Security expert says a new whistleblower has emerged, Greenwald agrees

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars: July 4, 2014

Security expert Bruce Schneier reacted to yesterday’s new revelations about the NSA by asserting that there’s probably a second leaker in addition to Edward Snowden.

As we highlighted yesterday, reporters who conducted an analysis of the NSA’s “deep packet inspection” rules discovered that the federal agency was placing people in an “extremists” database simply for searching for information about Tor and Tails, an anonymous browser and a privacy-friendly operating system.

Although the authors did not specify the source of the revelation (for obvious reasons), Schneier believes the information could have been provided by a new whistleblower.

“I do not believe that this came from the Snowden documents. I also don’t believe the TAO catalog came from the Snowden documents. I think there’s a second leaker out there,” wrote Schneier on his blog.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has worked closely with Edward Snowden in reporting on leaked NSA documents over the past year, appeared to agree with Schneier, tweeting, “Seems clear at this point.”

(read the full article at Infowars)

—
alternative Free Press -fair use-

Matt Sledge
Huffington Post: Jul 1, 2014

The nation’s top intelligence agency revealed in a letter made public Monday that the NSA, CIA and FBI are engaging in a large number of warrantless searches of the content of Americans’ communications caught up in collection on foreign targets.

The letter, sent by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), also disclosed that there are large gaps in how the government tracks searches on Americans’ communications — and that the FBI simply does not track such searches at all.

Those revelations immediately raised an alarm for Wyden, who has begged the NSA for years to reveal how many “backdoor searches” it conducts, and on June 5 in Senate questioning pressed again for more detail.

“When the FBI says it conducts a substantial number of searches and it has no idea of what the number is, it shows how flawed this system is and the consequences of inadequate oversight,” Wyden said in a statement. “This huge gap in oversight is a problem now, and will only grow as global communications systems become more interconnected.”

The intelligence agencies for years have resisted making public the details of such searches, conducted under a 2008 law meant to bring President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program under court review.

A provision of the law crafted then, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was meant to ensure that only foreigners would be targeted for NSA collection. But the agency collects both sides of communications sent abroad, meaning that the agency picks up the content of Americans’ communications “incidentally” collected. The Washington Post reported on Monday that the NSA considers 193 foreign countries — containing the vast majority of the earth’s population — to be valid foreign intelligence targets.

(read the full article at Huffington Post)

Alternative Free Press -fair use-

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered Google to remove entire domains from its search results—a decision that could have enormous global implications on free expression. This is the latest of several instances of courts exercising dangerous jurisdictional overreach, where they have applied local laws to remove content on the Internet. Not only did the Court order Google to delete the site from its search results on the Canadian “Google.ca” domain, it went even further by demanding it censor the domain worldwide by deleting every instance of the site from its global index.

The case, titled Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, involved a trade secret fight between two Canadian companies. One sued the other for allegedly stealing the designs of some of their products and selling them on their website. The plaintiff claimed that Google facilitated access to this illegitimate online vendor through its search platform. Initially, Google voluntarily took down specific URLs that directed users to those products and ads under the local Google.ca domains, but the Court decided that was not enough. The judge ultimately ruled that Google must delete the entire domain from its search results, including all other local domains such as “Google.go.uk” and even the main site “Google.com”.

Oddly, the judge in this case seemed unfazed by the wide-ranging implications of this order. Based upon the assumption that users would simply switch to other variants of the Google domain, she decided that for any blockage ruling “to be effective, even within Canada, Google must block search results on all of its websites” and that any other external impacts are a “separate issue.”

The decision is a massive overreach. The removal of the defendant’s entire domain from Google’s local Canadian sites would have already been excessive. Although it cannot be confirmed from official reports, this one could have carried other legitimate products unrelated to the plaintiff’s designs, or even hosted a blog or discussion forum with other users’ comments and submissions. For example, the U.S. seized and took down the hip-hop culture website, Dajaz1.com, due to some allegedly copyright infringing works that was shared on the platform even while most of the site’s pages contained lawful content. It’s not clear whether such considerations were made at all, and that is terrifying on its own.

But the court went even further, ordering Google—a company based outside its jurisdiction in California—to censor the site worldwide. If left unchallenged, this could leading to a slippery slope of ever more countries feeling empowered to mandate global online censorship. If a Turkish court were to find that a certain protest site was illegal, would intermediary services like Google be forced to remove all references of the domain name from its site? Or if Ethiopia mandated the deletion of all sites referring to imprisoned journalist, Eskinder Nega, would online platforms be forced to comply with that order?

Those are only a few examples of how such a precedent could dangerously expand. If courts become empowered to demand intermediary platforms remove and take down domains worldwide, that could be the end of online free expression as we know it. And if history has taught us anything, authorities are very good at creatively constructing legitimacy to shut down speech. This case alone is evidence of that: the judge mentioned that she was inspired by the recent EU rulings on the “right to be forgotten,” and felt that forcing global removals was just a way to “keep up with the times.”

We can imagine how problematic this would be if it were applied to copyright infringement. There is already a history of cases in which government agencies have taken down entire domains over allegations of content piracy. The United States has been especially guilty of this. One of the most glaring cases involve Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), when it took down a Spanish sports streaming site, Rojadirecta. It is alarming that any government agency, anywhere in the world, would have the authority to unilaterally remove an entire website, especially when doing so may violate another country’s strong legal protections for the right to free expression. This kind of forceful takedown of domains is exactly the kind of sweeping censorship that what we fought against in the SOPA and PIPA bills defeated over two years ago. No matter what the charges are, there is no reasonable justification for intermediaries to block an entire website over content that only some of the pages contain.

Thankfully, Google has indicated that it intends to appeal the decision to prevent this from becoming a dangerous new precedent. It is as important as ever that intermediaries, such as search engines, Internet service providers, and domain name registrars, be protected as neutral platforms. They are often attractive targets for those who want those services to help them remedy alleged wrongdoing. But dragging intermediaries into court as implicit facilitators of unlawful activity creates a wide range of negative, unintended consequences for the Internet. Just because a party has been wronged does not mean that they are entitled to any and all remedies. Going after intermediaries is an easy shortcut, but one with too many costly ramifications.

(Source: EFF )

Derrick Broze
Ben Swann: June 27, 2014

Research teams in Russia and Toronto have uncovered new details regarding surveillance tools used by more than 60 governments around the globe.

Reports from Kaspersky Lab in Russia and the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs in Canada reveal various components of tracking tools made by Italian company Hacking Team. The spyware can take control of wi-fi, and gps; record voice, take screenshots and pictures, and turn on the microphone; view visited urls, address books, call history, notes, calendar, and emails; and log all keystrokes. The tools are designed to detect attempts to locate them and automatically delete if under attack.

The Kaspersky Lab found more than three hundred and fifty command-and-control servers created for the tools, in more than forty countries. With sixty four servers the United States leads the way followed by Kazakhstan with forty nine, Ecuador with thirty five and the United Kingdom with thirty two. Although it is unknown whether law enforcement agencies in the United States use the tools, or if they are used by other governments, however Kaspersky states that its unlikely for governments to maintain servers in foreign countries where they might lose control of them.

The tools are designed to be used with Android, Ios, Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices. The labs found that with the Android version a phone’s Wi-Fi function can be used to pull information off the phone wirelessly rather than using the network which could possibly notify the phone owner of a rise in data use. The iOS version only works on jailbroken iPhones but this is easily remedied if authorities run a jailbreaking program and then install the tool. Even with a password protected phone it is still possible for police to access the device if it is connected to a computer with the Hacking Teams main surveillance tool – the Remote Control System, also known as DaVinci or Galileo.

The Toronto team also received a copy of the user manual Hacking Team provides to their customer. The document explains to agencies how to create the system needed to implant targeted machines and how to use the software’s dashboard to manage data stolen from infected phones and computers.  The company recommends its customers set up anonymous proxy servers to route the stolen information from the devices. This is meant to prevent curious researchers or phone users from follow the data trail back to the command servers.

(read the full article at Ben Swann)

—
Alternative Free Press -fair use

Cindy Blackstock : June 21, 2014

Earlier this month Canadians joined with the international community to honour the sacrifice made by Second World War veterans to preserve our freedom. At the same time, headlines in Canadian newspapers warned of government surveillance of citizens engaged in peaceful protests. It made me wonder — why would we allow our own government to trample on the freedoms that many Canadians died protecting?

Until it happened to me I thought domestic government surveillance could only be carried out with a warrant. In my case there was no warrant and yet in 2011, I received hundreds of pages of government documents revealing that 189 federal government officials from the departments of Justice and Aboriginal Affairs were routinely spying on my personal Facebook page, collecting information about my family, friends and me, and distributing it to other government officials.

They even collected Facebook addresses of other users and circulated postings made by children, without the consent of their parents. My domestic and international movements were monitored and my personal and private government records were accessed. Government email correspondence suggested the surveillance was undertaken to try to prove I had “other motives” for filing a historic human rights case in 2007 alleging the federal government’s provision of First Nations child welfare was discriminatory.

I was stunned and afraid — it felt like I was being stalked. I remember thinking this cannot possibly be legal, but I had no idea where to file a report about the Canadian departments of Justice and Aboriginal Affairs, and what would happen to me and the people I cared about if I did report it?

Amidst the fear and confusion I thought that if this was happening to me — a law-abiding social worker who does not even have a parking ticket — then how many other Canadians are subject to government surveillance and what does it mean for our freedom? In fact I had good reason to believe others were affected, as the Department of Aboriginal Affairs had a form for bureaucrats to access restricted websites.

As a taxpayer I was equally appalled — why was the government wasting all this money following me around while cutting services to Canadians? I decided to share the government documents with the media. Some people say I was courageous but I was simply less afraid of standing up for freedom than of living without it.

The privacy commissioner found the federal government’s access of my personal Facebook page violated the Privacy Act and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is currently deliberating on whether the government’s conduct amounts to retaliation under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Meanwhile, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs are conducting an inquiry to determine if Canada is meeting its international human rights obligations to respect and protect human rights defenders, freedom of association and Indigenous peoples.

[…]

Some say that people with nothing to hide should not be afraid of government surveillance. I believe that governments with nothing to hide should not be spying on citizens without a court order. It should frighten us all when our own government takes away the freedoms that our veterans fought so hard for us to enjoy.

(read the full article at The Star)

—
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Michael Geist : June 17, 2014

Having had the benefit of a few days to consider the implications of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Spencer, the Senate last night proceeded to ignore the court and pass Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act, unchanged. The bill extends the ability to disclose subscriber information without a warrant from law enforcement to any private sector organizations by including a provision that allows organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. Given the Spencer decision, it seems unlikely that organizations will voluntarily disclose such information as they would face the prospect of complaints for violations of PIPEDA.

Despite a strong ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada that explicitly rejected the very foundation of the government’s arguments for voluntary warrantless disclosure, the government’s response is “the decision has no effect whatsoever on Bill S-4.”

As I posted yesterday, the government had argued in committee that:

In the instance of PIPEDA, because of the type of information provided in a pre‑warrant phase such as basic subscriber information, it would be consistent with privacy expectations and therefore it’s not really putting telecoms, for example, in some unique position in terms of police investigations.

The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this view, concluding that:

there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information. The disclosure of this information will often amount to the identification of a user with intimate or sensitive activities being carried out online, usually on the understanding that these activities would be anonymous.

That cannot be credibly described as “no effect whatsoever.” Indeed, the government’s recently appointed Privacy Commissioner also pointed to Spencer and urged the government to consider the implications on S-4.

In another post yesterday on the future of C-13 and S-4, I lamented that the “government could adopt the ‘bury our heads in the sand approach’ by leaving the provisions unchanged, knowing that they will be unused or subject to challenge.” I argued that a better approach would be to address the issue directly, providing certainty to businesses and Canadians.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given its recent track record on privacy, it has chosen the head in the sand approach. During debate at the Senate yesterday, Conservative Senators repeatedly argued that Bill S-4 actually strengthens privacy, despite the fact that it opens the door to warrantless voluntary disclosure to any organization (it also enshrines weak data breach rules that do not provide protection as strong as that found in some other jurisdictions). Moreover, they tried to distinguish Spencer by arguing that it involves a criminal investigation disclosure to police, while the S-4 expansion of warrantless disclosure involves disclosures to private organizations.

Yet the principle is obviously the same: there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information that should not be disclosed without a warrant or court order. No organization should be disclosing that information and when they do, they are likely to face a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for violating PIPEDA. By leaving S-4 unchanged, the government is encouraging voluntary disclosures even after the Supreme Court explicitly ruled against them.

While the bill must still pass through the House of Commons, the government’s decision to rush the legislation through the Senate (it conducted only a few hours of hearings) and to seemingly ignore the Supreme Court’s decision creates further uncertainty for Canadians and Canadian businesses. Everyone needs rules that comply with the letter and spirit of the Spencer decision, which Bill S-4 fails to do on both counts.

(Source: Michael Geist)

Creative Commons License Attribution 2.0 Canada (CC BY 2.0 CA)

Media Roots: June 14, 2014

It’s been over a year since the groundbreaking documents were released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, detailing a massive surveillance apparatus collecting the electronic communications of entire populations. The proof positive spying story sparked a global discussion reevaluating state power and a groundswell of privacy advocates.

However, years before Snowden’s damning disclosures, two former NSA insiders had also blown the whistle on the dragnet spying regime. Bill Binney was NSA Technical Director from 1965 to 2001 and Kirk Wiebe was Senior Analyst within the NSA from 1975 to 2001. They both resigned after 9/11, outraged by the unconstitutional assertions of power within the agency.

As a pioneer of the now-defunct ‘Thin Thread’ program, which upheld the privacy of US citizens, Binney broke away from the NSA after witnessing the erosion of privacy rights under the banner of national security. Wiebe, equally disgusted by the NSA’s blatant disregard for the rule of law, left his post in protest against the indiscriminate violations unfolding outside the view of the American public.

(Read the full article at Media Roots)

—
Alternative Free Press -fair use-