Monitoring NSA in de VS en erbuiten, deel 9

quote:

Complaint laid over GCSB spy claims

The Green Party has laid a complaint with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, saying the Government's electronic spy agency may have broken the law.

Investigative journalist Nicky Hager says the Government is spying on Pacific nations, and passing that information on to the United States.

His claims are based on information from the American whistle blower Edward Snowden.

Mr Hager said the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) intercepted communications from countries such as Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu and Samoa, and even nations as small as Tuvalu, Nauru and Kiribati,

Greens' co-leader Russel Norman said it was illegal for the GCSB to spy on New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, but many New Zealanders who live, holiday or work in Pacific Islands may have had their data intercepted by the spy agency.

He said if that was the case then the law may have been broken.

Prime Minister John Key insists the Government's spy agency has acted within the law though will not say how or explain any further.

"We do gather information and we do use our foreign intelligence services, but only within the law and the law forbids us other than in very minor circumstances, from gathering information about New Zealanders."

Mr Key said the GCSB had given him a 100 percent categorical assurance that New Zealanders' information was not gathered other than in circumstances where the law would specifically allow it.

He said he would absolutely not be talking at all about the agency's operational matters.

Mr Key said the Government could talk to Pacific leaders if they wished about actions that may or may not have occurred, but it would not be talking to the media or the public about it.

The Prime Minister of Samoa, Tuilaepa Sa'ilele, was not too bothered about the allegations.

"All our transactions with overseas Governments or organisations are transparent, and we have nothing to hide, so if [anything is] picked up by anybody that will increase the transparency of what we do here."

The Prime Minister of Tonga, Akilisi Pohiva said it would be a pity if trust had been breached between his country and New Zealand.

"But if New Zealand has good reason to believe that it is important for New Zealand Government to share such information with other partners, with other countries, it is entirely a matter for New Zealand to decide. Now remember Tonga is small, and we have nothing to hide - it may be a serious matter for superpowers."

quote:

Key says he won't quit if mass collection of Kiwis' communications proved

Prime Minister John Key says he would not resign if it is proved that the GCSB carries out mass collection of New Zealanders' communications.

Mr Key has always insisted he would quit if it was proved that New Zealanders were subject to mass surveillance.

He insists the GCSB has told him that it is not capable of doing mass surveillance and is not legally allowed to do it.

Late last week former GCSB boss Sir Bruce Ferguson told Radio New Zealand that there was mass collection of New Zealanders' data as part of spying operations in the Pacific.

Sir Bruce also maintained however that it was legal as it was collected inadvertently and that the information on Kiwis was not used.

When asked today about whether there was a difference between the terms "collection" and "surveillance", Mr Key responded by saying he was "sure the lawyers would tell you there is a difference".

When pressed further, he refused to comment, saying he wasn't going to go into the GCSB's operational details.

quote:

New Zealand Prime Minister Retracts Vow To Resign if Mass Surveillance Is Shown

quote:

Let me be clear: any statement that mass surveillance is not performed in New Zealand, or that the internet communications are not comprehensively intercepted and monitored, or that this is not intentionally and actively abetted by the GCSB, is categorically false. . . . The prime minister’s claim to the public, that “there is no and there never has been any mass surveillance” is false. The GCSB, whose operations he is responsible for, is directly involved in the untargeted, bulk interception and algorithmic analysis of private communications sent via internet, satellite, radio, and phone networks.

quote:

The NSA Has Taken Over the Internet Backbone. We're Suing to Get it Back.

Every time you email someone overseas, the NSA copies and searches your message. It makes no difference if you or the person you're communicating with has done anything wrong. If the NSA believes your message could contain information relating to the foreign affairs of the United States – because of whom you're talking to, or whom you're talking about – it may hold on to it for as long as three years and sometimes much longer.

A new ACLU lawsuit filed today challenges this dragnet spying, called "upstream" surveillance, on behalf of Wikimedia and a broad coalition of educational, human rights, legal, and media organizations whose work depends on the privacy of their communications. The plaintiffs include Amnesty International USA, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The Nation magazine, and many other organizations whose work is critical to the functioning of our democracy.

But the effect of the surveillance we're challenging goes far beyond these organizations. The surveillance affects virtually every American who uses the Internet to connect with people overseas – and many who do little more than email their friends or family or browse the web. And it should be disturbing to all of us, because free expression and intellectual inquiry will wither away if the NSA is looking over our shoulders while we're online.

The world first learned of the existence of upstream surveillance from whistleblower Edward Snowden's spying revelations in June 2013. Since then, official disclosures and media reports have shown that the NSA is routinely seizing and copying the communications of millions of ordinary Americans while they are traveling over the Internet. The NSA conducts this surveillance by tapping directly into the Internet backbone inside the United States – the network of high-capacity cables and switches that carry vast numbers of Americans' communications with each other and with the rest of the world. Once the NSA copies the communications, it searches the contents of almost all international text-based communications – and many domestic ones as well – for search terms relating to its "targets."

In short, the NSA has cast a massive dragnet over Americans' international communications.

Inside the United States, upstream surveillance is conducted under a controversial spying law called the FISA Amendments Act, which allows the NSA to target the communications of foreigners abroad and to intercept Americans' communications with those foreign targets. The main problem with the law is that it doesn't limit which foreigners can be targeted. The NSA's targets may include journalists, academics, government officials, tech workers, scientists, and other innocent people who are not connected even remotely with terrorism or suspected of any wrongdoing. The agency sweeps up Americans' communications with all of those targets.

And, as our lawsuit explains, the NSA is exceeding even the authority granted by the FISA Amendments Act. Rather than limit itself to monitoring Americans' communications with the foreign targets, the NSA is spying on everyone, trying to find out who might be talking or reading about those targets.

As a result, countless innocent people will be caught up in the NSA's massive net. For instance, a high school student in the U.S. working on a term paper might visit a foreign website to read a news story or download research materials. If those documents happen to contain an email address targeted by the NSA – like this news report does – chances are the communications will be intercepted and stored for further scrutiny. The same would be true if an overseas friend, colleague, or contact sent the student a copy of that news story in an email message.

As former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently put it, "[L]et me be really clear. NSA doesn't just listen to bad people. NSA listens to interesting people. People who are communicating information."

That doesn't sound like much of a limitation on the NSA's spying – and it's not. Like many Americans, the plaintiffs in our lawsuit communicate with scores of people overseas who the NSA likely finds "interesting." For instance, researchers at Human Rights Watch depend on foreign journalists, lawyers, political dissidents, and witnesses to human rights abuses for information crucial to their advocacy and reporting back home. Wikimedia communicates with millions of people abroad, many of whom read or contribute to Wikipedia, one of the largest repositories of human knowledge on earth. We know, thanks to Edward Snowden, that the NSA is interested in what some of those users are reading.

The fact that upstream surveillance is supposedly focused on international communications is hardly a saving grace. Americans spend more and more of their lives communicating over the Internet – and more and more of those communications are global in nature, whether we realize it or not. An email from a woman in Philadelphia to her mother in Phoenix might be routed through Canada without either one knowing it. Similarly, companies like Microsoft and Google often store backup copies of their U.S. customers' emails on servers overseas, again with hardly anyone the wiser. The NSA is peeking inside virtually all of these.

Our plaintiffs have had to go out of their way to take measures, sometimes at a high cost, to protect their communications from their own government. Despite these precautions, the chilling effect is palpable. NSA surveillance makes it harder for the plaintiffs to gather information from sources who believe that by sharing information over the Internet, they are also sharing it with the U.S. government and the intelligence agencies it partners with. The work of human rights and free-knowledge organizations is profoundly undermined by this unconstitutional surveillance, and we're all worse off.

Upstream surveillance flips the Constitution on its head. It allows the government to search everything first and ask questions later, making us all less free in the process. Our suit aims to stop this kind of surveillance. Please join our effort to reform the NSA.

quote:

The CIA Campaign to Steal Apple’s Secrets

quote:

RESEARCHERS WORKING with the Central Intelligence Agency have conducted a multi-year, sustained effort to break the security of Apple’s iPhones and iPads, according to top-secret documents obtained by The Intercept.

The security researchers presented their latest tactics and achievements at a secret annual gathering, called the “Jamboree,” where attendees discussed strategies for exploiting security flaws in household and commercial electronics. The conferences have spanned nearly a decade, with the first CIA-sponsored meeting taking place a year before the first iPhone was released.

By targeting essential security keys used to encrypt data stored on Apple’s devices, the researchers have sought to thwart the company’s attempts to provide mobile security to hundreds of millions of Apple customers across the globe. Studying both “physical” and “non-invasive” techniques, U.S. government-sponsored research has been aimed at discovering ways to decrypt and ultimately penetrate Apple’s encrypted firmware. This could enable spies to plant malicious code on Apple devices and seek out potential vulnerabilities in other parts of the iPhone and iPad currently masked by encryption.

The CIA declined to comment for this story.

The security researchers also claimed they had created a modified version of Apple’s proprietary software development tool, Xcode, which could sneak surveillance backdoors into any apps or programs created using the tool. Xcode, which is distributed by Apple to hundreds of thousands of developers, is used to create apps that are sold through Apple’s App Store.

The modified version of Xcode, the researchers claimed, could enable spies to steal passwords and grab messages on infected devices. Researchers also claimed the modified Xcode could “force all iOS applications to send embedded data to a listening post.” It remains unclear how intelligence agencies would get developers to use the poisoned version of Xcode.

Researchers also claimed they had successfully modified the OS X updater, a program used to deliver updates to laptop and desktop computers, to install a “keylogger.”

Other presentations at the CIA conference have focused on the products of Apple’s competitors, including Microsoft’s BitLocker encryption system, which is used widely on laptop and desktop computers running premium editions of Windows.

The revelations that the CIA has waged a secret campaign to defeat the security mechanisms built into Apple’s devices come as Apple and other tech giants are loudly resisting pressure from senior U.S. and U.K. government officials to weaken the security of their products. Law enforcement agencies want the companies to maintain the government’s ability to bypass security tools built into wireless devices. Perhaps more than any other corporate leader, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, has taken a stand for privacy as a core value, while sharply criticizing the actions of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

“If U.S. products are OK to target, that’s news to me,” says Matthew Green, a cryptography expert at Johns Hopkins University’s Information Security Institute. “Tearing apart the products of U.S. manufacturers and potentially putting backdoors in software distributed by unknowing developers all seems to be going a bit beyond ‘targeting bad guys.’ It may be a means to an end, but it’s a hell of a means.”

Apple declined to comment for this story, instead pointing to previous comments Cook and the company have made defending Apple’s privacy record.

quote:

Plasterk wijst 'anti-spionageverdrag' af

quote:

Minister Plasterk (PvdA) van Binnenlandse Zaken wijst een zogenaamd 'anti-spionageverdrag' tussen Europese landen af. Hij heeft 'ernstige aarzelingen' bij een voorstel van de Raad van Europa dat voorziet in regels voor het bespioneren van Europese burgers en bevriende overheden. Dat blijkt uit een brief die Plasterk naar de Tweede Kamer heeft gestuurd.

quote:

New Zealand Used NSA System to Target Officials, Anti-Corruption Campaigner

New Zealand’s eavesdropping agency used an Internet mass surveillance system to target government officials and an anti-corruption campaigner on a neighboring Pacific island, according to a top-secret document.

Analysts from Government Communications Security Bureau, or GCSB, programmed the Internet spy system XKEYSCORE to intercept documents authored by the closest aides and confidants of the prime minister on the tiny Solomon Islands. The agency also entered keywords into the system so that it would intercept documents containing references to the Solomons’ leading anti-corruption activist, who is known for publishing government leaks on his website.

XKEYSCORE is run by the National Security Agency, and is used to analyze billions of emails, Internet browsing sessions and online chats that are collected from some 150 different locations worldwide. GCSB has gained access to XKEYSCORE because New Zealand is a member of the Five Eyes surveillance alliance alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

A number of GCSB’s XKEYSCORE targets are disclosed in a top-secret document that was obtained by The Intercept and New Zealand newspaper the Herald on Sunday. The document raises questions about the scope of the surveillance and offers an unprecedented insight into specific people monitored by New Zealand’s most secretive agency.

The targets list, dated from January 2013, was authored by a GCSB analyst. It is contained in a so-called “fingerprint,” a combination of keywords used to extract particular information from the vast quantities of intercepted data swept up by XKEYSCORE. None of the individuals named on the list appear to have any association with terrorism.

Most of the targets, in fact, had a prominent role in the Solomon Islands government. Their roles around the time of January 2013 suggest GCSB was interested in collecting information sent among the prime minister’s inner circle. The targets included: Barnabas Anga, the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade; Robert Iroga, chief of staff to the prime minister; Dr Philip Tagini, special secretary to the prime minister; Fiona Indu, senior foreign affairs official; James Remobatu, cabinet secretary; and Rose Qurusu, a Solomon Islands public servant.

The seventh person caught up in the GCSB’s surveillance sweep is the leading anti-corruption campaigner in the Solomon Islands, Benjamin Afuga. For several years he has run a popular Facebook group that exposes corruption, often publishing leaked information and documents from government whistleblowers. His organization, Forum Solomon Islands International, has an office next door to Transparency International in Honiara, the capital city of the Solomon Islands. GCSB analysts programmed XKEYSCORE so that it would intercept documents sent over the Internet containing the words “Forum Solomon Islands,” “FSII,” and “Benjamin Afuga.”

Each of the named targets was contacted by the Herald on Sunday prior to publication. Several were not reachable or did respond to a request for comment. Robert Iroga, who was the prime minister’s chief of staff at the time his name appeared on the list, criticized the surveillance and said it would paint a “pretty bad image” for New Zealand.

“I’m shocked to hear about the intrusion of the New Zealand government into the sovereign affairs of a country like ours,” Iroga said. “Any intervention in this way to get information from the Solomon Islands is highly condemned.”

Benjamin Afuga, the anti-corruption campaigner, said he was concerned the surveillance may have exposed some of the sources of the leaks he publishes online.

“I’m an open person – just like an open book,” Afuga said. “I don’t have anything else other than what I’m doing as a whistleblower and someone who exposes corruption. I don’t really understand what they are looking for. I have nothing to hide.”

A spokesman for Manasseh Sogavare, the recently elected prime minister of the Solomon Islands, said the issue would be addressed through “diplomatic channels.”

The Solomon Islands are about 2,300 miles north of New Zealand and have a population of some 550,000 people, according to United Nations figures. In the late 1990s and early 2000s the islands suffered from ethnic violence known as “The Tensions.” This led to the 2003 deployment to the Solomons of New Zealand, Australian and Pacific Island police and military peacekeepers. By January 2013, the date of the target list, both New Zealand and Australia were focused on withdrawing their forces from the island country and by the end of that year they were gone.

The XKEYSCORE list shows New Zealand was carrying out surveillance of several terms associated with militant groups on the island, such as “former tension militants,” and “malaita eagle force.” But with the security situation stabilized by 2013, it is unclear why New Zealand spies appear to have continued an expansive surveillance operation across the government, even tailoring XKEYSCORE to intercept information about an anti-corruption campaigner.

Andrew Little, leader New Zealand’s Labour Party, told the Herald on Sunday the surveillance was at odds with the country’s diplomatic relationship with the Solomons. “You would assume we have relations with government at the highest level and constructive dialogue,” he said.

The surveillance may have been part of a secret attempt to intercept information about The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, an inquiry that was set up by the Solomon Islands in the aftermath of the ethnic violence. The commission was modeled on South Africa’s post-apartheid process and launched by Bishop Desmond Tutu during a 2009 visit to the Solomons. The XKEYSCORE list includes the keywords “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” “TRC,” and “trc report.” Moreover, Afuga, the targeted anti-corruption campaigner, worked with the commission as a project coordinator.

GCSB declined to comment for this story. In a statement, the agency’s acting director, Una Jagose, said: “The GCSB exists to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders. We have a foreign intelligence mandate. We don’t comment on speculation about matters that may or may not be operational. Everything we do is explicitly authorized and subject to independent oversight.”

A spokesman for New Zealand prime minister John Key also declined to comment. The spokesman said: “New Zealand’s intelligence agencies have been, and continue to be, a significant contributor to our national security and the security of New Zealanders at home and abroad.”

In recent weeks, The Intercept has published a series of stories about the extent of New Zealand’s surveillance in collaboration with the New Zealand Herald, the Herald on Sunday, and The Sunday Star-Times. Earlier disclosures, which were based on documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, have exposed the country’s broad surveillance across the Asia-Pacific. The revelations have shown how a surveillance base in the Waihopai Valley is funneling bulk data into the XKEYSCORE system and they have also exposed that New Zealand is targeting some its strongest trading partners for surveillance and then sharing the data with the NSA.

quote:

Federal police confirm they have accessed journalists' metadata

AFP reject comments by media union on scale of access, saying requests were ‘rare’, as debate over data retention bill intensifies

The Australian Federal Police have confirmed for the first time they have accessed journalists’ telecommunications metadata in the past 18 months, but said requests were “rare”.

They said they had received 13 referrals relating to alleged unauthorised disclosures by commonwealth officials, but in the “overwhelming majority” of those cases there was no need to access journalists’ metadata. Not all the referrals related to disclosures through the media.

The comments were made as part of a statement that rejected comments by Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance chief executive Paul Murphy about how many times the AFP had accessed journalists’ metadata.

On Monday Murphy said that in a meeting with the AFP and other government officers the AFP “had been repeatedly asked to hunt down journalists’ sources by accessing journalists’ metadata and [AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin] confirmed that it is doing so”.

“The data retention bill will simply formalise these activities with no regard to the press freedom implications and presumably encourage at least 20 government agencies to go trawling through journalists’ metadata,” Murphy said.

The AFP said the statement was inaccurate and distorted the comments. But they also confirmed a small number of authorisations for access to journalists’ metadata had been made.

The release said: “Commissioner Colvin said that over the past 18 months, the AFP has received 13 referrals relating to the alleged unauthorised disclosure of commonwealth information in breach of section 70 of the Crimes Act.

“This offence specifically criminalises the activity of commonwealth officials who have released commonwealth information in contravention of their obligations, not journalists.”

“In the overwhelming majority of these investigations, no need was identified to conduct a metadata telecommunications inquiry on a journalist. AFP requests for accessing a journalist’s metadata are rare.”

Guardian Australia has previously reported that eight of these referrals related to stories about asylum seekers.

The AFP have confirmed that at least one of these referrals resulted in an investigation – into a story about the customs vessel Ocean Protector’s incursions into Indonesian waters – that is still under way.

The AFP did not disclose as part of the release of documents under freedom of information laws any information about whether journalists’ phone or web records had been accessed.

Journalists and politicians have tried in the past – unsuccessfully – to gain more information from the AFP on metadata requests issued relating to leak investigations.

Guardian Australia has lodged freedom of information requests and requests under the Privacy Act 1988 to determine whether authorisations have been made for reporters’ phone and web data.

The AFP has refused to confirm or deny the existence of any authorisations, citing the secrecy provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

In February last year the independent senator Nick Xenophon requested in Senate estimates details of the number of metadata authorisations used in commonwealth disclosure investigations.

The AFP said at the time they were not required to provide information about specific authorisations.

They said: “This system is configured to record and store information contained in the authorisation and to produce reports on the total number of authorisations. Whilst the information is stored in the system, the system is not designed to report on particular crime types which are being investigated.”

The prime minister, Tony Abbott, agreed on Monday to amend the government’s data retention bill to provide an additional safeguard for journalists that would require a warrant to be sought for access to their metadata.

The MEAA and Greens senator Scott Ludlam have continued to voice concern about the data retention scheme.

On Tuesday a number of Labor backbenchers also spoke out in opposition to the data retention bill in a caucus meeting.

The government is yet to put forward amendments to the scheme to clarify how the warrant requirement for access to journalists’ metadata would operate.

quote:

Hacking BIOS Chips Isn’t Just the NSA’s Domain Anymore

The ability to hack the BIOS chip at the heart of every computer is no longer reserved for the NSA and other three-letter agencies. Millions of machines contain basic BIOS vulnerabilities that let anyone with moderately sophisticated hacking skills compromise and control a system surreptitiously, according to two researchers.

The revelation comes two years after a catalogue of NSA spy tools leaked to journalists in Germany surprised everyone with its talk about the NSA’s efforts to infect BIOS firmware with malicious implants.

The BIOS boots a computer and helps load the operating system. By infecting this core software, which operates below antivirus and other security products and therefore is not usually scanned by them, spies can plant malware that remains live and undetected even if the computer’s operating system were wiped and re-installed.

BIOS-hacking until now has been largely the domain of advanced hackers like those of the NSA. But researchers Xeno Kovah and Corey Kallenberg presented a proof-of-concept attack today at the CanSecWest conference in Vancouver, showing how they could remotely infect the BIOS of multiple systems using a host of new vulnerabilities that took them just hours to uncover. They also found a way to gain high-level system privileges for their BIOS malware to undermine the security of specialized operating systems like Tails—used by journalists and activists for stealth communications and handling sensitive data.

Although most BIOS have protections to prevent unauthorized modifications, the researchers were able to bypass these to reflash the BIOS and implant their malicious code.

Kovah and Kallenberg recently left MITRE, a government contractor that conducts research for the Defense Department and other federal agencies, to launch LegbaCore, a firmware security consultancy. They note that the recent discovery of a firmware-hacking tool by Kaspersky Lab researchers makes it clear that firmware hacking like their BIOS demo is something the security community should be focusing on.

Because many BIOS share some of the same code, they were able to uncover vulnerabilities in 80 percent of the PCs they examined, including ones from Dell, Lenovo and HP. The vulnerabilities, which they’re calling incursion vulnerabilities, were so easy to find that they wrote a script to automate the process and eventually stopped counting the vulns it uncovered because there were too many.

“There’s one type of vulnerability, which there’s literally dozens of instances of it in every given BIOS,” says Kovah. They disclosed the vulnerabilities to the vendors and patches are in the works but have not yet been released. Kovah says, however, that even when vendors have produced BIOS patches in the past, few people have applied them.

“Because people haven’t been patching their BIOSes, all of the vulnerabilities that have been disclosed over the last couple of years are all open and available to an attacker,” he notes. “We spent the last couple of years at MITRE running around to companies trying to get them to do patches. They think BIOS is out of sight out of mind [because] they don’t hear a lot about it being attacked in the wild.”

An attacker could compromise the BIOS in two ways—through remote exploitation by delivering the attack code via a phishing email or some other method, or through physical interdiction of a system. In that case, the researchers found that if they had physical access to a system they could infect the BIOS on some machines in just two minutes. This highlights just how quickly and easy it would be, for example, for a government agent or law enforcement officer with a moment’s access to a system to compromise it.

Their malware, dubbed LightEater, uses the incursion vulnerabilities to break into and hijack the system management mode to gain escalated privileges on the system. System management mode, or SMM, is an operations mode in Intel processors that firmware uses to do certain functions with high-level system privileges that exceed even administrative and root-level privileges, Kovah notes. Using this mode, they can rewrite the contents of the BIOS chip to install an implant that gives them a persistent and stealth foothold. From there, they can install root kits and steal passwords and other data from the system.

But more significantly, SMM gives their malware the ability to read all data and code that appears in a machine’s memory. This would allow their malware, Kovah points out, to subvert any computer using the Tails operating system—the security and privacy-oriented operating system Edward Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald used to handle NSA documents Snowden leaked. By reading data in memory, they could steal the encryption key of a Tails user to unlock encrypted data or swipe files and other content as it appears in memory. Tails is meant to be run from a secure USB flash drive or other removable media—so that conceivably it won’t be affected by viruses or other malware that may have infected the computer. It operates in the computer’s memory and once the operating system is shut down, Tails scrubs the RAM to erase any traces of its activity. But because the LightEater malware uses the system management mode to read the contents of memory, it can grab the data while in memory before it gets scrubbed and store it in a safe place from which it can later be exfiltrated. And it can do this while all the while remaining stealth.

“Our SMM attacker lives in a place nobody checks today to see if there’s an attacker,” Kovah says. “System management mode can read everyone’s RAM, but nobody can read System Management Mode’s RAM.”

Such an attack shows, he says, that the operating system Snowden chose to protect himself can’t actually protect him from the NSA or anyone else who can design an attack like LightEater.

quote:

New Zealand Spied on WTO Director Candidates

New Zealand launched a covert surveillance operation targeting candidates vying to be director general of the World Trade Organization, a top-secret document reveals.

In the period leading up to the May 2013 appointment, the country’s electronic eavesdropping agency programmed an Internet spying system to intercept emails about a list of high-profile candidates from Brazil, Costa Rica, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, and South Korea.

New Zealand’s trade minister Tim Groser was one of nine candidates in contention for the position at the WTO, a powerful international organization based in Geneva, Switzerland that negotiates trade agreements between nations. The surveillance operation, carried out by Government Communications Security Bureau, or GCSB, appears to have been part of a secret effort to help Groser win the job.

Groser ultimately failed to get the position.

A top-secret document obtained by The Intercept and the New Zealand Herald reveals how GCSB used the XKEYSCORE Internet surveillance system to collect communications about the WTO director general candidates.

XKEYSCORE is run by the National Security Agency and is used to analyze billions of emails, Internet browsing sessions and online chats that are vacuumed up from about 150 different locations worldwide. GCSB has gained access to XKEYSCORE because New Zealand is a member of the Five Eyes surveillance alliance alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

The WTO spying document shows how the New Zealand agency created an XKEYSCORE targeting “fingerprint,” a combination of names and keywords used to extract particular information from the vast quantities of emails and other communications accessible through the system. The document reveals that a fingerprint was specially tailored to monitor the WTO candidates and was “used to sort traffic by priority,” looking for “keywords [as they] appear in the email_body.” It is stamped with a “last modified” date of 6 May 2013, about a week before the new director general was to be announced.

Two different intelligence searches were carried out by the GCSB staff as part of what they termed the “WTO Project.” First, they looked for emails referring to Groser, the WTO, the director general candidacy, and the surnames of the other candidates: Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen (Ghana); Amina Mohamed (Kenya); Anabel González (Costa Rica); Herminio Blanco (Mexico); Mari Elka Pangestu (Indonesia); Taeho Bark (South Korea); Ahmad Thougan Hindawi (Jordan); and Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo (Brazil).

Second, they zeroed in on the Indonesian candidate, Pangestu, that country’s former minister of trade and a professional economist. A separate XKEYSCORE fingerprint was created, headed “WTO DG Candidacy issues – focus on Indonesian candidate.” This was presumably because the New Zealand government was particularly concerned that the job might go to another Pacific candidate ahead of Groser.

The surveillance of Pangestu appears to have targeted all Internet communications (not just email) containing the name “Pangestu,” the words “Indonesia,” “WTO” and “candidacy,” and the other candidates’ names.

The searches had keyword instructions in English, French and Spanish – for instance “zealand”, “zelande” and “zelandia” – in order to catch communications from more countries. The intercepted messages were to be passed to the GCSB’s “trade team,” which would likely have had the job of collating intelligence for people in government involved in Groser’s bid for the WTO role.

The Intercept and the New Zealand Herald attempted to contact each of the named targets prior to publication. Several were not reachable or did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for the WTO had not responded to multiple requests for comment at time of publication (update below).

Bark, the South Korean candidate, said he had no inkling that he was the focus of surveillance during his bid for the director general role. He told the New Zealand Herald he had received no intelligence agency support as part of his own campaign. “It’s a different world for very advanced countries,” he said.

Bark, now an academic at Seoul National University and South Korea’s ambassador-at-large for international economy and trade, added that he was not “offended” by the spying because he didn’t think it had any impact on the outcome of his effort to get the WTO job. But he predicted others would be stung by the eavesdropping revelations. “The Indonesian candidate would be very upset,” he said.

International economic law expert Meredith Kolsky Lewis, who specializes in the WTO, said she was “a bit shocked” at the allegation New Zealand had spied on emails about the director general candidates.

“I’m a little surprised that New Zealand used the surveillance power available to it for this purpose,” Lewis said. “It’s possible those who ordered the surveillance wanted to know who other countries in the region supported.”

Andrew Little, leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party, criticized the surveillance and described it as “completely out of order.”

“It just seems outrageous,” Little said. “I would have thought that [to be] a misuse of our security and intelligence agencies. It seems to me right outside the mandate of the GCSB. It’s nothing to do with security threats.”

It was in late 2012 that Groser was nominated for the position at the WTO.

The New Zealand trade minister launched a lobbying campaign as part of his candidacy bid, traveling to Europe, the United States, Africa, the Caribbean and around the Pacific Islands in an effort to win support from members of the WTO’s general council, which includes representatives from 160 countries.

However, his campaign was unsuccessful. Brazil’s Azevêdo (pictured above) was appointed the WTO’s new director general on 14 May 2013.

Three weeks earlier, when it had become clear that Groser was not going to make the final shortlist, New Zealand’s prime minister, John Key, expressed his disappointment. “At the end of the day it was always going to be a long shot – so he gave it his best go with the support of the government,” Key said.

What the public didn’t know was that this support had included deploying the GCSB to spy on communications about the competitors.

At the time of the surveillance, prime minister Key was the minister in charge of the GCSB, raising the question of whether he knew about and personally sanctioned the electronic eavesdropping to help Groser.

A spokesman for Key declined to answer any questions about the WTO spying and instead issued a boilerplate response. “New Zealand’s intelligence agencies have been, and continue to be, a significant contributor to our national security and the security of New Zealanders at home and abroad,” the spokesman said.

Groser, reached by New Zealand Herald reporters late Saturday, said the government wouldn’t discuss “such leaks” because he claimed they were “often wrong, [and] they are deliberately timed to try and create political damage.” Asked if he knew the GCSB was conducting surveillance for him, he said: “I’ve got no comment to make whatsoever.”

GCSB also declined to comment on any of the specific revelations. In a statement, the agency’s acting director, Una Jagose, said: “The GCSB exists to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders. We have a foreign intelligence mandate. We don’t comment on speculation about matters that may or may not be operational. Everything we do is explicitly authorized and subject to independent oversight.”

Last week, The Intercept revealed that GCSB used XKEYSCORE to target top government officials and an anti-corruption campaigner in the Solomon Islands.

Earlier disclosures, which were based on documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, have exposed how New Zealand is funneling data into XKEYSCORE from a surveillance base in the Waihopai Valley and is spying on about 20 countries across the world, predominantly in the Asia-Pacific region, among them small Pacific islands and major trading partners including Japan, Vietnam, and China.

The Intercept is reporting details about New Zealand’s surveillance operations in collaboration with the New Zealand Herald, the Herald on Sunday, and the Sunday Star-Times.

Update, March 22, 2015 at 17:30 ET: Reached by phone Sunday, WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell told The Intercept he was “learning about this for the very first time” and said he would not comment on the New Zealand spying until he had looked closer at the details. “Tomorrow morning I’ll go into the office and we’ll discuss it and we’ll try to figure out what’s going on,” he said.

quote:

Britain’s Surveillance State

Edward Snowden exposed the extent of mass surveillance conducted not just by the United States but also by allies like Britain. Now, a committee of the British Parliament has proposed legal reforms to Britain’s intelligence agencies that are mostly cosmetic and would do little to protect individual privacy.

In a report published on March 12, the Intelligence and Security Committee acknowledged that agencies like MI5 collect, sift through and examine millions of communications. Most of this is legal, the committee said, and justified by national security. It proposed a new law that would tell people more about the kind of information the government collects about them but would not meaningfully limit mass surveillance. That is hardly sufficient for a system that needs strong new checks and balances.

Separately, a legal filing by the British government made public on Wednesday showed that its intelligence agencies maintain the right to hack into the computers, phones and other devices owned not just by suspected terrorists and criminals but also people who “are not intelligence targets in their own right.” The filing was published by Privacy International, one of several advocacy groups that have challenged government surveillance in court.

As things stand now, intelligence agencies can monitor vast amounts of communications and do so with only a warrant from a government minister to begin intercepting them. Lawmakers should limit the amount of data officials can sweep up and require them to obtain warrants from judges, who are more likely to push back against overly broad requests.

The parliamentary committee, however, did not see the need to limit data collection and concluded that ministers should continue to approve warrants because they are better than judges at evaluating diplomatic, political and public interests. That rationale ignores the fact that ministers are also less likely to deny requests from officials who directly report to them.

The committee’s acceptance of the status quo partly reflects the fact that Britons have generally been more accepting of intrusive government surveillance than Americans; security cameras, for instance, are ubiquitous in Britain. But the committee itself was far from impartial. Its nine members were all nominated by Prime Minister David Cameron, who has pushed for even greater surveillance powers.

After the attack against the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January, Mr. Cameron asked technology companies to help his government monitor encrypted communications and warned that those who refused to do so could be banned from doing business in Britain.

Parliament is unlikely to act on the committee’s report in its current form before the upcoming national election scheduled for May. In the meantime, legal cases challenging British surveillance practices filed by groups like Privacy International and Liberty are expected to end up at the European Court of Human Rights. In the past, that court has taken an expansive view of the individual’s right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Governments certainly should have the ability to intercept communications to investigate crimes and terrorist plots. But lawmakers should place sensible limits on surveillance and require government officials to meet a high burden of proof before they are allowed to listen in on phone calls, read emails and troll through the web browsing histories of individuals.

quote:

Communication Security Establishment's cyberwarfare toolbox revealed

quote:

Top-secret documents obtained by the CBC show Canada's electronic spy agency has developed a vast arsenal of cyberwarfare tools alongside its U.S. and British counterparts to hack into computers and phones in many parts of the world, including in friendly trade countries like Mexico and hotspots like the Middle East.

The little known Communications Security Establishment wanted to become more aggressive by 2015, the documents also said.

Revelations about the agency's prowess should serve as a "major wakeup call for all Canadians," particularly in the context of the current parliamentary debate over whether to give intelligence officials the power to disrupt national security threats, says Ronald Deibert, director of the Citizen Lab, the respected internet research group at University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs.

"These are awesome powers that should only be granted to the government with enormous trepidation and only with a correspondingly massive investment in equally powerful systems of oversight, review and public accountability," says Deibert.

Details of the CSE’s capabilities are revealed in several top-secret documents analyzed by CBC News in collaboration with The Intercept, a U.S. news website co-founded by Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who obtained the documents from U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden.

quote:

Leave Facebook if you don't want to be spied on, warns EU

European Commission admits Safe Harbour framework cannot ensure privacy of EU citizens’ data when sent to the US by American internet firms

The European Commission has warned EU citizens that they should close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep information private from US security services, finding that current Safe Harbour legislation does not protect citizen’s data.

The comments were made by EC attorney Bernhard Schima in a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems, looking at whether the data of EU citizens should be considered safe if sent to the US in a post-Snowden revelation landscape.

“You might consider closing your Facebook account, if you have one,” Schima told attorney general Yves Bot in a hearing of the case at the European court of justice in Luxembourg.

When asked directly, the commission could not confirm to the court that the Safe Harbour rules provide adequate protection of EU citizens’ data as it currently stands.

The US no longer qualifies

The case, dubbed “the Facebook data privacy case”, concerns the current Safe Harbour framework, which covers the transmission of EU citizens’ data across the Atlantic to the US. Without the framework, it is against EU law to transmit private data outside of the EU. The case collects complaints lodged against Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Microsoft-owned Skype and Yahoo.

Schrems maintains that companies operating inside the EU should not be allowed to transfer data to the US under Safe Harbour protections – which state that US data protection rules are adequate if information is passed by companies on a “self-certify” basis – because the US no longer qualifies for such a status.

The case argues that the US government’s Prism data collection programme, revealed by Edward Snowden in the NSA files, which sees EU citizens’ data held by US companies passed on to US intelligence agencies, breaches the EU’s Data Protection Directive “adequacy” standard for privacy protection, meaning that the Safe Harbour framework no longer applies.

Poland and a few other member states as well as advocacy group Digital Rights Ireland joined Schrems in arguing that the Safe Harbour framework cannot ensure the protection of EU citizens’ data and therefore is in violation of the two articles of the Data Protection Directive.

The commission, however, argued that Safe Harbour is necessary both politically and economically and that it is still a work in progress. The EC and the Ireland data protection watchdog argue that the EC should be left to reform it with a 13-point plan to ensure the privacy of EU citizens’ data.

“There have been a spate of cases from the ECJ and other courts on data privacy and retention showing the judiciary as being more than willing to be a disrupting influence,” said Paula Barrett, partner and data protection expert at law firm Eversheds. “Bringing down the safe harbour mechanism might seem politically and economically ill-conceived, but as the decision of the ECJ in the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ case seems to reinforce that isn’t a fetter which the ECJ is restrained by.”

An opinion on the Safe Harbour framework from the ECJ is expected by 24 June.

Facebook declined to comment.

quote:

AP Exclusive: Before leak, NSA mulled ending phone program

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Security Agency considered abandoning its secret program to collect and store American calling records in the months before leaker Edward Snowden revealed the practice, current and former intelligence officials say, because some officials believed the costs outweighed the meager counterterrorism benefits.

After the leak and the collective surprise around the world, NSA leaders strongly defended the phone records program to Congress and the public, but without disclosing the internal debate.

The proposal to kill the program was circulating among top managers but had not yet reached the desk of Gen. Keith Alexander, then the NSA director, according to current and former intelligence officials who would not be quoted because the details are sensitive. Two former senior NSA officials say they doubt Alexander would have approved it.

Still, the behind-the-scenes NSA concerns, which have not been reported previously, could be relevant as Congress decides whether to renew or modify the phone records collection when the law authorizing it expires in June.

The internal critics pointed out that the already high costs of vacuuming up and storing the “to and from” information from nearly every domestic landline call were rising, the system was not capturing most cellphone calls, and program was not central to unraveling terrorist plots, the officials said. They worried about public outrage if the program ever was revealed.

After the program was disclosed, civil liberties advocates attacked it, saying the records could give a secret intelligence agency a road map to Americans’ private activities. NSA officials presented a forceful rebuttal that helped shaped public opinion.

Responding to widespread criticism, President Barack Obama in January 2014 proposed that the NSA stop collecting the records, but instead request them when needed in terrorism investigations from telephone companies, which tend to keep them for 18 months.

Yet the president has insisted that legislation is required to adopt his proposal, and Congress has not acted. So the NSA continues to collect and store records of private U.S. phone calls for use in terrorism investigations under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Many lawmakers want the program to continue as is.

Alexander argued that the program was an essential tool because it allows the FBI and the NSA to hunt for domestic plots by searching American calling records against phone numbers associated with international terrorists. He and other NSA officials support Obama’s plan to let the phone companies keep the data, as long as the government quickly can search it.

Civil liberties activists say it was never a good idea to allow a secret intelligence agency to store records of Americans’ private phone calls, and some are not sure the government should search them in bulk. They say government can point to only a single domestic terrorism defendant who was implicated by a phone records search under the program, a San Diego taxi driver who was convicted of raising $15,000 for a Somali terrorist group.

Some fault NSA for failing to disclose the internal debate about the program.

“This is consistent with our experience with the intelligence community,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. “Even when we have classified briefings, it’s like a game of 20 questions and we can’t get to the bottom of anything.”

The proposal to halt phone records collection that was circulating in 2013 was separate from a 2009 examination of the program by NSA, sparked by objections from a senior NSA official, reported in November by The Associated Press. In that case, a senior NSA code breaker learned about the program and concluded it was wrong for the agency to collect and store American records. The NSA enlisted the Justice Department in an examination of whether the search function could be preserved with the records stores by the phone companies.

That would not work without a change in the law, the review concluded. Alexander, who retired in March 2014, opted to continue the program as is.

But the internal debate continued, current and former officials say, and critics within the NSA pressed their case against the program. To them, the program had become an expensive insurance policy with an increasing number of loopholes, given the lack of mobile data. They also knew it would be deeply controversial if made public.

By 2013, some NSA officials were ready to stop the bulk collection even though they knew they would lose the ability to search a database of U.S. calling records. As always, the FBI still would be able to obtain the phone records of suspects through a court order.

There was a precedent for ending collection cold turkey. Two years earlier, the NSA cited similar cost-benefit calculations when it stopped another secret program under which it was collecting Americans’ email metadata — information showing who was communicating with whom, but not the content of the messages. That decision was made public via the Snowden leaks.

Alexander believed that the FBI and the NSA were still getting crucial value out of the phone records program, in contrast to the email records program, former NSA officials say.

After the Snowden leaks, independent experts who looked at the program didn’t agree. A presidential task force examined NSA surveillance and recommended ending the phone records collection, saying it posed unacceptable privacy risks while doing little if anything to stop terrorism. The task force included Michael Morell, a former deputy CIA director, and Richard Clarke, a former White House counter terrorism adviser.

“We cannot discount the risk, in light of the lessons of our own history, that at some point in the future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking,” the report said. Times, dates and numbers called can provide a window into a person’s activities and connections.

A separate inquiry by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded the same thing.

David Medine, chairman of that board, said the concerns raised internally by NSA officials were the same as theirs, yet when NSA officials came before the privacy board, they “put on a pretty strong defense for the program. Except their success stories didn’t pan out,” he said.

quote:

Dode na rampoging bij ingang NSA

Bij de toegangspoort van de Amerikaanse inlichtingendienst NSA is vandaag een dode gevallen nadat een automobilist de entree wilde rammen. Verder zouden er een of twee mensen gewond zijn, meldden Amerikaanse media.

Rond 09.30 uur probeerde de bestuurder de poort van het hoofdkantoor van de NSA in Fort Meade te rammen. Volgens NBC Washington zouden er twee mannen in de auto hebben gezeten, die verkleed waren als vrouwen. Ze wilden naar binnen bij het kantoor. Beide mannen zouden zijn geraakt door kogels van bewakers. Er lagen volgens de zender een geweer en drugs in de auto.

De NSA is bekend vanwege vele schandalen van de afgelopen jaren. Klokkenluider Edward Snowden lekte documenten, waardoor duidelijk werd dat de inlichtingendienst op soms buitensporige en vermoedelijk zelfs illegale wijze informatie vergaarde.

quote:

Pew Survey: Snowden Leaks Are Affecting the Way Americans View Privacy

quote:

It’s been nearly two years since former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden first leaked to the Guardian that the NSA was spying on American citizens. A new survey from the Pew Research center finds that the revelations of the mass government surveillance programs has definitely impacted the way certain segments of the American population now view their privacy — but that hasn’t yet translated into behavior changes.

The survey found that a vast majority of respondents — 87 percent — had heard of the leaks in some way. Among them about a third, 34 percent, had actually modified their behaviors to protect their privacy from the government more, with 25 percent reporting they had modified the way they use different technologies “a great deal” or “somewhat.” Common reactions included changing their privacy settings on social media (17 percent), using social media less often (15 percent), avoiding certain apps (15 percent) and uninstalling apps (13 percent).

Meanwhile, 14 percent of the 475 respondents said they now speak in person more often than communicating online or over the phone. About 13 percent said they now avoid the use of certain terminology online.

quote:

Who Knows What Evils Lurk in the Shadows?

The story of the powerful spy agency most Canadians still don’t know, and the security bill that would expand its resources and reach

quote:

Charlie Hebdo. Ottawa. Peshawar. Westgate. Mumbai. Acts of terror such as these have become an unfortunate by-product of the hypermedia world in which we now live. Governments worldwide have responded to these incidents with a sense of urgency: new anti-terrorism laws and expanded law enforcement and intelligence capabilities.

Canada’s version is now before us as Bill C-51, an omnibus crime and anti-terrorism bill that introduces two new security laws and amends 15 existing laws, including the Criminal Code and the CSIS Act. C-51 sets out to counter not just “terrorism” but the vast undefined expanse C-51 describes as “threats to the security of Canada.” The Harper government has pushed variations of these laws unsuccessfully over years. But it was the Ottawa attacks, followed quickly by those in Paris, which created a window of political opportunity prior to federal elections to throw together the package. These measures are the most sweeping change of Canadian national security laws since the 2001 terror attacks on the United States (9/11). As the law is being debated, it is important that Canadians understand the full implications.

quote:

Edward Snowden issues 'call to arms' for tech companies in secret SXSW meeting

quote:

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was a highlight of last year's SXSW, where he gave one of his first public speeches. This year, Snowden was back at SXSW — but only a few people even knew it was happening. Snowden held a streamed question-and-answer session with roughly two dozen people from across the technology and policy world, which participant Sunday Yokubaitis, president of online privacy company Golden Frog, described as a "call to arms" for tech companies to foil spying with better privacy tools.

According to Yokubaitis, Snowden said that as policy reform lagged, companies should adopt more secure technology that could block surveillance altogether or make it too difficult to pursue en masse. A big focus was end-to-end encryption, which would mean no one (including companies) could see the contents of communications except the sender and recipient. "The low-hanging fruit is always [the] transit layer," he reportedly said. "It raises the cost. Every time we raise the cost, we force budgetary constraints." This is especially relevant as tools that are originally built for targeted use overseas slowly grow into broader programs. "We hope that they start with North Korea and by the time they end up in Ohio, they run out of budget."

Snowden described common security systems like SSL, meanwhile, as "critical infrastructure" that didn't receive enough investment and became vulnerable as a result. And if encryption isn't common enough, simply using it can mark a message as suspicious, which is part of the reason companies should be working on better encryption options. "Him saying that validates that companies should try and fill the holes, and not wait for policy," said Yokubaitis after the meeting.

quote:

The DEA Has Been Secretly Buying Hacking Tools From an Italian Company

quote:

The Drug Enforcement Administration has been buying spyware produced by the controversial Italian surveillance tech company Hacking Team since 2012, Motherboard has learned.

The software, known as Remote Control System or “RCS,” is capable of intercepting phone calls, texts, and social media messages, and can surreptitiously turn on a user’s webcam and microphone as well as collect passwords.

The DEA originally placed an order for the software in August of 2012, according to both public records and sources with knowledge of the deal.

The contract, which has not been previously revealed, shows that the FBI is not the only US government agency engaged in hacking tactics, but that the DEA has also been purchasing off-the-shelf malware that could be used to spy on suspected criminals.

This revelation comes just a week after USA Today uncovered a secret program with which the DEA collected the phone records of millions of Americans for more than 20 years, a program that pre-dated and inspired the NSA’s own bulk telephone collection program, suggesting that the drug agency is sort of a pioneer in the use of surveillance.

quote:

Security expert used Tor to collect government e-mail passwords

A security expert who exposed the passwords and login information for a number …

Last month, Swedish security specialist Dan Egerstad exposed the passwords and login information for 100 e-mail accounts on embassy and government servers. In a blog entry today, Egerstad disclosed his methodology. He collected the information by running a specialized packet sniffer on five Tor exit nodes operated by his organization, Deranged Security.

Tor is an onion routing service that facilitates anonymous Internet communication. Originally developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory and formerly funded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Tor is designed to protect users from traffic analysis and other kinds of network surveillance. It works by relaying connections through a series of distributed network servers. When a Tor user visits a web site, the IP address detected and logged by that site will be the IP address of one of the Tor nodes rather than the actual user. This makes it possible for users to obscure their identity under certain circumstances.

Unfortunately, many Tor users do not realize that all of their network traffic is being exposed to Tor exit nodes. Tor users who do not use encryption are broadly exposing themselves to identity theft. Egerstad was originally doing a study on e-mail encryption, but during the course of the research project, he decided to create the packet sniffer and expose sensitive e-mail login data in order to increase awareness of the fact that Tor exposes sensitive information when not used with encryption.

Egerstad believed that privately disclosing his findings to the organizations whose passwords he obtained would not convince them to change their practices. He also knew that it was only a matter of time before others with malicious intent would perform the same kind of experiment, so he felt that broad public disclosure was the only way he could generate enough attention to force people to think about the problem.

"Experience tells me that even if I would contact everyone on this list most are not going to listen," Egerstad wrote when he released the login information last month. "So f*** it! Here is everything you need to read classified email and f*** up some serious International business. Hopefully this will put light on the security problems that are never talked about and get at least this fixed with a speed that you never seen your government work before. As a Swedish citizen I can't give this information to anyone without getting into trouble, so instead I'm giving it to everyone."

After publicly releasing the information, Egerstad's site was taken down at the request of US law enforcement officials. After it was brought back earlier this week, Egerstad expressed frustration and pointed out that the information was already spreading across the Internet. Taking down Egerstad's site only served to silence his message about security and did not prevent dissemination of the sensitive data. "I've seen people saying that the US would be angry now that we forced foreign countries to tighten their security so NSA or whatever can't read their secrets any longer. To me it sounds like bulls*** taken out of a bad book but after this silly little stunt I'm reconsidering. Is there any reason you DO NOT want people to secure their systems?" asked Egerstad.

According to Egerstad, the information disclosed is only a fraction of what he collected. He continues to argue that the responsibility for exposing the login information rests on the organizations that failed to use encryption and that he simply drew attention to information that was essentially already public. "ToR isn't the problem, just use it for what it's made for," Egerstad notes. "[The system administrators for the organizations whose passwords were exposed] are responsible for giving away their own countries secrets to foreigners. I can't call it a mistake, this is pure stupidity and not forgivable!"

Egerstad also points out that very little is known about the intentions and activity of other Tor exit node operators, some of whom are already known to be associated with malicious hacker groups and foreign governments.