Category Archives: Privacy

Original, Privacy

Cloud Services Including Dropbox Shown to Leak Sensitive Data

AlternativeFreePress.com

The BBC has reported that cloud storage company Dropbox is apparently correcting a bug that allowed private data to leak to the internet, while Box has not responded to requests for comment.

Dropbox’s competitor, Intralinks, claims it was able to access sensitive data such as mortgage records.

The BBC report quotes security researcher Graham Cluley who said identity thieves could use the method to “scoop up” data.

Dropbox reportedly said: “We’re working to restore links that aren’t susceptible to this vulnerability over the next few days.”

Considering the NSA’s history of exploiting security flaws, it seems unlikely that they wouldn’t have also exploited this vulnerability.

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
Cloud Services Including Dropbox Shown to Leak Sensitive Data by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

source: BBC

Privacy

How federal bill C-13 could give CSIS agents — or even Rob Ford — access to your personal online data

Justin Ling
National Post: May 4, 2014

A wide-ranging new federal bill that will allow Internet and cellphone providers to hand over your personal data without a warrant has privacy advocates concerned about just how many officials will have access to that information, a list that could range from CSIS agents to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

When passed, Tory bill C-13 will mean that any “public officer” or “peace officer” can request, obtain and use data that has been voluntarily provided to them by telecommunication companies, and it spells out legal immunity for any company that co-operates.

The officers obtaining that data can be anything from tax agents to sheriffs, reeves, justices of the peace, CSIS agents, and even, yes, mayors.

That aspect of the bill was enough of a concern for then-Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, to raise the alarm. She released a statement in November noting “the potentially large number of ‘public officers’ who would be able to use these significant new powers.”

While the much-lauded bill is supposedly targeting cyberbullying by going after those who share intimate images without consent, so-called ‘revenge porn,’ a bevy of changes sewed onto the back — touching on everything from stealing cable to catching terrorists and regulating hate propaganda — have led it to being decried as omnibus legislation by some.

Ottawa is arguing that the changes will have no substantive effect, yet privacy advocates like David Christopher, a spokesperson with Open Media, says the legislation “opens up our information to a wide range of government authorities.

“It effectively encourages telecommunications companies to hand over information to the government without a warrant and without any judicial oversight,” he says.

(read the full article at National Post)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Privacy

Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

People’s privacy is violated without any suspicion of wrongdoing, former National Security Agency contractor claims

Associated Press: May 3, 2014

The US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned that entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance.

“It’s no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing,” he said. “It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.”

Snowden made his comments in a short video that was played before a debate on the proposition that surveillance today is a euphemism for mass surveillance, in Toronto, Canada. The former US National Security Agency contractor is living in Russia, having been granted temporary asylum there in June 2013.

The video was shown as two of the debaters – the former US National Security Administration director, General Michael Hayden, and the well-known civil liberties lawyer and Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz – argued in favour of the debate statement: “Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms.”

Opposing the motion were Glenn Greenwald, the journalist whose work based on Snowden’s leaks won a Pulitzer Prize for the Guardian last month, and Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of the social media website Reddit.

The Snowden documents, first leaked to the Guardian last June, revealed that the US government has programs in place to spy on hundreds of millions of people’s emails, social networking posts, online chat histories, browsing histories, telephone records, telephone calls and texts – “nearly everything a typical user does on the internet”, in the words of one leaked document.

Greenwald opened the debate by condemning the NSA’s own slogan, which he said appears repeatedly throughout its own documents: “Collect it all.”

“What is state surveillance?” Greenwald asked. “If it were about targeting in a discriminate way against those causing harm, there would be no debate.

“The actual system of state surveillance has almost nothing to do with that. What state surveillance actually is, is defended by the NSA’s actual words, that phrase they use over and over again: ‘Collect it all.’ ”

Dershowitz and Hayden spent the rest of the 90 minutes of the debate denying that the pervasive surveillance systems described by Snowden and Greenwald even exist and that surveillance programs are necessary to prevent terrorism.

(read the full article at The Guardian)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Drugs, Privacy, Tyranny

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: No Warrant Needed to Search Citizens’ Vehicles

By Jay Syrmopoulos
Ben Swann: May 2, 2014

The Pennsylvania Supreme court, in a 4-2 decision, has issued a ruling that police officers are not required to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle. This decision overturns the protections offered by the Pennsylvania state constitution as well as those enumerated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The court opinion, issued by Justice Seamus McCaffery concluded that, “the prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search.”

The case stemmed from a 2010 traffic stop by the Philadelphia police department, for a vehicle having dark tinted windows. The police subsequently found two pounds of marijuana under the hood of the car.

Prior to this decision police were not allowed to search a vehicle without driver consent, illegal substances in plain view or a search warrant. Drivers had the ability to refuse a search request, which would then require the officer to produce a warrant signed by a judge for the search to take place. Based on this ruling the standard to search has now been lowered to an officers belief of reasonable probable cause.

The police applauded the decision. According to Lancaster Online, New Holland Police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said, “It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” as reported by Brett Hambright.

However not all parties felt this was a wise decision.

In the dissent, Justice Debra McCloskey concluded that the ruling, “heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright,” and went on to state that the decision was “diametrically contrary to the deep historical and legal traditions.”

A number of defense attorneys viewed the decision as extreme governmental overreach. Jeffrey Conrad, of Clymer Musser & Conrad, in a statement to Hambright, said, “It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” and followed up by saying, “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”

(read the full article at Ben Swann)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Corporate Welfare, Drugs, Privacy

High schools to drug test using company of school president’s brother

RT: May 1, 2014

Three Catholic schools in the Cleveland, Ohio area will begin mandatory drug testing using students’ hair in the next school year. The CEO of the company performing the testing is the brother of one of the school’s presidents.

Gilmour Academy, St. Edward High School, and St. Ignatius High School announced the new policy to students and their parents on Monday. The schools will use Psychemedics Corporation for the drug tests on hair follicles. Psychemedics president and CEO Raymond Kubacki is the brother of St. Edward president James Kubacki.

K.C. McKenna, vice president of admissions and marketing at St. Edward High School, told the Cleveland Scene that the decision to work with Psychemedics came after several years of research led by an internal committee made up of members of the board of trustees, a faculty member, and members of the administration.

“Certainly, Jim knew a little more about the process because of his brother being involved, but his brother being CEO of that company in no way led to us making the decision to use Psychemedics,” he said.

“From Day One, I told them this was my brother’s company,” the St. Edward’s president told the Plain Dealer. But in their announcements, the schools made no mention of a connection between anyone at the schools and Psychemedics.

“The short answer is Gilmour was very much aware of that connection from the beginning and it was never an issue,” Gilmour spokesman Devin Schlickmann told the Plain Dealer.

“How we picked the company isn’t of interest to high school boys,” St. Ignatius spokeswoman Lisa Metro said. “They’re more interested in how it’s going to play out to them.” Metro also revealed why the committee decided to go with Psychemedics: “They were the only lab with full FDA clearance to do the testing we were looking for,” she added.

The schools said the drug testing is preventative, and not evidence of substance abuse among students, according to a statement on the St. Edward website. “The schools decided to initiate drug testing out of a deep concern for the health and well-being of students,” the statement says. “The primary purpose for this initiative is to give students another reason to say “no” to the pressures of using illegal drugs and to help them remain substance-free. This initiative is simply one more component in our student wellness efforts.”

However, school leaders told The Plain Dealer that the heroin epidemic in Northeast Ohio was the catalyst for implementing the program.

The statement did outline the decision to use hair testing over body fluids like urine or saliva. “Many drugs are undetectable in urine as early as 72 hours after use, whereas they can be detected in hair samples for several months after ingestion,” the statement says. “In addition, it is much more difficult to adulterate or substitute hair samples and collection is much less intrusive, as well as more cost-effective.”

Hair-testing kits cost $39 to $50 each, schools that currently work with Psychemedics told the Scene. All high school students – about 980 at St. Ed’s, 340 at Gilmour, and 1,500 at St. Ignatius – will be subject to testing at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, and then random testing will occur throughout the year. The three contracts combined will pay Psychemedics nearly $120,000 for the initial testing alone, the Plain Dealer reported.

According to the St. Ed’s statement, hair testing can detect drug use for up to three months. The timing of the announcement gives students a four-month warning before testing begins. “The only good thing about this is that they announced it this early,” one Ignatius student wrote on the Scene site. “They practically winked at us while saying that the test can detect drugs used up to 3 months prior to it, and the first tests won’t begin for 4 months.”

The student also noted, “We were also told that shaved heads would not work as the test can be done with even arm hair…And as a side note, the students will likely just be drinking a lot more.”

(read the full article at RT)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Privacy, Tyranny

Canada telecoms disclose private customer information without warrant; Feds ask over 1.2 million times a year

“I’m not disputing that there are times when there is no time to get a warrant — life is in danger” -Chantal Bernier

Feds ask Canadian telecoms to disclose private customer information 1.2 million times a year, docs show

Steve Rennie
Canadian Press: April 30, 2014

OTTAWA — The federal government asks Canadian telecom companies for private customer information about 1.2 million times each year, documents released Tuesday by the federal privacy commissioner’s office show.

It is unclear how many of those requests are made without a warrant. But figures provided to the office in late 2011 show wireless telecom companies complied with the government’s requests for customer data at least 784,756 times.

However, the actual total is likely even greater, since only three of nine telecom companies told the commissioner’s office how many times they granted the government’s requests for customer data.

The numbers came to light Tuesday as Canada’s acting privacy commissioner revealed that telecom companies have refused to disclose how often they release confidential customer information to the federal government without a warrant.

Chantal Bernier, the interim privacy commissioner, said her office has repeatedly asked telecom companies to disclose statistics and the scope of warrantless disclosure of data, but to no avail.

“I’m not disputing that there are times when there is no time to get a warrant — life is in danger,” Bernier said.

“What we would like is for those warrantless disclosures to simply be represented in statistics so that Canadians have an idea of the scope of the phenomenon.”

Bernier said the companies have only provided her office with aggregate data, which shows how many times the telecom industry as a whole gives the government customer information without a warrant.

(read the full article at Financial Post)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Privacy, Tyranny

Supreme Court Rules Anonymous Tip Justifies Stopping Drivers

Police may stop drivers based only on anonymous tip, rules Supreme Court

RT: April 23, 2014

Law enforcement officials may now stop US drivers based only on the information gleaned in an anonymous tip phoned in by a caller who dialed 911, the Supreme Court ruled in a tight decision Tuesday.

The high court ruled 5-4 that relying only on a comment from a 911 caller is reasonable because “a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers.” In most cases the justices are split along ideological lines but Tuesday’s decision was enough to split the two most conservative-minded justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia leading the dissent.

The case considered a 2008 California incident in which an anonymous 911 caller told the police that a pickup truck had forced her off the road, providing the location, as well as details such as the truck’s make, model, and license plate number. Police soon stopped a vehicle matching the description and reported smelling the odor of marijuana as they approached driver Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette was arrested because officers found 30 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle, although he argued that the initial stop was unconstitutional because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his truck. His legal team asserted that the police could not have determined with any accuracy the identity of the caller or challenged her credibility.

The Supreme Court has long maintained that police may act on anonymous tips, although those tips are required to include enough detail so that officers can formulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, according to NPR. Justice Thomas used this rationale in his opinion, claiming that police may have felt, based on the 911 call, that the truck driver was intoxicated behind the wheel.

[…]

Justice Scalia, who usually agrees with Thomas, wrote a stinging rebuke of the majority decision in his own dissent.

“The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness,” he wrote, as quoted by US News and World Report.

“All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences even if 911 knows his identity.”

(read the full article at RT)

Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Privacy, Tyranny

FBI Abruptly Walks Out On Senate Briefing After Being Asked How ‘Insider Threat’ Program Avoids Whistleblowers

Mike Masnick
Tech Dirt: April 14, 2014

While we’ve been disappointed that Senator Chuck Grassley appears to have a bit of a double standard with his staunch support for whistleblowers when it comes to Ed Snowden, it is true that he has fought for real whistleblower protections for quite some time. Lately, he’s been quite concerned that the White House’s “Insider Threat Program” (ITP) is really just a cover to crack down on whistleblowers. As we’ve noted, despite early promises from the Obama administration to support and protect whistleblowers, the administration has led the largest crackdown against whistleblowers, and the ITP suggests that the attack on whistleblowers is a calculated response. The program documentation argues that any leak can be seen as “aiding the enemy” and encourages government employees to snitch on each other if they appear too concerned about government wrong-doing. Despite all his high minded talk of supporting whistleblowers, President Obama has used the Espionage Act against whistleblowers twice as many times as all other Presidents combined. Also, he has never — not once — praised someone for blowing the whistle in the federal government.

Given all of that, Senator Grassley expressed some concern about this Insider Threat Program and how it distinguished whistleblowers from actual threats. He asked the FBI for copies of its training manual on the program, which it refused to give him. Instead, it said it could better answer any questions at a hearing. However, as Grassley explains, when questioned about this just 10 minutes into the hearing, the FBI abruptly got up and left:

Meanwhile, the FBI fiercely resists any efforts at Congressional oversight, especially on whistleblower matters. For example, four months ago I sent a letter to the FBI requesting its training materials on the Insider Threat Program. This program was announced by the Obama Administration in October 2011. It was intended to train federal employees to watch out for insider threats among their colleagues. Public news reports indicated that this program might not do enough to distinguish between true insider threats and legitimate whistleblowers. I relayed these concerns in my letter. I also asked for copies of the training materials. I said I wanted to examine whether they adequately distinguished between insider threats and whistleblowers.

In response, an FBI legislative affairs official told my staff that a briefing might be the best way to answer my questions. It was scheduled for last week. Staff for both Chairman Leahy and I attended, and the FBI brought the head of their Insider Threat Program. Yet the FBI didn’t bring the Insider Threat training materials as we had requested. However, the head of the Insider Threat Program told the staff that there was no need to worry about whistleblower communications. He said whistleblowers had to register in order to be protected, and the Insider Threat Program would know to just avoid those people.

Now I have never heard of whistleblowers being required to “register” in order to be protected. The idea of such a requirement should be pretty alarming to all Americans. Sometimes confidentiality is the best protection a whistleblower has. Unfortunately, neither my staff nor Chairman Leahy’s staff was able to learn more, because only about ten minutes into the briefing, the FBI abruptly walked out. FBI officials simply refused to discuss any whistleblower implications in its Insider Threat Program and left the room. These are clearly not the actions of an agency that is genuinely open to whistleblowers or whistleblower protection.

And yes, it’s equally troubling that the FBI insists that as long as someone “registers” as a whistleblower, the FBI will suddenly, magically agree to stop investigating them as a “threat.” We already know that’s almost certainly bullshit. The stories of Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou are both clear examples of whistleblowers, who then had the DOJ search through basically everything they’d ever done to try to concoct some sort of Espionage Act case against them. In both cases, the eventual charges were totally ridiculous and unrelated to the whistleblowing they had done, but clearly the only reason they had been investigated was because of their status as whistleblowers. Drake was charged with having a classified document, which was just a meeting agenda and was both improperly classified and then declassified soon after. Kiriakou was charged with revealing the name of a CIA operative to a reporter, where the person in question was already widely known to journalists as working for the CIA.

(Read the full article at Tech Dirt)

Privacy

Glass without the glasses: Google patents smart contact lens system with a CAMERA built in

By Mark Prigg
Daily Mail: April 14, 2014

Google has patented a smart contact lens that could see its Glass wearable computer fit inside a smart lens.

The firm has already developed a contact lens for diabetics analyses their tears, warning them if their glucose levels are low.

Now it has revealed plans for a lens with a camera built in – opening the possibility of its Glass system being shrunk down significantly, offering features such as ‘superzoom’ to wearers and even helping the blind see.

According to PatentBolt, the system could even be used to help the blind see.

‘For example, a blind person wearing Google’s contact lens with a built-in camera may be walking on a sidewalk and approaching an intersection,’ it says.

‘The analysis component of the contact lens can process the raw image data of the camera to determine processed image data indicating that the blind person is approaching intersection with a crosswalk and establish that there is a car approaching the intersection.’

The lens also has wireless capabilities allowing it to link to a smartphone, which can be used to process data and give the user audio commands.

Google also says the system will be able to detect faces, potentially allowing the blind to recognise people.

The firm has already developed a smart lens capable of measuring the glucose level of diabetics.

(Read the full article at Daily Mail)

Privacy

Obama Lets N.S.A. Exploit Some Internet Flaws, Officials Say

By David E. Sanger
NY Times: April 12, 2014

Stepping into a heated debate within the nation’s intelligence agencies, President Obama has decided that when the National Security Agency discovers major flaws in Internet security, it should — in most circumstances — reveal them to assure that they will be fixed, rather than keep mum so that the flaws can be used in espionage or cyberattacks, senior administration officials said Saturday.

But Mr. Obama carved a broad exception for “a clear national security or law enforcement need,” the officials said, a loophole that is likely to allow the N.S.A. to continue to exploit security flaws both to crack encryption on the Internet and to design cyberweapons.

The White House has never publicly detailed Mr. Obama’s decision, which he made in January as he began a three-month review of recommendations by a presidential advisory committee on what to do in response to recent disclosures about the National Security Agency.

(Read the full article at NY Times)

—-
Alternative Free Press