Monitoring NSA in de VS en erbuiten, deel 6

quote:

Op woensdag 21 augustus 2013 21:07 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Britse politie: publicatie info Snowden kan levens kosten

De informatie die de Britse politie in beslag heeft genomen bij de partner van journalist Glenn Greenwald is zeer gevoelig. Publicatie kan zelfs levens in gevaar brengen. Dat heeft de politie donderdag laten weten.

De politie nam het materiaal zondag in beslag van de Braziliaan David Miranda, die urenlang werd vastgehouden op het Londense vliegveld Heathrow. De gegevens waren afkomstig van de Amerikaanse klokkenluider Edward Snowden.

De partner van Miranda, The Guardian-journalist Greenwald, heeft door Snowden doorgespeelde documenten gebruikt om onthullingen te doen over spionagepraktijken door de Amerikaanse geheime dienst NSA.

quote:

Op donderdag 22 augustus 2013 19:50 schreef Tocadisco het volgende:

[..]

Geen nood, met het in beslag nemen van zijn laptop zijn levens gered!

[..]

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl(...)-levens-kosten.dhtml

quote:

Op donderdag 22 augustus 2013 19:50 schreef Tocadisco het volgende:

[..]

Geen nood, met het in beslag nemen van zijn laptop zijn levens gered!

[..]

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl(...)-levens-kosten.dhtml

quote:

Op donderdag 22 augustus 2013 15:47 schreef AchJa het volgende:
Nieuw bewijs voor ongrondwettige tapdrang NSA

Spionagedienst NSA schendt 'vaak en systematisch' zijn toch zeer ruime tapbevoegdheden, constateert de meestal meegaande geheime FISC-rechtbank.

Uit een voorheen geheim vonnis blijkt dat de inlichtingendienst NSA ‘vaak en systematisch’ de regels aan zijn laars lapt en op ongrondwettige manier ruim 50.000 e-mails van Amerikanen heeft afgetapt die helemaal niets met terrorisme van doen hadden.
NSA moest illegaal tapsysteem aanpassen

Bovendien heeft de dienst de rechtbank meermaals misleid met onvolledige of onjuiste informatie over zijn digitale sleepnettechnieken. Hierdoor is zinvolle controle door de rechtbank niet mogelijk. Desondanks moest de NSA de tapsystemen aanpassen van de geheime rechter, een van de weinige keren dat de afluisterdienst werd teruggefloten.

Onlangs bleek uit een gelekte interne audit dat de NSA regelmatig zijn boekje te buiten gaat, maar dit vonnis uit oktober 2011 is hard en ‘officieel’ bewijs van misbruik van bevoegdheden door de NSA en het achterhouden van informatie voor de rechter, schrijft Ars Technica.
Schoonheidsfoutjes

Het is extra pijnlijk omdat het vonnis door de overheid zelf is geopenbaard, op last van de rechter, in een zaak van de digitale burgerrechtenorganisatie EFF tegen de Staat. In een reactie stelt een vertegenwoordiger van de geheime diensten dat het vonnis juist aantoont dat de NSA “geen inhalige organisatie is met een ongebreidelde verzameldrift om Amerikaanse burgers te bespioneren. Het gaat om de abusievelijke verzameling van een relatief klein aantal communicaties van Amerikaanse personen.”

Webwereld

quote:

Op donderdag 22 augustus 2013 16:17 schreef TheThirdMark het volgende:
Tjsa, 50k emails is op een land met 312miljoen inwoners ook niet zo heel schokkend <-- overheid redenatie.

quote:

'Microsoft hielp NSA encryptie te omzeilen'


Microsoft heeft de Amerikaanse inlichtingendienst NSA onder meer toegang gegeven tot webchats op de nieuwe Outlook.com portal. Dat schrijft de Britse krant de Guardian.

Uit documenten die klokkenluider Edward Snowden lekte, blijkt dat Microsoft heeft geholpen om encryptie die het aan gebruikers aanbiedt te omzeilen. Daardoor kreeg de NSA toegang tot onder andere Outlook.com en Hotmail.

Mircosoft zou verder de federale politiedienst FBI hebben geholpen om gemakkelijker toegang te verkrijgen tot cloudopslagdienst SkyDrive, die momenteel wereldwijd meer dan 250 miljoen gebruikers heeft.

Microsoft laat in een verklaring weten dat het 'aan bestaande en toekomstige wetgeving moet voldoen'. Daarnaast zou het gegevens alleen maar delen 'als er een gerechtelijk bevel is'.

Spanningen
Uit de nieuwste onthullingen van Snowden zou verder blijken dat de spanningen tussen Silicon Valley en de Amerikaanse regering verder zijn opgelopen. Alle grote Amerikaanse technologiebedrijven zijn volgens The Guardian druk op de overheid aan het uitoefenen om meer informatie openbaar te kunnen maken over in welke mate zij samenwerken met de NSA. Zo willen ze de onrust onder consumenten proberen weg te halen.

Bron: Volkskrant

quote:

Op vrijdag 23 augustus 2013 22:46 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
We leven steeds meer in een totalitaire democratie

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 augustus 2013 01:26 schreef Arthur_Spooner het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk niet dat zoiets snel zal gaan gebeuren. Als bijvoorbeeld de VS hem zou vastzetten dan breekt echt de hel los. Dat zou een schending van het 1e amendement zijn en dat is een heel groot goed onder de bevolking daar.

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 augustus 2013 01:32 schreef -jos- het volgende:

[..]

Laat me niet lachen. Je kunt Greenwald met Assange vergelijken. Beiden worden door de VS als vijand gezien.

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 augustus 2013 12:30 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Wanneer zal het arrestatiebevel volgen naar aanleiding van aangifte van verkrachting?

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 augustus 2013 14:03 schreef Opa2012 het volgende:

[..]

Dat is inderdaad een rode draad; al die gasten hebben een of andere afwijking.

quote:

Orders To Destroy Guardian Hard Drives Came Directly From PM David Cameron | Techdirt

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Tim Cushing

More details continue to emerge on the UK government's two recent anti-journalist actions. The Guardian reports that the order to (pointlessly) smash up Guardian hardware came from the top.

A spokesman for Clegg made clear that Heywood was acting on the authority of both the prime minister and his deputy. The spokesman said: "We understand the concerns about recent events, particularly around issues of freedom of the press and civil liberties. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is already looking into the circumstances around the detention of David Miranda and we will wait to see his findings.

"On the specific issue of records held by the Guardian, the deputy prime minister thought it was reasonable for the cabinet secretary to request that the Guardian destroyed data that would represent a serious threat to national security if it was to fall into the wrong hands.

"The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action. He was keen to protect the Guardian's freedom to publish, whilst taking the necessary steps to safeguard security.

"It was agreed to on the understanding that the purpose of the destruction of the material would not impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles about the issue, but would help as a precautionary measure to protect lives and security."

So, let's get this straight. The UK government "understands the concerns" about its recent actions, but apparently wouldn't change a thing if it had to do it all over again.

The usual justification presents itself repeatedly: security uber alles.

The government forced (statement says "request" but we know how these things work) the Guardian to destroy hard drives containing content that was "a serious threat to national security" but still existed elsewhere. The government knew this and still forced the issue and then has the temerity to claim the pointless show of force was about "safeguarding security."

Look at how many times that empty word shows up in this brief statement.
"...serious threat to national security…"

"...taking the necessary steps to safeguard security…"

"...a precautionary measure to protect lives and security…"
None of this was "necessary" or "precautionary." It did nothing. The data that might "threaten national security" is still out there. The government knows because its own defensive statement says the action "wouldn't impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles." It was pure muscle-flexing. This security-heavy statement pretty much says precisely that while expending many more words.

There's also this:

The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action.

Awesome. The government would rather throw its weighte deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action.around than pursue any sort of process that might have allowed the Guardian to dispute the order. How telling. How utterly and vilely telling. Of course the government felt this "approach" was "preferable." Screw the adversarial process. We've got the nation's "security" at stake. Everything else is secondary, including the public's outdated ideals about a free press and a government willing to respect the rights of its citizens.

Bron: www.techdirt.com

quote:

He was keen to protect the Guardian's freedom to publish,

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 augustus 2013 19:05 schreef heiden6 het volgende:

[..]

Mooi staaltje doublespeak.

quote:

Anonymous' Secret Presence In The U.S. Army

An active-duty Army captain and member of Anonymous describes how the organization operates, his own involvement in the Arab Spring, how the crackdown on Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden has affected soldiers, and how more leaks are on the way. He has agreed to speak with BuzzFeed on the condition of anonymity.


How do you know who is in Anonymous?
Initially we have the handshaking phase. The lingo is still relatively unknown. In conversation, you drop in jokes. If you are with someone on a mission, you’re like, “Man, there are over 9,000 reasons that this is a bad idea.” That initially establishes friendship. Once you feel comfortable with the person and they aren’t just posing as part of the culture, then you talk about what they’ve done and how much a part of it they are. It gets to the point where you are discussing individual operations.

What are the most popular operations amongst soldiers?
Anonymous is so distributed and leaderless that everyone has operations they love and hate. Operation Cartel, especially at Fort Bliss. Operation Dark Net was universally loved. And Operation Payback was pretty well received.

What about you?
I was involved in the Arab Spring opening up internet communications. I was a facilitator for a lot of people who have more skills than me in the cyber world. I knew people who I met through 4chan, 9Chan, and 7Chan and then a lot of AnonOps IRCs and who they needed to talk to — the organizations that would help them, and people in government would give them resources and access — and was able to convince them to talk to people in Anonymous. I got people in the right [internet relay chat] rooms at the right time.

Would the military consider you a white or black hat?
The military sees me as black hat.

Is that a fair assessment?
All hats are gray. Every white hacker I know has a night job that is very much a black-hat job.

What were the results of what you did for the Arab Spring?
From what I heard they were able to establish ways to assist the activists to have a method where they could get information out of Egypt and have certain Twitter accounts tweet that information on their behalf. But I don’t know for sure. As soon as I was like, “Hey, this is this person,” and vice versa, they did tweet confirmation to make sure that certain Twitter accounts were controlled by certain people, and then I headed out of the room so there would be no “taint” of having a fed there.

What specific actions have other soldiers taken?
There are several [soldiers] I know that probably did things, but I don’t know know that they did. I can legally say, probably under a [lie] detector, I have no proof that they did it. We keep our activities totally separate because at any point in time I can be put in the chair that I can’t lie in. You have to keep the /b/ [4chan’s “Random” board] brotherhood strong.

Does the military know about the Anonymous presence?
Pre-Manning, there were several academic papers put out trying to analyze it and school the leadership. Because the Army is a very top-down organization, they assume that [Anonymous] is too. Leadership wasn’t concerned with it until Manning happened. Then they read everything under the [lens] of what Manning did and it just scared them — scared them blind. They know we are in there and they assume that we are all going to do a Manning or a Snowden.

How have they addressed it?
Every six months you are mandated to get a Threat Awareness and Reporting Procedures Brief. It used to be very much like how to … spot the Iraqi contractor who is pacing off your base. Now it is, “Look at the person at your left and right. Are they espousing social beliefs that don’t line up with Army values? What websites do they go to at work?” With the caveat that it is OK to have political beliefs that are different. You get a heavy-handed feeling.

I have had more than a few officers come up to me and as we are trying to talk about [Anonymous] they are worried, like, “Are you CID [working undercover for the Central Investigative Division]?” Because you always worry about that.

Are the retaliations against Manning and Snowden discouraging Anonymous activity and the desire to leak information?
A lot [of Anonymous members] have been in long enough and are jaded. They are watching as the government comes down harder and harder. There is a growing sense of disdain and hatred because we are complicit in it. There are some secrets that need to be secrets but the stuff [the military] keeps secret just to protect the bottom line — you just feel like you are selling your soul every day. That is a lot of the motivation. Especially for people of the generation that believe that information should be free.

Are we going to see more leaks?
Yes. A lot [of Anonymous members] are mid- to high-rank NCOs. They are well-respected, have connections, and overly large security clearances. A lot of people who are part of the [Anonymous] culture are just dying at this point for something to come across their table that isn’t already out there. It is so easy to leak information that if you want to, you can do it.

Bron: www.buzzfeed.com