard-parole/
That would be a “No.” In response to an online petition asking for a pardon for Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, the White House said on Tuesday that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States and face justice. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime,” the White House said in a statement. Mr. Snowden downloaded a vast trove of intelligence while working as a contractor for the N.S.A. and then leaked the documents to reporters. He is now living in Russia beyond the reach of prosecutors in the United States. Among other things, his disclosures revealed an N.S.A. program that collects the phone records of millions of Americans and that was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court in May. He has since become a celebrity among some civil libertarians and has been making video appearances at conferences around the world. The petition said Mr. Snowden was “a national hero and should be immediately issued a full, free and absolute pardon.”
That would be a “No.”
In response to an online petition asking for a pardon for Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, the White House said on Tuesday that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States and face justice.
“He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime,” the White House said in a statement.
Mr. Snowden downloaded a vast trove of intelligence while working as a contractor for the N.S.A. and then leaked the documents to reporters. He is now living in Russia beyond the reach of prosecutors in the United States. Among other things, his disclosures revealed an N.S.A. program that collects the phone records of millions of Americans and that was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court in May.
He has since become a celebrity among some civil libertarians and has been making video appearances at conferences around the world.
The petition said Mr. Snowden was “a national hero and should be immediately issued a full, free and absolute pardon.”
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/28/u-s-rejects-petition-seeking-pardon-for-edward-j-snowden/
The administration is opening up its online petition platform so that people can add their name to a cause without visiting the White House website. The White House developed a tool that will allow programmers to integrate a petition into their own web sites or blogs. The administration is also sharing the code behind the petition platform with other governments or groups that want to launch their own version. It is also partnering with Change.org, so that signatures added to that popular petition website will count toward the White House count. Jason Goldman, the White House chief digital officer, also promised that the White House will attempt to answer any petition that reaches the 100,000 goal within 60 days. Twenty petitions had been waiting months for an answer, and the White House cleared the backlog with a string of responses Tuesday. Those included a petition calling for the pardon of Edward Snowden and another calling for reform to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which has massive support in Congress.
The administration is opening up its online petition platform so that people can add their name to a cause without visiting the White House website.
The White House developed a tool that will allow programmers to integrate a petition into their own web sites or blogs. The administration is also sharing the code behind the petition platform with other governments or groups that want to launch their own version.
It is also partnering with Change.org, so that signatures added to that popular petition website will count toward the White House count.
Jason Goldman, the White House chief digital officer, also promised that the White House will attempt to answer any petition that reaches the 100,000 goal within 60 days. Twenty petitions had been waiting months for an answer, and the White House cleared the backlog with a string of responses Tuesday.
Those included a petition calling for the pardon of Edward Snowden and another calling for reform to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which has massive support in Congress.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/249597-white-house-opens-up-online-petition-platform
Two years after 167,000 US citizens filed a petition to pardon Edward Snowden, the White House finally answered. The answer: Strong “no.” In a belated response, Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco accused Snowden of “running away from the consequences of his actions.” When a petition surpasses 100,000 signatures through the government’s official petitioning platform, the White House is supposed to respond. Even though the Snowden petition had more than 167,000 signatures, it looked like it was going to get ignored. Here’s the full White House response: Thanks for signing a petition about Edward Snowden. This is an issue that many Americans feel strongly about. Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security, we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Here’s what she had to say: “Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe. As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.” Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions. We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.” Why did it take so long? Maybe the White House was trying to figure out a less-hollow way to pitch platitudes about the specter of terrorism as excuses for immuring its surveillance apparatus from meaningful criticism, but it eventually gave up, because Monaco is still running these tired lines. It’s insulting to the people who signed this petition that Monaco is insisting that Snowden could’ve affected meaningful change on NSA policy from within.
Two years after 167,000 US citizens filed a petition to pardon Edward Snowden, the White House finally answered. The answer: Strong “no.” In a belated response, Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco accused Snowden of “running away from the consequences of his actions.”
When a petition surpasses 100,000 signatures through the government’s official petitioning platform, the White House is supposed to respond. Even though the Snowden petition had more than 167,000 signatures, it looked like it was going to get ignored.
Here’s the full White House response:
Thanks for signing a petition about Edward Snowden. This is an issue that many Americans feel strongly about. Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security, we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Here’s what she had to say:
“Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.”
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.
We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.”
Why did it take so long? Maybe the White House was trying to figure out a less-hollow way to pitch platitudes about the specter of terrorism as excuses for immuring its surveillance apparatus from meaningful criticism, but it eventually gave up, because Monaco is still running these tired lines. It’s insulting to the people who signed this petition that Monaco is insisting that Snowden could’ve affected meaningful change on NSA policy from within.
Read more @ http://gizmodo.com/white-house-responds-to-petition-to-pardon-snowden-with-1720831190
Read more @ http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/28/9058269/white-house-petition-response-edward-snowden-pardon
Read more @ http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/29/us-government-no-pardon-for-snowden-petition
Jul 31 15 11:38 PM
Aug 1 15 10:40 AM
AUSTRALIA is receiving secret US intelligence on Japanese trade negotiations, according to newly published WikiLeaks documents. The Saturday Paper has reported the US National Security Agency routinely obtains highly sensitive information on issues including US-Japanese relations, trade issues and climate change policy. The information, some of which is collected from discussions in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s official residence, is shared with Australia, the newspaper says.Another NSA target is the minister for economy, trade and industry, Yoichi Miyazawa.Major Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi’s natural gas division and Mitsui Corporation are also being targeted. The US, Japan and Australia are currently involved in talks in Hawaii to conclude the trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.Japan is one of Washington’s key allies in the Asia-Pacific region and they regularly consult on defence, economic and trade issues, French news agency AFP reports.“The reports demonstrate the depth of US surveillance of the Japanese government, indicating that intelligence was gathered and processed from numerous Japanese government ministries and offices,” WikiLeaks said on Friday.“The documents demonstrate intimate knowledge of internal Japanese deliberations” on trade issues, nuclear and climate change policy, and Tokyo’s diplomatic relations with Washington, it said. The group also pointed to intercepts about “sensitive climate change strategy” and the “content of a confidential prime ministerial briefing that took place at (Prime Minister) Shinzo Abe’s official residence”.There is no specific mention of wire-tapping Abe, but senior politicians were targeted, including Miyazawa, while Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda was also in the sights of US intelligence, WikiLeaks said.There was no immediate reaction from Tokyo, AFP reported.
AUSTRALIA is receiving secret US intelligence on Japanese trade negotiations, according to newly published WikiLeaks documents.
The Saturday Paper has reported the US National Security Agency routinely obtains highly sensitive information on issues including US-Japanese relations, trade issues and climate change policy. The information, some of which is collected from discussions in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s official residence, is shared with Australia, the newspaper says.
Another NSA target is the minister for economy, trade and industry, Yoichi Miyazawa.
Major Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi’s natural gas division and Mitsui Corporation are also being targeted.
The US, Japan and Australia are currently involved in talks in Hawaii to conclude the trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.
Japan is one of Washington’s key allies in the Asia-Pacific region and they regularly consult on defence, economic and trade issues, French news agency AFP reports.
“The reports demonstrate the depth of US surveillance of the Japanese government, indicating that intelligence was gathered and processed from numerous Japanese government ministries and offices,” WikiLeaks said on Friday.
“The documents demonstrate intimate knowledge of internal Japanese deliberations” on trade issues, nuclear and climate change policy, and Tokyo’s diplomatic relations with Washington, it said. The group also pointed to intercepts about “sensitive climate change strategy” and the “content of a confidential prime ministerial briefing that took place at (Prime Minister) Shinzo Abe’s official residence”.
There is no specific mention of wire-tapping Abe, but senior politicians were targeted, including Miyazawa, while Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda was also in the sights of US intelligence, WikiLeaks said.
There was no immediate reaction from Tokyo, AFP reported.
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/australia-receiving-us-intelligence-on-trade-negotiations-according-to-reports/story-fnjwnfzw-1227465458139
In Citizen Four Snowden said the spying is to compete with other countries and have the advantage over them..... Its not about terrorism.... its about power and economic espionage...etc.
Aug 5 15 8:09 AM
How the NSA Is a Servant of Corporate Power
Top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the U.S. is pervasive and wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. "We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget, and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation's balance of payments." - Sir Colin McColl, MI6 Chief For years public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify the United States' far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it's wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of "trying to hack into everything that doesn't move in America." Clinton's hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the US deep state. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating "global war on terror," which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror. When discussing the NSA's surveillance programs, Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015, President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential "to keep the American people safe and secure." Never mind that decision-makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks. If US political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage, perhaps it would help if they didn't sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks, the entire world knows that US spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage - against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel. These disclosures confirm what Edward Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: Terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around "economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation." Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture. Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011, the European Union's chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China: Houben insisted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a U.S. initiative, appears to be designed to force future negotiations with China. Washington, he pointed out, is negotiating with every nation that borders China, asking for commitments that exceed those countries' administrative capacities, so as to 'confront' Beijing. If, however, the TPP agreement takes 10 years to negotiate, the world - and China - will have changed so much that that country likely will have become disinterested in the process, according to Houben. When that happens, the U.S. will have no alternative but to return to the WTO.
Top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the U.S. is pervasive and wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests.
Houben insisted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a U.S. initiative, appears to be designed to force future negotiations with China. Washington, he pointed out, is negotiating with every nation that borders China, asking for commitments that exceed those countries' administrative capacities, so as to 'confront' Beijing. If, however, the TPP agreement takes 10 years to negotiate, the world - and China - will have changed so much that that country likely will have become disinterested in the process, according to Houben. When that happens, the U.S. will have no alternative but to return to the WTO.
Read more @ http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-nsa-servant-corporate-power
Micah Lee remembers first emails he received from Snowden and explains why Internet privacy is everyone's business Micah Lee is the 21st-century power player—not a gray-haired politician in a Brooks Brothers suit, but a casual, slightly awkward technologist. As Lee is quick to point out, there’s one reason why that role has changed. “It’s all on the Internet,” he explains, “but… people just don’t understand how the Internet works.” According to Lee, people tacitly accept violations of their Internet privacy rights because they simply don’t understand what rights are being violated. “It’s very dysfunctional from a government reform standpoint,” Lee continues as he sips his Americano. “A lot of what the [National Security Administration] does with dragnet surveillance is very blatantly breaking the Fourth Amendment right of every American. But they have their own rules.” He shrugs. Lee looks like any Berkeley grad student stopping in at Café Yesterday before heading to campus. He’s tall, lanky, and sports a T-shirt, jeans and a canvas messenger bag. He could be any regular 29-year-old, but he’s not — he’s the technological brilliance behind First Look Media’s The Intercept and the initial contact for Edward Snowden’s 2013 intelligence leaks.
Micah Lee is the 21st-century power player—not a gray-haired politician in a Brooks Brothers suit, but a casual, slightly awkward technologist. As Lee is quick to point out, there’s one reason why that role has changed.
“It’s all on the Internet,” he explains, “but… people just don’t understand how the Internet works.” According to Lee, people tacitly accept violations of their Internet privacy rights because they simply don’t understand what rights are being violated.
“It’s very dysfunctional from a government reform standpoint,” Lee continues as he sips his Americano. “A lot of what the [National Security Administration] does with dragnet surveillance is very blatantly breaking the Fourth Amendment right of every American. But they have their own rules.” He shrugs.
Lee looks like any Berkeley grad student stopping in at Café Yesterday before heading to campus. He’s tall, lanky, and sports a T-shirt, jeans and a canvas messenger bag. He could be any regular 29-year-old, but he’s not — he’s the technological brilliance behind First Look Media’s The Intercept and the initial contact for Edward Snowden’s 2013 intelligence leaks.
Read more @ http://tinyurl.com/o7go8hystate/
White House Responds To ‘Pardon Edward Snowden’ Petition With Character Assassination
“Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country." The White House finally responded to a popular petition at WhiteHouse.gov urging President Barack Obama’s administration to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. However, the response is a bald-faced attempt to use the petition as a platform to assassinate Snowden’s character. First off, the petition to pardon Snowden had nearly 168,000 signatures. Only a few petitions responded to by the White House have more signatures (for example, address gun violence through gun control legislation and legally recognize the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group. The petition was posted on June 9, 2013, and was largely inspired by the revelation that the NSA was collecting the metadata of phone calls of millions of Americans, who have Verizon as their phone carrier. Nevertheless, it took the White House more than two years to respond to this petition. The response focuses on the “serious consequences” Snowden’s whistleblowing has had on “national security.” It includes a statement from Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. “Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it,” Monaco declares. “If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions,” Monaco adds. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.” Monaco concludes, “We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.” Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer for Snowden, a Justice Department whistleblower, and the director of the Government Accountability Project’s National Security and Human Rights Division, reacted to the White House’s response. “The government loves to fear-monger, but has failed to articulate any clear harm from Snowden¹s revelations,” Radack stated. “The closest it has come, ironically, is a fully-redacted Defense Intelligence Agency internal assessment.” “If the government were actually interested in a robust debate before Snowden, the government would not have shrouded its invasive surveillance programs in the deepest of secrecy, improperly classified them, denied FOIA requests about them, asserted “states secret privilege” in every court challenge to them, or prosecuted for espionage people like NSA’s Thomas Drake, who tried to blow the whistle through every conceivable internal mechanism,” Radack concluded. Radack agreed the White House appeared to have used this petition as a platform for assassinating Snowden’s character instead of addressing the specifics of hundreds of thousands of Americans support a pardon.
“Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country."
The White House finally responded to a popular petition at WhiteHouse.gov urging President Barack Obama’s administration to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. However, the response is a bald-faced attempt to use the petition as a platform to assassinate Snowden’s character.
First off, the petition to pardon Snowden had nearly 168,000 signatures. Only a few petitions responded to by the White House have more signatures (for example, address gun violence through gun control legislation and legally recognize the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.
The petition was posted on June 9, 2013, and was largely inspired by the revelation that the NSA was collecting the metadata of phone calls of millions of Americans, who have Verizon as their phone carrier. Nevertheless, it took the White House more than two years to respond to this petition.
The response focuses on the “serious consequences” Snowden’s whistleblowing has had on “national security.” It includes a statement from Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
“Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it,” Monaco declares.
“If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions,” Monaco adds. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.”
Monaco concludes, “We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.”
Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer for Snowden, a Justice Department whistleblower, and the director of the Government Accountability Project’s National Security and Human Rights Division, reacted to the White House’s response.
“The government loves to fear-monger, but has failed to articulate any clear harm from Snowden¹s revelations,” Radack stated. “The closest it has come, ironically, is a fully-redacted Defense Intelligence Agency internal assessment.”
“If the government were actually interested in a robust debate before Snowden, the government would not have shrouded its invasive surveillance programs in the deepest of secrecy, improperly classified them, denied FOIA requests about them, asserted “states secret privilege” in every court challenge to them, or prosecuted for espionage people like NSA’s Thomas Drake, who tried to blow the whistle through every conceivable internal mechanism,” Radack concluded.
Radack agreed the White House appeared to have used this petition as a platform for assassinating Snowden’s character instead of addressing the specifics of hundreds of thousands of Americans support a pardon.
Read more @ http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-house-responds-to-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-with-character-assassination/208053/
Read more @ http://www.wallstreetotc.com/white-house-rejects-pardoning-snowden/219726/
NSA whistleblower William Binney claims that the most prominent users of data collected by NSA are federal and international law enforcement agencies. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The most prominent users of data collected by the US National Security Agency (NSA) are federal and international law enforcement agencies, NSA whistleblower William Binney said during the Whistleblowers Summit in Washington, DC on Wednesday. “It is the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations] and the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] that are actually using this,” Binney said of the NSA database. Binney explained that US federal law enforcement agencies are the NSA’s “new customer,” and they are using the agency’s database to “investigate, retroactively, anyone they want.” In 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing the NSA employed a massive surveillance architecture, used to gather personal data on virtually every US citizen. The NSA, whose mission is to collect signals intelligence on foreign targets, collected vast amounts of US communications under programs such as Operation Stellar Wind that were exposed by Snowden. Binney noted the NSA database is outsourced both to US and international law enforcement, and added NSA is “sharing this data around the world with all the policing agencies around the world who they collaborate with.” Both US and international law enforcement agencies are able to query the NSA database for incriminating evidence “without oversight,” Binney warned. The NSA has repeatedly defended the agency’s intelligence collection programs as being in the interests of national security and within the scope of US privacy laws. In May 2015, a US federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone metadata was illegal and unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The most prominent users of data collected by the US National Security Agency (NSA) are federal and international law enforcement agencies, NSA whistleblower William Binney said during the Whistleblowers Summit in Washington, DC on Wednesday.
“It is the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations] and the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] that are actually using this,” Binney said of the NSA database.
Binney explained that US federal law enforcement agencies are the NSA’s “new customer,” and they are using the agency’s database to “investigate, retroactively, anyone they want.”
In 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing the NSA employed a massive surveillance architecture, used to gather personal data on virtually every US citizen.
The NSA, whose mission is to collect signals intelligence on foreign targets, collected vast amounts of US communications under programs such as Operation Stellar Wind that were exposed by Snowden.
Binney noted the NSA database is outsourced both to US and international law enforcement, and added NSA is “sharing this data around the world with all the policing agencies around the world who they collaborate with.”
Both US and international law enforcement agencies are able to query the NSA database for incriminating evidence “without oversight,” Binney warned.
The NSA has repeatedly defended the agency’s intelligence collection programs as being in the interests of national security and within the scope of US privacy laws.
In May 2015, a US federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of telephone metadata was illegal and unconstitutional.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/us/20150729/1025193481.html
Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden leaked details about that program in 2013, which spawned an worldwide debate concerning the American surveillance apparatus and its capabilities that had previously been kept hidden from the public and subsequent scrutiny. Destruction of the bulk surveillance records, which the NSA retained for a five-year period, won’t be immediate, but the ODNI said it has determined that the NSA will not be allowed to maintain access to them. The National Security Agency will eventually delete the trove of millions of telephone records it controversially amassed under the Patriot Act, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Monday.
Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden leaked details about that program in 2013, which spawned an worldwide debate concerning the American surveillance apparatus and its capabilities that had previously been kept hidden from the public and subsequent scrutiny.
Destruction of the bulk surveillance records, which the NSA retained for a five-year period, won’t be immediate, but the ODNI said it has determined that the NSA will not be allowed to maintain access to them.
The National Security Agency will eventually delete the trove of millions of telephone records it controversially amassed under the Patriot Act, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Monday.
Read more @ http://www.dispatchtimes.com/nsa-ordered-to-destroy-phone-records-it-collected-illegally/22279/
When the USA Freedom Act passed earlier this summer, the NSA was pushed to stop collecting phone records in bulk. The question of what would happen to the massive amount of data it had already collected on people remained. That question was answered today: Those old troves of metadata are mostly going in the garbage. The NSA will purge some of the metadata it illegally collected from people under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. November 29, 2015 will be the last day employees will have access to the information to analyse it. Technical employees will have access until next February. Not everything will be scrubbed, however. The NSA isn’t deleting some of the metadata it collected that is now involved in civil litigations, though it pinkie-promises to delete it eventually: The telephony metadata preserved solely because of preservation obligations in pending civil litigation. [It] will not be used or accessed for any other purpose, and, as soon as possible, NSA will destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations. This is like someone squatting in your home for years, throwing parties and vomiting on every available surface, and then later offering to take out the trash only after they were court-ordered to vacate. Better than not taking out the trash (I guess?) but a hollow gesture that completely fails to mitigate the negative effects of the original wrongdoing.
When the USA Freedom Act passed earlier this summer, the NSA was pushed to stop collecting phone records in bulk. The question of what would happen to the massive amount of data it had already collected on people remained. That question was answered today: Those old troves of metadata are mostly going in the garbage.
The NSA will purge some of the metadata it illegally collected from people under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. November 29, 2015 will be the last day employees will have access to the information to analyse it. Technical employees will have access until next February.
Not everything will be scrubbed, however. The NSA isn’t deleting some of the metadata it collected that is now involved in civil litigations, though it pinkie-promises to delete it eventually:
The telephony metadata preserved solely because of preservation obligations in pending civil litigation. [It] will not be used or accessed for any other purpose, and, as soon as possible, NSA will destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations.
This is like someone squatting in your home for years, throwing parties and vomiting on every available surface, and then later offering to take out the trash only after they were court-ordered to vacate. Better than not taking out the trash (I guess?) but a hollow gesture that completely fails to mitigate the negative effects of the original wrongdoing.
Read more @ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/07/the-nsa-says-itll-destroy-some-phone-records-it-collected-illegally/
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.com.au/us-spy-agency-nsa-stop-examining-phone-records-citizens-sets-time-destroying-procured-records
Federal intelligence officials are promising to delete old records picked up under a controversial National Security Agency (NSA) program that was overhauled earlier this summer. Once the NSA ends its bulk collection and storage of tens of millions of Americans’ phone records later this year, it will also eliminate analysts’ access to the five years’ worth of old data, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said on Monday. The decision forestalls what would have been certain outrage from privacy advocates had the NSA decided to keep the old data, which one top court has ruled was gathered illegally. The change was prompted by the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June, which ended the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone “metadata.”
Federal intelligence officials are promising to delete old records picked up under a controversial National Security Agency (NSA) program that was overhauled earlier this summer.
Once the NSA ends its bulk collection and storage of tens of millions of Americans’ phone records later this year, it will also eliminate analysts’ access to the five years’ worth of old data, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said on Monday.
The decision forestalls what would have been certain outrage from privacy advocates had the NSA decided to keep the old data, which one top court has ruled was gathered illegally.
The change was prompted by the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June, which ended the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone “metadata.”
November 29 set as cutoff date for further collection The NSA has said it will delete its mountain of private telephone records belonging to millions of Americans – just as soon as people stop suing it for having done so. The agency's slurping of phone numbers, the times and dates of calls, and (in some case) the locations of cellphone calls, was exposed in the first-ever leak of classified documents by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. The NSA collected and stored the private data thanks to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This unabated blanket monitoring was supposed to stop after the passing of the USA FREEDOM Act in June 2015. In that same month, the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the NSA could continue to collect phone metadata as usual for another six months, at which point the the new USA FREEDOM Act comes into effect. That cutoff date – November 29, 2015 – is now set. After that date, Uncle Sam's agents must jump over a few minor hurdles to get copies of your private records, and can no longer pore over their treasure trove of previously collected metadata. Well, almost. For another three months, from November 30, some of its techies can check over the data. After that, the historical data is off limits to the agency, or so we're told. "NSA has determined that analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 (any data collected before November 29, 2015) will cease on November 29, 2015," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) explained on its Tumblr page.
The NSA has said it will delete its mountain of private telephone records belonging to millions of Americans – just as soon as people stop suing it for having done so.
The agency's slurping of phone numbers, the times and dates of calls, and (in some case) the locations of cellphone calls, was exposed in the first-ever leak of classified documents by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. The NSA collected and stored the private data thanks to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
This unabated blanket monitoring was supposed to stop after the passing of the USA FREEDOM Act in June 2015. In that same month, the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the NSA could continue to collect phone metadata as usual for another six months, at which point the the new USA FREEDOM Act comes into effect.
That cutoff date – November 29, 2015 – is now set.
After that date, Uncle Sam's agents must jump over a few minor hurdles to get copies of your private records, and can no longer pore over their treasure trove of previously collected metadata.
Well, almost. For another three months, from November 30, some of its techies can check over the data. After that, the historical data is off limits to the agency, or so we're told.
"NSA has determined that analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 (any data collected before November 29, 2015) will cease on November 29, 2015," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) explained on its Tumblr page.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/27/nsa_phone_metadata_latest/
Read more @ http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/07/nsa-purge-mass-surveillance-phone-data-collected/118624/
Read more @ http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17568
Spying could have stopped 9/11? It didn’t stop the Boston Bombings, and they were spying before 9/11 and from what I have read the spying is nothing to do with stopping terrorism…… The 50 something terrorist attacks on US soil it was supposed to have stopped turned out to be a lie. All the spying didn’t stop the Sydney Siege or the acts of terrorism in France, or the bombings in England.
Graham: "I can reset a world falling apart"
PORTSMOUTH – Lindsey Graham is running for the Republican presidential nomination, and he is making no bones his almost laser-like focus on national security. The U.S. senator from South Carolina also believes that, despite his nearly non-existent place in the polls, his national security and congressional experience will be what it takes to win the 20 percent needed in New Hampshire’s crowded First in the Nation Primary and eventually take on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. At a Monday editorial board meeting at Seacoast Media Group, the senator offered some of his positions and took questions from editors and staffers in a wide-ranging conversation. Graham sees the defeat of ISIL and radical Islam as well as the stabilization of the Middle East as fundamental elements not only of a safer, but more prosperous nation, connecting national security to the economy, energy independence and even the plight of debt-burdened college graduates. “I’ve learned from my mistakes, Bush’s mistakes and Obama’s mistakes and I believe I have a foreign policy that will be appealing to the American public,” Graham said. “I think that I can reset a world that’s falling apart.” Graham said he believes that if the National Security Agency’s metadata program had been in place years ago, there never would have been a September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, and that its data collection is merely putting together algorithms rather than eying the content of citizens’ phone calls and texts. Graham also considers NSA leaker Edward Snowden more of a traitor than a patriot. “Not in my book (is he a hero). He compromised lives,” he said.
PORTSMOUTH – Lindsey Graham is running for the Republican presidential nomination, and he is making no bones his almost laser-like focus on national security.
The U.S. senator from South Carolina also believes that, despite his nearly non-existent place in the polls, his national security and congressional experience will be what it takes to win the 20 percent needed in New Hampshire’s crowded First in the Nation Primary and eventually take on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
At a Monday editorial board meeting at Seacoast Media Group, the senator offered some of his positions and took questions from editors and staffers in a wide-ranging conversation. Graham sees the defeat of ISIL and radical Islam as well as the stabilization of the Middle East as fundamental elements not only of a safer, but more prosperous nation, connecting national security to the economy, energy independence and even the plight of debt-burdened college graduates.
“I’ve learned from my mistakes, Bush’s mistakes and Obama’s mistakes and I believe I have a foreign policy that will be appealing to the American public,” Graham said. “I think that I can reset a world that’s falling apart.”
Graham said he believes that if the National Security Agency’s metadata program had been in place years ago, there never would have been a September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, and that its data collection is merely putting together algorithms rather than eying the content of citizens’ phone calls and texts. Graham also considers NSA leaker Edward Snowden more of a traitor than a patriot. “Not in my book (is he a hero). He compromised lives,” he said.
Read more @ http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150803/NEWS/150809781
Recently, German prosecutors said that they were closing their investigation of allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile telephone. The chief prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The investigation was triggered when the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article citing documents from NSA leaker Edward Snowden. At the time, Chancellor Merkel said, “Spying among friends – that is simply not done.” According to an unnamed German official, the event created the biggest strain in U.S.-German relations since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. When the Snowden leaks began in 2013, many leaders joined Chancellor Merkel in expressing their outrage over the NSA’s collection of metadata about telephone calls. These expressions of displeasure included arguments that privacy rights had been violated, and that the NSA’s activities were illegal under international law and the domestic law of their countries. French officials described the NSA’s actions as “unacceptable” and “shocking.” During a speech at the United Nations, immediately preceding President Obama’s speech, Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, said, “Tampering . . . in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them . . . .” With regard to the domestic law of almost all countries, any form of spying – whether it is the NSA gathering signals intelligence or a trench-coated spy working with a foreign national to gain confidential information – is a violation of that country’s law. That is the nature of spying. If a Chinese spy living near the Pentagon cajoles an employee of the U.S. Department of Defense to provide design drawings of U.S. fighter planes, that Chinese spy is violating U.S. law. If a U.S. spy living near Tiananmen Square convinces someone from the People’s Liberation Army of China to provide war plans, the U.S. spy is violating Chinese law. So, to say that spying activities have violated a country’s domestic law is like saying seawater is salty. Both statements are true but not terribly enlightening.
Recently, German prosecutors said that they were closing their investigation of allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile telephone. The chief prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The investigation was triggered when the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article citing documents from NSA leaker Edward Snowden. At the time, Chancellor Merkel said, “Spying among friends – that is simply not done.” According to an unnamed German official, the event created the biggest strain in U.S.-German relations since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
When the Snowden leaks began in 2013, many leaders joined Chancellor Merkel in expressing their outrage over the NSA’s collection of metadata about telephone calls. These expressions of displeasure included arguments that privacy rights had been violated, and that the NSA’s activities were illegal under international law and the domestic law of their countries. French officials described the NSA’s actions as “unacceptable” and “shocking.” During a speech at the United Nations, immediately preceding President Obama’s speech, Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, said, “Tampering . . . in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them . . . .”
With regard to the domestic law of almost all countries, any form of spying – whether it is the NSA gathering signals intelligence or a trench-coated spy working with a foreign national to gain confidential information – is a violation of that country’s law. That is the nature of spying. If a Chinese spy living near the Pentagon cajoles an employee of the U.S. Department of Defense to provide design drawings of U.S. fighter planes, that Chinese spy is violating U.S. law. If a U.S. spy living near Tiananmen Square convinces someone from the People’s Liberation Army of China to provide war plans, the U.S. spy is violating Chinese law. So, to say that spying activities have violated a country’s domestic law is like saying seawater is salty. Both statements are true but not terribly enlightening.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249865-spying-the-law-and-hypocrisy
On July 23, the Constitutional Council, France’s highest authority on constitutional matters, approved with minor modifications a reactionary electronic surveillance law legalizing mass spying and data retention practices without authorization from a judge. The law, which sets up the surveillance infrastructure of a police state in France, was adopted despite broad criticism from human rights groups. After the surveillance law was adopted by the parliament on June 24, amid mounting criticisms that the law trampled basic democratic rights, President François Hollande took the unusual step of submitting the law to the council to ensure it would not be challenged as unlawful. It was the first time a French president had ever sent a law to the Constitutional Council for approval before even it was officially promulgated. The Council released a communiqué declaring the mass spying law to be constitutional. It stated, “The Constitutional Council has ultimately ruled that all the provisions of the administrative justice code overseeing controversial issues in the implementation of surveillance techniques are in conformity with the constitution.” On July 24, Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Europe, said: “France is on the brink of becoming a country where anyone’s communications could be spied on, anytime, anyplace, and without even the need for a judge’s approval. This law would be a major blow for human rights in France, at a time when it is becoming very clear to people around the world that mass surveillance must be stopped.”
On July 23, the Constitutional Council, France’s highest authority on constitutional matters, approved with minor modifications a reactionary electronic surveillance law legalizing mass spying and data retention practices without authorization from a judge. The law, which sets up the surveillance infrastructure of a police state in France, was adopted despite broad criticism from human rights groups.
After the surveillance law was adopted by the parliament on June 24, amid mounting criticisms that the law trampled basic democratic rights, President François Hollande took the unusual step of submitting the law to the council to ensure it would not be challenged as unlawful. It was the first time a French president had ever sent a law to the Constitutional Council for approval before even it was officially promulgated.
The Council released a communiqué declaring the mass spying law to be constitutional. It stated, “The Constitutional Council has ultimately ruled that all the provisions of the administrative justice code overseeing controversial issues in the implementation of surveillance techniques are in conformity with the constitution.”
On July 24, Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Europe, said: “France is on the brink of becoming a country where anyone’s communications could be spied on, anytime, anyplace, and without even the need for a judge’s approval. This law would be a major blow for human rights in France, at a time when it is becoming very clear to people around the world that mass surveillance must be stopped.”
Read more @ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/29/fspy-j29.html
Since the 1950s, America has slipped into more and more secrecy, a trend that was particularly exacerbated after Sept. 11. Of course, some government information is and should be secret. But far too much is classified as such and then kept this way for far too long. This shift undermines the pillars of American democracy. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence said governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the Federalist Papers, Madison said that, through voting, the people are the “primary control on the government.” If American democracy is to attain its aspirations, our consent and our vote must be informed. Similarly, Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, called for a new birth of freedom, so that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” But if government is to be by the people, necessary information cannot be hidden from the people. If it is, we become a democracy in the dark. Around 100 million documents per year are classified, a mind-boggling figure. Some reflect necessary secrets. Some hide illegality or embarrassment, and some are stamped secret for more banal reasons, including the need to be noticed. Conventional wisdom is that documents not stamped top secret (or higher) will never get read. So secrecy spawns more secrecy.
Since the 1950s, America has slipped into more and more secrecy, a trend that was particularly exacerbated after Sept. 11. Of course, some government information is and should be secret. But far too much is classified as such and then kept this way for far too long.
This shift undermines the pillars of American democracy. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence said governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the Federalist Papers, Madison said that, through voting, the people are the “primary control on the government.” If American democracy is to attain its aspirations, our consent and our vote must be informed. Similarly, Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, called for a new birth of freedom, so that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” But if government is to be by the people, necessary information cannot be hidden from the people. If it is, we become a democracy in the dark.
Around 100 million documents per year are classified, a mind-boggling figure. Some reflect necessary secrets. Some hide illegality or embarrassment, and some are stamped secret for more banal reasons, including the need to be noticed. Conventional wisdom is that documents not stamped top secret (or higher) will never get read. So secrecy spawns more secrecy.
Read more @ https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/07/27/opengov-voices-more-openness-less-secrecy/
Tribunal hears claims that GCHQ is unlawfully intercepting MPs' and peers' communications A two-day hearing at Britain’s top security court is set to test MPs' and peers' claims that the government is unlawfully intercepting parliamentary communications. Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Green Party member Jenny Jones, and George Galloway, the former MP for Bradford West, have brought the legal challenge in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). They say the government’s electronic intelligence gathering agency, GCHQ, has intercepted their email and phone communications in breach of the Wilson doctrine. The doctrine established by former prime minister Harold Wilson, and later extended by Tony Blair, protects MPs' email and phone communications from unjustified surveillance by the state.
A two-day hearing at Britain’s top security court is set to test MPs' and peers' claims that the government is unlawfully intercepting parliamentary communications.
Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Green Party member Jenny Jones, and George Galloway, the former MP for Bradford West, have brought the legal challenge in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).
They say the government’s electronic intelligence gathering agency, GCHQ, has intercepted their email and phone communications in breach of the Wilson doctrine.
The doctrine established by former prime minister Harold Wilson, and later extended by Tony Blair, protects MPs' email and phone communications from unjustified surveillance by the state.
Read more @ http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500250404/GCHQ-unlawfully-intercepting-Parliamentary-communications-tribinal-hears
Old phone-tap promise not being kept? The Wilson Doctrine, long believed to forbid Blighty's spooks from tapping the phones of British politicians, has been repudiated by a senior lawyer. Speaking to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is hearing the complaint of a trio of politicians against GCHQ's mass-surveillance activities, James Eadie QC claimed that the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies. As reported by the Guardian, Eadie told the IPT that excluding politicians from GCHQ's mass surveillance wasn't even feasible. Eadie declared that the doctrine has only a political, rather than a legal, effect. He explained that parliamentarians simply couldn't object to having their information slurped up with the rest of the civilian population, and claimed that "interception at that stage isn't in any event objectionable, if one stands back and takes a broad view of the Wilson doctrine: it isn’t intelligible at the point of interception." The IPT, which is the only judicial body with the power to investigate the spooks, has not itself ruled yet on whether the doctrine has force in law.
The Wilson Doctrine, long believed to forbid Blighty's spooks from tapping the phones of British politicians, has been repudiated by a senior lawyer.
Speaking to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is hearing the complaint of a trio of politicians against GCHQ's mass-surveillance activities, James Eadie QC claimed that the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies.
As reported by the Guardian, Eadie told the IPT that excluding politicians from GCHQ's mass surveillance wasn't even feasible.
Eadie declared that the doctrine has only a political, rather than a legal, effect.
He explained that parliamentarians simply couldn't object to having their information slurped up with the rest of the civilian population, and claimed that "interception at that stage isn't in any event objectionable, if one stands back and takes a broad view of the Wilson doctrine: it isn’t intelligible at the point of interception."
The IPT, which is the only judicial body with the power to investigate the spooks, has not itself ruled yet on whether the doctrine has force in law.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/the_wilson_doctrine_is_dead_your_mps_must_be_spied_on_says_qc/
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has written to David Cameron asking for assurances that MSPs' communication has not been intercepted by the intelligence agencies. Ms Sturgeon wrote a letter to the prime minister after reports were published that GCHQ is not applying the "Wilson doctrine" in relation to the devolved nations. This doctrine bans the interception of MPs' phone communication and was later extended to cover emails. Because it was introduced in 1966, it does not cover the communications of members of devolved parliaments and assemblies - because these bodies did not exist at the time. In her letter Nicola Sturgeon has sought "immediate confirmation" that the intelligence agencies will treat MSPs in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Although the Wilson doctrine was never officially extended to cover the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies when they were set up, representatives from these nations had previously been treated in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Reports now suggest that guidelines have been changed and that is no longer the case. 'Not consulted' In her letter to David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon says the Scottish Government has "not been consulted" about any new guidelines.
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has written to David Cameron asking for assurances that MSPs' communication has not been intercepted by the intelligence agencies.
Ms Sturgeon wrote a letter to the prime minister after reports were published that GCHQ is not applying the "Wilson doctrine" in relation to the devolved nations. This doctrine bans the interception of MPs' phone communication and was later extended to cover emails. Because it was introduced in 1966, it does not cover the communications of members of devolved parliaments and assemblies - because these bodies did not exist at the time. In her letter Nicola Sturgeon has sought "immediate confirmation" that the intelligence agencies will treat MSPs in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Although the Wilson doctrine was never officially extended to cover the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies when they were set up, representatives from these nations had previously been treated in the same way as MPs in Westminster. Reports now suggest that guidelines have been changed and that is no longer the case.
In her letter to David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon says the Scottish Government has "not been consulted" about any new guidelines.
Read more @ http://www.channel4.com/news/sturgeon-asks-for-assurances-msps-are-not-being-spied-on
Three British politicians took the government to court on Tuesday, alleging UK authorities have been illegally spying on MPs and peers through a program of “blanket surveillance.” The government faced accusations of illegal wiretapping of politicians in a rare public hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jones of Muolsecoomb of the Green Party demanded urgent clarification on the scope of the spying, which they claim breaches a doctrine banning surveillance of members of parliament. Former MP George Galloway joined them at the IPT. He has filed a separate case against the government, which has since been incorporated with that of Lucas and Jones. Lucas and Jones accuse the government of breaching the “Wilson Doctrine,” which forbids the interception of communications between MPs and their constituents by police or intelligence agencies.
Three British politicians took the government to court on Tuesday, alleging UK authorities have been illegally spying on MPs and peers through a program of “blanket surveillance.”
The government faced accusations of illegal wiretapping of politicians in a rare public hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).
Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jones of Muolsecoomb of the Green Party demanded urgent clarification on the scope of the spying, which they claim breaches a doctrine banning surveillance of members of parliament.
Former MP George Galloway joined them at the IPT. He has filed a separate case against the government, which has since been incorporated with that of Lucas and Jones.
Lucas and Jones accuse the government of breaching the “Wilson Doctrine,” which forbids the interception of communications between MPs and their constituents by police or intelligence agencies.
Read more @ https://www.rt.com/uk/310579-government-spying-politicians-surveillance/
POLITICIANS' case in secret court reveals how Westminster safeguards against eavesdropping are no longer in place for devolved assemblies. SPOOKS have changed top-secret rules so they are free to spy on MSPs, the Daily Record can exclusively reveal today. Explosive documents show that the UK’s electronic eavesdropping agency last month dumped guidelines which had constrained spies from tapping MSPs’ phones or hacking their emails. The revelations about GCHQ will spark fury at Holyrood and reignite conspiracy theories about the role of the security services in fighting the growth of pro-independence feeling. They are also likely to bolster fears the intelligence community were monitoring politicians’ and activists’ communications during the referendum campaign.
SPOOKS have changed top-secret rules so they are free to spy on MSPs, the Daily Record can exclusively reveal today.
Explosive documents show that the UK’s electronic eavesdropping agency last month dumped guidelines which had constrained spies from tapping MSPs’ phones or hacking their emails.
The revelations about GCHQ will spark fury at Holyrood and reignite conspiracy theories about the role of the security services in fighting the growth of pro-independence feeling.
They are also likely to bolster fears the intelligence community were monitoring politicians’ and activists’ communications during the referendum campaign.
Read more @ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snoopgate-scandal-brit-spooks-spying-6127095
Documents suggest guidelines have been changed to allow spying on AMs, MSPs and Northern Ireland assembly members but not MPs Carwyn Jones has demanded answers from Downing Street over claims the UK’s spies now have the power to eavesdrop on AMs. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister demanding answers over a report in Scotland’s Daily Record that the UK’s monitoring body GCHQ has altered guidelines to enable it to monitor communications involving AMs, Scots MSPs and members of Northern Ireland assembly. The Record’s story alleges that the Wilson Doctrine, which governs restrictions on spies powers, has been re-interpreted to exclude members of the devolved assemblies. First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones said: “We pride ourselves on being open and transparent and we would be concerned if there were any infringements to our privacy.
Carwyn Jones has demanded answers from Downing Street over claims the UK’s spies now have the power to eavesdrop on AMs.
The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister demanding answers over a report in Scotland’s Daily Record that the UK’s monitoring body GCHQ has altered guidelines to enable it to monitor communications involving AMs, Scots MSPs and members of Northern Ireland assembly.
The Record’s story alleges that the Wilson Doctrine, which governs restrictions on spies powers, has been re-interpreted to exclude members of the devolved assemblies.
First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones said: “We pride ourselves on being open and transparent and we would be concerned if there were any infringements to our privacy.
Read more @ http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ams-spying-gchq-carwyn-jones--9724561
Read more @ http://tinyurl.com/qy2gkr5
Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who in 2013 blew the whistle on several government-run surveillance programs, envisions an Internet that largely focuses on privacy. He urges leading group of engineers to weave an interweb that prioritises on people's privacy over anything else. At a meeting in Prague of the Internet Engineering Task (IETF), Snowden shed light on the existing communications network and revealed how we could make it harder for governments to spy on its citizens. "Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked the attendees at the event over a webcast. The Academic Award-winning documentary Citizenfour was screened during the session. Citizenfour showcases conversations between Snowden and several journalists including Glenn Greenwald who reported about the revelations to the world. Snowden expressed his concern over growing traction of credit cards on the Web. He says that it is being used as a measure to pinpoint people's identity. "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way," he said. "If it's creating more metadata, this is in general a bad thing." One way we could substantially improve the existing privacy on the Web is by implementing a new protocol, he said. He also desired for a Web that better encrypts everything taking place on it. Snowden further noted that our DNS queries should be encrypted. "People are being killed based on metadata," he shared. Snowden advised the engineers to implement SPUD, a new protocol that reduces the number of intermediaries -- through which data passes through -- by combining transport protocols. Protocols running in the backend should "follow users' intent" and both actual content and its meta data should be encrypted, he said. But why so much focus on the network protocols, if you may ask? The reason, as explained by Snowden himself, is that it is the place which is being exploited to glean information. Introducing SPUD protocol might not be enough, however. Snowden warned that it could create a new channel where users' metadata could get leaked.
Read more @ http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/snowden-describes-how-to-build-an-internet-focused-on-privacy-718635
Aug 7 15 10:23 PM
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/how-to-beat-a-lie-detector-ex-detectives-fight-against-the-polygraph-myth/story-fn5fsgyc-1227474151468
Aug 8 15 11:45 AM
U.S. researchers show computers can be hijacked to send data as sound waves
A team of security researchers has demonstrated the ability to hijack standard equipment inside computers, printers and millions of other devices in order to send information out of an office through sound waves. The attack program takes control of the physical prongs on general-purpose input/output circuits and vibrates them at a frequency of the researchers’ choosing, which can be audible or not. The vibrations can be picked up with an AM radio antenna a short distance away. For decades, spy agencies and researchers have sought arcane ways of extracting information from keyboards and the like, successfully capturing light, heat and other emanations that allow the receivers to reconstruct content. The new makeshift transmitting antenna, dubbed “Funtenna” by lead researcher Ang Cui of Red Balloon Security, adds another potential channel that likewise be would be hard to detect because no traffic logs would catch data leaving the premises. Cui showed the system in action for a few reporters ahead of his talk Wednesday at the annual security conference Black Hat in Las Vegas. He said he would release “proof-of-concept” code after the talk, allowing other researchers and potentially malicious hackers to build on his work. Hackers would need an antenna close to the targeted building to pick up the sound waves, Cui said, and they would need to find some way to get inside a targeted machine and convert the desired data to the format for transmission.
A team of security researchers has demonstrated the ability to hijack standard equipment inside computers, printers and millions of other devices in order to send information out of an office through sound waves.
The attack program takes control of the physical prongs on general-purpose input/output circuits and vibrates them at a frequency of the researchers’ choosing, which can be audible or not. The vibrations can be picked up with an AM radio antenna a short distance away.
For decades, spy agencies and researchers have sought arcane ways of extracting information from keyboards and the like, successfully capturing light, heat and other emanations that allow the receivers to reconstruct content.
The new makeshift transmitting antenna, dubbed “Funtenna” by lead researcher Ang Cui of Red Balloon Security, adds another potential channel that likewise be would be hard to detect because no traffic logs would catch data leaving the premises.
Cui showed the system in action for a few reporters ahead of his talk Wednesday at the annual security conference Black Hat in Las Vegas. He said he would release “proof-of-concept” code after the talk, allowing other researchers and potentially malicious hackers to build on his work.
Hackers would need an antenna close to the targeted building to pick up the sound waves, Cui said, and they would need to find some way to get inside a targeted machine and convert the desired data to the format for transmission.
Read more @ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/05/us-hacking-antenna-idUSKCN0QA13P20150805
Aug 11 15 8:10 AM
New York (AFP) - A cement bust of America's most-wanted whistleblower Edward Snowden, once famously confiscated by police, returned to public display in New York on Friday to kick off a street art festival. The 100-pound (45-kilo) likeness stands proud on a plinth in Manhattan's tourist-clogged Little Italy neighborhood, to be guarded round the clock until the weekend Lo Man Art Festival closes. "If any shenanigans begin they (volunteers) find our security guards and we make sure we keep everyone safe," says comedy manager Wayne Rada, who founded the festival and Little Italy Street Art Project. Coming four months after it hit the headlines for being erected on a war memorial without permission, organizers hope it'll help put the small art festival on the map.
New York (AFP) - A cement bust of America's most-wanted whistleblower Edward Snowden, once famously confiscated by police, returned to public display in New York on Friday to kick off a street art festival.
The 100-pound (45-kilo) likeness stands proud on a plinth in Manhattan's tourist-clogged Little Italy neighborhood, to be guarded round the clock until the weekend Lo Man Art Festival closes.
"If any shenanigans begin they (volunteers) find our security guards and we make sure we keep everyone safe," says comedy manager Wayne Rada, who founded the festival and Little Italy Street Art Project.
Coming four months after it hit the headlines for being erected on a war memorial without permission, organizers hope it'll help put the small art festival on the map.
Read more @ http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-snowden-bust-kicks-off-new-york-art-festival-2015-8?IR=T
As the Obama administration campaign to stop the commercialization of strong encryption heats up, National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is firing back on behalf of the companies like Apple and Google that are finding themselves under attack. “Technologists and companies working to protect ordinary citizens should be applauded, not sued or prosecuted,” Snowden wrote in an email through his lawyer. Snowden was asked by The Intercept to respond to the contentious suggestion — made Thursday on a blog that frequently promotes the interests of the national security establishment — that companies like Apple and Google might in certain cases be found legally liable for providing material aid to a terrorist organization because they provide encryption services to their users. In his email, Snowden explained how law enforcement officials who are demanding that U.S. companies build some sort of window into unbreakable end-to-end encryption — he calls that an “insecurity mandate” — haven’t thought things through. “The central problem with insecurity mandates has never been addressed by its proponents: if one government can demand access to private communications, all governments can,” Snowden wrote. “No matter how good the reason, if the U.S. sets the precedent that Apple has to compromise the security of a customer in response to a piece of government paper, what can they do when the government is China and the customer is the Dalai Lama?” Weakened encryption would only drive people away from the American technology industry, Snowden wrote. “Putting the most important driver of our economy in a position where they have to deal with the devil or lose access to international markets is public policy that makes us less competitive and less safe.”
As the Obama administration campaign to stop the commercialization of strong encryption heats up, National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is firing back on behalf of the companies like Apple and Google that are finding themselves under attack.
“Technologists and companies working to protect ordinary citizens should be applauded, not sued or prosecuted,” Snowden wrote in an email through his lawyer.
Snowden was asked by The Intercept to respond to the contentious suggestion — made Thursday on a blog that frequently promotes the interests of the national security establishment — that companies like Apple and Google might in certain cases be found legally liable for providing material aid to a terrorist organization because they provide encryption services to their users.
In his email, Snowden explained how law enforcement officials who are demanding that U.S. companies build some sort of window into unbreakable end-to-end encryption — he calls that an “insecurity mandate” — haven’t thought things through.
“The central problem with insecurity mandates has never been addressed by its proponents: if one government can demand access to private communications, all governments can,” Snowden wrote.
“No matter how good the reason, if the U.S. sets the precedent that Apple has to compromise the security of a customer in response to a piece of government paper, what can they do when the government is China and the customer is the Dalai Lama?”
Weakened encryption would only drive people away from the American technology industry, Snowden wrote. “Putting the most important driver of our economy in a position where they have to deal with the devil or lose access to international markets is public policy that makes us less competitive and less safe.”
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/31/exclusive-edward-snowden-says-obama-administrations-war-encryption-just-doesnt-make-sense/
Carly Fiorina is not afraid to burn some bridges with her Silicon Valley tribe. The former Hewlett-Packard chief executive made waves during Thursday evening's so-called "happy hour" debate — the opening act for GOP presidential hopefuls that didn't make the primetime cut — when she vowed to "tear down cyberwalls" at big tech companies, in the interests of national security. In other words, she wants businesses like Apple, Google and Facebook to ease up on smartphone encryption and allow so-called "back doors" that would allow the federal government to access personal data — ostensibly to investigate potential terrorists. "I do not believe we need to wholesale destroy every American's privacy, but, yes, there is more collaboration required between private sector companies and the public sector," Fiorina said.
Carly Fiorina is not afraid to burn some bridges with her Silicon Valley tribe.
The former Hewlett-Packard chief executive made waves during Thursday evening's so-called "happy hour" debate — the opening act for GOP presidential hopefuls that didn't make the primetime cut — when she vowed to "tear down cyberwalls" at big tech companies, in the interests of national security.
In other words, she wants businesses like Apple, Google and Facebook to ease up on smartphone encryption and allow so-called "back doors" that would allow the federal government to access personal data — ostensibly to investigate potential terrorists.
"I do not believe we need to wholesale destroy every American's privacy, but, yes, there is more collaboration required between private sector companies and the public sector," Fiorina said.
Read more @ http://mashable.com/2015/08/07/carly-fiorina-cyberwall/
“The Rock,” is one of my favorite movies. Definitely has a high re-watch value, up there with “Con-Air,” “Face-Off” and “Die Hard” 1, 2 and 4. If I chance upon it on cable, the volume goes up and the remote goes down. Sean Connery’s character, John Mason reminds me very much of another old spy who‘s scheduled for parole later this year, Jonathan Pollard. Though Mr. Pollard probably couldn’t take on a bunch of specially trained soldiers, he had several things in common with John Mason. Their first name, that they were spies for friendly nations, that they were put away for a long time and that they’re old. Mr. Pollard also has something in common with another man who divulged classified government information—Mr. Edward Snowden. Pollard passed classified information to Israel. Even though it’s a friendly nation, espionage is espionage and any country would prefer to keep things up their sleeves, even from friends. Mr. Snowden, who’s in the same line of work as Mr. Pollard (another thing they have in common) divulged National Security Administration secrets to the press. What they don’t have in common is that Edward Snowden is still at large and unlike Mr. Pollard who served his time, Snowden is now in Russia, not exactly besties with the US.
“The Rock,” is one of my favorite movies. Definitely has a high re-watch value, up there with “Con-Air,” “Face-Off” and “Die Hard” 1, 2 and 4. If I chance upon it on cable, the volume goes up and the remote goes down. Sean Connery’s character, John Mason reminds me very much of another old spy who‘s scheduled for parole later this year, Jonathan Pollard. Though Mr. Pollard probably couldn’t take on a bunch of specially trained soldiers, he had several things in common with John Mason. Their first name, that they were spies for friendly nations, that they were put away for a long time and that they’re old.
Mr. Pollard also has something in common with another man who divulged classified government information—Mr. Edward Snowden. Pollard passed classified information to Israel. Even though it’s a friendly nation, espionage is espionage and any country would prefer to keep things up their sleeves, even from friends. Mr. Snowden, who’s in the same line of work as Mr. Pollard (another thing they have in common) divulged National Security Administration secrets to the press. What they don’t have in common is that Edward Snowden is still at large and unlike Mr. Pollard who served his time, Snowden is now in Russia, not exactly besties with the US.
Read more @ http://movietvtechgeeks.com/jonathan-pollard-edward-snowden-how-the-us-hates-tattletales/
Top former U.S. intelligence and security officials believe that the Obama administration declined to consult the U.S. intelligence community over the decision to release Jonathan Pollard, mindful of the negative response elicited by previous attempts to free him, a former U.S. Navy intelligence operative convicted for selling secrets to Israel. “The intelligence community wasn’t asked its opinion but just told that it would happen,” a retired high level intelligence officer who served for three decades in the U.S. intelligence services and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his close ties with current leaders in the intelligence community. His view was shared by retired U.S. Army Col. Pat Lang, a highly respected former senior military intelligence officer who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s damage assessment board at the time of the Pollard revelations. “It came as a surprise to the intel community,” Lang, who maintains regular contacts in the intelligence community, said of last week’s news that Pollard would be released after serving 30 years in prison, “and it came as a surprise to me.”
You've seen the film, read the book - now read the Edward Snowden comic. A comic book artist is to publish a graphic novel telling the story of the man behind the biggest intelligence leak in military history. 'Snowden' by Pulitzer-nominated Ted Rall claims that the former contractor for the National Security Agency stole 1.7 million classified documents because he was angry at President Obama. Snowden supposedly became frustrated that the President did not close Guantanamo and 'deepened and expanded several abusive programs'. Rall writes: 'Snowden soon saw that his faith had been misplaced. 'Disgusted, Snowden took matters into his own hands...he took his data and fled the United States'. Among the more colorful cartoons in the book where Rall has taken some artistic license is one of President Obama telling an aide: 'This Snowden situation is intolerable! Get this kid into custody' At one point former vice President Dick Cheney says: 'I think he's a traitor'. On another page a frustrated President Obama tells an aide: 'God damn it, I want that kid back here'.
You've seen the film, read the book - now read the Edward Snowden comic.
A comic book artist is to publish a graphic novel telling the story of the man behind the biggest intelligence leak in military history.
'Snowden' by Pulitzer-nominated Ted Rall claims that the former contractor for the National Security Agency stole 1.7 million classified documents because he was angry at President Obama.
Snowden supposedly became frustrated that the President did not close Guantanamo and 'deepened and expanded several abusive programs'.
Rall writes: 'Snowden soon saw that his faith had been misplaced.
'Disgusted, Snowden took matters into his own hands...he took his data and fled the United States'.
Among the more colorful cartoons in the book where Rall has taken some artistic license is one of President Obama telling an aide: 'This Snowden situation is intolerable! Get this kid into custody'
At one point former vice President Dick Cheney says: 'I think he's a traitor'.
On another page a frustrated President Obama tells an aide: 'God damn it, I want that kid back here'.
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181595/Now-s-Edward-Snowden-comic-book-man-stole-1-7-MILLION-classified-documents-revealed-NSA-s-monitoring-program-subject-graphic-novel.html
What do we know about the secret world of espionage and intelligence, and how do we know it? The story that connects James Bond and Edward Snowden, fiction and reality, thrilling romance and profound cynicism or disillusionment, has been told over many years and in many ways. I’ve been thinking about this since seeing the new Tom Cruise movie “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” but this really isn’t a movie review and I wouldn’t argue that this capably crafted thriller from writer and director Christopher McQuarrie (who also directed Cruise in “Jack Reacher”) breaks any new ground or represents the ultimate distillation of anything. It’s a diverting ride, played out against spectacular locations, that repackages a whole bunch of familiar elements and attitudes: A little latter-day Bond, a little Jason Bourne, a little John le Carré, a little 1950s Hitchcock. What strikes me on a larger scale is the way that the “Mission: Impossible” franchise and many other fictional properties have served as gradual ideological conditioning, acclimating us to the rise of the national or global security apparatus. I don’t exactly mean that the whole universe of espionage fiction is a sinister concoction designed to brainwash the public – although, in the case of the fictional Agent 007 and his semi-fictional creator, former British intelligence agent Ian Fleming, that unquestionably played a role. (Allen Dulles, who headed the CIA under Dwight Eisenhower, was a huge fan of Fleming’s books, and reportedly tried to get the agency’s technicians to produce real-world versions of the famous Bond gizmos. They never worked.) It would be more accurate to say that spy fiction reflects a genuine moral confusion about the role of secret agents in modern society, but has generally succeeded only in worsening that confusion. A film like “Rogue Nation” simultaneously congratulates us for our clear-eyed skepticism about government and our loss of faith in institutions while insisting on primal movie myths about the incorruptible individual and the noble band of brothers. We may no longer feel quite sure about America or democracy or capitalism or morality or any such grand abstractions, but somewhere out there amid all the lies and chaos, Tom Cruise and other unstoppable and immortal heroes are doing the right thing – even if we have no idea what that might be. Even the movie’s subtitle provides an epistemological clue to this puzzle, if only through its total vagueness and meaninglessness. OK, yes, spoiler alert: But the “rogue nation” in this movie is not Iran or Russia or any other recognized nation-state with borders and generals. (It certainly isn’t China, since this movie was partly made with Chinese production funding, the not-so-secret channel of money that is not-so-subtly transforming Hollywood.) In fact, I can’t quite tell you what the term means in McQuarrie’s fictional universe. Maybe it refers to a sinister shadow version of the recognized intelligence agencies that is working to destabilize the world, in the old-school vein of Hydra and SMERSH. But as we know both from fiction and the real world, the boundaries between those things are none too clear and it can become difficult for intelligence operatives to tell which side of the looking-glass they’re on.
What do we know about the secret world of espionage and intelligence, and how do we know it? The story that connects James Bond and Edward Snowden, fiction and reality, thrilling romance and profound cynicism or disillusionment, has been told over many years and in many ways. I’ve been thinking about this since seeing the new Tom Cruise movie “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” but this really isn’t a movie review and I wouldn’t argue that this capably crafted thriller from writer and director Christopher McQuarrie (who also directed Cruise in “Jack Reacher”) breaks any new ground or represents the ultimate distillation of anything. It’s a diverting ride, played out against spectacular locations, that repackages a whole bunch of familiar elements and attitudes: A little latter-day Bond, a little Jason Bourne, a little John le Carré, a little 1950s Hitchcock.
What strikes me on a larger scale is the way that the “Mission: Impossible” franchise and many other fictional properties have served as gradual ideological conditioning, acclimating us to the rise of the national or global security apparatus. I don’t exactly mean that the whole universe of espionage fiction is a sinister concoction designed to brainwash the public – although, in the case of the fictional Agent 007 and his semi-fictional creator, former British intelligence agent Ian Fleming, that unquestionably played a role. (Allen Dulles, who headed the CIA under Dwight Eisenhower, was a huge fan of Fleming’s books, and reportedly tried to get the agency’s technicians to produce real-world versions of the famous Bond gizmos. They never worked.) It would be more accurate to say that spy fiction reflects a genuine moral confusion about the role of secret agents in modern society, but has generally succeeded only in worsening that confusion.
A film like “Rogue Nation” simultaneously congratulates us for our clear-eyed skepticism about government and our loss of faith in institutions while insisting on primal movie myths about the incorruptible individual and the noble band of brothers. We may no longer feel quite sure about America or democracy or capitalism or morality or any such grand abstractions, but somewhere out there amid all the lies and chaos, Tom Cruise and other unstoppable and immortal heroes are doing the right thing – even if we have no idea what that might be.
Even the movie’s subtitle provides an epistemological clue to this puzzle, if only through its total vagueness and meaninglessness. OK, yes, spoiler alert: But the “rogue nation” in this movie is not Iran or Russia or any other recognized nation-state with borders and generals. (It certainly isn’t China, since this movie was partly made with Chinese production funding, the not-so-secret channel of money that is not-so-subtly transforming Hollywood.) In fact, I can’t quite tell you what the term means in McQuarrie’s fictional universe. Maybe it refers to a sinister shadow version of the recognized intelligence agencies that is working to destabilize the world, in the old-school vein of Hydra and SMERSH. But as we know both from fiction and the real world, the boundaries between those things are none too clear and it can become difficult for intelligence operatives to tell which side of the looking-glass they’re on.
Read more @ http://tinyurl.com/o76lj5v
Ever since legendary British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell told the world in a 1988 magazine article about ECHELON — a massive, automated surveillance dragnet that indiscriminately intercepted phone and Internet data from communications satellites — Western intelligence officials have refused to acknowledge that it existed. Despite sporadic continuing press reports, people who complained about the program — which, as Campbell disclosed, automatically searched text-based communications using a dictionary of keywords to flag suspicious content — were routinely dismissed as conspiracy theorists. The only real conspiracy, it turns out, was a conspiracy of silence among the governments that benefited from the program. As Campbell writes today, in a first-person article in The Intercept, the archive of top-secret documents provided to journalists by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden contains a stunning 2005 document that not only confirms ECHELON’s existence as “a system targeting communications satellites”– it shows how the program was kept an official secret for so long. It describes how in 2000, the European Parliament responded to increasingly authoritative reports that ECHELON was being used to indiscriminately survey non-military targets — including governments, organizations and businesses in virtually every corner of the world — by appointing a committee to investigate the program. Members of the committee vowed to get the truth from the NSA. What happened, according to an article in the NSA’s own in-house “Foreign Affairs Digest” was this: Corporate NSA (FAD, SID, OGC, PAO and Policy), ensured that our interests, and our SIGINT partners’ interests, were protected throughout the ordeal; and ironically, the final report of the EU Commission [link] reflected not only that NSA played by the rules, with congressional oversight, but that those characteristics were lacking when the Commission applied its investigatory criteria to other European nations. The initials there stand for NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate, Signals Intelligence, Office of the General Counsel, and Public Affairs Office. And then, in what is possibly one of the most memorable lines to come out of the Snowden archive, the author of the article, a “foreign affairs directorate special adviser,” concluded with this observation: In the final analysis, the “pig rule” applied when dealing with this tacky matter: “Don’t wrestle in the mud with the pigs. They like it, and you both get dirty.” ECHELON was the precursor to today’s worldwide dragnet, which thanks to Snowden, we now know is carried out by tapping the massive fiber-optic cables that encircle the globe, in addition to the satellites that orbit it. It was the collect-it-all of its time. As it happens, not every one of the ECHELON conspiracy theories turned out to be substantiated. On “Jam Echelon Day” in October 1999, people around the world sent a huge volume of communications over the Internet and over the phone using as many of the presumed Echelon keywords as possible. But the Snowden archive contains no evidence that the NSA routinely scanned voice communications for keywords back then. That’s something they’ve only gotten good at recently. The story of Campbell’s four decade long career exposing mass surveillance — including his introduction to the world of the organization known as GCHQ — is a great read. Make time for it.
Ever since legendary British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell told the world in a 1988 magazine article about ECHELON — a massive, automated surveillance dragnet that indiscriminately intercepted phone and Internet data from communications satellites — Western intelligence officials have refused to acknowledge that it existed.
Despite sporadic continuing press reports, people who complained about the program — which, as Campbell disclosed, automatically searched text-based communications using a dictionary of keywords to flag suspicious content — were routinely dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
The only real conspiracy, it turns out, was a conspiracy of silence among the governments that benefited from the program.
As Campbell writes today, in a first-person article in The Intercept, the archive of top-secret documents provided to journalists by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden contains a stunning 2005 document that not only confirms ECHELON’s existence as “a system targeting communications satellites”– it shows how the program was kept an official secret for so long.
It describes how in 2000, the European Parliament responded to increasingly authoritative reports that ECHELON was being used to indiscriminately survey non-military targets — including governments, organizations and businesses in virtually every corner of the world — by appointing a committee to investigate the program.
Members of the committee vowed to get the truth from the NSA. What happened, according to an article in the NSA’s own in-house “Foreign Affairs Digest” was this:
Corporate NSA (FAD, SID, OGC, PAO and Policy), ensured that our interests, and our SIGINT partners’ interests, were protected throughout the ordeal; and ironically, the final report of the EU Commission [link] reflected not only that NSA played by the rules, with congressional oversight, but that those characteristics were lacking when the Commission applied its investigatory criteria to other European nations.
The initials there stand for NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate, Signals Intelligence, Office of the General Counsel, and Public Affairs Office.
And then, in what is possibly one of the most memorable lines to come out of the Snowden archive, the author of the article, a “foreign affairs directorate special adviser,” concluded with this observation:
In the final analysis, the “pig rule” applied when dealing with this tacky matter: “Don’t wrestle in the mud with the pigs. They like it, and you both get dirty.”
ECHELON was the precursor to today’s worldwide dragnet, which thanks to Snowden, we now know is carried out by tapping the massive fiber-optic cables that encircle the globe, in addition to the satellites that orbit it. It was the collect-it-all of its time.
As it happens, not every one of the ECHELON conspiracy theories turned out to be substantiated. On “Jam Echelon Day” in October 1999, people around the world sent a huge volume of communications over the Internet and over the phone using as many of the presumed Echelon keywords as possible.
But the Snowden archive contains no evidence that the NSA routinely scanned voice communications for keywords back then. That’s something they’ve only gotten good at recently.
The story of Campbell’s four decade long career exposing mass surveillance — including his introduction to the world of the organization known as GCHQ — is a great read. Make time for it.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/03/17-years-reporter-exposed-echelon-finds-vindication-snowden-archive/
Demands for certain kinds of openness have hurt government effectiveness, writes Francis Fukuyama It is hard to think of a political good that is more universally praised than government transparency. Whereas secrecy shelters corruption, abuse of power, undue influence and a host of other evils, transparency allows citizens to keep their rulers accountable. Or that is the theory. It is clear that there are vast areas in which modern governments should reveal more. Edward Snowden’s revelations of eavesdropping by the National Security Agency has encouraged belief that the US government has been not nearly transparent enough. But is it possible to have too much transparency? The answer is clearly yes: demands for certain kinds of transparency have hurt government effectiveness, particularly with regard to its ability to deliberate.
Demands for certain kinds of openness have hurt government effectiveness, writes Francis Fukuyama
It is hard to think of a political good that is more universally praised than government transparency. Whereas secrecy shelters corruption, abuse of power, undue influence and a host of other evils, transparency allows citizens to keep their rulers accountable. Or that is the theory.
It is clear that there are vast areas in which modern governments should reveal more. Edward Snowden’s revelations of eavesdropping by the National Security Agency has encouraged belief that the US government has been not nearly transparent enough. But is it possible to have too much transparency? The answer is clearly yes: demands for certain kinds of transparency have hurt government effectiveness, particularly with regard to its ability to deliberate.
Read more @ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1d78c194-2c8d-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html
An independent military contractor hired to work at a U.S. Air Force base in Honduras was informed on Friday by a federal judge that he will spend the next 10 years in federal prison for accessing and stealing classified intelligence from the Department of Defense computer network, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The 34-year-old contractor attempted to duplicate the actions taken by arguably the most damaging cyber spy in U.S. history: the fugitive former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Read more @ http://www.examiner.com/article/super-spy-edward-snowden-wannabe-sentenced-to-federal-prison
Without Chinese revelations about Chinese hacking and espionage, a cyber-détente is unlikely. Two issues have dominated the discussion of American-Chinese relations in recent months: the escalating war of words in the South China Sea and cybersecurity. Recently, clandestine hacking conflicts between the United States and China have increased in prominence. A bombshell report by internet security firm Mandiant in February 2013 claimed that a secretive Chinese military unit based out of Shanghai was responsible for a series of hacks on United States-based corporations. Another report a couple of months later showed that China was by far the largest source of international hacking attacks, with 41 percent of the world total (of course, the United States was number two on that list, but more on that in a bit); furthermore, the number of attacks originating in China was found to have drastically increased since the first quarter of that year. In the last few decades, it has been thought that China intentionally restricted its covert intelligence-gathering operations out of a desire to prevent diplomatic scandals from harming its burgeoning economic relationships; more recently, however, this consensus within the leadership appears to have dissolved, either as a result of a change in the balance of power among internal factions in the CCP leadership or because the leadership simply believes now that China is powerful enough to weather the diplomatic fallout from any such scandals. In any case, as evidenced by the devastating and brazen hack into Washington’s Office of Personnel Management this past June, if Beijing really is the culprit as is suspected, it clearly no longer cares about diplomatic fallout from flexing its cyber-muscles. Either way, actors within China have ramped up their cyber-attacks, both with new tactics like the so-called Great Cannon, an offensive cyberweapon that repurposes the traffic coming into Chinese companies’ servers for the use of DDoS attacks against foreign servers, and with good, old-fashioned hacking for the purpose of stealing information, as in the OPM incident.
Without Chinese revelations about Chinese hacking and espionage, a cyber-détente is unlikely.
Two issues have dominated the discussion of American-Chinese relations in recent months: the escalating war of words in the South China Sea and cybersecurity. Recently, clandestine hacking conflicts between the United States and China have increased in prominence. A bombshell report by internet security firm Mandiant in February 2013 claimed that a secretive Chinese military unit based out of Shanghai was responsible for a series of hacks on United States-based corporations. Another report a couple of months later showed that China was by far the largest source of international hacking attacks, with 41 percent of the world total (of course, the United States was number two on that list, but more on that in a bit); furthermore, the number of attacks originating in China was found to have drastically increased since the first quarter of that year.
In the last few decades, it has been thought that China intentionally restricted its covert intelligence-gathering operations out of a desire to prevent diplomatic scandals from harming its burgeoning economic relationships; more recently, however, this consensus within the leadership appears to have dissolved, either as a result of a change in the balance of power among internal factions in the CCP leadership or because the leadership simply believes now that China is powerful enough to weather the diplomatic fallout from any such scandals. In any case, as evidenced by the devastating and brazen hack into Washington’s Office of Personnel Management this past June, if Beijing really is the culprit as is suspected, it clearly no longer cares about diplomatic fallout from flexing its cyber-muscles. Either way, actors within China have ramped up their cyber-attacks, both with new tactics like the so-called Great Cannon, an offensive cyberweapon that repurposes the traffic coming into Chinese companies’ servers for the use of DDoS attacks against foreign servers, and with good, old-fashioned hacking for the purpose of stealing information, as in the OPM incident.
Read more @ http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/cybersecurity-we-need-a-chinese-snowden/
Yeah but the NSA is doing the same thing to China….. so what is the difference? Why is it OK for America to spy on the whole world and not China to spy on America….. ?
The Chinese government has successfully stolen data from the computer systems of more than 600 American targets during the course of the Obama administration, a classified intelligence document indicates, including private sector and military entities. A National Security Agency document marked as “secret” and obtained by NBC News suggests that the US intelligence community has attributed Beijing with hundreds of attacks against government and corporate targets dating back to 2009. The document, a map labeled “US Victims of Chinese Cyber Espionage,” shows strikes waged not just up and down the east and west coasts, but in seemingly all US states and against targets across all sectors.
The Chinese government has successfully stolen data from the computer systems of more than 600 American targets during the course of the Obama administration, a classified intelligence document indicates, including private sector and military entities.
A National Security Agency document marked as “secret” and obtained by NBC News suggests that the US intelligence community has attributed Beijing with hundreds of attacks against government and corporate targets dating back to 2009.
The document, a map labeled “US Victims of Chinese Cyber Espionage,” shows strikes waged not just up and down the east and west coasts, but in seemingly all US states and against targets across all sectors.
Read more @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/31/china-stole-data-from-600-american-cyber-targets-s/
Read more @ http://fortune.com/2015/07/31/china-cyber-attacks/
Local Police Take The Eye Of Big Brother And Spy On Americans
“What we often see is police departments or local law enforcement agencies grabbing technologies without any policies in place for it, not asking anybody’s permission, just sort of getting it, [and] starting to implement it,” a digital rights activist tells MintPress. WASHINGTON — Fast on the heels revelations of dragnet surveillance devices used by the likes of the National Security Agency and the CIA, another set of tools used by local police in communities across the United States is invading the privacy of the American public, tracking their movements. “If you were to put an automatic license plate reader next to a road that people have to use to get to a demonstration, you could have a list of every single person who attended that demonstration. That’s really concerning,” Nadia Kayyali, a digital rights activist and lawyer, told MintPress News. An automatic license plate reader (ALPR) is a high-speed camera that reads and captures an image of every license plate that comes into its view. Like biometric collection devices and “Stingrays,” ALPRs are just one of the devices used by local police to track, identify and monitor Americans.
“What we often see is police departments or local law enforcement agencies grabbing technologies without any policies in place for it, not asking anybody’s permission, just sort of getting it, [and] starting to implement it,” a digital rights activist tells MintPress.
WASHINGTON — Fast on the heels revelations of dragnet surveillance devices used by the likes of the National Security Agency and the CIA, another set of tools used by local police in communities across the United States is invading the privacy of the American public, tracking their movements.
“If you were to put an automatic license plate reader next to a road that people have to use to get to a demonstration, you could have a list of every single person who attended that demonstration. That’s really concerning,” Nadia Kayyali, a digital rights activist and lawyer, told MintPress News.
An automatic license plate reader (ALPR) is a high-speed camera that reads and captures an image of every license plate that comes into its view. Like biometric collection devices and “Stingrays,” ALPRs are just one of the devices used by local police to track, identify and monitor Americans.
Read more @ http://www.mintpressnews.com/police-use-of-surveillance-technology-raises-privacy-concerns/208478/
Most people in the United States have probably never heard of the popular German news site Netzpolitik.org until this month. But it has been in the news for a reason it wish it wasn’t: the German government is threatening two of its reporters with treason. Their supposed offense? Reporting on leaked information about Germany’s mass surveillance capabilities. These leaks did not come from Edward Snowden, but the content was eerily similar: they exposed the German government’s secret plans to step up internet surveillance. The public reaction was swift. The investigation made world headlines and thousands of people marched in the streets to protest the clear violation of press freedom. Dozens of journalists and free speech advocates signed a letter challenging the government’s aggressive tactics. By Tuesday, the German Justice Minister had fired the country’s top prosecutor who brought the case. (On Monday, after some question about whether the inquiry would continue, Germany formally dropped the investigation despite the fact that some powerful members of the government wanted it to proceed).
Most people in the United States have probably never heard of the popular German news site Netzpolitik.org until this month. But it has been in the news for a reason it wish it wasn’t: the German government is threatening two of its reporters with treason. Their supposed offense? Reporting on leaked information about Germany’s mass surveillance capabilities.
These leaks did not come from Edward Snowden, but the content was eerily similar: they exposed the German government’s secret plans to step up internet surveillance.
The public reaction was swift. The investigation made world headlines and thousands of people marched in the streets to protest the clear violation of press freedom. Dozens of journalists and free speech advocates signed a letter challenging the government’s aggressive tactics. By Tuesday, the German Justice Minister had fired the country’s top prosecutor who brought the case. (On Monday, after some question about whether the inquiry would continue, Germany formally dropped the investigation despite the fact that some powerful members of the government wanted it to proceed).
Read more @ http://www.cjr.org/analysis/germany_berlin_treason_netzpolitik.php
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/10/treason_case_against_german_digi_journos_officially_dropped/
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/europe/germany-treason-reporters.html?_r=0
It's taken seven years of legal wrangling, but one group of pro-privacy activists are hoping an appeals court will finally declare a critical part of the National Security Agency's spying apparatus unconstitutional. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been challenging the NSA's bulk data collection program in court since 2008, largely running on whisteblower testimony from Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician who alleges the NSA inserted technology into the internet company's infrastructure that allowed it to collect and analyze the data. Klein's allegations were later bolstered by Edward Snowden, who has published a raft of material detailing how the process — referred to as 'upstream collection' — works. The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, was filed by a collection of AT&T customers who say their communications were unlawfully collected and analyzed. The latest step in the case came Tuesday, when the EFF filed its brief to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge in California. One of those NSA documents leaked to the media explains that the agency used the "collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past." Tapping those cables means tapping into virtually every kilobyte of data sent from American computers. The cables are often referred to as the internet's "backbone." "The result is a digital dragnet," the lawsuit alleges. "A technological mass surveillance system that subjects millions of ordinary Americans to the seizure and searching of their online correspondence, conversations, searches, reading and other activities." That, they say, is a clear violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
It's taken seven years of legal wrangling, but one group of pro-privacy activists are hoping an appeals court will finally declare a critical part of the National Security Agency's spying apparatus unconstitutional.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been challenging the NSA's bulk data collection program in court since 2008, largely running on whisteblower testimony from Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician who alleges the NSA inserted technology into the internet company's infrastructure that allowed it to collect and analyze the data.
Klein's allegations were later bolstered by Edward Snowden, who has published a raft of material detailing how the process — referred to as 'upstream collection' — works.
The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, was filed by a collection of AT&T customers who say their communications were unlawfully collected and analyzed. The latest step in the case came Tuesday, when the EFF filed its brief to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge in California.
One of those NSA documents leaked to the media explains that the agency used the "collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past."
Tapping those cables means tapping into virtually every kilobyte of data sent from American computers. The cables are often referred to as the internet's "backbone."
"The result is a digital dragnet," the lawsuit alleges. "A technological mass surveillance system that subjects millions of ordinary Americans to the seizure and searching of their online correspondence, conversations, searches, reading and other activities."
That, they say, is a clear violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
Read more @ https://news.vice.com/article/this-group-may-stop-the-nsa-from-tapping-the-internets-backbone
One of the most outrageous ways that the government has violated our Fourth Amendment rights against general seizures and searches has been through its system of tapping into the fiber optic cables of America’s telecommunications companies. The result is a digital dragnet—a technological mass surveillance system that subjects millions of ordinary Americans to the seizure and searching of their online correspondence, conversations, web searches, reading and other activities as they travel across the Internet. This tapping isn’t just about metadata—it includes full content searches of Americans’ communications, at the very least any international communications involving a website or a person who is abroad. Today, in our landmark case Jewel v. NSA we finally ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court whether the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment—providing Americans with security against indiscriminate seizures and searches of their papers and effects—is violated when the government copies and searches in bulk the communications passing through the Internet’s key domestic junctions, without a warrant and without probable cause or any showing of individualized suspicion. We’ve created a graphic to help the court understand how this works.
One of the most outrageous ways that the government has violated our Fourth Amendment rights against general seizures and searches has been through its system of tapping into the fiber optic cables of America’s telecommunications companies. The result is a digital dragnet—a technological mass surveillance system that subjects millions of ordinary Americans to the seizure and searching of their online correspondence, conversations, web searches, reading and other activities as they travel across the Internet. This tapping isn’t just about metadata—it includes full content searches of Americans’ communications, at the very least any international communications involving a website or a person who is abroad.
Today, in our landmark case Jewel v. NSA we finally ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court whether the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment—providing Americans with security against indiscriminate seizures and searches of their papers and effects—is violated when the government copies and searches in bulk the communications passing through the Internet’s key domestic junctions, without a warrant and without probable cause or any showing of individualized suspicion. We’ve created a graphic to help the court understand how this works.
Read more @ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/new-milestone-appeals-court-consider-nsas-mass-seizures-and-searches-internet
In June, the NSA received the green light to temporarily reinstate its controversial bulk collection of telephone metadata while it switches over to its narrower surveillance program. The government agency’s adjustment of its practices follows a debate dating back to 2013 when Edward Snowden leaked classified information revealing government surveillance methods to the public. Later that year, CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired “Inside the NSA,” where former reporter John Miller interviewed National Security Agency director Keith Alexander, revealing just how important metadata is to the NSA’s efforts. The NSA uses metadata – and specifically, the collected digital information of phone numbers dialed plus the time, date and frequency of calls – to expose people in the U.S. who are in communication with high priority terrorist suspects. Metadata is so powerful that its role in the NSA’s surveillance programs has prevented at least 54 terrorist related activities. It’s also sparked ongoing debate regarding American privacy. Phone metadata is collected by the NSA and analyzed through a process called “call chaining.” It’s considered the “least intrusive” way to collect phone records, and is used to search foreign intelligence data. In a behind-the-scenes look, an NSA analyst demonstrated how he is able to enter the phone number of a “pirate,” or target, into the system and “chain out” that target to view its call history for a specified timeframe in the form of a web. With that information, analysts can pinpoint if two pirates are calling the same number, which can lead them to potential safe houses or other targets. According to the 60 Minutes episode, this collected metadata only includes the information detailed above; it does not allow analysts to listen in on the phone calls or see names of callers. For litigation, metadata is equally as powerful. Using similar software applications, DSi analyzes metadata of electronically stored information (ESI) – such as the user’s name, file name, and dates the file was created and modified. Certain metadata can help us identify “smoking guns” in our clients’ cases. This blog post unpacks how our forensic evidence team uncovered metadata to help a client win a case.
In June, the NSA received the green light to temporarily reinstate its controversial bulk collection of telephone metadata while it switches over to its narrower surveillance program. The government agency’s adjustment of its practices follows a debate dating back to 2013 when Edward Snowden leaked classified information revealing government surveillance methods to the public.
Later that year, CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired “Inside the NSA,” where former reporter John Miller interviewed National Security Agency director Keith Alexander, revealing just how important metadata is to the NSA’s efforts.
The NSA uses metadata – and specifically, the collected digital information of phone numbers dialed plus the time, date and frequency of calls – to expose people in the U.S. who are in communication with high priority terrorist suspects. Metadata is so powerful that its role in the NSA’s surveillance programs has prevented at least 54 terrorist related activities. It’s also sparked ongoing debate regarding American privacy.
Phone metadata is collected by the NSA and analyzed through a process called “call chaining.” It’s considered the “least intrusive” way to collect phone records, and is used to search foreign intelligence data. In a behind-the-scenes look, an NSA analyst demonstrated how he is able to enter the phone number of a “pirate,” or target, into the system and “chain out” that target to view its call history for a specified timeframe in the form of a web.
With that information, analysts can pinpoint if two pirates are calling the same number, which can lead them to potential safe houses or other targets. According to the 60 Minutes episode, this collected metadata only includes the information detailed above; it does not allow analysts to listen in on the phone calls or see names of callers.
For litigation, metadata is equally as powerful. Using similar software applications, DSi analyzes metadata of electronically stored information (ESI) – such as the user’s name, file name, and dates the file was created and modified. Certain metadata can help us identify “smoking guns” in our clients’ cases. This blog post unpacks how our forensic evidence team uncovered metadata to help a client win a case.
Read more @ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/power-metadata-tyler-haney
Secrets. Spies. Statutes. Secretaries. Sounds like free association triggered by some of the stories making the rounds on the 24/7 news networks. There was the announcement that Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard will be paroled after serving the 30 years mandated by his “life” sentence in 1985. This is the same Jonathan Pollard who caused George Tenet to threaten to resign as CIA director when the idea of a pardon or commutation was suggested during the Clinton administration. But that was then.
Secrets. Spies. Statutes. Secretaries.
Sounds like free association triggered by some of the stories making the rounds on the 24/7 news networks.
There was the announcement that Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard will be paroled after serving the 30 years mandated by his “life” sentence in 1985. This is the same Jonathan Pollard who caused George Tenet to threaten to resign as CIA director when the idea of a pardon or commutation was suggested during the Clinton administration.
But that was then.
Read more @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/4/michael-hayden-hillary-clintons-classified-email-d/?page=all
Recently, German prosecutors said that they were closing their investigation of allegations that the U.S. National Security Agency had tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile telephone. The chief prosecutor said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The investigation was triggered when the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article citing documents from NSA leaker Edward Snowden. At the time, Chancellor Merkel said, “Spying among friends – that is simply not done.” According to an unnamed German official, the event created the biggest strain in U.S.-German relations since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. When the Snowden leaks began in 2013, many leaders joined Chancellor Merkel in expressing their outrage over the NSA’s collection of metadata about telephone calls. These expressions of displeasure included arguments that privacy rights had been violated, and that the NSA’s activities were illegal under international law and the domestic law of their countries. French officials described the NSA’s actions as “unacceptable” and “shocking.” During a speech at the United Nations, immediately preceding President Obama’s speech, Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, said, “Tampering . . . in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them . . . .”
NSA whistleblower William Binney claims that the most prominent users of data collected by NSA are federal and international law enforcement agencies. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The most prominent users of data collected by the US National Security Agency (NSA) are federal and international law enforcement agencies, NSA whistleblower William Binney said during the Whistleblowers Summit in Washington, DC on Wednesday.
Avoiding high-tech spies
Ex-military officers provide insight into electronic surveillance and the protection of confidential sources Ex-military officers provide insight into electronic surveillance and the protection of whistleblowers 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, also known as 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, he 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.”
Ex-military officers provide insight into electronic surveillance and the protection of confidential sources
Ex-military officers provide insight into electronic surveillance and the protection of whistleblowers
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, also known as 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, he 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.”
Read more @ https://www.newsreview.com/chico/avoiding-high-tech-spies/content?oid=17833529
Aug 17 15 10:09 AM
NSA Spying Relies on AT&T’s ‘Extreme Willingness to Help’
The National Security Agency’s ability to capture Internet traffic on United States soil has been based on an extraordinary, decadeslong partnership with a single company: AT&T. The National Security Agency’s ability to spy on vast quantities of Internet traffic passing through the United States has relied on its extraordinary, decades-long partnership with a single company: the telecom giant AT&T. While it has been long known that American telecommunications companies worked closely with the spy agency, newly disclosed NSA documents show that the relationship with AT&T has been considered unique and especially productive. One document described it as “highly collaborative,” while another lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.” AT&T’s cooperation has involved a broad range of classified activities, according to the documents, which date from 2003 to 2013. AT&T has given the NSA access, through several methods covered under different legal rules, to billions of emails as they have flowed across its domestic networks. It provided technical assistance in carrying out a secret court order permitting the wiretapping of all Internet communications at the United Nations headquarters, a customer of AT&T. The NSA’s top-secret budget in 2013 for the AT&T partnership was more than twice that of the next-largest such program, according to the documents. The company installed surveillance equipment in at least 17 of its Internet hubs on American soil, far more than its similarly sized competitor, Verizon. And its engineers were the first to try out new surveillance technologies invented by the eavesdropping agency.
The National Security Agency’s ability to spy on vast quantities of Internet traffic passing through the United States has relied on its extraordinary, decades-long partnership with a single company: the telecom giant AT&T.
While it has been long known that American telecommunications companies worked closely with the spy agency, newly disclosed NSA documents show that the relationship with AT&T has been considered unique and especially productive. One document described it as “highly collaborative,” while another lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.”
AT&T’s cooperation has involved a broad range of classified activities, according to the documents, which date from 2003 to 2013. AT&T has given the NSA access, through several methods covered under different legal rules, to billions of emails as they have flowed across its domestic networks. It provided technical assistance in carrying out a secret court order permitting the wiretapping of all Internet communications at the United Nations headquarters, a customer of AT&T.
The NSA’s top-secret budget in 2013 for the AT&T partnership was more than twice that of the next-largest such program, according to the documents. The company installed surveillance equipment in at least 17 of its Internet hubs on American soil, far more than its similarly sized competitor, Verizon. And its engineers were the first to try out new surveillance technologies invented by the eavesdropping agency.
Read more @ https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willingness-to-help
The relationship between AT&T and the NSA is said to be "highly collaborative," thanks to the company's "extreme willingness to help."
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/att-phone-provider-tapped-networks-helped-nsa/
Read more @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199563/AT-T-helped-U-S-NSA-spy-Internet-traffic-Telecommunications-powerhouse-reportedly-helped-intelligence-agency-tap-phone-lines-clients.html
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/us/politics/att-helped-nsa-spy-on-an-array-of-internet-traffic.html?_r=0
A new analysis of documents leaked by Edward Snowden highlights massive surveillance efforts with special help from AT&T. A fresh analysis of documents disclosed by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden shows that AT&T has been a much closer and eager partner for the National Security Agency’s Internet spying activities than was previously known. AT&T has been by far the most critical telecom player in the NSA’s surveillance efforts and its willing participation in mass spying on both foreign and U.S. citizens has apparently been crucial in helping the U.S. agency take advantage of bulk record collection laws, according to a joint report in ProPublica and the New York Times. AT&T insists it adheres to the letter of the law. “We do not provide information to any investigating authorities without a court order or other mandatory process other than if a person’s life is in danger and time is of the essence,” AT&T said Saturday, in response to the report. “For example, in a kidnapping situation we could provide help tracking down called numbers to assist law enforcement.” The NSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. By examining various documents supplied by Snowden, however, ProPublica and the New York Times were able to identify AT&T as the telecom player behind the so-called Fairview program, a key part of the NSA’s mass surveillance activities. In 2011, for example, the NSA’s budget for Fairview was $188.9 million, twice the amount spent on Stormbrew, a surveillance program involving Verizon, accoriding to the report. That year, AT&T started to hand over 1.1 billion domestic cellphone calling records a day to the NSA in an effort to ramp up operations prior to the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., according to the report. The disclosure stands in contrast to statements officials have made that for technical reasons, call-record programs consisted mostly of landline phone data, the report pointed out. In 2012, AT&T gave technical help to the NSA to carry out a secret court order for the wiretapping of all Internet traffic at the U.N., a company customer, in New York, according to the examination of the Snowden documents. In 2013, AT&T deployed surveillance equipment in at least 17 of its Internet hubs in the U.S., many more than Verizon, and the company’s engineers were the first to test out new surveillance technology developed by the NSA, the report said. Since June 2013, documents leaked by Snowden have led to a series of reports on the extent of the NSA’s covert spying on Internet and telecom networks worldwide. An NSA data collection program, allegedly called Prism, is thought to have tapped into servers at a variety of tech companies. The documents have also shown that the NSA has hacked into emails of leaders of U.S. allies as well as into networks and equipment of foreign companies including China-based Huawei. Technology companies named in the reports have said that their dealings with the NSA have adhered to legal guidelines, and many tech officials have openly called for curbs on U.S. surveillance, declaring that mass spying efforts harm business interests. AT&T, however, has been especially helpful to the NSA, leaked documents show. “One document described it ‘as highly collaborative,’ while another lauded the company’s ‘extreme willingness to help,’ “ according to the report. AT&T surveillance assistance, via the Fairview program, dates back prior to the 9/11 attacks and the enactment of USA Patriot Act spying provisions, all the way to the mid-1980s after the company emerged as a long-distance powerhouse in the wake of the breakup of the Bell System.
A fresh analysis of documents disclosed by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden shows that AT&T has been a much closer and eager partner for the National Security Agency’s Internet spying activities than was previously known.
AT&T has been by far the most critical telecom player in the NSA’s surveillance efforts and its willing participation in mass spying on both foreign and U.S. citizens has apparently been crucial in helping the U.S. agency take advantage of bulk record collection laws, according to a joint report in ProPublica and the New York Times.
AT&T insists it adheres to the letter of the law. “We do not provide information to any investigating authorities without a court order or other mandatory process other than if a person’s life is in danger and time is of the essence,” AT&T said Saturday, in response to the report. “For example, in a kidnapping situation we could provide help tracking down called numbers to assist law enforcement.”
The NSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
By examining various documents supplied by Snowden, however, ProPublica and the New York Times were able to identify AT&T as the telecom player behind the so-called Fairview program, a key part of the NSA’s mass surveillance activities. In 2011, for example, the NSA’s budget for Fairview was $188.9 million, twice the amount spent on Stormbrew, a surveillance program involving Verizon, accoriding to the report.
That year, AT&T started to hand over 1.1 billion domestic cellphone calling records a day to the NSA in an effort to ramp up operations prior to the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., according to the report. The disclosure stands in contrast to statements officials have made that for technical reasons, call-record programs consisted mostly of landline phone data, the report pointed out.
In 2012, AT&T gave technical help to the NSA to carry out a secret court order for the wiretapping of all Internet traffic at the U.N., a company customer, in New York, according to the examination of the Snowden documents.
Since June 2013, documents leaked by Snowden have led to a series of reports on the extent of the NSA’s covert spying on Internet and telecom networks worldwide. An NSA data collection program, allegedly called Prism, is thought to have tapped into servers at a variety of tech companies. The documents have also shown that the NSA has hacked into emails of leaders of U.S. allies as well as into networks and equipment of foreign companies including China-based Huawei.
Technology companies named in the reports have said that their dealings with the NSA have adhered to legal guidelines, and many tech officials have openly called for curbs on U.S. surveillance, declaring that mass spying efforts harm business interests.
AT&T, however, has been especially helpful to the NSA, leaked documents show. “One document described it ‘as highly collaborative,’ while another lauded the company’s ‘extreme willingness to help,’ “ according to the report. AT&T surveillance assistance, via the Fairview program, dates back prior to the 9/11 attacks and the enactment of USA Patriot Act spying provisions, all the way to the mid-1980s after the company emerged as a long-distance powerhouse in the wake of the breakup of the Bell System.
Read more @ http://www.pcworld.com/article/2971732/government/atandt-a-closer-partner-of-nsa-than-previously-known-snowden-docs-show.html
In an interview at The Internet Engineering Task Force 93, former CIA employee and NSA contractor Edward Snowden spoke about privacy and security. Interestingly, Snowden focused his talk on Bitcoin and its flaws and weaknesses. Snowden began by briefly introducing the 51% attack concept, and stated that the Bitcoin network could be vulnerable to attacks and manipulation if “a pool has over 50% of the computing power to demonstrate adequate proof of work to add entries to the blockchain ledger.” Snowden commented, “Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.” He continued and said, “Focusing too much on bitcoin, I think is a mistake. The real solution is again, how do we get to a point where you don’t have to have a direct link between your identity all of the time? You have personas. You have tokens that authenticate each person and when you want to be able to interact with people as your persona in your true name, you can do so.”
In an interview at The Internet Engineering Task Force 93, former CIA employee and NSA contractor Edward Snowden spoke about privacy and security. Interestingly, Snowden focused his talk on Bitcoin and its flaws and weaknesses.
Snowden began by briefly introducing the 51% attack concept, and stated that the Bitcoin network could be vulnerable to attacks and manipulation if “a pool has over 50% of the computing power to demonstrate adequate proof of work to add entries to the blockchain ledger.”
Snowden commented,
“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”
He continued and said, “Focusing too much on bitcoin, I think is a mistake. The real solution is again, how do we get to a point where you don’t have to have a direct link between your identity all of the time? You have personas. You have tokens that authenticate each person and when you want to be able to interact with people as your persona in your true name, you can do so.”
Read more @ http://cointelegraph.com/news/115133/edward-snowden-on-bitcoin-bitcoin-by-itself-is-flawed
What a load of codswallop…… for (one) all these polls can be hacked to show whatever the power brokers want the results to be…… and (two) most people are afraid to step up to say anything because they know all their movements/what they say and do/emails/phone calls/bank transactions (everything) are being tracked and recorded, and its most evident on FB where no one talks about it at all….. for the same reason!!! The governments have made people frightened and subservient. Too afraid to say anything in case it can be used against them at a later date.
More than half of America leans toward criminal charges for Fast Eddy / hero whistlebower Despite the best efforts of the internet, US citizens favor the filing of criminal charges against Edward Snowden, say researchers. A poll [PDF] of 2,069 American voters carried out by research firm Morning Consult found that 53 per cent of the public want Snowden to face trial, and those who support the whistleblower make up just 26 per cent of the voting public. Furthermore, 29 per cent of those polled would "strongly support" criminal charges against Snowden. The study polled registered voters of various ages, races, household income, etc., on a number of general issues (such as "is the country headed in the right direction?") and the query "Do you support or oppose the US government pursuing a criminal case against Edward Snowden for leaking classified information about the way the NSA conducts its intelligence gathering?" That question found 53 per cent of Americans in favor of criminal charges, 26 per cent opposing charges, and 21 per cent (430 of those surveyed) having no opinion on the matter. A former NSA contractor who disclosed details on government surveillance programs, Snowden has been on the run for two years and is currently hiding out in Russia. While Snowden has offered to return to the US, he wants Uncle Sam to guarantee a fair trial, a concept the two sides are not likely to agree on any time soon. A "We the People" petition on Snowden's behalf drummed up 167,955 signatures, but was ultimately rejected by the White House, who maintain that what Snowden did was very much against the law.
Despite the best efforts of the internet, US citizens favor the filing of criminal charges against Edward Snowden, say researchers.
A poll [PDF] of 2,069 American voters carried out by research firm Morning Consult found that 53 per cent of the public want Snowden to face trial, and those who support the whistleblower make up just 26 per cent of the voting public. Furthermore, 29 per cent of those polled would "strongly support" criminal charges against Snowden.
The study polled registered voters of various ages, races, household income, etc., on a number of general issues (such as "is the country headed in the right direction?") and the query "Do you support or oppose the US government pursuing a criminal case against Edward Snowden for leaking classified information about the way the NSA conducts its intelligence gathering?"
That question found 53 per cent of Americans in favor of criminal charges, 26 per cent opposing charges, and 21 per cent (430 of those surveyed) having no opinion on the matter.
A former NSA contractor who disclosed details on government surveillance programs, Snowden has been on the run for two years and is currently hiding out in Russia. While Snowden has offered to return to the US, he wants Uncle Sam to guarantee a fair trial, a concept the two sides are not likely to agree on any time soon.
A "We the People" petition on Snowden's behalf drummed up 167,955 signatures, but was ultimately rejected by the White House, who maintain that what Snowden did was very much against the law.
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/12/snowden_poll/
Read more @ http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/13/edward-snowden-poll-americans-dont-want-a-pardon/
And as you can see the movie companies are all in it, not just phone companies. The movie industry has been compliant in acclimatizing the public to be spied on and shaping the thoughts of the general public in many different subjects…..
Read more @ http://deadline.com/2015/08/homeland-isis-charlie-hebdo-putin-snowden-season-5-1201497368/
Why does this former spy panel senator believe Snowden should be hanged? What have they done? (Psychology – Projection) People project onto others what they feel about themselves but cannot face. Why does this senator feel he should be hanged….? Again… what has he been up too? And that goes for all of them that want Snowden hanged or shot….. We need to look into their psyches and what they have been doing and what set them on the path they are on. http://www.morningliberty.com/2015/08/12/hypnotic-states-of-america-manipulating-the-sheople/
If the US gets hold of Edward Snowden, and he's found guilty, he should be hanged! There are plenty of folks in Washington, D.C. unhappy with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and you can count retired Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) as one of those people. Snowden remains holed up in Moscow, Russia, with very few options considering the severity of charges he faces in the United States.
If the US gets hold of Edward Snowden, and he's found guilty, he should be hanged!
There are plenty of folks in Washington, D.C. unhappy with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and you can count retired Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) as one of those people. Snowden remains holed up in Moscow, Russia, with very few options considering the severity of charges he faces in the United States.
Read more @ http://www.tweaktown.com/news/46974/former-spy-panel-senator-believes-edward-snowden-hanged/index.html
Snowden isn't planning to leave Russia
Former U.S. intelligence officer Edward Snowden is not going to leave Russia, said his lawyer Anatoly Kucherena, representing Snowden in Russia, Sunday. "He's in Russia. He's alright, no worries," said Kucherena to a Russian radio RSN. Kucherena also gave a negative answer to the question of the radio station about whether Snowden was going to leave the country in the near future.
Former U.S. intelligence officer Edward Snowden is not going to leave Russia, said his lawyer Anatoly Kucherena, representing Snowden in Russia, Sunday.
"He's in Russia. He's alright, no worries," said Kucherena to a Russian radio RSN.
Kucherena also gave a negative answer to the question of the radio station about whether Snowden was going to leave the country in the near future.
Read more @ http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/163229/au-burundi-crisis-poses-catastrophic-risk-for-region
I do not believe this because nothing has changed…… And the amount of secret documents every year is in the millions….. to me that says that much of it is not above board….and is self-serving. I think the more secretive a government becomes the more corrupt it has become. Here are some examples. http://listverse.com/2013/06/27/10-people-who-blew-the-whistle-on-the-us-government/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Corruption-Chronicles-Secrecy-Government/dp/147676705X
Tech entrepreneurs are seizing on the new attention to digital privacy and finding customers around the world in search of more secure tools for online communication. COLOGNE, GERMANY — The scope of National Security Agency surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower-turned-fugitive Edward Snowden didn’t particularly alarm Felix Müller-Irion. Growing up coding and hanging out with the notorious German hacker collective the Chaos Computer Club, he knew the immense ways the Internet could be used to snoop on unsuspecting targets. What alarmed Mr. Müller-Irion was something most people would consider a mere footnote in the global controversy following Mr. Snowden’s leaks. In 2013 Lavabit, the encrypted, or "secure" e-mail service Snowden used shut its doors after the US government subpoenaed its encryption keys. That jolted Müller-Irion into action. "It hit me hard," recalls Müller-Irion, at the time a political science student in Maastricht University. "I thought, we had to have an alternative." Seizing what he saw as a tremendous business opportunity, the cryptography amateur turned cryptography entrepreneur took up a mission: to make ditching Gmail or Yahoo mail feasible and easy. And Lavaboom was born.
Tech entrepreneurs are seizing on the new attention to digital privacy and finding customers around the world in search of more secure tools for online communication.
COLOGNE, GERMANY — The scope of National Security Agency surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower-turned-fugitive Edward Snowden didn’t particularly alarm Felix Müller-Irion. Growing up coding and hanging out with the notorious German hacker collective the Chaos Computer Club, he knew the immense ways the Internet could be used to snoop on unsuspecting targets.
What alarmed Mr. Müller-Irion was something most people would consider a mere footnote in the global controversy following Mr. Snowden’s leaks. In 2013 Lavabit, the encrypted, or "secure" e-mail service Snowden used shut its doors after the US government subpoenaed its encryption keys. That jolted Müller-Irion into action.
"It hit me hard," recalls Müller-Irion, at the time a political science student in Maastricht University. "I thought, we had to have an alternative."
Seizing what he saw as a tremendous business opportunity, the cryptography amateur turned cryptography entrepreneur took up a mission: to make ditching Gmail or Yahoo mail feasible and easy. And Lavaboom was born.
Read more @ http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2015/0803/In-Snowden-s-wake-crypto-startups-take-root-in-Germany
Aug 17 15 11:19 AM
IT’S the dirty little secret that’s facilitating what’s being called the biggest breach of privacy ever. Government, security agencies and the telecommunications industry will be forced to explain a security hole that allows hackers to listen in to conversations and hijack Australians’ mobile phones after it’s exposed by a 60 Minutes investigation, the program claims.In an investigation into mobile security spanning three continents, reporter Ross Coulthart believes he has uncovered a security vulnerability that could affect any of us, and there’s nothing being done to stop it.“What it means is that your smartphone is an open book,” he told news.com.au“Criminals now have access to these huge security holes to steal your data and listen in to your calls. We know telephone companies know about it, we know security agencies know about it, but nothing is being done.” By tapping in to SS7, a signalling system in use by more than 800 telecommunication companies across the world including major Australian providers, hackers are able to listen in to conversations, steal information stored on mobile phones, and track the location of the phone’s user.The system, Coulthart says, has long been in use by spies and has been a secret of perpetrators of international espionage. It’s believed to be the very tactic used by Australian spies in tracking the phone calls of the wife of the Indonesian president, Coulthart says. But recently, organised crime, commercial spies and potential terrorists have been exploiting this security loophole for their gain, 60 Minutes claims to have uncovered.“The allegation in our story is the reason this security vulnerability has not been fixed is because it suits the spooks,” Coulthart said.“Until very recently corporate criminals didn’t know about it, but now it’s very clearly being misused by corporate and organised crime.”
IT’S the dirty little secret that’s facilitating what’s being called the biggest breach of privacy ever.
Government, security agencies and the telecommunications industry will be forced to explain a security hole that allows hackers to listen in to conversations and hijack Australians’ mobile phones after it’s exposed by a 60 Minutes investigation, the program claims.
In an investigation into mobile security spanning three continents, reporter Ross Coulthart believes he has uncovered a security vulnerability that could affect any of us, and there’s nothing being done to stop it.
“What it means is that your smartphone is an open book,” he told news.com.au
“Criminals now have access to these huge security holes to steal your data and listen in to your calls. We know telephone companies know about it, we know security agencies know about it, but nothing is being done.”
By tapping in to SS7, a signalling system in use by more than 800 telecommunication companies across the world including major Australian providers, hackers are able to listen in to conversations, steal information stored on mobile phones, and track the location of the phone’s user.
The system, Coulthart says, has long been in use by spies and has been a secret of perpetrators of international espionage. It’s believed to be the very tactic used by Australian spies in tracking the phone calls of the wife of the Indonesian president, Coulthart says. But recently, organised crime, commercial spies and potential terrorists have been exploiting this security loophole for their gain, 60 Minutes claims to have uncovered.
“The allegation in our story is the reason this security vulnerability has not been fixed is because it suits the spooks,” Coulthart said.
“Until very recently corporate criminals didn’t know about it, but now it’s very clearly being misused by corporate and organised crime.”
Read more @ http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/the-end-of-privacy-as-we-know-it-60-minutes-uncovers-huge-mobile-phone-security-vulnerabilities/story-fn6vihic-1227485884359?from=public_rss
Aug 20 15 10:31 PM
How Edward Snowden inspired a musical vision of the future
Composer Matthew Collings explains the title of his new collaborative work A Requiem For Edward Snowden in sobering terms. “I was convinced that he would shortly be dead,” he says of Snowden, the former US government contractor and computer programmer turned wanted whistleblower. “It’s interesting that he isn’t. I’m convinced he’ll be one of these stories a year or ten years down the line, one of those, ‘Oh look, he slipped in the shower’ stories.” Some might argue that the Edinburgh-based Collings is being pessimistic, bordering on paranoid, there. But the story of Edward Snowden, who blew the whistle on mass government surveillance of internet communications on both sides of the Atlantic and now claims an exiled refuge in Russia, speaks to some of the most pressing concerns of the modern age. What is the internet doing to us, it asks, who is in charge, and how benevolently do they exercise that power?
Composer Matthew Collings explains the title of his new collaborative work A Requiem For Edward Snowden in sobering terms. “I was convinced that he would shortly be dead,” he says of Snowden, the former US government contractor and computer programmer turned wanted whistleblower. “It’s interesting that he isn’t. I’m convinced he’ll be one of these stories a year or ten years down the line, one of those, ‘Oh look, he slipped in the shower’ stories.”
Some might argue that the Edinburgh-based Collings is being pessimistic, bordering on paranoid, there. But the story of Edward Snowden, who blew the whistle on mass government surveillance of internet communications on both sides of the Atlantic and now claims an exiled refuge in Russia, speaks to some of the most pressing concerns of the modern age. What is the internet doing to us, it asks, who is in charge, and how benevolently do they exercise that power?
Read more @ http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/music/how-edward-snowden-inspired-a-musical-vision-of-the-future-1-3863946
It's been over two years since Edward Snowden revealed the startling scope of the NSA's programs for spying on the American people. So there's been enough time to form more substantial responses to the revelation, not just hot take after hot take. Laura Poitras's Academy Award-winning documentary Citizenfour showed history being made as Snowden walked reporter Glenn Greenwald through the data. Later this year, Joseph Gordon-Levitt will star in Oliver Stone's Snowden, a dramatisation of the whistleblower's life. And in a few weeks, you'll be able to read Snowden, an upcoming illustrated biography by author and editorial cartoonist Ted Rall. Here's what I thought of this darkly funny look at our ongoing surveillance nightmare. Surveillance State of Emergency In case the immediate comparisons to 1984 are too subtle, Rall's Snowden argues PRISM, Stellar Wind, and the various other NSA spying programs revealed by Snowden are really harmful to a free society. The opening chapter explains these programs with detailed but understandable language. Even readers already aware of Snowden might be shocked by just how sinister these systems are. The government is tapping into our phones, televisions, and laptops. Cops are tracking and predicting our movements, the post office is stealing our mail, and bullies like Arizona's infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio are using these monitoring programs to squash political rivals with no repercussions. And for every sobering, dystopic example of privacy invasion, there's an absurd comic punchline like NSA workers gawking at naked couples through hacked web cameras. It's in moments like that where Rall's unflattering, political cartoon art style shines.
It's been over two years since Edward Snowden revealed the startling scope of the NSA's programs for spying on the American people. So there's been enough time to form more substantial responses to the revelation, not just hot take after hot take. Laura Poitras's Academy Award-winning documentary Citizenfour showed history being made as Snowden walked reporter Glenn Greenwald through the data. Later this year, Joseph Gordon-Levitt will star in Oliver Stone's Snowden, a dramatisation of the whistleblower's life. And in a few weeks, you'll be able to read Snowden, an upcoming illustrated biography by author and editorial cartoonist Ted Rall. Here's what I thought of this darkly funny look at our ongoing surveillance nightmare.
In case the immediate comparisons to 1984 are too subtle, Rall's Snowden argues PRISM, Stellar Wind, and the various other NSA spying programs revealed by Snowden are really harmful to a free society. The opening chapter explains these programs with detailed but understandable language. Even readers already aware of Snowden might be shocked by just how sinister these systems are.
The government is tapping into our phones, televisions, and laptops. Cops are tracking and predicting our movements, the post office is stealing our mail, and bullies like Arizona's infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio are using these monitoring programs to squash political rivals with no repercussions. And for every sobering, dystopic example of privacy invasion, there's an absurd comic punchline like NSA workers gawking at naked couples through hacked web cameras. It's in moments like that where Rall's unflattering, political cartoon art style shines.
Read more @ http://au.pcmag.com/software/36392/feature/snowden-graphic-novel-is-a-dark-funny-portrait-of
First Look Media wants to get beyond Edward Snowden. One can hardly blame it since the past year or two has been a public and painful experiment in creating the world’s premier spot for self-described fearless, adversarial journalism. False starts, hang-ups and ego clashes culminated in the well-documented explosion of Matt Taibbi’s would-be satirical magazine Racket last year, with several high-profile resignations in the months after. In a visit to the startup, founded in 2013 by eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar, International Business Times spoke with Michael Bloom, the company’s new president and general manager. He described First Look’s new direction toward broader coverage beyond national security and surveillance and a major shift into visual storytelling through film, documentary and television.
First Look Media wants to get beyond Edward Snowden. One can hardly blame it since the past year or two has been a public and painful experiment in creating the world’s premier spot for self-described fearless, adversarial journalism. False starts, hang-ups and ego clashes culminated in the well-documented explosion of Matt Taibbi’s would-be satirical magazine Racket last year, with several high-profile resignations in the months after.
In a visit to the startup, founded in 2013 by eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar, International Business Times spoke with Michael Bloom, the company’s new president and general manager. He described First Look’s new direction toward broader coverage beyond national security and surveillance and a major shift into visual storytelling through film, documentary and television.
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.com/beyond-edward-snowden-second-look-first-look-media-2060306
The window for former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to reach a plea agreement with the U.S. Justice Department is closing quickly. That's what senior U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials tell us about the man whose leaks they call the worst in U.S. history. These officials say any momentum for these negotiations is gone; his lawyers have not even had conversations about such a deal for nearly a year with the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case. The officials say the chance that Snowden will be offered a plea deal in exchange for cooperation is now close to non-existent.
The window for former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to reach a plea agreement with the U.S. Justice Department is closing quickly.
That's what senior U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials tell us about the man whose leaks they call the worst in U.S. history. These officials say any momentum for these negotiations is gone; his lawyers have not even had conversations about such a deal for nearly a year with the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case. The officials say the chance that Snowden will be offered a plea deal in exchange for cooperation is now close to non-existent.
Read more @ http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-19/snowden-s-window-for-a-plea-deal-is-closing
Edward Snowden, a former governor contractor who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), creating worldwide indignation due to the revelation of the major extent of United States spying practices, has generated controversial debate around the globe on the accuracy of publishing confidential material and the need for other countries to grant him asylum. Indeed, in June 2013, Edward Snowden had to flee to Russia after the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed charges against him with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property. Without going much into detail of US legislation in this case, in consideration of the charges he is facing it appears clearly Snowden would not be a free man in the United States. However, it can be argued whether or not his actions fall under the Espionage Act, since he carefully selected and consulted several journalists to determine the documents to be published in the public interest and the ones to be withheld. In fact, he could have sold information to a foreign surveillance agency or to an enemy of the United States, more likely to be considered an act of espionage than revealing precise documents to and in the interest of the general public which rather corresponds to whistleblowing and is similar to what thousands of investigative journalists do. That being said, over the last years, a growing part of civil society, especially in France, has raised its voice in order to convince government officials of the need to accord Snowden political asylum in the Hexagon. The question to raise is whether France can grant asylum to Snowden and on which legal foundation? When talking about political asylum, you cannot get around without considering international law and more precisely the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refuges. Article 1 of the Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee as: “a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” (…)
Edward Snowden, a former governor contractor who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), creating worldwide indignation due to the revelation of the major extent of United States spying practices, has generated controversial debate around the globe on the accuracy of publishing confidential material and the need for other countries to grant him asylum.
Indeed, in June 2013, Edward Snowden had to flee to Russia after the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed charges against him with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property. Without going much into detail of US legislation in this case, in consideration of the charges he is facing it appears clearly Snowden would not be a free man in the United States. However, it can be argued whether or not his actions fall under the Espionage Act, since he carefully selected and consulted several journalists to determine the documents to be published in the public interest and the ones to be withheld. In fact, he could have sold information to a foreign surveillance agency or to an enemy of the United States, more likely to be considered an act of espionage than revealing precise documents to and in the interest of the general public which rather corresponds to whistleblowing and is similar to what thousands of investigative journalists do.
That being said, over the last years, a growing part of civil society, especially in France, has raised its voice in order to convince government officials of the need to accord Snowden political asylum in the Hexagon. The question to raise is whether France can grant asylum to Snowden and on which legal foundation?
When talking about political asylum, you cannot get around without considering international law and more precisely the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refuges. Article 1 of the Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee as: “a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” (…)
Read more @ http://www.rudebaguette.com/2015/08/20/why-france-would-be-better-off-granting-snowden-asylum/
Famed whistleblower and former CIA employee Edward Snowden has revealed a new batch of documents detailing how major network carrier AT&T closely collaborated with the National Security Agency to spy on Internet users. The documents, which were obtained by the New York Times, revealed that from 2003 to 2013, AT&T has provided the NSA the means to spy on U.S. Internet traffic. This includes billions of email messages sent by citizens using local networks. According to the files, the spying was carried out through AT&T's 17 facilities in different parts of the country. But aside from surveillance purposes, these centers were also used by the NSA to field test new spying technologies and methods. As noted by the IT Pro Portal, the two organizations had a solid partnership since the NSA repeatedly praised AT&T for its commitment to the clandestine operation. The government agency even reminded its agents to be courteous to AT&T staff members especially when visiting the company's facilities. "This is a partnership, not a contractual relationship," the NSA stated in the documents.
Famed whistleblower and former CIA employee Edward Snowden has revealed a new batch of documents detailing how major network carrier AT&T closely collaborated with the National Security Agency to spy on Internet users.
The documents, which were obtained by the New York Times, revealed that from 2003 to 2013, AT&T has provided the NSA the means to spy on U.S. Internet traffic. This includes billions of email messages sent by citizens using local networks.
According to the files, the spying was carried out through AT&T's 17 facilities in different parts of the country. But aside from surveillance purposes, these centers were also used by the NSA to field test new spying technologies and methods.
As noted by the IT Pro Portal, the two organizations had a solid partnership since the NSA repeatedly praised AT&T for its commitment to the clandestine operation. The government agency even reminded its agents to be courteous to AT&T staff members especially when visiting the company's facilities.
"This is a partnership, not a contractual relationship," the NSA stated in the documents.
Read more @ http://www.jobsnhire.com/articles/24909/20150817/new-edward-snowden-revelation-nsa-spied-on-internet-users-through-at-t.htm
In a twisted turn of events, newly-disclosed documents have revealed that the AT&T has been a trustful source of information for the spying NSA has been doing on internet traffic. The partnership between the telecoms giant and the National Security Agency surpasses the usual arrangement or cooperation that other firms have with the governmental organization. According to evidence published by the New York Times, the NSA also had an arrangement with Verizon, but it turns out that collaborating with AT&T was especially lucrative. Unsurprisingly, the new batch of information on the NSA dealings was provided by Edward Snowden – the now-exiled former NSA agent – and it reveals some concerning data. It turns out that AT&T had installed surveillance equipment to more than a dozen of its web centers, and was a frequent testing ground for developing spying technologies.
In a twisted turn of events, newly-disclosed documents have revealed that the AT&T has been a trustful source of information for the spying NSA has been doing on internet traffic.
The partnership between the telecoms giant and the National Security Agency surpasses the usual arrangement or cooperation that other firms have with the governmental organization. According to evidence published by the New York Times, the NSA also had an arrangement with Verizon, but it turns out that collaborating with AT&T was especially lucrative.
Unsurprisingly, the new batch of information on the NSA dealings was provided by Edward Snowden – the now-exiled former NSA agent – and it reveals some concerning data. It turns out that AT&T had installed surveillance equipment to more than a dozen of its web centers, and was a frequent testing ground for developing spying technologies.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt welcomed a baby boy over the weekend with his wife Tasha McCauley. Being the awards nuts that we are, we can't help but wonder if Gordon-Levitt is about to bring home another small bald thing in a few months ... the Oscar! Gordon-Levitt is the lead character in not one, but two hot Oscar contenders due out this year: "Snowden" in which he plays infamous CIA leaker Edward Snowden and "The Walk" where he portrays French high-wire artist Philippe Petit.
Read more @ http://www.goldderby.com/news/10034/joseph-gordon-levitt-baby-oscars-edward-snowden-the-walk-13579086.html
Aug 27 15 6:40 PM
US National Security Agency feeds big appetite for security start ups
Skilled engineers charged with tracking weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, US government-backed cyber attackers and even the general who led the National Security Agency have all left the organisation to launch their own cyber security start-ups. Many former NSA employees are building businesses to protect the private sector from cyber attack, using their experience at probably the most sophisticated cyber organisation in the world to lure customers and investors. But while most see their backgrounds as a badge of honour, they face a challenge convincing some companies to trust their products after the Snowden revelations showed the NSA had conducted a mass surveillance programme. General Keith Alexander, who was the director of the NSA and led the US cyber command, left the agency last year and has founded IronNet Cyber Security, with former senior staff from the NSA and other state agencies. Mark Young worked at the NSA and the department of defence before joining General Alexander as managing director at IronNet. He said former NSA staff were particularly good at "finding small nuggets of wisdom in very, very large, big data sets". "It is certainly the pre-eminent agency for technical skill," he said. "Miracles occur there every day when it comes to technology."
Skilled engineers charged with tracking weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, US government-backed cyber attackers and even the general who led the National Security Agency have all left the organisation to launch their own cyber security start-ups.
Many former NSA employees are building businesses to protect the private sector from cyber attack, using their experience at probably the most sophisticated cyber organisation in the world to lure customers and investors.
But while most see their backgrounds as a badge of honour, they face a challenge convincing some companies to trust their products after the Snowden revelations showed the NSA had conducted a mass surveillance programme.
General Keith Alexander, who was the director of the NSA and led the US cyber command, left the agency last year and has founded IronNet Cyber Security, with former senior staff from the NSA and other state agencies.
Mark Young worked at the NSA and the department of defence before joining General Alexander as managing director at IronNet. He said former NSA staff were particularly good at "finding small nuggets of wisdom in very, very large, big data sets". "It is certainly the pre-eminent agency for technical skill," he said. "Miracles occur there every day when it comes to technology."
Read more @ http://www.afr.com/technology/us-national-security-agency-feeds-big-appetite-for-security-start-ups-20150816-gj01sh
New Edward Snowden documents revealed on Saturday in the New York Times detail a decade-long secret partnership between the NSA and AT&T, which provided the spy agency with metadata on billions of emails. Although the Times story has garnered a lot of attention, it offers few details about how the telecom conducted the siphoning and spying for the NSA. But two stories published almost decade ago by WIRED and Salon provide in-depth details about the secret rooms at AT&T facilities in San Francisco, Missouri, and other areas across the US that the NSA used to siphon internet data. AT&T isn’t identified by name in the Snowden documents, but the Times notes that “a constellation of evidence” points to AT&T as the primary company mentioned in them, which several intelligence officials have confirmed to the paper. According to the Times piece, the siphoning of internet data from AT&T began in 2003 and continued for a decade in a relationship that the NSA called “highly collaborative.” The telecom giant, according to one Snowden document, was extremely willing to help out the spy agency, and its engineers “were the first to try out new surveillance technologies invented by the eavesdropping agency.”
New Edward Snowden documents revealed on Saturday in the New York Times detail a decade-long secret partnership between the NSA and AT&T, which provided the spy agency with metadata on billions of emails. Although the Times story has garnered a lot of attention, it offers few details about how the telecom conducted the siphoning and spying for the NSA.
But two stories published almost decade ago by WIRED and Salon provide in-depth details about the secret rooms at AT&T facilities in San Francisco, Missouri, and other areas across the US that the NSA used to siphon internet data.
AT&T isn’t identified by name in the Snowden documents, but the Times notes that “a constellation of evidence” points to AT&T as the primary company mentioned in them, which several intelligence officials have confirmed to the paper.
According to the Times piece, the siphoning of internet data from AT&T began in 2003 and continued for a decade in a relationship that the NSA called “highly collaborative.” The telecom giant, according to one Snowden document, was extremely willing to help out the spy agency, and its engineers “were the first to try out new surveillance technologies invented by the eavesdropping agency.”
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/08/know-nsa-atts-spying-pact/
The technology is being deployed in secret by departments across the country, according to a recent investigative report. The storm trooper-level police response to protests in Ferguson last summer shocked many observers, and put a federal program that distributes surplus military weapons and equipment to local law enforcement under heavy scrutiny. But the creep of War on Terror technology into domestic police surveillance tactics, and the Orwellian legal bases upon which it stands, has been more subtle. One little understood tool is known as "stingray," a device that can locate a phone's location by posing as a cell tower. The system is good at tracking down criminal suspects but also intercepts the location of people who happen to be in the area. Secrecy has contributed to a disturbing lack of judicial review of stingray. In Baltimore, police are secretly employing the devices with great frequency to track down not only suspected murderers but small-time crooks, according to an important USA Today investigation published Monday. The upshot is that police nationwide have "quietly transformed a form of surveillance billed as a tool to hunt terrorists and kidnappers into a staple of everyday policing."
The technology is being deployed in secret by departments across the country, according to a recent investigative report.
The storm trooper-level police response to protests in Ferguson last summer shocked many observers, and put a federal program that distributes surplus military weapons and equipment to local law enforcement under heavy scrutiny. But the creep of War on Terror technology into domestic police surveillance tactics, and the Orwellian legal bases upon which it stands, has been more subtle.
One little understood tool is known as "stingray," a device that can locate a phone's location by posing as a cell tower. The system is good at tracking down criminal suspects but also intercepts the location of people who happen to be in the area.
Secrecy has contributed to a disturbing lack of judicial review of stingray.
In Baltimore, police are secretly employing the devices with great frequency to track down not only suspected murderers but small-time crooks, according to an important USA Today investigation published Monday. The upshot is that police nationwide have "quietly transformed a form of surveillance billed as a tool to hunt terrorists and kidnappers into a staple of everyday policing."
Read more @ http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/08/youre-going-to-hear-a-lot-more-about-police-use-of-stingray/402283/
Read more @ http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/08/police-reportedly-tracks-cellphones-regularly-to-solve-routine-crimes/
Read more @ https://news.vice.com/article/us-cops-arent-getting-warrants-to-spy-on-peoples-cellphones-for-petty-crimes
That journalism is embattled there is no doubt. Dwindling advertising profits have seen those who remain employed multitasking to cover for laidoff colleagues. It’s an undeniable industrial climate change. Andrew Fowler thinks there’s a war going on, with enemies of free journalism actively seeking to destroy it. “Revelatory and investigative journalism in the West is in a state of crisis,” he says. “Attacked from without, it is also attacked from within by journalists who long ago abandoned the core journalistic principle to question those in power.” He presents an array of examples in this breezy account of media battles over recent decades, prime among them the struggles of the newspapers chosen by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden to filter and interpret their mass drops of digital documents. Snowden revealed that the NSA and its “Five Eyes” cohorts were collecting and storing data on the communications of vast numbers of people, blurring the distinction between their legally authorised snooping on foreigners with domestic surveillance. Journalism is collateral damage when the agencies set their computers to trace the source of leaks from reporters’ phones and emails.
That journalism is embattled there is no doubt. Dwindling advertising profits have seen those who remain employed multitasking to cover for laidoff colleagues. It’s an undeniable industrial climate change.
Andrew Fowler thinks there’s a war going on, with enemies of free journalism actively seeking to destroy it. “Revelatory and investigative journalism in the West is in a state of crisis,” he says. “Attacked from without, it is also attacked from within by journalists who long ago abandoned the core journalistic principle to question those in power.”
He presents an array of examples in this breezy account of media battles over recent decades, prime among them the struggles of the newspapers chosen by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden to filter and interpret their mass drops of digital documents. Snowden revealed that the NSA and its “Five Eyes” cohorts were collecting and storing data on the communications of vast numbers of people, blurring the distinction between their legally authorised snooping on foreigners with domestic surveillance. Journalism is collateral damage when the agencies set their computers to trace the source of leaks from reporters’ phones and emails.
Read more @ https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2015/08/31/the-war-journalism/14401656002270
Fifteen months ahead of the presidential election, a number of the 17 Republicans vying for their party’s nomination have invested considerable energy courting Silicon Valley. These candidates are boldly attempting to articulate a coherent understanding of the issues facing the technology industry. This makes sense: what’s been seen traditionally as a Democratic stronghold ought to be ripe for the Republican taking. After all, it’s easy to frame the success of the Internet as an excellent manifestation of the conservative ideology that free markets and limited regulation spur economic growth and upward mobility. Yet none of the Republican candidates has demonstrated a coherent technology-policy agenda. Despite all the overtures, the latest quarter’s financial filings revealed “most tech industry bigwigs are throwing cash at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.” This isn’t because Hillary Clinton has a better tech agenda or better tech instincts than Republicans. Her comparative fundraising success is likely attributable primarily to the tech community’s own instinct that it’s better to trust the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
Fifteen months ahead of the presidential election, a number of the 17 Republicans vying for their party’s nomination have invested considerable energy courting Silicon Valley. These candidates are boldly attempting to articulate a coherent understanding of the issues facing the technology industry.
This makes sense: what’s been seen traditionally as a Democratic stronghold ought to be ripe for the Republican taking. After all, it’s easy to frame the success of the Internet as an excellent manifestation of the conservative ideology that free markets and limited regulation spur economic growth and upward mobility.
Yet none of the Republican candidates has demonstrated a coherent technology-policy agenda. Despite all the overtures, the latest quarter’s financial filings revealed “most tech industry bigwigs are throwing cash at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.”
This isn’t because Hillary Clinton has a better tech agenda or better tech instincts than Republicans. Her comparative fundraising success is likely attributable primarily to the tech community’s own instinct that it’s better to trust the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
For the NSA, Phones Were Only the Beginning With the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June, Americans may think that the sprawling and unchecked surveillance apparatus that was secretly erected after 9/11 has finally been reined in. But the fight over government surveillance is far from over. For all the late-night filibusters and political brinkmanship that ultimately produced the USA Freedom Act, the legislation barely touched on many of the government’s most troubling spying programs—the ones aimed at the Internet. Two years ago, the whistleblower Edward Snowden, then a government contractor, exposed the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. That program is now being wound down, but phone records were just the tip of the surveillance iceberg. More and more, our daily communications take place over the Internet—and there the NSA’s dragnet surveillance continues unabated. Putting an end to what some have called “the golden age of surveillance” requires protecting our online communications from government spying, too. Over the past 15 years, the NSA has embedded itself in the infrastructure of the Internet, often by secretly collaborating with telecommunications companies that operate the Internet “backbone.” This backbone is the global network of high-capacity cables and routers that carries communications across countries and between continents. From outposts both inside and outside the United States, the NSA continuously monitors vast streams of Internet traffic as they flow past the agency’s surveillance devices. The NSA uses those devices to siphon off huge quantities of communications, often in bulk, copying them and then searching their contents for information of interest. This is the new surveillance paradigm. It is one in which the government examines everyone’s e-mails, browsing activities, and online chats in real time, not just the communications of suspected spies and criminals. The old paradigm, in which surveillance had to be targeted to be technically and economically feasible, is being supplanted by population-level surveillance, where everyone’s communications and metadata are fair game. This new paradigm animated the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records, and it continues to animate its pervasive monitoring of Internet traffic. The breadth of this surveillance allows intelligence agencies to use “big data” techniques—such as sophisticated algorithms and analytic tools—to mine the flow of private communications and store large chunks of that data for later use. In short, today’s surveillance system is set up to search and collect as much data as possible now, so that intelligence agencies can figure out how to exploit it later. There are two key legal authorities that govern the NSA’s warrantless surveillance of our Internet communications. Inside the United States, this surveillance is conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (better known as FISA), and it principally affects Americans’ international communications. Outside the United States, the surveillance is carried out under Executive Order 12,333—a Reagan-era spying regulation written for the pre-Internet era. This order is even more permissive than Section 702 and lacks judicial review of any kind, not to mention meaningful congressional oversight. John Napier Tye, a whistleblower and former State Department official, has warned that the collection and storage of communications under Executive Order 12,333 is staggering in its scope and far broader than the surveillance programs that have thus far come to public attention. Last March, I was part of a team of lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union who sued the government to stop Internet backbone surveillance conducted under Section 702. The ACLU’s clients in the case—Wikimedia Foundation, Human Rights Watch, the Rutherford Institute, and six other civil society organizations—argue that this warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, which provides core safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, the First Amendment, and the text of Section 702 itself. In searching through virtually all international communications entering or leaving the United States, the NSA invades the plaintiffs’ privacy and harms their ability to engage in speech, advocacy, and other activities essential to their work. Public disclosures over the past two years—including new revelations about the NSA’s monitoring of Internet backbone traffic with the help of AT&T and Verizon—substantiate the plaintiffs’ claims. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is currently pursuing a similar, long-running challenge, which the government has sought to have the courts dismiss on the grounds of state secrets. Because intelligence officials often claim that these programs are directed only at foreigners abroad (as though mass surveillance of the rest of the world is justified), many Americans believe that they aren’t vulnerable to the NSA’s dragnet spying. But the reality is far different.
With the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June, Americans may think that the sprawling and unchecked surveillance apparatus that was secretly erected after 9/11 has finally been reined in. But the fight over government surveillance is far from over. For all the late-night filibusters and political brinkmanship that ultimately produced the USA Freedom Act, the legislation barely touched on many of the government’s most troubling spying programs—the ones aimed at the Internet.
Two years ago, the whistleblower Edward Snowden, then a government contractor, exposed the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. That program is now being wound down, but phone records were just the tip of the surveillance iceberg. More and more, our daily communications take place over the Internet—and there the NSA’s dragnet surveillance continues unabated. Putting an end to what some have called “the golden age of surveillance” requires protecting our online communications from government spying, too.
Over the past 15 years, the NSA has embedded itself in the infrastructure of the Internet, often by secretly collaborating with telecommunications companies that operate the Internet “backbone.” This backbone is the global network of high-capacity cables and routers that carries communications across countries and between continents. From outposts both inside and outside the United States, the NSA continuously monitors vast streams of Internet traffic as they flow past the agency’s surveillance devices. The NSA uses those devices to siphon off huge quantities of communications, often in bulk, copying them and then searching their contents for information of interest.
This is the new surveillance paradigm. It is one in which the government examines everyone’s e-mails, browsing activities, and online chats in real time, not just the communications of suspected spies and criminals. The old paradigm, in which surveillance had to be targeted to be technically and economically feasible, is being supplanted by population-level surveillance, where everyone’s communications and metadata are fair game. This new paradigm animated the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records, and it continues to animate its pervasive monitoring of Internet traffic. The breadth of this surveillance allows intelligence agencies to use “big data” techniques—such as sophisticated algorithms and analytic tools—to mine the flow of private communications and store large chunks of that data for later use. In short, today’s surveillance system is set up to search and collect as much data as possible now, so that intelligence agencies can figure out how to exploit it later.
There are two key legal authorities that govern the NSA’s warrantless surveillance of our Internet communications. Inside the United States, this surveillance is conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (better known as FISA), and it principally affects Americans’ international communications. Outside the United States, the surveillance is carried out under Executive Order 12,333—a Reagan-era spying regulation written for the pre-Internet era. This order is even more permissive than Section 702 and lacks judicial review of any kind, not to mention meaningful congressional oversight. John Napier Tye, a whistleblower and former State Department official, has warned that the collection and storage of communications under Executive Order 12,333 is staggering in its scope and far broader than the surveillance programs that have thus far come to public attention.
Last March, I was part of a team of lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union who sued the government to stop Internet backbone surveillance conducted under Section 702. The ACLU’s clients in the case—Wikimedia Foundation, Human Rights Watch, the Rutherford Institute, and six other civil society organizations—argue that this warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, which provides core safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, the First Amendment, and the text of Section 702 itself. In searching through virtually all international communications entering or leaving the United States, the NSA invades the plaintiffs’ privacy and harms their ability to engage in speech, advocacy, and other activities essential to their work. Public disclosures over the past two years—including new revelations about the NSA’s monitoring of Internet backbone traffic with the help of AT&T and Verizon—substantiate the plaintiffs’ claims. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is currently pursuing a similar, long-running challenge, which the government has sought to have the courts dismiss on the grounds of state secrets.
Because intelligence officials often claim that these programs are directed only at foreigners abroad (as though mass surveillance of the rest of the world is justified), many Americans believe that they aren’t vulnerable to the NSA’s dragnet spying. But the reality is far different.
Meet the Whistleblower Who Exposed the Secret Room AT&T Used to Help the NSA Spy on the Internet
Jeff Klein blew the whistle on AT&T’s cooperation with the National Security Agency in 2006. As documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expose how AT&T aided the NSA’s vast spying operations, we speak to former AT&T technician Mark Klein, who worked at the company for 22 years. In 2006, he blew the whistle on AT&T’s cooperation with the National Security Agency by leaking internal documents that revealed the company had set up a secret room in its San Francisco office to give the NSA access to its fiber-optic Internet cables. Below is an interview with Klein and Jeff Larson, followed by a transcript:
Jeff Klein blew the whistle on AT&T’s cooperation with the National Security Agency in 2006.
As documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expose how AT&T aided the NSA’s vast spying operations, we speak to former AT&T technician Mark Klein, who worked at the company for 22 years. In 2006, he blew the whistle on AT&T’s cooperation with the National Security Agency by leaking internal documents that revealed the company had set up a secret room in its San Francisco office to give the NSA access to its fiber-optic Internet cables.
Below is an interview with Klein and Jeff Larson, followed by a transcript:
Speaking at an Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security forum at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on August 18, former Florida Governor and GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush (shown) was critical of the very modest restrictions on the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records that were enacted into law in June. He advocated reversing those restrictions to increase the NSA’s snooping powers. “There’s a place to find common ground between personal civil liberties and NSA doing its job,” Bush asserted. “I think the balance has actually gone the wrong way.” Bush maintained that the increased NSA surveillance powers are necessary to combat “evildoers” — presumably terrorists such as those who participated in the 9/11 attacks in 2001. In response to those attacks, Bush’s brother, President George W. Bush, signed the PATRIOT Act into law, which authorized a wide range of government surveillance activities. With the passage of time, however, even the PATRIOT Act’s lead sponsor, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who introduced the act in the House on October 23, 2001, developed severe reservations about how that legislation has been applied. “As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation,” Sensenbrenner wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on June 6, 2013. He continued: “The [FBI’s] broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.” Because of these reservations, Sensenbrenner introduced a bill called the USA Freedom Act on April 28, and posted a message about the act on his website, claiming that it would end the bulk collection of Americans’ communications records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, and eliminate other abuses, as well. The USA Freedom Act was passed by the House on May 13, the Senate on June 2, and signed into law that same day by President Obama. Obama’s haste in signing the bill was prompted by the fact that it extended key provisions of the PATRIOT Act that expired on June 1, until 2017. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposed the act because he believed that trading a four-year extension of the PATRIOT Act’s intrusive powers for a very modest limitation of those powers was a poor exchange. (It still allows for the collection of bulk metadata, but by the phone companies instead of the government.)
Speaking at an Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security forum at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on August 18, former Florida Governor and GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush (shown) was critical of the very modest restrictions on the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records that were enacted into law in June. He advocated reversing those restrictions to increase the NSA’s snooping powers.
“There’s a place to find common ground between personal civil liberties and NSA doing its job,” Bush asserted. “I think the balance has actually gone the wrong way.”
Bush maintained that the increased NSA surveillance powers are necessary to combat “evildoers” — presumably terrorists such as those who participated in the 9/11 attacks in 2001. In response to those attacks, Bush’s brother, President George W. Bush, signed the PATRIOT Act into law, which authorized a wide range of government surveillance activities.
With the passage of time, however, even the PATRIOT Act’s lead sponsor, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who introduced the act in the House on October 23, 2001, developed severe reservations about how that legislation has been applied.
“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation,” Sensenbrenner wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on June 6, 2013. He continued: “The [FBI’s] broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”
Because of these reservations, Sensenbrenner introduced a bill called the USA Freedom Act on April 28, and posted a message about the act on his website, claiming that it would end the bulk collection of Americans’ communications records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, and eliminate other abuses, as well.
The USA Freedom Act was passed by the House on May 13, the Senate on June 2, and signed into law that same day by President Obama. Obama’s haste in signing the bill was prompted by the fact that it extended key provisions of the PATRIOT Act that expired on June 1, until 2017. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposed the act because he believed that trading a four-year extension of the PATRIOT Act’s intrusive powers for a very modest limitation of those powers was a poor exchange. (It still allows for the collection of bulk metadata, but by the phone companies instead of the government.)
Read more @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21430-jeb-bush-would-expand-nsa-spy-powers-at-expense-of-civil-liberties
As Bezos and Kaspersky rush to the media to deny accusations about their respective firms we dive around in the vault and offer some great CEO denials of the very recent and not so recent past. 1) We're not buying our parent - we're happy with the family structure, Pat Gelsinger, CEO VMware (2015) VMware CEO denies interest in buying parent firm EMC. It was reported that EMC may come under the ownership of VMware as it sought strategic options. This was then denied by Pat Gelsinger, CEO of VMware who told Calcalist, an Israeli news outlet that everyone what happy with the current structure. Analysts described any potential deal which would see VMware take over EMC or be sold off by same as 'suboptimal' 2) We don't help governments to snoop Zuckerberg, Page, others...(2013) Facebook and google and others deny anything to do with NSA Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page denying any knowledge of PRISM. Back in 2013 after the Guardian and Washington Post revealed NSA snooping based on Edward Snowden's revelations web based firms and software companies were quick to deny any involvement. Zuckerberg wrote: "I want to respond personally to the outrageous press reports about PRISM," Zuckerberg wrote in a post published to his Facebook profile. "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the U.S. or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't heard of PRISM before yesterday." Larry Page from google said something similar and Apple, Twitter, AOL, Microsoft Linkedin and Yahoo cried shame on governments for snooping and formed the Reform Government Surveillance group
As Bezos and Kaspersky rush to the media to deny accusations about their respective firms we dive around in the vault and offer some great CEO denials of the very recent and not so recent past.
1) We're not buying our parent - we're happy with the family structure, Pat Gelsinger, CEO VMware (2015)
VMware CEO denies interest in buying parent firm EMC.
It was reported that EMC may come under the ownership of VMware as it sought strategic options. This was then denied by Pat Gelsinger, CEO of VMware who told Calcalist, an Israeli news outlet that everyone what happy with the current structure.
Analysts described any potential deal which would see VMware take over EMC or be sold off by same as 'suboptimal'
2) We don't help governments to snoop Zuckerberg, Page, others...(2013)
Facebook and google and others deny anything to do with NSA
Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page denying any knowledge of PRISM. Back in 2013 after the Guardian and Washington Post revealed NSA snooping based on Edward Snowden's revelations web based firms and software companies were quick to deny any involvement.
Zuckerberg wrote: "I want to respond personally to the outrageous press reports about PRISM," Zuckerberg wrote in a post published to his Facebook profile. "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the U.S. or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't heard of PRISM before yesterday."
Larry Page from google said something similar and Apple, Twitter, AOL, Microsoft Linkedin and Yahoo cried shame on governments for snooping and formed the Reform Government Surveillance group
Read more @ http://www.cbronline.com/news/social-media/management/five-other-huge-ceo-denials-porn-buyouts-phones-bankruptcy-government-snooping-4648549
Aug 27 15 9:15 PM
Experts at the National Security Agency are deeply worried that the current security cryptography used to protect almost all electronic data over the past 50 years will easily be unravelled by hackers once quantum computers become a reality.Public-key cryptography systems are currently used to protect everything from emails to online payment transactions, as well as confidential health and financial records. These systems offer end-to-end encryption using two separate keys, one private and one public, that are linked mathematically by complex algorithms that are difficult for computers today to solve.Although quantum computers are still only a concept, many computer scientists believe that the super-powerful computers will be available within the next 50 years, and that they will be able to solve extremely large numbers quickly, such as seen in recent demonstrations of Shor's algorithm.Since complex mathematical problems like integer factorisation, discrete logarithm mod primes and elliptic curve discrete logs are essential to public key encryption systems, quantum computing puts them at risk.Focus on quantum-resistant encryptionThe NSA, which developed the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) standard in the 1970s, has long been advising US firms and agencies to use Suite B cryptographic algorithms, which include 3072 bit RSA encryption, Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 256 bit keys and Elliptic Curve P-384 to secure their computer systems.However, now the NSA is advising companies and government agencies that haven't yet invested in these protections to consider focusing instead on quantum-resistant algorithms. "Unfortunately, the growth of elliptic curve use has bumped up against the fact of continued progress in the research on quantum computing, which has made it clear that elliptic curve cryptography is not the long-term solution many once hoped it would be. Thus, we have been obligated to update our strategy," the NSA said in its release."It is important to note that we aren't asking vendors to stop implementing the Suite B algorithms and we aren't asking our national security customers to stop using these algorithms. Rather, we want to give more flexibility to vendors and our customers in the present as we prepare for a quantum safe future."NSA seriously worried about quantum computersThe NSA states that companies, particularly those using layered commercial solutions to protect classified national security information, should start implementing key agreement schemes that use large symmetric pre-shared keys – currently the only way to make confidential information quantum-resistant.Of course, the NSA's reputation hasn't been great with the public since Edward Snowden's revelations, and even before that, the US agency alienated cryptographers when it was discovered in 2013 that its Dual_EC_DRBG standard contained a backdoor allowing NSA to decrypt data.And yet, the NSA seems to be genuinely worried about what quantum computers could do in the wrong hands. "Our ultimate goal is to provide cost effective security against a potential quantum computer," stressed the NSA."We are working with partners across the USG, vendors, and standards bodies to ensure there is a clear plan for getting a new suite of algorithms that are developed in an open and transparent manner that will form the foundation of our next Suite of cryptographic algorithms."
Experts at the National Security Agency are deeply worried that the current security cryptography used to protect almost all electronic data over the past 50 years will easily be unravelled by hackers once quantum computers become a reality.
Public-key cryptography systems are currently used to protect everything from emails to online payment transactions, as well as confidential health and financial records. These systems offer end-to-end encryption using two separate keys, one private and one public, that are linked mathematically by complex algorithms that are difficult for computers today to solve.
Although quantum computers are still only a concept, many computer scientists believe that the super-powerful computers will be available within the next 50 years, and that they will be able to solve extremely large numbers quickly, such as seen in recent demonstrations of Shor's algorithm.
Since complex mathematical problems like integer factorisation, discrete logarithm mod primes and elliptic curve discrete logs are essential to public key encryption systems, quantum computing puts them at risk.
The NSA, which developed the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) standard in the 1970s, has long been advising US firms and agencies to use Suite B cryptographic algorithms, which include 3072 bit RSA encryption, Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 256 bit keys and Elliptic Curve P-384 to secure their computer systems.
However, now the NSA is advising companies and government agencies that haven't yet invested in these protections to consider focusing instead on quantum-resistant algorithms. "Unfortunately, the growth of elliptic curve use has bumped up against the fact of continued progress in the research on quantum computing, which has made it clear that elliptic curve cryptography is not the long-term solution many once hoped it would be. Thus, we have been obligated to update our strategy," the NSA said in its release.
"It is important to note that we aren't asking vendors to stop implementing the Suite B algorithms and we aren't asking our national security customers to stop using these algorithms. Rather, we want to give more flexibility to vendors and our customers in the present as we prepare for a quantum safe future."
The NSA states that companies, particularly those using layered commercial solutions to protect classified national security information, should start implementing key agreement schemes that use large symmetric pre-shared keys – currently the only way to make confidential information quantum-resistant.
Of course, the NSA's reputation hasn't been great with the public since Edward Snowden's revelations, and even before that, the US agency alienated cryptographers when it was discovered in 2013 that its Dual_EC_DRBG standard contained a backdoor allowing NSA to decrypt data.
And yet, the NSA seems to be genuinely worried about what quantum computers could do in the wrong hands. "Our ultimate goal is to provide cost effective security against a potential quantum computer," stressed the NSA.
"We are working with partners across the USG, vendors, and standards bodies to ensure there is a clear plan for getting a new suite of algorithms that are developed in an open and transparent manner that will form the foundation of our next Suite of cryptographic algorithms."
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nsa-worried-that-quantum-computing-will-foil-cryptography-protecting-all-data-date-1516795
Microsoft is pushing KB3075249 and KB3080149 updates for Windows 7/8/8.1 users which can spy on you Windows 10 has been launched and already installed by more than 50 million users worldwide. It is now a known fact that Windows 10 user data is being reported back to Microsoft servers back in Redmond. The jury is still out whether this a good or bad practice but many of Windows 10 Apps like Cortana depend on getting your preferences correct to serve you better. This being the case, many Windows users who are not happy with Windows 10 spying ways and have preferred to stay on with Windows 7/Windows 8 and Window 8.1 as the case might be. For these Windows 7/8/8.1 users there are a few updates which Microsoft has been pushing through last few days. Namely, KB3075249 and KB3080149, if installed are known to report your data back to Microsoft servers. KB3075249 update adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7. The Microsoft support page gives following description for them : KB3075249 “Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 ” http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3075249 KB3080149 “This update aligns down-level devices on the same UTC binary that’s released in Windows 10. This update would enable all the down-level devices to receive the software updates, design updates, and additional power and performance tuning.” http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3080149 In simple words, both these updates, if downloaded and installed will snoop on you and report back certain data to the Microsoft servers.
Windows 10 has been launched and already installed by more than 50 million users worldwide. It is now a known fact that Windows 10 user data is being reported back to Microsoft servers back in Redmond. The jury is still out whether this a good or bad practice but many of Windows 10 Apps like Cortana depend on getting your preferences correct to serve you better.
This being the case, many Windows users who are not happy with Windows 10 spying ways and have preferred to stay on with Windows 7/Windows 8 and Window 8.1 as the case might be. For these Windows 7/8/8.1 users there are a few updates which Microsoft has been pushing through last few days.
Namely, KB3075249 and KB3080149, if installed are known to report your data back to Microsoft servers.
KB3075249 update adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7. The Microsoft support page gives following description for them :
KB3075249 “Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 ” http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3075249
KB3080149 “This update aligns down-level devices on the same UTC binary that’s released in Windows 10. This update would enable all the down-level devices to receive the software updates, design updates, and additional power and performance tuning.” http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3080149
In simple words, both these updates, if downloaded and installed will snoop on you and report back certain data to the Microsoft servers.
Read more @ http://www.techworm.net/2015/08/new-windows-788-1-updates-spy-on-you-just-like-windows-10.html
Aug 30 15 10:59 AM
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is hunted again; FBI demands extradition
National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is back in the news again, with the FBI demanding his arrest and extradition if he flew to any the Scandinavian countries to claim asylum. According to newly released documents, the FBI wrote a letter to the police forces in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, asking them to report Snowden’s whereabouts as the U.S. Department of Justice has charged Snowden with theft and espionage, and issue a provisional arrest warrant. “The FBI expresses its gratitude … for any assistance that can be provided on this important matter,” the letter, issued on June 27, stated. Back in 2013, Edward Snowden, who was an NSA recruit, had leaked massive data of U.S. and British surveillance of digital communications, showing to what extent NSA had collected phone records of millions of Verizon customers every day, resulting in the breach of security and privacy. Immediately after the leak, Snowden left for Hong Kong and then left for Moscow shortly after. While in Hong Kong, he sought help from Wikileaks, which arranged and helped him travel to Moscow. He also tried to apply for asylum in Scandinavian countries, especially Norway, at the Moscow airport. But due to shortage of time, he had to leave. On the same day, the U.S. embassy in Oslo wrote a letter to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, requesting the Norway government to return Snowden to his country, where he is wanted for his crime, “by way of denial of entry, deportation, expulsion or other legal means.” Failing to get a response, the embassy wrote another letter, repeating its request of arresting and extraditing Snowden to the U.S. following the 1977 extradition treaty between the two countries. Snowden’s lawyer Ben Wizner spoke on the possibility of the U.S. government sending similar requests to most of the countries in and outside Europe at the same time.
National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is back in the news again, with the FBI demanding his arrest and extradition if he flew to any the Scandinavian countries to claim asylum.
According to newly released documents, the FBI wrote a letter to the police forces in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, asking them to report Snowden’s whereabouts as the U.S. Department of Justice has charged Snowden with theft and espionage, and issue a provisional arrest warrant.
“The FBI expresses its gratitude … for any assistance that can be provided on this important matter,” the letter, issued on June 27, stated.
Back in 2013, Edward Snowden, who was an NSA recruit, had leaked massive data of U.S. and British surveillance of digital communications, showing to what extent NSA had collected phone records of millions of Verizon customers every day, resulting in the breach of security and privacy.
Immediately after the leak, Snowden left for Hong Kong and then left for Moscow shortly after. While in Hong Kong, he sought help from Wikileaks, which arranged and helped him travel to Moscow. He also tried to apply for asylum in Scandinavian countries, especially Norway, at the Moscow airport. But due to shortage of time, he had to leave.
On the same day, the U.S. embassy in Oslo wrote a letter to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, requesting the Norway government to return Snowden to his country, where he is wanted for his crime, “by way of denial of entry, deportation, expulsion or other legal means.”
Failing to get a response, the embassy wrote another letter, repeating its request of arresting and extraditing Snowden to the U.S. following the 1977 extradition treaty between the two countries. Snowden’s lawyer Ben Wizner spoke on the possibility of the U.S. government sending similar requests to most of the countries in and outside Europe at the same time.
Read more @ http://www.ibtimes.com.au/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-hunted-again-fbi-demands-extradition-1463139
The US repeatedly asked Norway to detain and deport whistleblower Edward Snowden if he tried to enter its territory in the aftermath of his leaks on mass US global surveillance, Norwegian media revealed citing formal requests. Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs received the first letter from Washington shortly after the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor’s revelations went public when he was stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport. The note, dated June 27, 2013, was quoted by Norway’s NRK broadcaster: “We request that should US citizen Edward J. Snowden attempt to enter Norway through any means, the Government of Norway notify the Embassy immediately and effectuate the return of Mr. Snowden to the United States by way of denial of entry, deportation, expulsion or other lawful means.” On the same day, the FBI’s Scandinavia office followed up with another letter addressed to justice authorities in Norway, Sweden and Finland. It described Snowden as a criminal fugitive and urged them to notify American personnel if the whistleblower booked a flight to one of their countries from Moscow. USA asked Norway, Sweden, Iceland to arrest Edward Snowden http://t.co/OzEVAQPi2j — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 27, 2015 These correspondences were followed up with a separate message to Norway’s Department of Foreign Affairs on July 4, 2013, requesting that Snowden be arrested and extradited if he were to attempt to enter Norwegian territory. “The United States urges that Snowden be kept in custody, if arrested,” the note said. READ MORE: PACE calls on US to stop persecuting Snowden The language in documents revealed by NRK reflects how desperately the US wanted to contain the information Snowden had in his possession. “The Embassy requests the seizure of all articles acquired as a result of the offenses (..) This includes, but is not limited to, all computer devices, electronic storage devices and other sorts of electronic media.” The most problematic aspect of the US making such bullish requests is that Snowden would have been denied his international right to apply for asylum before being arrested had the countries complied, Snowden’s lawyer Ben Wizner told NRK. “What is troubling to me is the suggestion that if Mr. Snowden showed up in one of these countries, he should be promptly extradited – before he would have a chance to raise his humanitarian rights under international law,” he said. “The only correct response from political leaders in Norway or any other free society should be to tell the US that this is a question of law and not a question of politics. And that, under international law, someone who is charged with a political offense has a right to raise a claim for asylum before the question of extradition even comes up.” Norway: Hey Snowden here's a prize, now could you head to the court so we can decide if we wanna extradite you kthx: http://t.co/c32K8wKX3G — Jenna McLaughlin (@JennaMC_Laugh) August 27, 2015 Snowden has been invited to Norway to receive the prestigious Bjørnson Prize by the Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson Academy for freedom of expression. The award is being presented to Snowden “for work protecting privacy and for shining a critical light on US surveillance of its citizens and others.” However, it is still unclear whether Norway would arrest Snowden if he attempted to enter the country. Norway’s Justice and Foreign Affairs departments said that the US’ requests had not been answered because, under Norwegian law, no country can make an extradition request until the alleged criminal is actually on Norwegian territory. Jøran Kallemyr, State Secretary in Norway’s Department of Justice, confirmed this view: “What Norway has done is to inform the American authorities how the Norwegian system works,” he said. “If they request an extradition, the prosecuting authorities will decide if the case should be brought before the courts. And the court will decide if the terms for extradition are fulfilled.” READ MORE: US aggressively threatened to 'cut off' Germany over Snowden asylum - report Norway is not the only country reportedly bullied to hand over Snowden. Washington threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Berlin should Germany offer asylum to Snowden or even try to arrange any kind of travel to Germany, according to a report by journalist Glenn Greenwald.
The US repeatedly asked Norway to detain and deport whistleblower Edward Snowden if he tried to enter its territory in the aftermath of his leaks on mass US global surveillance, Norwegian media revealed citing formal requests.
Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs received the first letter from Washington shortly after the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor’s revelations went public when he was stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport.
The note, dated June 27, 2013, was quoted by Norway’s NRK broadcaster: “We request that should US citizen Edward J. Snowden attempt to enter Norway through any means, the Government of Norway notify the Embassy immediately and effectuate the return of Mr. Snowden to the United States by way of denial of entry, deportation, expulsion or other lawful means.”
On the same day, the FBI’s Scandinavia office followed up with another letter addressed to justice authorities in Norway, Sweden and Finland. It described Snowden as a criminal fugitive and urged them to notify American personnel if the whistleblower booked a flight to one of their countries from Moscow.
USA asked Norway, Sweden, Iceland to arrest Edward Snowden http://t.co/OzEVAQPi2j
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 27, 2015
These correspondences were followed up with a separate message to Norway’s Department of Foreign Affairs on July 4, 2013, requesting that Snowden be arrested and extradited if he were to attempt to enter Norwegian territory. “The United States urges that Snowden be kept in custody, if arrested,” the note said.
READ MORE: PACE calls on US to stop persecuting Snowden
The language in documents revealed by NRK reflects how desperately the US wanted to contain the information Snowden had in his possession.
“The Embassy requests the seizure of all articles acquired as a result of the offenses (..) This includes, but is not limited to, all computer devices, electronic storage devices and other sorts of electronic media.”
The most problematic aspect of the US making such bullish requests is that Snowden would have been denied his international right to apply for asylum before being arrested had the countries complied, Snowden’s lawyer Ben Wizner told NRK.
“What is troubling to me is the suggestion that if Mr. Snowden showed up in one of these countries, he should be promptly extradited – before he would have a chance to raise his humanitarian rights under international law,” he said.
“The only correct response from political leaders in Norway or any other free society should be to tell the US that this is a question of law and not a question of politics. And that, under international law, someone who is charged with a political offense has a right to raise a claim for asylum before the question of extradition even comes up.”
Norway: Hey Snowden here's a prize, now could you head to the court so we can decide if we wanna extradite you kthx: http://t.co/c32K8wKX3G
— Jenna McLaughlin (@JennaMC_Laugh) August 27, 2015
Snowden has been invited to Norway to receive the prestigious Bjørnson Prize by the Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson Academy for freedom of expression. The award is being presented to Snowden “for work protecting privacy and for shining a critical light on US surveillance of its citizens and others.”
However, it is still unclear whether Norway would arrest Snowden if he attempted to enter the country.
Norway’s Justice and Foreign Affairs departments said that the US’ requests had not been answered because, under Norwegian law, no country can make an extradition request until the alleged criminal is actually on Norwegian territory.
Jøran Kallemyr, State Secretary in Norway’s Department of Justice, confirmed this view: “What Norway has done is to inform the American authorities how the Norwegian system works,” he said. “If they request an extradition, the prosecuting authorities will decide if the case should be brought before the courts. And the court will decide if the terms for extradition are fulfilled.”
READ MORE: US aggressively threatened to 'cut off' Germany over Snowden asylum - report
Norway is not the only country reportedly bullied to hand over Snowden. Washington threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Berlin should Germany offer asylum to Snowden or even try to arrange any kind of travel to Germany, according to a report by journalist Glenn Greenwald.
Read more @ http://www.rt.com/news/313663-snowden-norway-us-pressure/
EDWARD SNOWDEN CRAYFISH: NSA WHISTLEBLOWER HAS NEW SPECIES OF CRAYFISH NAMED AFTER HIM
In 2013, Edward Snowden became a household name when the former government contractor and CIA employee leaked tens of thousands of classified intelligence files that he copied from the National Security Agency (NSA). Many called Snowden an American hero, and many others called him a traitor. One man who falls into the category of the former is Christian Lukhaup, a research associate at Humbold University in Berlin. To honor Snowden — who he called “an American freedom fighter” in a recent paper — Lukhaup has decided to name a newly discovered species of crayfish after the NSA leaker. “The new species is named after the american freedom fighter Edward Joseph Snowden. He is honored due to of his extraordinary achievements in defense of justice, and freedom. The name is used as a noun in apposition.” The Edward Snowden crayfish — officially named Cherax snowden — was first discovered by Lukhaup in 2006 when he retrieved a specimen from a collector in Kepala Burung in the province of West Papua, Indonesia. That Cherax snowden remained the only one Lukhaup would be able to get his hands on until earlier this year when he and other researchers obtained some specimens from an online store in Germany that sold freshwater invertebrates, and more from a wholesale distributor in Indonesia. With more than one single specimen on hand, researchers were finally able to extract DNA from Cherax snowden to prove that it was, in fact, an as of yet undescribed species of crayfish.
In 2013, Edward Snowden became a household name when the former government contractor and CIA employee leaked tens of thousands of classified intelligence files that he copied from the National Security Agency (NSA). Many called Snowden an American hero, and many others called him a traitor. One man who falls into the category of the former is Christian Lukhaup, a research associate at Humbold University in Berlin.
To honor Snowden — who he called “an American freedom fighter” in a recent paper — Lukhaup has decided to name a newly discovered species of crayfish after the NSA leaker.
“The new species is named after the american freedom fighter Edward Joseph Snowden. He is honored due to of his extraordinary achievements in defense of justice, and freedom. The name is used as a noun in apposition.”
The Edward Snowden crayfish — officially named Cherax snowden — was first discovered by Lukhaup in 2006 when he retrieved a specimen from a collector in Kepala Burung in the province of West Papua, Indonesia. That Cherax snowden remained the only one Lukhaup would be able to get his hands on until earlier this year when he and other researchers obtained some specimens from an online store in Germany that sold freshwater invertebrates, and more from a wholesale distributor in Indonesia.
With more than one single specimen on hand, researchers were finally able to extract DNA from Cherax snowden to prove that it was, in fact, an as of yet undescribed species of crayfish.
Read more @ http://www.inquisitr.com/2374746/edward-snowden-crayfish-nsa-whistleblower-has-new-species-of-crayfish-named-after-him/
Read more @ http://www.techtimes.com/articles/79326/20150826/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-gets-a-crayfish-named-after-him.htm
WikiLeaks founder says he told the NSA whistleblower he could be kidnapped or killed, and that he was better off sheltering in Russia despite ‘negative PR’ Julian Assange has said he advised the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden against seeking asylum in Latin America because he could have been kidnapped and possibly killed there. The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief said he told Snowden to ignore concerns about the “negative PR consequences” of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA’s influence did not reach. In a wide-ranging interview with the Times, Assange also said he feared he would be assassinated if he was ever able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition. He accused US officials of breaking the law in their pursuit of him and his whistleblowing organisation, and in subjecting his connections to a campaign of harassment.
WikiLeaks founder says he told the NSA whistleblower he could be kidnapped or killed, and that he was better off sheltering in Russia despite ‘negative PR’
Julian Assange has said he advised the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden against seeking asylum in Latin America because he could have been kidnapped and possibly killed there.
The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief said he told Snowden to ignore concerns about the “negative PR consequences” of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA’s influence did not reach.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Times, Assange also said he feared he would be assassinated if he was ever able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition.
He accused US officials of breaking the law in their pursuit of him and his whistleblowing organisation, and in subjecting his connections to a campaign of harassment.
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/29/julian-assange-told-edward-snowdon-not-seek-asylum-in-latin-america
Snowden Effect: Intel Agency Restrictions Reflects Global Spying Crackdown
Authorities in the UK and Germany are cracking down on intelligence activities as public opinion swings against mass surveillance, coupled with heavy criticism from human rights groups and setbacks at the European Court of Human Rights. Following a wave of scandals, spy agencies around the world are coming under pressure to be more open about their actions. It follows the repealing of powers held by US services, with leaks like the Snowden revelations paving the way for an unprecedented reduction in the power of security services. Now, authorities in the UK and Germany are cracking down on intelligence activities as public opinion swings against mass surveillance, coupled with heavy criticism from human rights groups and setbacks at the European Court of Human Rights. In Germany, Angela Merkel’s coalition of lawmakers have made plans to create a post for a “permanent expert” to oversee the actions of Germany’s security services. These developments come as a direct reaction to revelations that spies from Germany’s BND had been relaying information gathered on various German companies and European allies to the American National Security Agency (NSA), while there were also accusations that Chancellor Merkel’s office did nothing to prevent the practice. Extra Pressure on Intel Agencies The additional scrutiny on German spies follows developments in the US, with the country’s recently implemented Freedom Act repealing many of the powers previously held by the NSA under the old Patriot Act. From June, the NSA hasn’t been allowed to engage in the mass collection of Americans’ phone records, while a public interest advocate has been appointed to oversee the implementation of surveillance programs. The UK’s intelligence agencies have also been pulled up for their actions as a result of the Snowden leaks, with communications agency GCHQ found guilty in February of taking part in an unlawful information-sharing agreement with the NSA that went on for seven years. This was followed up by another ruling in Britain’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in June, which found the agency guilty of illegally spying on two human rights groups. In reaction to the decision, Eric King, deputy director of civil rights group Privacy International, said that more needed to be done to control the actions of security services. “Clearly our spy agencies have lost their way. For too long they’ve been trusted with too much power, and too few rules for them to protect against abuse. How many more problems with GCHQ’s secret procedures have to be revealed for them to be Brought Under Control? ” Snowden: The Legacy of the Leaks The increase in scrutiny and reduction in powers for security agencies has in large been triggered by the revelations of former NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden. These revelations, along with other leaks from organizations like WikiLeaks, which have uncovered a series of illegal practices undertaken by intelligence agencies in many countries, such as the US, UK and Germany. This has led to an unprecedented shift in the nature of intelligence legislation in some countries, with security services witnessing a reduction in their powers for the first time in the post 9/11 era, defined by the West’s commitment to the war on terror. However despite claims that agencies are working in the interest of national security, critics say the overbearing surveillance practices contradict and question many civil liberties. Despite the restrictions in the United States and Germany, the Britain appears to be heading in the opposite direction when it comes to surveillance policy, with the UK’s Conservative government revealing plans to give spy agencies MI5, MI6 and GCHQ more powers to deal with threats to national security The government has outlined its highly controversial plan to introduce the Investigatory Powers Bill, dubbed the ‘Snooper’s Charter,’ which would give agencies more powers and force Internet companies to log and track users’ web history for up to year to allow for police and security service access.
Authorities in the UK and Germany are cracking down on intelligence activities as public opinion swings against mass surveillance, coupled with heavy criticism from human rights groups and setbacks at the European Court of Human Rights.
Following a wave of scandals, spy agencies around the world are coming under pressure to be more open about their actions. It follows the repealing of powers held by US services, with leaks like the Snowden revelations paving the way for an unprecedented reduction in the power of security services.
Now, authorities in the UK and Germany are cracking down on intelligence activities as public opinion swings against mass surveillance, coupled with heavy criticism from human rights groups and setbacks at the European Court of Human Rights.
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s coalition of lawmakers have made plans to create a post for a “permanent expert” to oversee the actions of Germany’s security services.
These developments come as a direct reaction to revelations that spies from Germany’s BND had been relaying information gathered on various German companies and European allies to the American National Security Agency (NSA), while there were also accusations that Chancellor Merkel’s office did nothing to prevent the practice.
The additional scrutiny on German spies follows developments in the US, with the country’s recently implemented Freedom Act repealing many of the powers previously held by the NSA under the old Patriot Act.
From June, the NSA hasn’t been allowed to engage in the mass collection of Americans’ phone records, while a public interest advocate has been appointed to oversee the implementation of surveillance programs.
The UK’s intelligence agencies have also been pulled up for their actions as a result of the Snowden leaks, with communications agency GCHQ found guilty in February of taking part in an unlawful information-sharing agreement with the NSA that went on for seven years.
This was followed up by another ruling in Britain’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in June, which found the agency guilty of illegally spying on two human rights groups.
In reaction to the decision, Eric King, deputy director of civil rights group Privacy International, said that more needed to be done to control the actions of security services.
“Clearly our spy agencies have lost their way. For too long they’ve been trusted with too much power, and too few rules for them to protect against abuse. How many more problems with GCHQ’s secret procedures have to be revealed for them to be Brought Under Control? ”
The increase in scrutiny and reduction in powers for security agencies has in large been triggered by the revelations of former NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden.
These revelations, along with other leaks from organizations like WikiLeaks, which have uncovered a series of illegal practices undertaken by intelligence agencies in many countries, such as the US, UK and Germany.
This has led to an unprecedented shift in the nature of intelligence legislation in some countries, with security services witnessing a reduction in their powers for the first time in the post 9/11 era, defined by the West’s commitment to the war on terror.
However despite claims that agencies are working in the interest of national security, critics say the overbearing surveillance practices contradict and question many civil liberties.
Despite the restrictions in the United States and Germany, the Britain appears to be heading in the opposite direction when it comes to surveillance policy, with the UK’s Conservative government revealing plans to give spy agencies MI5, MI6 and GCHQ more powers to deal with threats to national security
The government has outlined its highly controversial plan to introduce the Investigatory Powers Bill, dubbed the ‘Snooper’s Charter,’ which would give agencies more powers and force Internet companies to log and track users’ web history for up to year to allow for police and security service access.
Read more @ http://www.mintpressnews.com/snowden-effect-intel-agency-restrictions-reflects-global-spying-crackdown/208960/
Barney Jopson and Shawn Donnan in Washington A US appeals court has thrown out a lower court’s ruling that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ phone records is unconstitutional, adding to the legal uncertainty over the controversial spying programme. The ruling by a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit threw out a December 2013 injunction that banned the NSA from collecting in bulk the so-called “metadata” of US telephone users which track to whom calls are placed and how long they last.
Barney Jopson and Shawn Donnan in Washington
A US appeals court has thrown out a lower court’s ruling that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ phone records is unconstitutional, adding to the legal uncertainty over the controversial spying programme.
The ruling by a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit threw out a December 2013 injunction that banned the NSA from collecting in bulk the so-called “metadata” of US telephone users which track to whom calls are placed and how long they last.
Read more @ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6615fa84-4d99-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html
Here’s a big problem with secret spying programs in the US: To dismantle them with a lawsuit, someone has to prove that their privacy rights were infringed. And that proof is almost always a secret. That’s the Catch-22 that an appeals court served up Friday to plaintiffs who for the last two years have been attacking the NSA’s metadata collection program authorized under section 215 of the Patriot Act. The plaintiffs are led by constitutional lawyer and conservative activist Larry Klayman, who had sued the Obama administration for violating his fourth amendment privacy rights. In 2013, a lower court granted his a request for an injunction to stop the NSA’s spying on his data. But the Obama administration appealed that ruling, and an appellate court has now thrown out that injunction based on a familiar and vexing problem for those who sue the government’s secret spying apparatus: The plaintiffs couldn’t sufficiently prove that the NSA secretly spied on them. “In order to establish his standing to sue, a plaintiff must show he has suffered a ‘concrete and particularized’ injury,” wrote judge Janice Rogers Brown in her opinion. “In other words, plaintiffs here must show their own metadata was collected by the government…the facts marshaled by plaintiffs do not fully establish that their own metadata was ever collected.” Klayman first launched his lawsuit, after all, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations that the NSA had interpreted the Patriot Act to allow the collection of any American’s metadata. But Judge Brown pointed out, for instance, that Snowden had leaked a document showing that the NSA was collecting metadata from all users of Verizon’s Business Network Services—not Verizon Wireless, of which Klayman was a customer. Though the NSA has since claimed that virtually every wireless carrier was fair game for that domestic spying program, Brown argued Klayman’s inability to prove his communications were included in that spying still removed his grounds for an injunction.
Here’s a big problem with secret spying programs in the US: To dismantle them with a lawsuit, someone has to prove that their privacy rights were infringed. And that proof is almost always a secret.
That’s the Catch-22 that an appeals court served up Friday to plaintiffs who for the last two years have been attacking the NSA’s metadata collection program authorized under section 215 of the Patriot Act. The plaintiffs are led by constitutional lawyer and conservative activist Larry Klayman, who had sued the Obama administration for violating his fourth amendment privacy rights. In 2013, a lower court granted his a request for an injunction to stop the NSA’s spying on his data. But the Obama administration appealed that ruling, and an appellate court has now thrown out that injunction based on a familiar and vexing problem for those who sue the government’s secret spying apparatus: The plaintiffs couldn’t sufficiently prove that the NSA secretly spied on them.
“In order to establish his standing to sue, a plaintiff must show he has suffered a ‘concrete and particularized’ injury,” wrote judge Janice Rogers Brown in her opinion. “In other words, plaintiffs here must show their own metadata was collected by the government…the facts marshaled by plaintiffs do not fully establish that their own metadata was ever collected.”
Klayman first launched his lawsuit, after all, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations that the NSA had interpreted the Patriot Act to allow the collection of any American’s metadata.
But Judge Brown pointed out, for instance, that Snowden had leaked a document showing that the NSA was collecting metadata from all users of Verizon’s Business Network Services—not Verizon Wireless, of which Klayman was a customer. Though the NSA has since claimed that virtually every wireless carrier was fair game for that domestic spying program, Brown argued Klayman’s inability to prove his communications were included in that spying still removed his grounds for an injunction.
Read more @ http://www.wired.com/2015/08/hard-sue-nsa-prove-spied/
Maybe they should create a tribunal to deal with the spies because courts are another government outlet…. That means government run courts are dealing out verdicts on another government run organizations….. it does not make sense. It has to be a tribunal of sorts with no connections to governments or corporations and no one with relatives with connections to either.
Judges found that the man who brought the case, Larry Klayman, could not prove his particular phone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets A federal appeals court has rejected a high-profile challenge to the ongoing mass collection of US phone data by the National Security Agency without ruling on the merits of bulk surveillance. Judges for the District of Columbia court of appeals found that the man who brought the case, conservative lawyer Larry Klayman, could not prove that his particular cellphone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets. The ruling reversed an injunction from a lower court on the phone records surveillance program – but only in a technical sense, as the injunction never actually went into force. But the judges’ decision does not impact that of a different federal appeals court, which in May found that the bulk phone records collection lacked a foundation in law. That ruling, by the second circuit court of appeals, added momentum to a congressional rollback of the surveillance program that has yet to take effect. In their ruling, judges Janice Rogers Brown, Stephen Williams and David Sentelle wrote: “The record, as it stands in the very early stages of this litigation, leaves some doubt about whether plaintiffs’ own metadata was ever collected.” Klayman shot back, telling the Guardian the judges were “intellectually dishonest” as the widespread nature of NSA bulk phone records collection has been on display for more than two years since whistleblower Edward Snowden’s surveillance disclosures. “It’s outrageous this court would allow the constitutional rights of Americans to be trampled upon,” Klayman said. “The court has become the tool of the establishment.”
Judges found that the man who brought the case, Larry Klayman, could not prove his particular phone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets
A federal appeals court has rejected a high-profile challenge to the ongoing mass collection of US phone data by the National Security Agency without ruling on the merits of bulk surveillance.
Judges for the District of Columbia court of appeals found that the man who brought the case, conservative lawyer Larry Klayman, could not prove that his particular cellphone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets.
The ruling reversed an injunction from a lower court on the phone records surveillance program – but only in a technical sense, as the injunction never actually went into force.
But the judges’ decision does not impact that of a different federal appeals court, which in May found that the bulk phone records collection lacked a foundation in law. That ruling, by the second circuit court of appeals, added momentum to a congressional rollback of the surveillance program that has yet to take effect.
In their ruling, judges Janice Rogers Brown, Stephen Williams and David Sentelle wrote: “The record, as it stands in the very early stages of this litigation, leaves some doubt about whether plaintiffs’ own metadata was ever collected.”
Klayman shot back, telling the Guardian the judges were “intellectually dishonest” as the widespread nature of NSA bulk phone records collection has been on display for more than two years since whistleblower Edward Snowden’s surveillance disclosures.
“It’s outrageous this court would allow the constitutional rights of Americans to be trampled upon,” Klayman said. “The court has become the tool of the establishment.”
Read more @ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/28/appeals-court-rejects-challenge-nsa-phone-data-collection
A US appeals court has ruled in favour of the government in a case challenging the National Security Agency's collection of millions of phone records. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a decision by a lower court that found the program was likely illegal and sent the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration. US President Barack Obama signed into law reforms to the program earlier this year, but legal challenges continue to make their way through the courts because the changes are not due to take effect until November 29. The court's finding means the NSA can continue to collect the phone records until the changes go into effect.
A US appeals court has ruled in favour of the government in a case challenging the National Security Agency's collection of millions of phone records.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a decision by a lower court that found the program was likely illegal and sent the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration.
US President Barack Obama signed into law reforms to the program earlier this year, but legal challenges continue to make their way through the courts because the changes are not due to take effect until November 29.
The court's finding means the NSA can continue to collect the phone records until the changes go into effect.
Read more @ http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/nthamerica/2015/08/29/us-court-upholds-nsa-bulk-phone-spying.html
Read more @ http://tvnewsroom.org/newslines/u-s/us-court-rules-for-government-over-nsa-metadata-collection-program-107854/
The 2013 decision ordering the US National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its collection of phone records has been overturned by a federal appeals court, which determined that a privacy advocate did not sufficiently demonstrate his data was collected through the program. According to TechCrunch and the Wall Street Journal, the three-judge panel issued its decision on Friday, as two of those judges wrote that they doubted longtime conservative activist named Larry Klayman would be able to prove that his phone records had been collected under the NSA surveillance program, and thus did not have standing to bring the case.
The 2013 decision ordering the US National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its collection of phone records has been overturned by a federal appeals court, which determined that a privacy advocate did not sufficiently demonstrate his data was collected through the program.
According to TechCrunch and the Wall Street Journal, the three-judge panel issued its decision on Friday, as two of those judges wrote that they doubted longtime conservative activist named Larry Klayman would be able to prove that his phone records had been collected under the NSA surveillance program, and thus did not have standing to bring the case.
Read more @ http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1113408265/court-overturns-nsa-phone-record-collection-ruling-082915/
Read more @ http://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-reverses-judges-order-against-nsa-phone-surveillance-1440774423
Read more @ http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/583372/nsa-wins-battle-over-its-phone-records-collection-court-lifts-injunction-fight-isn-t-over/?fp=2&fpid=1
The US government cannot deny enlisting private companies for espionage, given recent revelations by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden on AT&T’s collusion with the NSA, former AT&T technician turned whistleblower Mark Klein told Sputnik on Monday. WASHINGTON (Sputnik), Leandra Bernstein — On Saturday, The New York Times published a story detailing the close collaboration between telecommunications giant AT&T and the NSA. According to documents provided by Snowden, AT&T maintained a "highly collaborative" relationship with the NSA on a broad range of classified activities, including tapping all internet communications from certain customers. "Snowden blew the government out of the water because he had documents from the ‘horse’s mouth’ — the NSA — which cannot be denied by the government, and it’s a good thing it’s now all out there," Klein said. The program is known to have been operational from 2003 until at least 2013, when Snowden left the NSA. Klein said he feels "vindicated" over the release of the latest Snowden leaks on AT&T.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik), Leandra Bernstein — On Saturday, The New York Times published a story detailing the close collaboration between telecommunications giant AT&T and the NSA.
According to documents provided by Snowden, AT&T maintained a "highly collaborative" relationship with the NSA on a broad range of classified activities, including tapping all internet communications from certain customers.
"Snowden blew the government out of the water because he had documents from the ‘horse’s mouth’ — the NSA — which cannot be denied by the government, and it’s a good thing it’s now all out there," Klein said.
The program is known to have been operational from 2003 until at least 2013, when Snowden left the NSA.
Klein said he feels "vindicated" over the release of the latest Snowden leaks on AT&T.
Read more @ http://sputniknews.com/military/20150818/1025856295.html
It has been 8 years since Matt Damon (EuroTrip) played Jason Bourne -- 2007s The Bourne Ultimatum. Since then, the world has changed quite a bit and two major developments: Edward Snowden exposing the NSA's questionable surveillance practices and Greece's financial crisis that shook the European Union (EU), inspired Damon and director Paul Greengrass to return to the Bourne franchise. "Without giving too much of it away, it’s Bourne through an austerity-riddled Europe and in a post-Snowden world," Damon told BuzzFeed while promoting The Martian. "It seems like enough has changed, you know? There are all these kinds of arguments about spying and civil liberties and the nature of democracy."
It has been 8 years since Matt Damon (EuroTrip) played Jason Bourne -- 2007s The Bourne Ultimatum. Since then, the world has changed quite a bit and two major developments: Edward Snowden exposing the NSA's questionable surveillance practices and Greece's financial crisis that shook the European Union (EU), inspired Damon and director Paul Greengrass to return to the Bourne franchise.
"Without giving too much of it away, it’s Bourne through an austerity-riddled Europe and in a post-Snowden world," Damon told BuzzFeed while promoting The Martian. "It seems like enough has changed, you know? There are all these kinds of arguments about spying and civil liberties and the nature of democracy."
Read more @ http://comicbook.com/2015/08/29/matt-damon-says-new-bourne-film-inspired-by-edward-snowden-greek/
It’s been eight years since we last saw Matt Damon as Jason Bourne. Apparently, that time lag was no accident. In a recent interview with BuzzFeed, Damon said that he and director Paul Greengrass would talk every few years about new Bourne, but it wasn’t until recently, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s NSA whistleblowing and the Greek austerity debates, that they felt the world had changed enough to merit a new story. “We always looked at those movies as really about the Bush presidency, and so we kind of had to wait for the world to change,” Damon told BuzzFeed. “Without giving too much of it away, it’s Bourne through an austerity-riddled Europe and in a post-Snowden world. It seems like enough has changed, you know? There are all these kinds of arguments about spying and civil liberties and the nature of democracy.” According to Damon, the new film will begin in Greece, both the birthplace of democracy and the center of much recent political turmoil in Europe.
It’s been eight years since we last saw Matt Damon as Jason Bourne. Apparently, that time lag was no accident. In a recent interview with BuzzFeed, Damon said that he and director Paul Greengrass would talk every few years about new Bourne, but it wasn’t until recently, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s NSA whistleblowing and the Greek austerity debates, that they felt the world had changed enough to merit a new story.
“We always looked at those movies as really about the Bush presidency, and so we kind of had to wait for the world to change,” Damon told BuzzFeed. “Without giving too much of it away, it’s Bourne through an austerity-riddled Europe and in a post-Snowden world. It seems like enough has changed, you know? There are all these kinds of arguments about spying and civil liberties and the nature of democracy.”
According to Damon, the new film will begin in Greece, both the birthplace of democracy and the center of much recent political turmoil in Europe.
Read more @ http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/28/matt-damon-bourne-snowden
From surveillance to drone attacks, advances in technology are so swift that it's difficult for anyone even to keep up with the latest innovations, much less to resolve how to adjust legal regimes to the digital agel, writes David Cole On June 2, 2015, after a US Senate cliffhanger that featured a lengthy filibuster by Rand Paul and a resounding defeat for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Congress enacted the USA Freedom Act. The act, whose name echoes the USA Patriot Act, does not exactly mark the restoration of freedom. But it is the first time Congress has limited intelligence powers since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The act ended, at least partially, the National Security Agency's collection in bulk of nearly every American's phone records. It requires the government to limit its demands for phone data and other business records to those related to specific "selectors" – for example, names, phone numbers or addresses suspected of terrorism. The act also improved the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court process, by requiring the appointment of lawyers with security clearances to argue for privacy in the court's closed-door sessions, until now attended only by the government. And it increased transparency, requiring the government to report on the frequency of its demands for records, and allowing businesses to report how many times they have been approached for records. These are significant victories for privacy. But consider what the USA Freedom Act didn't do. It didn't address the NSA's practices of collecting enormous amounts of personal data on and communications of foreigners overseas, even when they are communicating with Americans. It said nothing about the NSA hacking into overseas internet trunk lines to vacuum up indiscriminately data on millions of users, including Americans. It didn't stop the NSA from inserting vulnerabilities into computer networks and encryption systems so that the agency can more easily conduct surveillance. Nor did the USA Freedom Act address the increasingly common practice of police obtaining "location data" about citizens from cell-phone and internet service providers that maintain detailed records of everywhere your cell phone goes. It did not change a 1986 law that allows the government to obtain, without probable cause or a warrant, the contents of any email the sender or a recipient have saved for more than 180 days. It did nothing to check the powers of Google, Facebook, website owners and internet service providers to collect, analyse, and sell data about your most private thoughts, desires, associations and communications. And it was silent on the issue of cybersecurity, notwithstanding the increasingly common data breaches that leave all of us vulnerable to fraud, theft and worse.
On June 2, 2015, after a US Senate cliffhanger that featured a lengthy filibuster by Rand Paul and a resounding defeat for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Congress enacted the USA Freedom Act. The act, whose name echoes the USA Patriot Act, does not exactly mark the restoration of freedom. But it is the first time Congress has limited intelligence powers since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The act ended, at least partially, the National Security Agency's collection in bulk of nearly every American's phone records. It requires the government to limit its demands for phone data and other business records to those related to specific "selectors" – for example, names, phone numbers or addresses suspected of terrorism.
The act also improved the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court process, by requiring the appointment of lawyers with security clearances to argue for privacy in the court's closed-door sessions, until now attended only by the government. And it increased transparency, requiring the government to report on the frequency of its demands for records, and allowing businesses to report how many times they have been approached for records. These are significant victories for privacy.
But consider what the USA Freedom Act didn't do. It didn't address the NSA's practices of collecting enormous amounts of personal data on and communications of foreigners overseas, even when they are communicating with Americans. It said nothing about the NSA hacking into overseas internet trunk lines to vacuum up indiscriminately data on millions of users, including Americans. It didn't stop the NSA from inserting vulnerabilities into computer networks and encryption systems so that the agency can more easily conduct surveillance.
Nor did the USA Freedom Act address the increasingly common practice of police obtaining "location data" about citizens from cell-phone and internet service providers that maintain detailed records of everywhere your cell phone goes. It did not change a 1986 law that allows the government to obtain, without probable cause or a warrant, the contents of any email the sender or a recipient have saved for more than 180 days. It did nothing to check the powers of Google, Facebook, website owners and internet service providers to collect, analyse, and sell data about your most private thoughts, desires, associations and communications. And it was silent on the issue of cybersecurity, notwithstanding the increasingly common data breaches that leave all of us vulnerable to fraud, theft and worse.
Read more @ http://www.afr.com/news/world/north-america/how-technology-has-changed-the-face-of-the-us-for-americans-and-nonamericans-alike-20150819-gj2fxs
Researchers from Symantec found 49 new modules for the malware program Security researchers from Symantec have identified 49 more modules of the sophisticated Regin cyberespionage platform that many believe is used by the U.S. National Security Agency and its close allies. This brings the total number of modules known so far to 75, each of them responsible for implementing specific functionality and giving attackers a lot of flexibility in how they exploit individual targets. Regin came to light in November last year, but it has been in use since at least 2008 and antivirus companies have known about it since 2013. It is one of the most sophisticated malware threats discovered to date and has been used to target Internet service providers, telecommunications backbone operators, energy firms, airlines, government entities, research institutes and private individuals. Most of the infections detected by Symantec were in Russia and Saudi Arabia, but compromised targets have also been found in Mexico, Ireland, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Belgium, Austria and Pakistan. Regin has a modular architecture, which allows its creators to add or remove specific features to the malware program depending on their target and goal. Some of the modules implement basic malware functions like command-and-control communications, taking screen shots, controlling the mouse, stealing passwords, capturing network traffic, gathering information about programs running on the infected computers, recovering deleted files and more. Other modules are much more specialized and built with specific targets in mind. "One module was designed to monitor network traffic to Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) web servers, another was observed collecting administration traffic for mobile telephony base station controllers, while another was created specifically for parsing mail from Exchange databases," the Symantec researchers said in an updated version of their white paper published Thursday. The malware also has a complex command-and-control infrastructure that uses peer-to-peer communications between infected computers, virtual private networking and six different transport protocols that are implemented as separate modules: ICMP, UDP, TCP, HTTP Cookies, SSL, and SMB.
Researchers from Symantec found 49 new modules for the malware program
Security researchers from Symantec have identified 49 more modules of the sophisticated Regin cyberespionage platform that many believe is used by the U.S. National Security Agency and its close allies.
This brings the total number of modules known so far to 75, each of them responsible for implementing specific functionality and giving attackers a lot of flexibility in how they exploit individual targets.
Regin came to light in November last year, but it has been in use since at least 2008 and antivirus companies have known about it since 2013.
It is one of the most sophisticated malware threats discovered to date and has been used to target Internet service providers, telecommunications backbone operators, energy firms, airlines, government entities, research institutes and private individuals.
Most of the infections detected by Symantec were in Russia and Saudi Arabia, but compromised targets have also been found in Mexico, Ireland, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Belgium, Austria and Pakistan.
Regin has a modular architecture, which allows its creators to add or remove specific features to the malware program depending on their target and goal.
Some of the modules implement basic malware functions like command-and-control communications, taking screen shots, controlling the mouse, stealing passwords, capturing network traffic, gathering information about programs running on the infected computers, recovering deleted files and more.
Other modules are much more specialized and built with specific targets in mind. "One module was designed to monitor network traffic to Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) web servers, another was observed collecting administration traffic for mobile telephony base station controllers, while another was created specifically for parsing mail from Exchange databases," the Symantec researchers said in an updated version of their white paper published Thursday.
The malware also has a complex command-and-control infrastructure that uses peer-to-peer communications between infected computers, virtual private networking and six different transport protocols that are implemented as separate modules: ICMP, UDP, TCP, HTTP Cookies, SSL, and SMB.
Read more @ http://www.cio.com.au/article/583361/researchers-find-many-more-modules-regin-spying-tool/
Read more @ http://www.scmagazine.com/symantec-identifies-49-new-modules-associated-with-regin/article/435496/
According to Sir Oscar Wilde, “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” I only learned that quote when Sean Connery said it in The Rock. Which is true, that men would do what it takes to defend his homeland and maintain security and that may sometimes include some despicable things such as killing and considering the very citizens of the homeland as potential threats, by spying on them. That is what happened when the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001), enacted shortly after 9/11, allowed the US government, through the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens. Some people, like Edward Snowden, couldn’t take it anymore and decided to blow the whistle on the many surveillance programs being done by the NSA on America’s own citizens. Amidst the backlash and following the expiry of some of the Patriot Act’s provisions, the US government recently passed into law the USA FREEDOM Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring) on June 15, 2015 and minimizes the NSA’s surveillance on the American citizenry. The Freedom Act practically vindicates NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, currently a fugitive living in Russia. It basically says that Mr. Snowden was right all along. And without Snowden, the Freedom Act might not even exist and the NSA would still be eating up taxpayers’ money on surveillance equipment and storage media to infringe on the privacy of said taxpayers. It’s been almost two years and the former NSA contractor probably misses home by now. Since he’s actually the good guy, will Edward Snowden be allowed to come back home especially now that he’s been proven right about America’s feelings on privacy? What would happen if he comes back? Will he have a hero’s welcome or will there be a reckoning?
According to Sir Oscar Wilde, “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” I only learned that quote when Sean Connery said it in The Rock. Which is true, that men would do what it takes to defend his homeland and maintain security and that may sometimes include some despicable things such as killing and considering the very citizens of the homeland as potential threats, by spying on them.
That is what happened when the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001), enacted shortly after 9/11, allowed the US government, through the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens. Some people, like Edward Snowden, couldn’t take it anymore and decided to blow the whistle on the many surveillance programs being done by the NSA on America’s own citizens. Amidst the backlash and following the expiry of some of the Patriot Act’s provisions, the US government recently passed into law the USA FREEDOM Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring) on June 15, 2015 and minimizes the NSA’s surveillance on the American citizenry.
The Freedom Act practically vindicates NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, currently a fugitive living in Russia. It basically says that Mr. Snowden was right all along. And without Snowden, the Freedom Act might not even exist and the NSA would still be eating up taxpayers’ money on surveillance equipment and storage media to infringe on the privacy of said taxpayers. It’s been almost two years and the former NSA contractor probably misses home by now. Since he’s actually the good guy, will Edward Snowden be allowed to come back home especially now that he’s been proven right about America’s feelings on privacy? What would happen if he comes back? Will he have a hero’s welcome or will there be a reckoning?
Read more @ http://movietvtechgeeks.com/heros-welcome-or-handcuffs-what-will-happen-when-snowden-returns/
Amid new anti-privacy measures, “deep web” networks such as Tor – The Onion Router – are becoming more popular, and not just among law-breakers. Three months ago, a clean-cut former Boy Scout by the name of Ross Ulbricht pleaded for clemency in front of a Manhattan Federal Court. Ulbricht is a Silicon Valley start-up kid who loves his mum and plays the djembe, but he’s also the Dread Pirate Roberts, founder of the anonymous online market Silk Road, an enterprise that began in libertarian idealism and ended in a mess of six contracted murders but no actual deaths, Mormon drug runners, crooked cops and doublecrosses. More than 100,000 users traded more than $200 million in drugs and contraband on Silk Road until the FBI arrested Ulbricht in October 2013. In his pre-sentencing letter, Ulbricht wrote that “Silk Road was supposed to be about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, to pursue their own happiness, however they individually saw fit. What it turned into was, in part, a convenient way for people to satisfy their drug addictions.” At his sentencing, he told the court: “I never wanted that to happen. I wish I could go back and convince myself to take a different path.” The judge handed down five sentences: five years, 15 years, 20 years, and two for life, with no chance of parole. “No drug dealer from the Bronx has ever made this argument to the court,” she told Ulbricht. “It’s a privileged argument and it’s an argument made by one of the privileged.” Within days of Ulbricht’s arrest, Silk Road 2 had popped up. But even before that newer, “better” Silk Roads were appearing – Atlantis opened with all the trappings of a normal internet start-up, right down to a twee, clean-cut YouTube video featuring a dude named Charlie who just needed a blunt.
Amid new anti-privacy measures, “deep web” networks such as Tor – The Onion Router – are becoming more popular, and not just among law-breakers.
Three months ago, a clean-cut former Boy Scout by the name of Ross Ulbricht pleaded for clemency in front of a Manhattan Federal Court.
Ulbricht is a Silicon Valley start-up kid who loves his mum and plays the djembe, but he’s also the Dread Pirate Roberts, founder of the anonymous online market Silk Road, an enterprise that began in libertarian idealism and ended in a mess of six contracted murders but no actual deaths, Mormon drug runners, crooked cops and doublecrosses.
More than 100,000 users traded more than $200 million in drugs and contraband on Silk Road until the FBI arrested Ulbricht in October 2013. In his pre-sentencing letter, Ulbricht wrote that “Silk Road was supposed to be about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, to pursue their own happiness, however they individually saw fit. What it turned into was, in part, a convenient way for people to satisfy their drug addictions.”
At his sentencing, he told the court: “I never wanted that to happen. I wish I could go back and convince myself to take a different path.”
The judge handed down five sentences: five years, 15 years, 20 years, and two for life, with no chance of parole. “No drug dealer from the Bronx has ever made this argument to the court,” she told Ulbricht. “It’s a privileged argument and it’s an argument made by one of the privileged.”
Within days of Ulbricht’s arrest, Silk Road 2 had popped up. But even before that newer, “better” Silk Roads were appearing – Atlantis opened with all the trappings of a normal internet start-up, right down to a twee, clean-cut YouTube video featuring a dude named Charlie who just needed a blunt.
Read more @ https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2015/08/29/tor-and-the-deep-web-going-mainstream/14407704002293