From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 1 06:26:46 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 07:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Twitter Hacking: Feds Probe Financial Markets Risk Message-ID: This is a prime opportunity for the CFTC to reign in algos and other HFTs. If all they do is point the finger at Twitter for not using stronger authentication measures, we are screwed. The problem isn't Twitter, it's uncontrolled algos and HFTs running amok in the markets under the premise of 'providing liquidity' (but only during 'good times' as we've seen repeatedly). --rick Twitter Hacking: Feds Probe Financial Markets Risk By DONNA HOWELL, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 04/30/2013 09:59 AM ET http://news.investors.com/technology/043013-654055-cftc-seeks-twitter-hacking-market-fix.htm A week after a fake tweet from a hacked Associated Press Twitter account moved the stock market, financial trading overseers are tackling what to do about the money risks from these kinds of cyberattacks. That AP tweet, for which a group called the Syrian Electronic Army claimed credit, said: "Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is injured." It briefly wiped out $136.5 billion of the S&P 500 index's value, as IBD reported. And there have been several other high-profile social media account takeovers ? including of some BBC and CBS (CBS) Twitter accounts ? unsettling at a time when quickly shared news, including fake reports, can influence near-instant automated trading. With the SEC and FBI already on the case, the CFTC ? Commodity Futures Trading Commission ? takes up the Twitter issue Tuesday afternoon at a meeting in Washington, D.C. High-frequency trading algorithms that automate buying and selling are being cited in early reports about this situation, and figured in the so-called Flash Crash of May 6, 2010. The CFTC and SEC issued a joint report after that incident, and more trading circuit breakers were put in place. The market ended up for the day April 23 after the brief downdraft that fake AP tweet spurred. The drop is being called the #HackCrash or #HashCrash (a pun on Twitter searching via the "#" hashtag symbol). "There are algorithms that mine newsfeeds . They quantify, analyze, calculate and compute things most people would never ever dream. And, they do it quicker than a blink of an eye," CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said in a speech at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. "These speed demons are called high-frequency traders (HFTs) ... today we have no rules or regulation." That speech was on April 15, the day the Boston Marathon bombings hit and brought terrorism worry back to the fore. Three days earlier, CFTC Commissioner Scott O'Malia testified before a House committee on issues with high-frequency traders , which he said now comprise 52% of global futures markets and 56% of U.S. equities markets. "As we learned in the flash crash of May 6, 2010, these markets are linked and we need to develop better oversight tools," O'Malia said in prepared remarks, adding that regulators "know little about the trading behavior of high-frequency trading algorithms." An "open discussion of market issues resulting from (the) April 23 Twitter attack" is on the agenda of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for Tuesday afternoon in Washington, D.C., following a status update on an "industry-led customer protection technology effort" and other items. Meanwhile, recent security industry analyses from Verizon Communications (VZ) and Symantec (SYMC) have noted more cyberespionage and other kinds of attacks as potentially "state affiliated." Here was a related IBD report. And other analysts have eyed that possibility in traffic-flooding denial-of-service attacks on the banking sector, including JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Citigroup (C). Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/technology/043013-654055-cftc-seeks-twitter-hacking-market-fix.htm#ixzz2S2UVjHaw Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 1 07:26:26 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 08:26:26 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Friedman=3A_It=92s_a_401=28k=29_?= =?windows-1252?q?World?= Message-ID: <9FEEFA9C-361A-48CD-91B2-B488A0284C4E@infowarrior.org> It?s a 401(k) World By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: April 30, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/friedman-its-a-401k-world.html?hp&_r=0 It?s hard to have a conversation today with any worker, teacher, student or boss who doesn?t tell you some version of this: More things seem to be changing in my world than ever before, but I can?t quite put my finger on it, let alone know how to adapt. So let me try to put my finger on it: We now live in a 401(k) world ? a world of defined contributions, not defined benefits ? where everyone needs to pass the bar exam and no one can escape the most e-mailed list. Here is what I mean: Something really big happened in the world?s wiring in the last decade, but it was obscured by the financial crisis and post-9/11. We went from a connected world to a hyperconnected world. I?m always struck that Facebook, Twitter, 4G, iPhones, iPads, high-speech broadband, ubiquitous wireless and Web-enabled cellphones, the cloud, Big Data, cellphone apps and Skype did not exist or were in their infancy a decade ago when I wrote a book called ?The World Is Flat.? All of that came since then, and the combination of these tools of connectivity and creativity has created a global education, commercial, communication and innovation platform on which more people can start stuff, collaborate on stuff, learn stuff, make stuff (and destroy stuff) with more other people than ever before. What?s exciting is that this platform empowers individuals to access learning, retrain, engage in commerce, seek or advertise a job, invent, invest and crowd source ? all online. But this huge expansion in an individual?s ability to do all these things comes with one big difference: more now rests on you. If you are self-motivated, wow, this world is tailored for you. The boundaries are all gone. But if you?re not self-motivated, this world will be a challenge because the walls, ceilings and floors that protected people are also disappearing. That is what I mean when I say ?it is a 401(k) world.? Government will do less for you. Companies will do less for you. Unions can do less for you. There will be fewer limits, but also fewer guarantees. Your specific contribution will define your specific benefits much more. Just showing up will not cut it. The policy implications? ?Just as having a 401(k) defined contribution plan requires you to learn more about investing in your retirement, a 401(k) world requires you to learn much more about investing in yourself: how do I build my own competencies to be attractive to employers and flourish in this world,? said Byron Auguste, a director at McKinsey and one of the founders of Hope Street Group, which develops policies to help Americans navigate this changing economy. ?As young people rise to that challenge, the value of mentors, social networks and role models will rise.? Indeed, parenting, teaching or leadership that ?inspires? individuals to act on their own will be the most valued of all. When I say that ?everyone has to pass the bar now,? I mean that, as the world got hyperconnected, all these things happened at once: Jobs started changing much faster, requiring more skill with each iteration. Schools could not keep up with the competencies needed for these jobs, so employers got frustrated because, in a hyperconnected world, they did not have the time or money to spend on extensive training. So more employers are demanding that students prove their competencies for a specific job by obtaining not only college degrees but by passing ?certification? exams that measure specific skills ? the way lawyers have to pass the bar. Last week, The Economist quoted one labor expert, Peter Cappelli of the Wharton business school, as saying that companies now regard filling a job as being ?like buying a spare part: you expect it to fit.? Finally, every major news Web site today has a ?most e-mailed list? that tracks what?s popular. Journalists who tell you they don?t check to see if their stories make the list are lying. What makes those lists possible is the use of Big Data and the cloud, which can also measure almost any performance in any profession in real-time and tailor rewards accordingly. More schools can now instantly measure which teachers? kids are on grade level in math every week, Jamba Juice can see which clerk sells the most between 8 and 10 a.m., and factories in China can find out which assembly lines have the fewest errors. On schoolloop.com, you can track your kid?s homework assignments and daily progress in every K-12 class. A most e-mailed list is coming to a job near you. I find a lot of this scary. We?re entering a world that increasingly rewards individual aspiration and persistence and can measure precisely who is contributing and who is not. This is not going away, so we better think how we help every citizen benefit from it. It has to start, argues Ryan Burke, the director of jobs and workforce for Hope Street, with changing our education-to-work system to one that ?enables and credits a variety of viable pathways to needed skills.? But ?for students and workers to take advantage of the opportunities open to them in a ?defined contribution? world, they will need much better information to inform their decisions. Right now it?s much easier to evaluate a choice about buying a car or picking a mutual fund? than to find the competencies employers are looking for and the best cost-effective way to obtain them. A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 1, 2013, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: It?s a 401(k) World. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 1 08:03:57 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:03:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Why Fantastically Wealthy Apple Is Borrowing Money Message-ID: <7CA963B7-47BD-49CB-99F3-13B77E47186F@infowarrior.org> Why Fantastically Wealthy Apple Is Borrowing Money http://www.wired.com/business/2013/05/why-fabulously-wealthy-apple-is-borrowing-money/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 1 13:40:57 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 14:40:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Alan Alda wants scientists to cut out the jargon Message-ID: Alan Alda wants scientists to cut out the jargon Wednesday - 5/1/2013, 2:20pm ET FRANK ELTMAN Associated Press http://www.wtop.com/209/3305726/In-English-Please STONY BROOK, N.Y. (AP) -- Among the procedures Army surgeon Hawkeye Pierce performed on "M.A.S.H." was an end-to-end anastomosis. Most of the viewers, actor Alan Alda concedes, had no idea he was talking about removing a damaged piece of intestine and reconnecting the healthy pieces. Today, the award-winning film and television star is on a mission to teach physicians, physicists and scientists of all types to ditch the jargon and get their points across in clear, simple language. The former host of the long-running PBS series "Scientific American Frontiers" is a founder and visiting professor of journalism at the Stony Brook University Center for Communicating Science, which has just been named in his honor. "There's no reason for the jargon when you're trying to communicate the essence of the science to the public because you're talking what amounts to gibberish to them," Alda said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. A better understanding of science, Alda said, can benefit society in ways great and small. Physicians can more clearly explain treatments to patients. Consumers can decipher what chemicals may be in their food. And lawmakers can make better decisions on funding scientific research. "They're not going to ask the right questions if science doesn't explain to them what's going on in the most honest and objective way," said Alda, 77. "You can't blame them for not knowing the jargon -- it's not their job. Why would anybody put up money for something they don't understand?" Alda, who lives in New York City and has a home on eastern Long Island, said that as his 12-year tenure as host of "Scientific American Frontiers" was ending in 2005, he began seeking out a university interested in his idea for a center for communicating science. He described himself as a "Johnny Appleseed" going from university to university shopping his idea. Stony Brook, a 24,000-student state university about 70 miles east of Manhattan, "was the only place that understood what I was trying to say and thought it was possible," he said. The center launched in 2009. At a gala last week, the Long Island school officially renamed it the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science. "Alan did not casually lend his celebrity to this effort," said Stony Brook President Dr. Samuel Stanley. "He has been a tireless and full partner in the center since its inception. During the past four years, he has traveled thousands of miles championing its activities. ... He has helped train our faculty and develop our curriculum, and he personally teaches some workshops." Alda has also helped publicize a contest the center sponsored the past two years asking students and scientists around the country to find simple ways to explain such concepts as "What is a flame?" or "What is time?" Among the courses taught by the center is an improvisational acting class that teaches scientists ways of communicating their thoughts clearly to others. "We've learned it's important to set up vivid analogies," said Lyle Tomlinson, a 24-year-old neuroscience graduate student from Brooklyn who's working as a teaching assistant, noting he used the effects of caffeine in a morning cup of coffee to begin a discussion on the nervous system. Rep. Steven Israel, whose district includes the Stony Brook campus, said educating people on the importance of science is key to America's competitiveness in the 21st century economy. He recalled watching a congressional hearing on climate change in which, he said, "a bunch of scientists were trying to teach congressmen about the science of climate change and the congressmen were trying to teach the scientists about politics. It was as if both sides were speaking alien languages." Alda shared what he called his best examples of clear communication with Tomlinson and his fellow teaching assistants. About a decade ago, Alda said, he was in Chile filming a segment for "Scientific American Frontiers" when he was stricken with sharp stomach pains. He was evacuated from an 8,000-foot observatory and taken in an old rickety ambulance to a small, dimly lit clinic, where a doctor examined him and said he would require life-saving surgery. "Some of your intestine has gone bad, and we have to cut out the bad part and sew the two good ends together," the physician explained. "And I said, 'You're going to do an end-to-end anastamosis.' He said, 'How do you know that?' And I said, 'Oh I did many of them on 'M.A.S.H.' That was the first operation I learned about on M.A.S.H.'" After the classroom erupted in laughter, Alda concluded: "He didn't waste any time on me trying to figure what he was talking about. He said it in the clearest terms possible. He didn't sacrifice any accuracy by making it clear." Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 1 21:20:26 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 22:20:26 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - High Frequency Trading Arms Race Beams Into the Future Message-ID: <1E93721B-28FE-4ECC-832B-880F5033BF03@infowarrior.org> High Frequency Trading Arms Race Beams Into the Future Reuters | Wednesday, 1 May 2013 | 1:39 PM ET Laser beams and microwave dishes are the latest weapons in an arms race to shave milliseconds off dealing times in the shadowy world of high speed, computerized financial trading. Traders, who make money by exploiting tiny, lightning-fast price changes on exchanges are now targeting Europe and Asia after skirmishing in the United States. The first microwave connections between London and Frankfurt have been launched, cutting the time to send a trade by about 40 percent compared with fiber optic cables. Behind the scenes, rivals are also racing to trim thousandths of seconds from routes to Moscow, Hong Kong and Tokyo, while also scrambling to find new technologies, including the use of drones as platforms for wireless links. The race to transmit at nearly the speed of light comes as regulators in Europe and the United States debate cracking down on a sector accused of increasing market volatility and multiplying the risk of a market meltdown. Investors have blamed high speed traders for exaggerating market movements?including the biggest-ever daily plunge in gold last month?while ethical issues have been raised at a time when the reputation of the financial sector as a whole is under scrutiny as a result of scandals such as banks rigging the Libor interest rate benchmark. But such questions are not dampening fierce competition among traders and their communications providers to squeeze out more speed. A laser beam technology developed for the U.S. military for communication between fighter jets is to be used over the route between Britain and Germany in coming months. "There is more money being poured into this wireless space than any time in its history," said Mike Persico, chief executive of Anova Technologies, which is building a communications network with wireless dishes and laser beams. "A lot of things are science fiction, but I like to say we operate in the world of science fact-ion." Anova's public announcement of its new technology before its launch was out of character in a business that is usually shrouded in secrecy as rivals jockey for the fastest connection. More typical was the battle to erect the first microwave link in Europe. Perseus Telecom kept quiet last October when it flipped the switch on its London-to-Frankfurt network, which trimmed several thousandths of a second, or milliseconds, off the time needed to complete a trade. The privately held firm based in New York only showed its hand when European telecoms provider Colt Group launched a rival service in February. "High frequency trading is driven by being either the fastest to market, or equal fastest to market, and coming second is like losing," said Hugh Cumberland, manager for financial services with Colt. Series of Dishes The move to microwave is just one more step by high frequency trading (HFT) companies to seek an edge since they emerged on the scene decades ago with computer black boxes that spew out thousands of trades a second. HFT has grown to dominate equities trading, although volumes and profits have tapered off since the global financial crisis. In Europe, high-speed trading accounted for 6.7 trillion euros of equities trading volumes last year, 39 percent of the total, analyst Rebecca Healey at consultancy Tabb Group said. Profits in the U.S. HFT sector slid by 56 percent last year to $1.8 billion, she added. High speed trading has been blamed for causing violent lurches on financial markets, such as the U.S. "flash crash" in May 2010 when the stock market plummeted more than 1,000 points, or nearly 10 percent, in a matter of minutes. The top U.S. derivatives regulator said on Tuesday the need to look at regulating automated trading was underscored by a phony tweet from The Associated Press' hacked Twitter account, which sparked a short-lived panic in the U.S. stock market last month. Germany is expected to bring in tougher rules governing high frequency trading later this year. The HFT firms say they provide liquidity to markets, which has narrowed the bid/ask spread and made dealing cheaper for other investors, but critics say that liquidity can evaporate in times of crisis. As competition has intensified, HFT firms have gone to huge lengths to gain an edge, hiring scientists to develop computer algorithms, and trimming fractions of seconds off trading times by moving their computer servers into exchange data rooms. In adopting microwave, traders have revived an old technology that was once used to carry U.S. long-distance telephone calls until the volume of traffic forced a move to fiber optic networks, which have much higher capacity. For HFT, sending data through the air saves milliseconds. On the London to Frankfurt route, Perseus says its microwave system has slashed a round trip to below 4.6 milliseconds compared with 8.35 milliseconds for its high-speed fiber optic network. Speed in HFT is typically measured in round-trip times to gauge how long it takes to send a trade and get a confirmation. Perseus, which was formed in 2010, spent 10 million-20 million euros constructing its network of microwave dishes from London to Frankfurt, a time-consuming process involving permits for each tower from various jurisdictions. "It's all about being as straight a line as possible. Pull the string as tight as you can without causing it to break," said Perseus Chief Executive Jock Percy. Being fastest to transact between two trading centers is most important to one type of HFT strategy, arbitrage, where traders seek to be first to exploit price differences in two securities in different locations. For example, when a share on the Deutsche Bourse is out of sync with its equivalent futures contract in London or vice versa, HFT computers will simultaneously buy the cheaper one and sell it on the more expensive market. Laser Beams Anova is betting its laser technology will prove to be another leap for the sector, targeting the weaknesses of microwave dishes: They are easily disrupted by weather and can carry tiny amounts of data compared with fiber optic networks. The company formed a joint venture with AOptix, founded by two California scientists who developed a high-bandwidth communications network for the U.S. Air Force to send large amounts of data between moving aircraft using rotating lasers. The new hybrid system?combining lasers and millimeter wave wireless dishes?is due to be first rolled out on short-range U.S. and British networks over the next two months before the first long-haul route to Germany, perhaps next year. "We see Europe as our first expansion front outside of the U.S., and then we see going both to Russia and Asia as our next stops," Persico said. He says the technology?which makes calculations 300,000 times a second to zero in on the tightest beam between towers?is as fast as microwave but as reliable and high-capacity as fiber optics. Since fiber optic channels typically carry 1,000 times more data than most microwave networks, most HFT firms ration microwave for their most speed-sensitive strategies. They retain fiber optics for other trades and as a back-up when microwave is hit by weather. Ambush Persico, who acknowledges rivals are also working behind the scenes, must hope that he is not the victim of the type of ambush that hit traders when microwave emerged in the United States. At the time, when most speed traders were focusing on improving fiber optics networks, privately owned Spread Networks made a massive investment that Forbes estimated at $300 million. It built a new fiber optics network between Chicago and New York to improve speed by three milliseconds. After it opened in 2010, customers couldn't understand why they were being beaten. Later they realized the first microwave network for traders had been built in secret by rivals. Asked what might come next, Persico mentioned the use of drones and barges to create a transatlantic wireless network. "Some people talk about using balloons or satellites, and some of what I have heard is even more crazy," said Alex Pilosov, chief executive of Windy Apple Technologies, which takes credit for building the first microwave network between New York and Chicago. "But I don't like to talk about what we are doing until we have a product and then we sell it," he said. "But even then you might not hear about it." ? 2013 CNBC.com URL: http://www.cnbc.com/100695563 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 2 06:57:49 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 07:57:49 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Police, politicians push surveillance post-Boston Message-ID: <12B51DC4-B101-4DE7-AC79-72EF3286A939@infowarrior.org> Police, politicians push surveillance post-Boston By TAMI ABDOLLAH | Associated Press ? 2 hrs 11 mins ago http://news.yahoo.com/police-politicians-push-surveillance-post-boston-084307887.html LOS ANGELES (AP) ? Police and politicians across the U.S. are pointing to the example of surveillance video that was used to help identify the Boston Marathon bombing suspects as a reason to get more electronic eyes on their streets. From Los Angeles to Philadelphia, efforts include trying to gain police access to cameras used to monitor traffic, expanding surveillance networks in some major cities and enabling officers to get regular access to security footage at businesses. Some in law enforcement, however, acknowledge that their plans may face an age-old obstacle: Americans' traditional reluctance to give the government more law enforcement powers out of fear that they will live in a society where there is little privacy. "Look, we don't want an occupied state. We want to be able to walk the good balance between freedom and security," Los Angeles police Deputy Chief Michael Downing, who heads the department's counter-terrorism and special operations bureau. "If this helps prevent, deter, but also detect and create clues to who did (a crime), I guess the question is can the American public tolerate that type of security," he said. The proliferation of cameras ? both on street corners and on millions of smartphones ? have helped catch lawbreakers, but plans to expand surveillance networks could run up against the millions of dollars it can cost to install and run the networks, expert say. Whatever Americans' attitudes or the costs, experts say, the use of cameras is likely to increase in the coming years, whether they are part of an always-on, government-run network or a disparate, disorganized web of citizens' smartphones and business security systems. "One of the lessons coming out of Boston is it's not just going to be cameras operated by the city, but it's going to be cameras that are in businesses, cameras that citizens use," said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. "You'll see the use of cameras will skyrocket." Part of the push among law enforcement agencies is for greater integration of surveillance systems. For decades, law enforcement has contacted businesses for video after a crime. An integrated network would make that easier, advocates say. Since the Boston bombings, police officials have been making the case for such a network. In Philadelphia, the police commissioner appealed last week to business owners with cameras in public spaces to register them with the department. In Chicago, the mayor wants to expand the city's already robust network of roughly 22,000 surveillance video. And in Houston, officials want to add to their 450 cameras through more public and private partnerships. The city already has access to hundreds of additional cameras that monitor the water system, the rail system, freeways and public spaces such as Reliant Stadium, officials said. "If they have a camera that films an area we're interested in, then why put up a separate camera?" said Dennis Storemski, director of the mayor's office of public safety and homeland security. "And we allow them to use ours too." In Los Angeles, police have been working on building up a regional video camera system funded by about $10 million in federal grant dollars over the last several years that would allow their network to be shared with nearby cities at the flip of a switch, Downing said. That effort is in addition to a recent request by an LA councilman who wants the city to examine allowing police access to cameras used to monitor traffic flow. If that happens, the LAPD's network of about 700 cameras would grow to more than 1,000. "First, it's a deterrent and, second, it's evidence," Downing said, adding, "it helps us in the hunt and pursuit." Law enforcement experts say police need these augmented systems because the bystander with a smartphone in hand is no substitute for a surveillance camera that is deliberately placed in a heavy crime area. "The general public is not thinking about the kinds of critical factors in preventing and responding to crimes," said Brenda Bond, a professor who researches organizational effectiveness of police agencies at Suffolk University in Boston. "My being in a location is happenstance, and what's the likelihood of me capturing something on video?" The U.S. lags behind other countries in building up surveillance. One reason is the more than 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies that each determines its own policy. Another reason is cost: A single high-definition camera can cost about $2,500 ? not including the installation, maintenance or monitoring costs. Law enforcement budgets consist of up to 98 percent personnel costs, "so they don't necessarily have the funding for new technologies," Bond said. There are also questions about their effectiveness. A 2011 Urban Institute study examined surveillance systems in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington, and found that crime decreased in some areas with cameras while it remained unchanged in others. The success or failure often depended on how the system was set up and monitored in each city. While its deterrent effect remains debated, however, there's general agreement that the cameras can be useful after a crime to help identify suspects. Cameras, for instance, allowed police in Britain to quickly identify the attackers behind the deadly 2005 suicide bombings in London. The country has more than 4.3 million surveillance cameras, primarily put in place after the IRA terror attacks. Dozens are said to sit today around the house of George Orwell, the author of "1984," a story that foretold of a "Big Brother" society. Privacy advocates in the U.S. are concerned that the networks proposed by officials today could grow to realize Orwell's dystopic vision. In recent years, traffic cameras used to catch scofflaw drivers running a red light or speeding have received widespread backlash across the country: An Ohio judge ordered a halt to speed camera citations, Arizona's Department of Public Safety ceased its program, and there have been efforts to ban such cameras in Iowa. Amie Stepanovich, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Domestic Surveillance Project, said the most concerning was an integrated network of cameras that could allow authorities to track people's movements. Such a network could allow be upgraded later with more "invasive" features like facial recognition, Stepanovich said, noting that the Boston surveillance footage was from a private security system at a department store that was not linked to law enforcement. In many cases, the public may not be aware of the capabilities of the technology or what is being adopted by their local police department and its implications, said Peter Bibring, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Unlike private security systems monitored by businesses or citizens' smartphones, Bibring said, a government-run network is a very different entity because those watching have "the power to investigate, prosecute and jail people." ___ Tami Abdollah can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/latams --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 2 07:17:08 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Lady_Liberty=92s_Watching_You?= Message-ID: (c/o jc. The last para is pretty damning. --rick) Lady Liberty?s Watching You I wanted to write about face-recognition software considered for use at the statue. Here?s what happened. By Ryan Gallagher|Posted Monday, April 29, 2013, at 5:45 AM http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/04/statue_of_liberty_to_get_new_surveillance_tech_but_don_t_mention_face_recognition.html The Statue of Liberty is getting a facelift, though the changes aren?t only cosmetic. An upgraded "state of the art" security system will help keep Lady Liberty safe when it reopens soon. But what does the system entail, and could it involve a controversial new face-recognition technology that can detect visitors? ethnicity from a distance? I tried to find out?and a New York surveillance company tried to stop me. Face recognition was first implemented at the Statue of Liberty in 2002 as part of an attempt to spot suspected terrorists whose mug shots were stored on a federal database. At the time, the initiative was lambasted by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it was so ineffective that ?Osama Bin Laden himself? could easily dodge it. But the technology has advanced since then: Late last year, trade magazine Police Product Insight reported that a trial of the latest face-recognition software was being planned at the Statue of Liberty for the end of 2012 to ?help law enforcement and intelligence agencies spot suspicious activity.? New York surveillance camera contractor Total Recall Corp. was quoted as having told the magazine that it was set for trial at the famed tourist attraction software called FaceVACS, made by German firm Cognitec. FaceVACS, Cognitec boasts in marketing materials, can guess ethnicity based on a person?s skin color, flag suspects on watch lists, estimate the age of a person, detect gender, ?track? faces in real time, and help identify suspects if they have tried to evade detection by putting on glasses, growing a beard, or changing their hairstyle. Some versions of face-recognition software used today remain ineffective, as investigators found in the aftermath of the Boston bombings. But Cognitec claims its latest technology has a far higher accuracy rating?and is certainly more advanced than the earlier versions of face-recognition software, like the kind used at the Statue of Liberty back in 2002. (It is not clear whether the face-recognition technology remained in use at the statue after 2002.) Liberty Island took such a severe battering during Sandy that it has stayed closed to the public ever since?thwarting the prospect of a pilot of the new software. But the statue, which attracts more than 3 million visitors annually according to estimates, is finally due to open again on July 4. In March, Statue of Liberty superintendent Dave Luchsinger told me that plans were underway to install an upgraded surveillance system in time for the reopening. ?We are moving forward with the proposal that Total Recall has come up with,? he said, adding that ?[new] systems are going in, and I know they are state of the art.? When it came to my questions about face recognition, though, things started to get murky. Was that particular project back on track? ?We do work with Cognitec, but right now because of what happened with Sandy it put a lot of different pilots that we are doing on hold,? Peter Millius, Total Recall?s director of business development, said in a phone call. ?It?s still months away, and the facial recognition right now is not going to be part of this phase.? Then, he put me on hold and came back a few minutes later with a different position?insisting that the face-recognition project had in fact been ?vetoed? by the Park Police and adding that I was ?not authorized? to write about it. That was weird, but it soon got weirder. About an hour after I spoke with Total Recall, an email from Cognitec landed in my inbox. It was from the company?s marketing manager, Elke Oberg, who had just one day earlier told me in a phone interview that ?yes, they are going to try out our technology there? in response to questions about a face-recognition pilot at the statue. Now, Oberg had sent a letter ordering me to ?refrain from publishing any information about the use of face recognition at the Statue of Liberty.? It said that I had ?false information,? that the project had been ?cancelled,? and that if I wrote about it, there would be ?legal action.? Total Recall then separately sent me an almost identical letter?warning me not to write ?any information about Total Recall and the Statue of Liberty or the use of face recognition at the Statue of Liberty.? Both companies declined further requests for comment, and Millius at Total Recall even threatened to take legal action against me personally if I continued to ?harass? him with additional questions. Linda Friar, a National Park Service spokeswoman, confirmed that the procurement process for security screening equipment is ongoing, but she refused to comment on whether the camera surveillance system inside the statue was being upgraded on the grounds that it was ?sensitive information.? So will there be a trial of new face-recognition software?or did the Park Police ?cancel? or ?veto? this? It would probably be easier to squeeze blood from a stone than to obtain answers to those questions. ?I?m not going to show my hand as far as what security technologies we have,? Greg Norman, Park Police captain at Liberty Island, said in a brief phone interview. The great irony here, of course, is that this is a story about a statue that stands to represent freedom and democracy in the modern world. Yet at the heart of it are corporations issuing crude threats in an attempt to stifle legitimate journalism?and by extension dictate what citizens can and cannot know about the potential use of contentious surveillance tools used to monitor them as they visit that very statue. Whether Cognitec's ethnicity-detecting face recognition software will eventually be implemented at Lady Liberty remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the attempt to silence reporting on the mere prospect of it is part of an alarming wider trend to curtail discussion about new security technologies that are (re)shaping society. ------ This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog and the Future Tense home page. You can also follow us on Twitter. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 2 13:18:52 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - IRS Data Web Snares Mostly Low- and Middle-Income Taxpayers Message-ID: IRS Data Web Snares Mostly Low- and Middle-Income Taxpayers Agency expands its robo-audits to get more personal data, but has so far only netted small change By Richard Satran May 1, 2013 http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2013/05/01/irs-data-web-snares-mostly-low--and-middle-income-taxpayers_print.html The Internal Revenue Service relies on technology more than ever to sniff out tax cheats using robo-audits and data mining?but so far it has caught lot of minnows, and big fish are still eluding detection. Even as millions of people's accounts are screened online and matched against their digital files elsewhere, the IRS's data-detection tools come nowhere close to collecting the $400 billion in tax dodges estimated to take place each year. The area in which its robo-audits have had the most impact is on tax returns for low-income taxpayers who try to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. In total, fraudulent claims totaled $2 billion, just 0.01 percent of the total of individual taxes. The EITC was the biggest single compliance problem cited. That amount is expected to rise in the tax year ahead as the IRS extends the use of data mining to include the personal data of millions more taxpayers. Its sophisticated data-matching and pattern-recognition technology, largely developed by IBM over the past decade, will reach up the income ladder to include more middle-income and small-business filers who itemize deductions, although it is unlikely to have any impact on the complicated filings of high-net-worth taxpayers in the top 5 percent of income earnings, say tax experts who have studied the IRS plans. "Real time" audits of electronic tax returns. The IRS's next phase in high-tech tax collection will be to create a "real-time" check of tax returns to "match them to third party information," said U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George in testimony before Congress. Starting this year, the IRS tools will be able to track all credit card transactions, for starters. The agency has also instructed agents on using online sources such as social media and e-commerce sites including eBay, as well as the rich data generated by mobile devices. In one controversial disclosure in April, the ACLU showed documents in which the IRS general counsel said the agency could look at emails without warrants, but the IRS has said it will not use this power. While the agency has declined to give details about what third-party personal data it will use in robo-audits and data mining, it has told government and industry groups that its computers are capable of scanning multiple networks at the same time to collect "matching" comprehensive profiles for every taxpayer in America. Such profiles will likely include shopping records, travel, social interactions and information not available to the public, such as health records and files from other government investigators, according to IRS documents. The IRS did not respond to written requests for information on its program. But George gave Congress an outline last April of the ambitious aims of its $1 billion "modernization" that gave it access to dozens of databases it has not previously used. "This capability is designed to feed into a single, consolidated taxpayer-account database that will support the deployment of the next generation of taxpayer service and enforcement functions," George said in testimony. But the many problems encountered already with the relatively simple screens used for Earned Income Tax Credit filers suggest there may be greater problems ahead for taxpayers. Already, independent advisers to the IRS have publicly warned that the agency is not prepared to take the next big step. "Little has been accomplished to remove the confusion and uncertainty related to these rules," said a report from an IRS Tax Advisory Committee group that studies emerging issues such as use of third-party networks and data mining. Other IRS advisers have cautioned that the lack of transparency and secretiveness of the IRS could undermine the credibility of the tax-collection system. Big problems with small robo-audits. History shows that public convenience and even-handed service is not a high priority for the IRS when it launches new technology. The robo-audits targeting the Earned Income Tax Credit have caused problems for millions of low-income working people, the population least prepared to appeal tax cases and one that lacks the lobbying clout of major accounting firms that help draft tax legislation for high-end individuals and corporations. The result is that hundreds of thousands of legitimate filers have had their tax returns frozen since the program began?and the number keeps rising each year, says National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who leads an organization of some 2,000 advocates who help U.S. taxpayers resolve problems and work with the IRS . Increased auditing of the EITC recipients has real consequences for low-income Americans. The credit represents 25 percent of income for the average filer who claims it, IRS records show. Delayed refunds have led to a cash crunch for millions of filers, and "rapid return" high-interest lenders raced to fill the void for those expecting EITC cash sooner, routinely charging interest rates of 35 to 100 percent before the government altered its rules to prevent abuses. Olson says the IRS has not done enough to educate taxpayers about how to claim the credit, which involves calculations based on progressive income levels and a phase-out formula that has confused even professional tax preparers. Because it involves family members, for example, differences arise over who can claim the credit in cases of joint custody for divorced or estranged parents. The IRS says it targets this credit because it is widely abused. Those who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit are audited twice as often compared to the average for all taxpayers, the National Taxpayer Advocate reports. Olson says the aggressive pursuit of tax cheats has intimidated some from appealing audits or even filing for the credit. The IRS itself says that as much as 25 percent of people eligible do not claim it. And unlike other classes of audits, returns are frozen as soon as questions are raised and refunds are not issued until the case is cleared. Many who appeal do win their cases, but the lack of professional help is a barrier. A study by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate found that those who manage to bring representatives to an IRS appeal were twice as likely to win. The IRS launched a huge publicity campaign when it went after identity theft, but has said next to nothing about this much larger program involving "real time" audits using third-party networks including such information as credit card charges. The agency has disclosed so few details that some tax experts who have worked closely with the IRS suggest that its intent seems to be a "gotcha" strategy aimed at trapping tax cheats rather than deterring bad behavior and encouraging compliance. The IRS's own advisory committee, made up of high-level tax professionals and managers, says people are operating in the dark even when it comes to basic issues. For the tax community to understand how to comply, a clear understanding of a "third party payment network must be defined," the committee said in a November report. "Are they being too secretive? Probably," says Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan business economics professor who studies the impact of government policy on consumer behavior. "They can't tell the public everything they do, but I don't know why they are being as secretive as they are. " What's known is that the IRS has gradually moved to a system of electronically "scoring" returns, according to tax experts who worked closely with the agency. Points are assigned for unusual deductions, inappropriate credits, math errors and other suspicious items on tax returns. Most importantly, the screening program assigns a score for how likely the success of an audit will be and how much time it might take an agent to close a case. It even estimates the number of hours a hearing might require. Agency cutbacks mean fewer agents are available to follow up on audits. The result is that "low-hanging fruit" gets picked for audits. When the program was launched in the mid-2000s, the IRS testified that such cases would not be the priority. Budget constraints have shifted that view. "There is a cost-benefit analysis applied in the scoring," says Eric Toder, an economist who is co-director of the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. He has worked as a consultant to the IRS and its overseers in the past on issues of tax collection. Hidden income remains invisible. At the opposite end of the income spectrum, it's far more expensive to chase down high-income tax dodges. A low-income family might be flagged by the robo-audit for a math error on a $1,500 student loan credit that can be collected with a simple letter from the IRS. A questionable $5 million investment in a euro debt swap involving unlisted derivatives and having no clear economic purpose beyond tax avoidance, even if it is detected, might require a trip to a Liechtenstein bank to meet with a team of lawyers and accountants. Often, this kind of tax action amounts to a multimillion-dollar bet of the IRS's thin resources with low odds of paying off. The IRS has become more proactive in targeting banks and financial institutions that aid in illegal tax dodges using offshore accounts. But its technological push is largely focused on domestic filers. Meanwhile, a report by former McKinsey & Co. economist James Henry estimates that 100,000 super-rich individuals worldwide have $9.8 trillion stashed in offshore accounts. That means a large portion of the $15 trillion of U.S. investment in the global economy generates income that is increasingly out of the reach of U.S. tax authorities, said Inspector General George in his testimony. Private estimates suggest there may be as much as $125 billion in tax evasion, he said. That's on top of the IRS's $400 billion "tax gap," which is estimated largely by auditing and following up on existing tax returns and checking the validity of audits, but not touching "unreported" or hidden income. George told Congress that global tax dodges are not targeted because "identifying hidden income in international activity is very difficult and time-consuming." The expansion of IRS technology was heralded for its potential to bring more tax cheats to justice. But Toder says, "It's unlikely they can move that number very much." The likeliest group to be caught, Toder says, will be small businesses, filers of Schedule C "side business" expenses and independent contractors whose income is not backed up by a W2 wage report. This group is believed to make up the largest portion of the so-called "tax gap." Avoiding controversy, IRS stealth strategy. Going forward, many more people will feel the intrusive pinch of IRS robo-audits and personal data mining?although they may not know for sure what personal data is being used. Legal and privacy experts, as well as the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, have called on the agency to share detail on what documents it examines in audits. By working in collaboration with taxpayers, it will be more likely win cooperation and compliance, they argue. The IRS has told Congress such disclosures might hamstring its efforts. The agency prefers a "stealth" approach of not informing taxpayers about what information is used, which Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller told Congress is "less intrusive." The IRS is following the philosophy of former Obama regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, who advocates using technology tools and behavioral science policies to "nudge" people to do the right thing. In the case of the IRS, that policy so far has fallen most heavily on lower-income taxpayers and has done little to collect substantially more tax revenue. Ultimately, the agency's legacy could be measured in lost privacy, says Harry Surden, a University of Colorado?Boulder Law School associate professor and former fellow at Stanford's Center for Computers and Law, who has done in-depth studies on the use of technology by government. He has found that data mining and new technology make possible a level of government intrusion into personal lives that few realize is possible. At a hearing this month, Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley said IRS Acting Commissioner Miller has not done enough to explain the agency's stance on "abusive intrusion of privacy," adding that "the IRS has to take this issue seriously, and a casual explanation is inadequate." He called to "clarify the true policy in writing" on how and why it uses private electronic communication in tax work. "You could get the tax gap down close to zero, but it would certainly not be a good policy to spend that much," says Michigan policy expert Slemrod. "Nor is it advisable in the same way that it is not good policy to put someone on every corner of every street to eradicate street crime." Technology and law experts say that for such major expansions of government into people's lives, simply doing what is legal could have unintended effects that could be detrimental to a system that requires cooperation from taxpayers and the legal community. "When technological change in the ability to analyze and aggregate data allows activities that are different, not just in degree, but in kind, we as a society should have the ability to think about whether or not we should go down that path," says Surden, who worked as a programmer for Cisco Systems before studying law at Stanford University. "As a publicly accountable agency," he says, "the IRS should make the public aware if technology is allowing them to analyze data in ways that were not possible in the past. That should be an open discussion we all participate in." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 2 13:23:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:23:25 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hollywood shoots itself in the foot again Message-ID: <23163CE5-3477-42A2-914A-EAB67C5C7978@infowarrior.org> (you can almost hear the studio heads making grabby-hands and screaming 'mine!' 'mine!' ---rick) Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130430/22361622903/warner-bros-mgm-universal-collectively-pull-nearly-2000-films-netflix-to-further-fragment-online-movie-market.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 2 20:30:13 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 21:30:13 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. to Delete Data on Life-Threatening Mistakes From Website Message-ID: U.S. to Delete Data on Life-Threatening Mistakes From Website By Charles R. Babcock - May 2, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-05-02/u-s-to-delete-data-on-life-threatening-mistakes-from-website.html Two years ago, over objections from the hospital industry, the U.S. announced it would add data about ?potentially life-threatening? mistakes made in hospitals to a website people can search to check on safety performance. Now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is planning to strip the site of the eight hospital-acquired conditions, which include infections and mismatched blood transfusions, while it comes up with a different set. The agency said it?s taking the step because some of the eight are redundant and because an advisory panel created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act recommended regulators use other gauges. The decision to pull the measures is a retreat from a commitment to transparency, according to organizations representing employers that help pay for health insurance. ?We have a right to know if hospitals are making errors that are catastrophic to patients,? said Leah Binder, president of the Washington-based Leapfrog Group, whose members include General Motors Co. and Verizon Communications Inc. ?What they?re saying basically is hospital claims of unfairness have more weight than consumers? right to know.? The initial proposal CMS has made for new safety-assessment data suggests the Hospital Compare website won?t be as comprehensive as it is now, Binder said. Bill Kramer, executive director for national health policy at the Pacific Business Group on Health, said removing the data ?would be a significant step backwards.? The coalition, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Walt Disney Co., was among 33 business, labor and consumer organizations that argued against taking the hospital-acquired conditions, or HACs, off the site. Error Rates The debate over public reporting of hospital errors underscores the challenges regulators face in balancing patient and provider interests in an economy that spends $2.7 trillion a year on medical care, about one-third of it at hospitals. The statistics were first posted in October 2011. CMS officials have said they?ll be removed during the website?s annual update in July, according to Binder and the American Hospital Association. Binder estimated it could be two years before data from the new HACs appear on Hospital Compare. Patrick Conway, CMS?s chief medical officer and top quality-control official, declined to be interviewed and didn?t respond to written questions about the HACs? removal, the new measures and when they might appear on the site. The hospital industry argued against adding the statistics to Hospital Compare from the beginning, contending the data, culled from Medicare billing records, aren?t precise enough and can paint inaccurate pictures. ?Real Picture? ?Our members have long been in favor of transparency,? said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the Washington-based American Hospital Association. ?The only thing we have insisted upon is that the measures be accurate and fair, that they represent a real picture of what?s going on in an individual hospital if you?re going to put it up on a public website.? Baltimore-based CMS, which oversees the government health insurance programs that pay almost half of all U.S. medical bills, revealed it would be stripping Hospital Compare of the HACs in an Aug. 31 regulation. CMS said it was doing so in part because two of them, both involving catheter infections, are already mentioned in other sections on the site and that three more are included in composite scores in another category. New List In addition, the Measure Applications Partnership or MAP, the group created by the health-care overhaul law, recommended that CMS instead use hospital-acquired conditions endorsed by the National Quality Forum. MAP is part of the nonprofit, which advises the U.S. government and hospitals on best practices. The health-care law requires CMS to cut Medicare payments starting in October 2015 to hospitals that score in the 25 percent of worst-offenders on a list of hospital-acquired conditions, which the law leaves to regulators to define. CMS proposed on April 26 that the measures include versions of two currently on the site -- bed sores and objects left inside surgical patients? bodies -- and others that cover accidental cuts and tears, collapsed lungs, blood clots after surgery and other post-operative complications. Two now on Hospital Compare that aren?t among those proposed by CMS are transfusions of the wrong type of blood and air embolisms, which are air bubbles that become trapped in the bloodstream. Both are known in the medical community as never- events, because they should never happen. The agency will accept comments from the public on the suggested new HACs until June 25. ?Great Concern? Binder said it ?should be a great concern to every American? that blood transfusion and air embolism aren?t among the proposals. ?We deserve to know where they happen.? Foster at the American Hospital Association said she couldn?t comment yet on the specific CMS proposals. While the trade group is concerned some might not be reliable indicators, she said, AHA experts are still studying them. The website?s current HAC data are for the period from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2011. Hospitals are scored on incidents per 1,000 discharges, and compared to a national ranking. Regulators have emphasized curbing infections and injuries since the Institute of Medicine reported in 1999 that as many as 98,000 Americans die annually from preventable hospital mishaps. While some states track them, Hospital Compare is the only national compilation. ?Done Right? ?It?s better to have measures that might not meet the highest level of statistical reliability than to ask your next- door neighbor,? said Dolores Mitchell, executive director of the health-care program for Massachusetts state employees, who said she was the only member of the MAP panel that opposed removing the HACs. In Los Angeles, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center has a Hospital Compare score of .079 per 1,000 discharges for air embolisms, compared to a national average of .003. After a transplant patient died in 2010 because an air bubble blocked a vein, UCLA conducted a root cause analysis and identified and put into place several changes in procedure, said Tom Rosenthal, who is chief medical officer of the UCLA Hospital System. ?We have done everything we can do to reduce patient harm, and we?ve had no cases since.? Opposition to the HACs on the website doesn?t mean the industry is ?trying to cover up our dirty linen,? Rosenthal said. ?The public does have a right to know what?s going on at UCLA and every other hospital in the country. But it should be done right.? With assistance from Danielle Ivory in Washington. Editors: Anne Reifenberg, Gary Putka To contact the reporter on this story: Charles R. Babcock in Washington at cbabcock1 at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Gary Putka at gputka at bloomberg.net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 05:59:32 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 06:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - JPMorgan Caught in Swirl of Regulatory Woes Message-ID: <8E6A24F8-EFAF-4C61-817F-D50DB0855628@infowarrior.org> (Dear Eric Holder: Do you stand by your 'too big to arrest' statement from February? --rick) May 2, 2013, 10:00 pm JPMorgan Caught in Swirl of Regulatory Woes By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and BEN PROTESS http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-swirl-of-regulatory-woes/?hp&pagewanted=print Government investigators have found that JPMorgan Chase devised ?manipulative schemes? that transformed ?money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,? and that one of its most senior executives gave ?false and misleading statements? under oath. The findings appear in a confidential government document, reviewed by The New York Times, that was sent to the bank in March, warning of a potential crackdown by the regulator of the nation?s energy markets. The possible action comes amid showdowns with other agencies. One of the bank?s chief regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is weighing new enforcement actions against JPMorgan over the way the bank collected credit card debt and its possible failure to alert authorities to suspicions about Bernard L. Madoff, according to people who were not authorized to discuss the cases publicly. In a meeting last month at the bank?s Park Avenue headquarters, the comptroller?s office delivered an unusually stark message to Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman: the nation?s biggest bank was quickly losing credibility in Washington. The bank?s top lawyers, including Stephen M. Cutler, the general counsel, have also cautioned executives about the bank?s regulatory problems, employees say. Mr. Dimon acknowledged in a recent letter to shareholders that ?unfortunately, we expect we will have more? enforcement actions in ?the coming months.? He apologized for letting ?our regulators down? and vowed to ?do all the work necessary to complete the needed improvements.? Still, the broad regulatory scrutiny ? at least eight federal agencies are investigating the bank ? presents a threat to JPMorgan at a time when it is raking in record profits. For executives, the bank?s transition from model citizen to problem child in the eyes of the government has been jarring. It has helped drive top managers out of the bank, and it could make a coming shareholder vote on whether to split the roles of chairman and chief executive an anxious test for Mr. Dimon, long the country?s most influential banker. Given the bank?s strong earnings, investors are unlikely to pull out. Yet a growing number of shareholders say they are concerned about the regulatory problems. In the energy market investigation, the enforcement staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, intends to recommend that the agency pursue an action against JPMorgan over its trading in California and Michigan electric markets. The 70-page document also took aim at a top bank executive, Blythe Masters. A seminal Wall Street figure, Ms. Masters is known for helping expand the boundaries of finance, including the development of credit default swaps, a derivative that played a role in the financial crisis. The regulatory document cites her supposed ?knowledge and approval of schemes? carried out by a group of energy traders in Houston. The agency?s investigators claimed that Ms. Masters had ?falsely? denied under oath her awareness of the problems and said that JPMorgan had made ?scores of false and misleading statements and material omissions? to authorities, the document shows. It is unclear whether the agency will file an action against JPMorgan based on the investigators? findings. A majority of the five-member commission must first endorse the case. If the regulator does proceed, it could fine the bank and Ms. Masters. ?We intend to vigorously defend the firm and the employees in this matter,? said Kristin Lemkau, a spokeswoman for the bank. ?We strongly dispute that Blythe Masters or any employee lied or acted inappropriately in this matter.? JPMorgan has until at least mid-May to respond to the accusations in the document. As the bank fights the energy investigation, it says it is trying to rectify other lingering compliance woes. Recent departures from the bank, however, could complicate that effort. Frank J. Bisignano, the co-chief operating officer known for cleaning up JPMorgan?s troubled mortgage division after the 2008 financial crisis, announced his departure this week. Barry Koch, a senior lawyer with strong ties to law enforcement, is also expected to soon leave the bank, people close to Mr. Koch say. Mr. Dimon?s meeting with the comptroller?s office last month further highlighted the bank?s challenges with regulators. In the credit card investigation, people briefed on the case said the comptroller?s office had discovered that JPMorgan was relying on faulty documents when pursuing lawsuits against delinquent customers. The accusations, which are expected to prompt an enforcement action later this year, echo complaints that JPMorgan and rivals plowed through home foreclosures with little regard for accuracy. In a separate investigation into JPMorgan?s relationship with Mr. Madoff, the comptroller?s office raised concerns that the company may have violated a federal law that requires banks to report suspicious transactions. Eventually, the people said, the agency could reprimand the bank for the potential oversight failures. ?We believe that the personnel who dealt with the Madoff issue acted in good faith,? Ms. Lemkau, the bank spokeswoman, said. Some bank analysts also note that JPMorgan?s strong earnings could ameliorate concerns among its investors. ?As long as you?re making money, investors don?t care,? said Paul Miller, a managing director at FBR. Regulators, however, increasingly do care. When the comptroller?s office sought documents in the Madoff case from JPMorgan, the bank declined, citing attorney-client privilege, according to bank employees. The dispute was then elevated to the Treasury Department?s inspector general, which oversees the comptroller?s office. ?The matter is pending,? said Richard Delmar, a counsel to the inspector general. The Madoff case, authorities say, exposed a recurring problem at JPMorgan ? what they say is its sometimes combative stance with regulators. In a recent report examining a $6 billion trading loss at the bank, Senate investigators faulted JPMorgan for briefly withholding documents from regulators. The trading loss has spawned several law enforcement investigations into the traders who created the faulty wager. Mr. Dimon, who is not suspected of any wrongdoing, met this week with prosecutors and the F.B.I. to discuss the case, two people briefed on the investigation said. A day before the Senate subcommittee released its report on the trading loss, JPMorgan received another ominous dispatch from Washington. On March 13, enforcement officials at FERC notified the bank that it planned to recommend an action over the power plant investigation. JPMorgan is the latest big bank to face scrutiny from the energy regulator, which recently pursued actions against Barclays and Deutsche Bank. The cases reflect how the regulator has kept a more vigilant watch over the energy markets ever since the Enron fraud. But Wall Street is fighting back against the new approach, casting the agency?s enforcement unit as overzealous and overreaching. The JPMorgan case arose, according to the document, after the bank?s 2008 takeover of Bear Stearns gave the bank the rights to sell electricity from power plants in California and Michigan. It was a losing business that relied on ?inefficient? and outdated technology, or as JPMorgan called it, ?an unprofitable asset.? Yet under ?pressure to generate large profits,? the agency?s investigators said, traders in Houston devised a workaround. Adopting eight different ?schemes? between September 2010 and June 2011, the traders offered the energy at prices ?calculated to falsely appear attractive? to state energy authorities. The effort prompted authorities in California and Michigan to dole out about $83 million in ?excessive? payments to JPMorgan, the investigators said. The behavior had ?harmful effects? on the markets, according to the document. JPMorgan disputes the claims, arguing that its trading was legal. ?The staff is challenging a bidding strategy that was transparent and was in full compliance with the applicable rules,? said Ms. Lemkau, the bank?s spokeswoman. ?We strongly disagree with the staff?s conclusions.? For now, according to the document, the enforcement officials plan to recommend that the commission hold the traders and Ms. Masters ?individually liable.? While Ms. Masters was ?less involved in the day-to-day decisions,? investigators nonetheless noted that she received PowerPoint presentations and e-mails outlining the energy trading strategies. The bank, investigators said, then ?planned and executed a systematic cover-up? of documents that exposed the strategy, including profit and loss statements. In the March document, the government investigators also complained about what they said was obstruction by Ms. Masters. After the state authorities began to object to the strategy, Ms. Masters ?personally participated in JPMorgan?s efforts to block? the state authorities ?from understanding the reasons behind JPMorgan?s bidding schemes,? the document said. The investigators also referenced an April 2011 e-mail in which Ms. Masters ordered a ?rewrite? of an internal document that raised questions about whether the bank had run afoul of the law. The new wording stated that ?JPMorgan does not believe that it violated FERC?s policies.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 06:02:51 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 07:02:51 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?U=2ES=2E_Ambassador=3A_Internet_?= =?windows-1252?q?Piracy_and_Illegal_Immigration_are_Both_a_=91Compliment?= =?windows-1252?q?=92?= Message-ID: U.S. Ambassador: Internet Piracy and Illegal Immigration are Both a ?Compliment? ? Andy ? May 3, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-ambassador-internet-piracy-and-illegal-immigration-are-both-a-compliment-130503/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter U.S. Ambassador to Australia Jeffrey L. Bleich is back once again with a new Internet piracy missive. The long-time friend of Barack Obama caused controversy by getting involved in the Game of Thrones download debate last month, but now believes that he hasn?t got involved enough. Quoting the earlier words of HBO, Bleich says that if online piracy is a compliment to Game of Thrones, then the same holds true for illegal immigration or someone hitting on your partner. Speaking in aid of UN World Book and Copyright Day, last month U.S. Ambassador to Australia Jeffrey L. Bleich waded into the Internet piracy debate after learning that Aussies are particularly partial to downloading Game of Thrones without paying for it. He accused half the show?s audience of being thieves which perhaps understandably caused a bit of a fuss. Bleich?s Facebook page lit up with reaction ? most of it critical, some of it abusive ? but, as the Ambassador now points out, ?a frank exchange is a good thing?. In a new address to those who download content from unauthorized Internet sources, Bleich recaps some of the issues, including one on many critics? lists ? doesn?t a U.S. Ambassador have anything better to do than talk about file-sharing? ?Actually, given the overwhelming response to the topic, maybe I haven?t talked about internet piracy enough,? Bleich begins. ?The point is, this isn?t just about ?Game of Thrones? and it isn?t a small issue.? Citing a whole bunch of figures, such as U.S. businesses ?losing? $48 billion to Chinese-based copyright infringement in 2011, Bleich said piracy ?is a big deal? for both the U.S. and Australia. ?Fortunately, working on this topic doesn?t mean I?ll stop working on other big issues too,? he adds. Bleich goes on to dismiss accusations that copyright enforcement is all about protecting the profits of big corporations. Game of Thrones, he says, costs $6m per episode to produce and relies on people putting money into their pockets to fund the show. However, we also know directly from mouth of HBO that the show is doing very well indeed, despite all the piracy. Bleich, however, feels this is missing the point. The Ambassador argues that profitable shows and artists help bring niche products to market. Without Taylor Swift, One Direction and Justin Bieber, labels won?t have the money to support acts that aren?t commercially viable. ?When the labels aren?t fully compensated for the big acts (or HBO doesn?t get receipts for ?Game of Thrones?) that means other artists won?t get a chance at all,? he says. Bleich then goes on to address the one thing that seems to come up in every infringement debate ? the notion that copying is the same / is not the same as theft. He makes some more analogies, but none of them will quieten this baby. ?Making use of someone?s property without permission ? is against the law, and for the same reason as stealing. Think of it this way: no one would argue that it?s legal (or moral) to slip into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying for your ticket (even if a seat was empty and the theater still had the movie afterward). That?s basically what you do when you illegally download a video. ?Stealing is the word that comes to most people?s minds when you use something that?s not yours without permission and without paying for it. So if folks want to call it something else, that?s fine, but my point here is that it is both wrong and illegal,? he says. But hold on just one minute ? didn?t the maker of Game of Thrones and an HBO executive describe piracy of the show as a kind of compliment? They did, but Bleich is having none of it. ?Illegal immigration is a sort of compliment, too (it means people would rather live in your country than theirs) and so is having someone hit on your partner (because it means they find him/her attractive),? the Ambassador says. ?No one seriously thinks that illegal immigration or someone seducing your partner is a good thing. Likewise, the idea that people who download illegally may generate ?more buzz? or might decide to do the right thing and buy the next season may be true, but it doesn?t make up for the fact that you are taking something that is not yours when you illegally download content.? Of course, no one likes the idea of someone hitting on their partner, but they aren?t exactly up for grabs in the first instance ? free, paid for, or otherwise. Countries attract illegal immigration for a number of reasons, not least because they?re a) desirable and b) hard to access by the official routes if you live in the wrong locale, which coincidentally is something Game of Thrones and HBO know a little about. ?Many companies today are working on how to deliver their products flexibly enough to meet the lifestyle and expectations of online consumers. But while they are working out the kinks, we shouldn?t be doing something that hurts people who work in the entertainment industry,? says Bleich. ?I know some people will still passionately disagree (and will let me know it). But instead of shifting blame, I?d just ask that the next time one of us considers illegally downloading a copyrighted work, we remember (and actually follow) the Lannister family code: ?A Lannister always pays his debts?,? he concludes. To be continued?. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 06:06:54 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 07:06:54 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 875, 000 on US terror watch list, USG official says Message-ID: <0D7B471E-9623-4E2E-8EC2-0210C86A56CC@infowarrior.org> Number of names on U.S. counter-terrorism database jumps Thu, May 2 2013 By Mark Hosenball http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE94200720130503 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of names on a highly classified U.S. central database used to track suspected terrorists has jumped to 875,000 from 540,000 only five years ago, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. Among those was suspected Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, whose name was added in 2011. The increase in names is due in part to security agencies using the system more in the wake of the failed 2009 attack on a plane by "underpants bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Detroit. Intelligence and law enforcement officials acknowledged in Congress that they had missed clues to that attack despite Abdulmutallab's name appearing in the main database, known as TIDE. Maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center, the highly classified database is not a "watchlist" but instead is a repository of information on people whom U.S. authorities see as known, suspected or potential terrorists from around the world. The "Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment" is a master database which agencies use to build other catalogs of possible terrorists, like the "no-fly" list which prevents people who feature on it from boarding airplanes. The official familiar with the latest statistics said that even though the number of TIDE entries has grown substantially, this does not mean that the data is less manageable as intelligence agencies have gotten better at figuring how to extract information from the oceans of data. However, Karen Greenberg, an expert in counter-terrorism policy at Fordham University, questioned whether the growth in the database's size made it easier for officials to spot threats before they materialize. "What you want is more focus, not less focus. It can't be just about quantity. It has to be about specificity," she said. The vast size of TIDE came into the spotlight in the wake of the bombing late last month of the Boston Marathon. U.S. officials now acknowledge that Tamerlan Tsarnaev's name was entered into TIDE by the CIA in the autumn of 2011, after the U.S. spy agency received a request from Russian authorities to investigate him for suspected radical Islamist activities. The CIA also entered the name of Tsarnaev's mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva's, into the TIDE database. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout with authorities in the days following the Boston bombing and his younger brother Dzhokhar was captured by police. (Editing by Alistair Bell and Cynthia Osterman) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 06:35:09 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 07:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Schneier: Do You Want the Government Buying Your Data From Corporations? Message-ID: Do You Want the Government Buying Your Data From Corporations? A new bill moving through Congress would give the authorities unprecedented access to citizens' information. Bruce Schneier Apr 30 2013, 1:25 PM ET http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/do-you-want-the-government-buying-your-data-from-corporations/275431/ Our government collects a lot of information about us. Tax records, legal records, license records, records of government services received-- it's all in databases that are increasingly linked and correlated. Still, there's a lot of personal information the government can't collect. Either they're prohibited by law from asking without probable cause and a judicial order, or they simply have no cost-effective way to collect it. But the government has figured out how to get around the laws, and collect personal data that has been historically denied to them: ask corporate America for it. It's no secret that we're monitored continuously on the Internet. Some of the company names you know, such as Google and Facebook. Others hide in the background as you move about the Internet. There are browser plugins that show you who is tracking you. One Atlantic editor found 105 companies tracking him during one 36-hour period. Add data from your cell phone (who you talk to, your location), your credit cards (what you buy, from whom you buy it), and the dozens of other times you interact with a computer daily, we live in a surveillance state beyond the dreams of Orwell. It's all corporate data, compiled and correlated, bought and sold. And increasingly, the government is doing the buying. Some of this is collected using National Security Letters (NSLs). These give the government the ability to demand an enormous amount of personal data about people for very speculative reasons, with neither probable cause nor judicial oversight. Data on these secretive orders is obviously scant, but we know that the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of them in the past decade -- for reasons that go far beyond terrorism. NSLs aren't the only way the government can get at corporate data. Sometimes they simply purchase it, just as any other company might. Sometimes they can get it for free, from corporations that want to stay on the government's good side. CISPA, a bill currently wending its way through Congress, codifies this sort of practice even further. If signed into law, CISPA will allow the government to collect all sorts of personal data from corporations, without any oversight at all, and will protect corporations from lawsuits based on their handing over that data. Without hyperbole, it's been called the death of the 4th Amendment. Right now, it's mainly the FBI and the NSA who are getting this data, but -- all sorts of government agencies have administrative subpoena power. Data on this scale has all sorts of applications. From finding tax cheaters by comparing data brokers' estimates of income and net worth with what's reported on tax returns, to compiling a list of gun owners from Web browsing habits, instant messaging conversations, and locations -- did you have your iPhone turned on when you visited a gun store? -- the possibilities are endless. Government photograph databases form the basis of any police facial recognition system. They're not very good today, but they'll only get better. But the government no longer needs to collect photographs. Experiments demonstrate that the Facebook database of tagged photographs is surprisingly effective at identifying people. As more places follow Disney's lead in fingerprinting people at its theme parks, the government will be able to use that to identify people as well. In a few years, the whole notion of a government-issued ID will seem quaint. Among facial recognition, the unique signature from your smart phone, the RFID chips in your clothing and other items you own, and whatever new technologies that will broadcast your identity, no one will have to ask to see ID. When you walk into a store, they'll already know who you are. When you interact with a policeman, she'll already have your personal information displayed on her Internet-enabled glasses. Soon, governments won't have to bother collecting personal data. We're willingly giving it to a vast network of for-profit data collectors, and they're more than happy to pass it on to the government without our knowledge or consent. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 08:16:04 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 09:16:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: New Rule Signals Kiss of Death for Pensions Message-ID: <1EFF633E-2C08-419E-A49B-249AB93B2998@infowarrior.org> One wonders how many folks a) have 'pensions' these days and b) if those that do are even aware of this subtle-but-significant change in what/how their employer contributes to them. --rick New Rule Signals Kiss of Death for Pensions http://www.cnbc.com/id/100694955/print CNBC.com | Friday, 3 May 2013 | 8:15 AM ET A little known rule change that allows companies to contribute fewer dollars to pension funds is signaling just how meaningless the retirement vehicle has become. "This proves that pensions are pretty much dead," said Greg McBride, chief economist at Bankrate.com. "The change is just another charade to mask the underfunding of pensions and increases the odds of having less money for retirement." "It's not necessarily the immediate end of pensions but it's not good for them and it's certainly a bad sign," McBride added. The pension change was part of a transportation bill?called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century or MAP-21?passed by Congress last June. The change became mandatory this year. In essence, MAP-21 lets employers put less money in their pension plans by allowing them to value their liabilities? what they have to pay out to pensioners?using a 25-year average of interest rates instead of current rates. When interest rates are low, like now, pension plan liabilities are estimated to be higher and companies have to put in more money. When rates are higher, the liabilities are figured to be smaller and employers' contributions are less. The 25-year average is expected to be at least 2-3 percentage points higher than rates today. The reduced amount that companies will be putting in has to be figured out by each firm based on the higher rates. But Madison Pension Services, a consulting firm, has reported that some minimum pension contributions in 2012 were reduced by 33 percent. Employers are not required to offer pension plans, but the government encourages them to do so by offering tax breaks. For 2012, the tax subsidy for private and public retirement plans was $135.8 billion, the largest of all federal tax expenditures, according to the Pension Rights Center, a consumer advocacy group. But the number of workers with pensions has been on a steep decline. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 18 percent of full-time private industry workers had a defined pension benefit in 2011? down from 35 percent in 1990. To end pension obligations and escape from having to keep throwing money into pensions that may be underfunded, many firms?like General Motors and Ford?have offered lump-sum payouts to retirees. "Companies want to get away from pensions totally," said Steve Pavlick, worker benefit specialist at the law firm McDermott Will & Emory. "It's costing them a lot to come up with the cash to fund these plans and it's adversely affecting them, especially now with these lower rates," Pavlick said. "Most companies don't want to fund them in the future and aren't offering them anymore to new workers." What's replaced pensions since the 1990s have been the employee contribution model like 401(k)s, which are now the main form of retirement plans offered to workers. (Read More: How to Lose $90,000 on your 401(k)) But for many current retirees, pensions are still a key source of income, according to the Pension Rights Center. The group says that only 52 percent of seniors receive income from financial assets?and half of those seniors receive less than $1,260 a year from Wall Street. And Social Security payments to retirees average only $15,179 a year, roughly two-fifths of their earnings before retirement. The Pension Rights Center calls for more pension funding, not less. "While the Pension Rights Center is sympathetic to business concerns, we believe that Congress must strike the right balance between giving employers a break on making pension contributions and protecting the pension fund and workers' and retirees' long term security," the group's executive vice president, Karen Friedman, said on the center's website. Getting long term pension security won't be easy. The government likes the current change as much as companies. Pension contributions are not taxed until benefits are paid to retired workers. As such, the government is literally counting on money from the lower contributions by assuming it will get more tax revenues from higher wages of current workers?wages given instead of pension contributions.That money?a projected $9.5 billion over 10 years?is targeted for highway construction and student loans. The MAP-21 rule on pensions is supposed to phase out over time. But Pavlick said plans are underway to get it, or something like it, extended. "There's a lobbying effort to make this type of change permanent," he said. "It's clear that companies would rather have the higher interest rates and figure their pension contributions on such a plan." While current pension holders seem likely to escape the fallout from the contribution cuts, analysts say future retirees with pensions will have to figure on fewer dollars. "People getting pension checks this week or next month won't be affected," McBride said. "It's the young person of today that has to worry about getting full pension benefits when they retire." While MAP-21 might not be a final nail in the coffin for nongovernment pensions, experts say it does mean future retirees face an even tougher struggle to survive. "Pensions are just not relevant anymore," said Pavlick. "Companies feel over regulated and can't afford them. In today's world, pensions are relics." ? 2013 CNBC.com URL: http://www.cnbc.com/100694955 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 08:41:15 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 09:41:15 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - New Report Details Which Internet Companies You Can (and Can't) Trust With Your Personal Data Message-ID: (c/o JC) New Report Details Which Internet Companies You Can (and Can't) Trust With Your Personal Data http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/02/eff_who_has_your_back_report_details_which_internet_companies_you_should.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 3 18:19:52 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 19:19:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The U.S. Outsources Cybersecurity & Defense To Contractors That Keep Getting Hacked Message-ID: (c/o ferg) The U.S. Outsources Cybersecurity & Defense To Contractors That Keep Getting Hacked By Andrea Peterson on May 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/03/1958871/contractors-outsource-cybersecurity-hacked/ Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that QinetiQ, a high tech defense contractor specializing in secret satellites drones and software used by U.S. special forces, was the victim of asustained cybersecurity breach for several years starting in 2007. The hacking adds yet another data point to an emerging narrative of defense and cybersecurity contractors the U.S. government has increasingly relied upon to fill in gaps in cybersecurity expertise being compromised. According to Bloomberg, documents released in the Anonymous Stratfor hack reveal QinetiQ was compromised as part of a cyber-espionage attack originating in China ? and notes the breach was part of a much broader campaign targetting U.S. contractors: ?QinetiQ?s espionage expertise didn?t keep Chinese cyber- spies from outwitting the company. In a three-year operation, hackers linked to China?s military infiltrated QinetiQ?s computers and compromised most if not all of the company?s research. At one point, they logged into the company?s network by taking advantage of a security flaw identified months earlier and never fixed [...] QinetiQ was only one target in a broader cyberpillage. Beginning at least as early as 2007, Chinese computer spies raided the databanks of almost every major U.S. defense contractor and made off with some of the country?s most closely guarded technological secrets, according to two former Pentagon officials who asked not to be named because damage assessments of the incidents remain classified.? U.S. intelligence reports ranked cyber threats as the top danger facing the country for the first time in April, but tensions have been running high about the government?s ability to protect digital assets and intelligence for years. A 2011 Department of Justice report noted that only 64 percent of FBI agents assigned to national security-related cyber investigations had the appropriate skills and expertise to handle those types of cases. Government cybersecurity contracting exploded during the Bush Administration years, with many roles traditionally filled by government employees or resources outsourced to external companies over whom the government has less oversight. The Obama Administration has made efforts to curb that trend, but that expansion combined with a lack of cybersecurity expertise in the military and federal agencies resulted in many cybersecurity defense operations being outsourced to or completed under the heavy supervision of outside contractors. This has sometimes led to much much less than ideal results?>less than ideal outcomes, despite a 2011 General Services Administration (GSA) rule requiring all contractors and subcontractors that provide federal agencies with IT services, systems, or supplies to submit a cybersecurity plan that matches government regulations. The history of breaches in contractors related to defense is particularly concerning: In 2011 RSA, a cybersecurity company with contracts with Lockheed Martin and the Department of Defense was breached ? possibly contributing to a later cyberattack on Lockheed Martin. That same year, FBI cybersecurity contractor ManTech was hacked by Anonymous. Just earlier this year, Bit9, a contractor that provides network security services to the U.S. government and many Fortune 100 firms, was actually used to spread malware. In 2012, presumably in response to evidence of breaches, the Pentagon expanded and made permanent a trial program that teamed the government with internet service providers to scan network traffic to and from defense contractors for data theft from adversaries, somewhat similar to the cybersecurity executive order President Obama signed earlier this year encouraging voluntary threat intelligence sharing for critical infrastructure. This January the Pentagon announced it would increase its ability to conduct defensive and offensive cyber operations five-fold, several months after the President signed a secret directive reclassifying some cybersecurity actions previously classified as offensive as defensive. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat May 4 08:22:08 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 09:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NIMH dropping DSM Message-ID: NIMH Will Drop Widely Used Psychiatry Manual NIMH director says the DSM lacks biological validity in its diagnoses: ?Patients with mental disorders deserve better.? Just weeks before the American Psychiatric Association is expected to publish its new addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the director of National Institute of Mental Health?s director announced via blog post that his institution will be ?re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.? The DSM is a manual for diagnosing and classifying mental disorders and is widely used by doctors and researchers. As Thomas Insel writes in his post, the goal of the manual is to ?provide a common language for describing psychopathology.? The problem, however, is a ?lack of validity.? < - > http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514571/nimh-will-drop-widely-used-psychiatry-manual/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat May 4 14:51:27 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 15:51:27 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - GREENWALD: Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To The US Government? Message-ID: <32101852-5D9D-4D1A-A5FB-5744D186FF1A@infowarrior.org> GREENWALD: Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To The US Government? Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian | May 4, 2013, 8:50 AM | 3,119 | 13 http://www.businessinsider.com/greenwald-are-all-telephone-calls-recorded-and-accessible-to-the-us-government-2013-5#ixzz2SM5mS199 The real capabilities and behavior of the U.S. surveillance state are almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things of significance done by the U.S. government, it operates behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance activities are. Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way. On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could: BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them? CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out. BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible. CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not." "All of that stuff" ? meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on U.S. soil, with or without a search warrant ? "is being captured as we speak." On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored. Let's repeat that last part: "No digital communication is secure," by which he means not that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: All digital communications ? meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like ? are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is. There have been some previous indications that this is true. Former AT&T engineer Mark Klein revealed that AT&T and other telecoms had built a special network that allowed the National Security Agency full and unfettered access to data about the telephone calls and the content of email communications for all of their customers. Specifically, Klein explained "that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T" and that "contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists . . . much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic." But his amazing revelations were mostly ignored and, when Congress retroactively immunized the nation's telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein's claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court. That every single telephone call is recorded and stored would also explain this extraordinary revelation by the Washington Post in 2010: Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. It would also help explain the revelations of former NSA official William Binney, who resigned from the agency in protest over its systemic spying on the domestic communications of U.S. citizens, that the U.S. government has "assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens" (which counts only communications transactions and not financial and other transactions), and that "the data that's being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want." Despite the extreme secrecy behind which these surveillance programs operate, there have been periodic reports of serious abuse. Two Democratic Senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, have been warning for years that Americans would be "stunned" to learn what the U.S. government is doing in terms of secret surveillance. Strangely, back in 2002 - when hysteria over the 9/11 attacks (and thus acquiescence to government power) was at its peak - the Pentagon's attempt to implement what it called the "Total Information Awareness" program (TIA) sparked so much public controversy that it had to be official scrapped. But it has been incrementally re-instituted - without the creepy (though honest) name and all-seeing-eye logo - with little controversy or even notice. Back in 2010, worldwide controversy erupted when the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates banned the use of Blackberries because some communications were inaccessible to government intelligence agencies, and that could not be tolerated. The Obama administration condemned this move on the ground that it threatened core freedoms, only to turn around six weeks later and demand that all forms of digital communications allow the U.S. government backdoor access to intercept them. Put another way, the U.S. government embraced exactly the same rationale invoked by the UAE and Saudi agencies: that no communications can be off limits. Indeed, the UAE, when responding to condemnations from the Obama administration, noted that it was simply doing exactly that which the U.S. government does: "'In fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance - and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight - that Blackberry grants the U.S. and other governments and nothing more,' [UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al] Otaiba said. 'Importantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the U.S. for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement.'" That no human communications can be allowed to take place without the scrutinizing eye of the U.S. government is indeed the animating principle of the U.S. Surveillance State. Still, this revelation, made in passing on CNN, that every single telephone call made by and among Americans is recorded and stored is something which most people undoubtedly do not know, even if the small group of people who focus on surveillance issues believed it to be true (clearly, both Burnett and Costello were shocked to hear this). Some new polling suggests that Americans, even after the Boston attack, are growing increasingly concerned about erosions of civil liberties in the name of Terrorism. Even those people who claim it does not matter instinctively understand the value of personal privacy: they put locks on their bedroom doors and vigilantly safeguard their email passwords. That's why the U.S. government so desperately maintains a wall of secrecy around their surveillance capabilities: because they fear that people will find their behavior unacceptably intrusive and threatening, as they did even back in 2002 when John Poindexter's TIA was unveiled. Mass surveillance is the hallmark of a tyrannical political culture. But whatever one's views on that, the more that is known about what the U.S. government and its surveillance agencies are doing, the better. This admission by this former FBI agent on CNN gives a very good sense for just how limitless these activities are. This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/greenwald-are-all-telephone-calls-recorded-and-accessible-to-the-us-government-2013-5#ixzz2SM5mS199 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat May 4 17:27:43 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 18:27:43 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DHS Seeks Millions More Rounds of Ammunition Message-ID: DHS Seeks Millions More Rounds of Ammunition Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com May 3, 2013 http://www.infowars.com/dhs-seeks-millions-more-rounds-of-ammunition/ The Department of Homeland Security has released a market survey asking companies if they are able to provide 2 million rounds of ammunition within a short time period, increasing concerns that the federal agency is continuing its arms build up in preparation for domestic unrest. With the DHS already having committed to purchasing over 1.6 billion bullets over the course of the last year, a ?request for information? on ?reduced hazard training ammunition? posted on the FedBizOpps website quizzes bullet manufacturers on how fast they can supply large quantities of ammo; - Are you capable of producing large quantity orders of any training caliber specified with a short turnaround time of 30-60 days? - What would your lead time be for an order of 2 million rounds of a single type listed above? - If you were awarded a contract for some of the calibers listed above, submitted a production lot of one million rounds and that lot or portion of the lot was not accepted, would you be able to replace that order with an additional one million rounds within 60 days? The DHS?s apparent urge to find companies that can supply them with millions of rounds of ammunition within a short time frame will do little to calm concerns that the federal agency is making contingency plans for riots or some form of social dislocation. The federal agency?s need to find companies that can commit to manufacturing large quantities of bullets quickly also lends credence to claims made by a firearms manufacturer who called into the Michael Savage show in March that the DHS is trying to exhaust ammunition supplies as part of an end run around the Second Amendment. Ammunition is becoming increasingly scarce, with gun stores across the nation forced to resort to bullet rationing in an attempt to satisfy as many customers as they can, while some police departments are having to barter between themselves to meet demand. The market survey also indicates that the DHS is interested in purchasing ammunition that will safely fragment when fired against an ?armor steel plate,? which will only serve to stoke fears that the feds are gearing up to use the ammunition in an offensive manner. Despite official denials backed up by unquestioning media reports that the DHS is buying an abnormal amount of bullets, the Government Accountability Office announced earlier this week that an investigation of the purchases is ?just getting underway.? ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 5 09:07:40 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. Government Fears End of Megaupload Case Message-ID: U.S. Government Fears End of Megaupload Case http://torrentfreak.com/united-states-fears-end-of-megaupload-case-130505 < - > The Government explains that the DoJ?s letter begins with ?a bedrock principle of criminal law, one that applies equally to both organizations and natural persons,? citing the following passage: ?When a person located abroad violates the laws of the United States, that person may be held criminally liable despite the fact that the person has never set foot in the United States.? In other words, every person and company in the world should comply with U.S. law. The Government explains that some companies including Megaupload are exploiting ?Rule 4? to remain unaccountable. However, the Government tells the court that the suggestion to improve the law doesn?t mean that Megaupload can?t be prosecuted. < - > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 5 09:09:45 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:09:45 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Liberty in the Age of Terrorism Message-ID: Liberty in the Age of Terrorism Boston, ?threat inflation,? and the reality of blowback by Justin Raimondo, May 03, 2013 http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/05/02/liberty-in-the-age-of-terrorism/ The Boston Marathon bombing, horrific in and of itself, is made far worse by our response to it. For one thing, hate is on the march. Listen here to the conversation between a Washington, D.C. cabbie ? a Muslim from Somalia ? and his crazed passenger, who rants that the Koran mandates death for unbelievers and demands the poor guy ?denounce 9/11.? The passenger then assaults the cabbie, who reportedly suffered a fractured jaw. Terror, such as we saw in Boston, is our doorway into Bizarro World, where up is down and everything is stood on its head. Sen. Rand Paul, leader of the GOP?s libertarian wing, responded to the Boston bombing by writing a letter to Harry Reid averring we ought to forget about immigration reform and suggesting ?We suspend student visas, or at least those from high-risk areas, pending an investigation into the national security implications of this program? And, of course, the response of law enforcement was to shut down an entire city, ordering people to stay in their homes and imposing what amounted to martial law. Luckily for the cops, someone violated that order, went out to get a breath of fresh air, and saw Dzhokhar?s blood trickling out of a boat parked in the back yard. The problem ? especially for libertarians, such as myself ? is that some of these reactions are, on some level, perfectly understandable. Rand Paul is a friend of liberty: his default position is to maximize individual freedom. But Boston, in his mind, rendered that default position inoperable: now we have to consider keeping out students from abroad because, after all, they might be terrorists plotting to blow us up. It doesn?t occur to him that there are already 764,495 foreign students in the US. Are we going to deport them all? Or only those from certain countries? Which countries? By some measures, both England and France fit into this category ? or is the ban to be limited to places like Kazakhstan and Chechnya? Nor does this cover the entire field: what about families from ?high risk areas? who have been here for generations? Yet Sen. Paul?s reaction is not irrational: it is simply not thought out. People react instinctually to threats of violence, to the sight of a horror like the Boston Marathon bombing ? or 9/11, for that matter ? and America is peculiarly susceptible to this kind of fear. Your chances of being killed or hurt by a terrorist act are minuscule, but that is irrelevant. The real impact of terrorism is psychological, and, ultimately, political: it resonates fear throughout the culture in a way we in America have not experienced before. The wars we have fought in modern times have largely spared us: no enemy has penetrated the ?homeland? since Pearl Harbor, and thankfully Americans were untouched by what happened to Europe and Japan during World War II. We wandered merrily through history relatively unscathed ? until September 11, 2001. That?s what the ?war bloggers? meant when they insisted, post 9/11, that ?everything?s changed.? Former ?liberals? began singing odes to war. Television anchors wore flags on their lapels and Phil Donahue was given his walking papers. Sikhs were mistaken for Muslims by roving bands of violent rednecks. Congress passed the ?Patriot? Act ? effectively nullifying the Constitution ? without even reading it. Over three thousand people lost their lives ? and over 300 million Americans went crazy. That?s what terrorism is all about: although the terrorists want to kill and maim as many as possible, the point is to terrorize the rest. That is, reduce them to such a state that they?ll really believe ?everything?s changed? and they have to alter their behavior in ways they would not previously have considered. A libertarian calls for kicking out foreign students; a man who probably wouldn?t hurt a fly under normal circumstances assaults an innocent cab driver; public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution shred it. It?s what I call the Bizarro Effect. There is only one way to combat the Bizarro Effect, and turn the world right side up again ? that is, return it to roughly the state it was before we slipped down the rabbit hole and into this strange alternate universe. We have to recognize the source of these terrorist attacks, which is our foreign policy of global intervention. Such recognition is taboo, at least among our political elites. Remember the reaction to Ron Paul?s invocation of ?blowback? during the Republican primary debate? According to them, this was to be his downfall: from that moment on, he was to be considered beyond the pale. Yet it wasn?t his downfall, because he was telling Americans a hard truth, one recognized by growing numbers of Americans and dramatized yet again by the Boston bombing. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev explicitly pointed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the motive behind the bombings. This is how terrorist organizations recruit people. Not by telling them Americans are kaffirs, who roll about in their own decadent filth and spend Sundays worshipping Satan, but by pointing out that the Americans are killing them. Michael Scheuer had it right when he argued, in his excellent book, Imperial Hubris, that Washington is the best ally Osama bin Laden ever had. In order to push their agenda of perpetual war, the neoconservatives who seized effective control of the US government after 9/11 perpetuated the myth of ?they hate us for our freedoms.? The irony of this line of argument ? considering the history of US support for dictators in the Arab world ? was lost amid the emotionalism of those dark days. Foreign policy is usually relegated to the back burner in American politics. It?s just another ?issue,? along with tax policy, immigration policy, and what have you. This is absolutely wrong: it is the only issue. I mean this in the sense that, in the Age of Terrorism, the question of war and peace defines the context in which all other issues are debated. While there is a certain amount of threat inflation built into the system ? ?cyber-security? and the alleged imminence of an ?electronic 9/11? being just the latest scam ? it would be a mistake to downplay the very real threat posed by terrorism. We aren?t suffering from the delusion of threat inflation so much as we?re being victimized by intervention inflation. After all, if the effect of US intervention abroad really is as bad ? and unjust ? as we anti-interventionists say it is, then there are plenty of people in the world who are really really mad about it. As the US escalates its overseas wars, with our killer drones raining devastation at will, the intensity of the ?blowback? is increasing. In this context, Sen. Paul can hardly be faulted for thinking we?re taking a calculated risk by letting a student from, say, Pakistan study in the US as long as we?re launching drone strikes on his friends ? and family ? back home. This is part of the enormous price we pay for our self-appointed role as world policeman: we are being forced into a position where we are considering giving up the incalculable economic and social benefits of immigration ? including a formerly harmless student visa program ? in order to defend ourselves from a horde of angry fanatics. In a libertarian America, the freedom to travel ? a basic right ? would not be open to question: our foreign policy of perpetual war is taking us farther away from that world. Or take the issue of government spending: we spend trillions on the defense of the ?homeland? while we?re engaged in a merciless war on other people?s homelands. As long as we persist in the latter, it?s hard to make the case that we oughtn?t to continue the former. If we don?t put down our sword, arguing we should put down our shield will get us nowhere. On the civil liberties front, our ?global war on terrorism? has exacted a terrible price. We are very near to becoming a police state ? all in the name of a war on those who are said to hate us for our supposed ?freedoms.? There is no irony in our post-9/11 world. The war we have been fighting for the past 12 years has poisoned every aspect of American life, infecting not only our politics but also our culture. People who wouldn?t ordinarily turn to hate are suddenly possessed as if by a demon. Once these emotions are unleashed, they are hard to control: whole societies can go off the deep end. That is where we are headed unless we go to the source of the problem ? American foreign policy. At this point, nothing less than a radical 180-degree turn will suffice: we need to get out of the empire-building business pronto ? and there is majority support for this position. For years the Washington know-it-alls have been sadly shaking their heads over the stubborn ?isolationism? of the American people, and every poll suggests Americans have had it up to here with our meddling ways. A Pew Poll a couple of years ago showed the overwhelming majority favor a foreign policy of ?minding our own business.? Recent polls on whether we ought to meddle in the Syrian civil war ? the current interventionist crusade ? show over sixty percent opposed. It?s no accident that the same politicians who declare ?America is the battlefield? are the loudest when it comes to calling for intervention abroad. The Lindsey Grahams of this world understand the political dynamic involved: the question is ? do the rest of us finally get it, after twelve years? America is a battlefield, as the shutdown of Boston dramatized so vividly ? and the only way to end it is to end our policy of endless war. All the other fronts in the battle for liberty are lost to us if we can?t win this one. You want immigration reform? Forget it ? you won?t get it as long as we?re at war with much of the world. How about less government spending ? or even redirecting some of that spending to more productive uses? Not going to happen as long as we?re intent on policing the globe. What about repealing the drug laws? Oh, but terrorists, who are known to engage in illegal activities in order to raise funds, will benefit from the legalization of their source of income ? and we can?t have that. I could go on, but you get the point. This is why I get so hot under the collar when some libertarians treat foreign policy as a ?debatable? issue, which the freedom movement can have honest differences over. No, they can?t. The Warfare State must be ended first: when that happens, the rest can follow. Either that, or we will descend, slowly but surely ? and, perhaps, not so slowly ? into slavery. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 7 06:24:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 07:24:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?U=2ES=2E_Directly_Blames_China?= =?windows-1252?q?=92s_Military_for_Cyberattacks?= Message-ID: May 6, 2013 U.S. Directly Blames China?s Military for Cyberattacks By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/world/asia/us-accuses-chinas-military-in-cyberattacks.html WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration on Monday explicitly accused China?s military of mounting attacks on American government computer systems and defense contractors, saying one motive could be to map ?military capabilities that could be exploited during a crisis.? While some recent estimates have more than 90 percent of cyberespionage in the United States originating in China, the accusations relayed in the Pentagon?s annual report to Congress on Chinese military capabilities were remarkable in their directness. Until now the administration avoided directly accusing both the Chinese government and the People?s Liberation Army of using cyberweapons against the United States in a deliberate, government-developed strategy to steal intellectual property and gain strategic advantage. ?In 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the U.S. government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,? the nearly 100-page report said. The report, released Monday, described China?s primary goal as stealing industrial technology, but said many intrusions also seemed aimed at obtaining insights into American policy makers? thinking. It warned that the same information-gathering could easily be used for ?building a picture of U.S. network defense networks, logistics, and related military capabilities that could be exploited during a crisis.? It was unclear why the administration chose the Pentagon report to make assertions that it has long declined to make at the White House. A White House official declined to say at what level the report was cleared. A senior defense official said ?this was a thoroughly coordinated report,? but did not elaborate. Missing from the Pentagon report was any acknowledgment of the similar abilities being developed in the United States, where billions of dollars are spent each year on cyberdefense and constructing increasingly sophisticated cyberweapons. Recently the director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Keith Alexander, who is also commander of the military?s fast-growing Cyber Command, told Congress that he was creating more than a dozen offensive cyberunits, designed to mount attacks, when necessary, at foreign computer networks. When the United States mounted its cyberattacks on Iran?s nuclear facilities early in President Obama?s first term, Mr. Obama expressed concern to aides that China and other states might use the American operations to justify their own intrusions. But the Pentagon report describes something far more sophisticated: A China that has now leapt into the first ranks of offensive cybertechnologies. It is investing in electronic warfare capabilities in an effort to blind American satellites and other space assets, and hopes to use electronic and traditional weapons systems to gradually push the United States military presence into the mid-Pacific nearly 2,000 miles from China?s coast. The report argues that China?s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, commissioned last September, is the first of several carriers the country plans to deploy over the next 15 years. It said the carrier would not reach ?operational effectiveness? for three or four years, but is already set to operate in the East and South China Seas, the site of China?s territorial disputes with several neighbors, including Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. The report notes a new carrier base under construction in Yuchi. The report also detailed China?s progress in developing its stealth aircraft, first tested in January 2011. Three months ago the Obama administration would not officially confirm reports in The New York Times, based in large part on a detailed study by the computer security firm Mandiant, that identified P.L.A. Unit 61398 near Shanghai as the likely source of many of the biggest thefts of data from American companies and some government institutions. Until Monday, the strongest critique of China came from Thomas E. Donilon, the president?s national security adviser, who said in a speech at the Asia Society in March that American companies were increasingly concerned about ?cyberintrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale,? and that ?the international community cannot tolerate such activity from any country.? He stopped short of blaming the Chinese government for the espionage. But government officials said the overall issue of cyberintrusions would move to the center of the United States-China relationship, and it was raised on recent trips to Beijing by Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. To bolster its case, the report argues that cyberweapons have become integral to Chinese military strategy. It cites two major public works of military doctrine, ?Science of Strategy? and ?Science of Campaigns,? saying they identify ?information warfare (I.W.) as integral to achieving information superiority and an effective means for countering a stronger foe.? But it notes that neither document ?identifies the specific criteria for employing a computer network attack against an adversary,? though they ?advocate developing capabilities to compete in this medium.? It is a critique the Chinese could easily level at the United States, where the Pentagon has declined to describe the conditions under which it would use offensive cyberweapons. The Iran operation was considered a covert action, run by intelligence agencies, though many techniques used to manipulate Iran?s computer controllers would be common to a military program. The Pentagon report also explicitly states that China?s investments in the United States aim to bolster its own military technology. ?China continues to leverage foreign investments, commercial joint ventures, academic exchanges, the experience of repatriated Chinese students and researchers, and state-sponsored industrial and technical espionage to increase the level of technologies and expertise available to support military research, development and acquisition.? But the report does not address how the Obama administration should deal with that problem in an economically interconnected world where the United States encourages those investments, and its own in China, to create jobs and deepen the relationship between the world?s No. 1 and No. 2 economies. Some experts have argued that the threat from China has been exaggerated. They point out that the Chinese government ? unlike, say, Iran or North Korea ? has such deep investments in the United States that it cannot afford to mount a crippling cyberstrike on the country. The report estimates that China?s defense budget is $135 billion to $215 billion, a large range attributable in part to the opaqueness of Chinese budgeting. While the figure is huge in Asia, the top estimate would still be less than a third of what the United States spends every year. Some of the report?s most interesting elements examine the debate inside China over whether this is a moment for the country to bide its time, focusing on internal challenges, or to directly challenge the United States and other powers in the Pacific. But it said that ?proponents of a more active and assertive Chinese role on the world stage? ? a group whose members it did not name ? ?have suggested that China would be better served by a firm stance in the face of U.S. or other regional pressure.? This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: May 7, 2013 An earlier version of this article gave the incorrect number for the unit identified by a New York Times article in February as the likely source of many of the biggest thefts of data from American companies and some government institutions. It is P.L.A. Unit 61398, not 21398. The name of China?s first aircraft carrier was also misspelled. It is the Liaoning, not the Lianoning. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 7 06:44:52 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 07:44:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?FBI_Agents_Association_endorses_?= =?windows-1252?q?Rep=2E_Mike_Rogers_to_be_bureau=92s_new_leader?= Message-ID: <385DA50F-472D-4A2F-B88D-B4789DE42FF0@infowarrior.org> FBI Agents Association endorses Rep. Mike Rogers to be bureau?s new leader By Sari Horwitz http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agents-association-to-endorse-rep-mike-rogers-to-bureaus-new-leader/2013/05/06/1c4362ac-b66a-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html The organization that represents more than 12,000 FBI special agents on Monday endorsed a Republican congressman to be the bureau?s new leader, as the Obama administration steps up its search for a successor to Director Robert S. Mueller III. The FBI Agents Association released a statement of support for Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.), a former agent, and urged President Obama to nominate him when Mueller?s term ends in September. ?His unique and diverse experience as a veteran, FBI agent and member of Congress will allow him to effectively lead the men and women of the bureau,? Konrad Motyka, president of the FBI Agents Association, said in an interview. Motyka said the association?s representatives met with Vice President Biden?s staff about two weeks ago to push for Rogers?s nomination. Rogers, who has served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee since 2011, said he was ?humbled? by the endorsement of the FBI agents group and would be interested in the job. ?I am honored to have the confidence of the men and women of the FBI?s special agent community,? Rogers said. ?The next generation of FBI leadership must recognize how essential special agents are to the bureau?s core mission.? Rogers joins an unofficial list of people under consideration for the FBI?s top job, according to several current and past administration officials. One of the leading candidates is Lisa Monaco, who oversaw the Justice Department?s National Security Division before becoming Obama?s counterterrorism adviser in March. If chosen, Monaco would be the first woman to head the bureau in its 105-year history. Other contenders for the job are said to include James B. Comey, deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration and Neil H. MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Lewis D. Schiliro, a former FBI agent who served in a top post in the bureau?s New York Office and is now a homeland security official in Delaware, has also garnered some support. Although he enjoys the support of the FBI agents? organization, Rogers could face political obstacles to a nomination. He has been openly critical of the administration?s handling of counterterrorism investigations, and of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in some cases. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the search or the people who are being considered. Officials said the administration wants to find a successor soon so the person can be vetted, nominated and confirmed before Congress goes on summer recess. In the early stages, the process has been coordinated by the Justice Department, but Biden?s office will also be involved in the search. The next FBI director will take over the agency in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, the first large-scale terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. The new director will also step into an agency with a more complex and demanding mission than the agency Mueller took over just before the Sept. 11 attacks. Mueller had led the bureau?s evolution from a traditional crime-fighting agency to one focused on preventing terrorist attacks. Motyka said the FBI agents organization believes that Rogers?s background as a former agent sets him apart from the other candidates. ?The best person to lead us is someone who has been inside the organization and has served as an agent,? Motyka said. ?Agents are essential to the bureau?s primary mission of protecting our country from a wide array of threats.? Rogers, a 1985 graduate of Adrian College, was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army through the Reserve Officers? Training Corps at the University of Michigan. He was an FBI agent from 1989 to 1994 before being elected to the Michigan Senate in 1995. Monaco has also served in the FBI, although not as an agent. She worked as a counselor and deputy chief of staff to Mueller in 2007 and served as his chief of staff from 2007 to 2009. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 7 06:54:52 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 07:54:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - How Automated License Plate Readers Threaten Our Privacy Message-ID: <9C5DA474-F5AE-499A-B130-1F84186E3BAD@infowarrior.org> Electronic Frontier Foundation Today 6:43am How Automated License Plate Readers Threaten Our Privacy http://gizmodo.com/how-automated-license-plate-readers-threaten-our-privac-493400783 Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using sophisticated cameras, called ?automated license plate readers? or ALPR, to scan and record the license plates of millions of cars across the country. These cameras, mounted on top of patrol cars and on city streets, can scan up to 1,800 license plate per minute, day or night, allowing one squad car to record more than 14,000 plates during the course of a single shift. Photographing a single license plate one time on a public city street may not seem problematic, but when that data is put into a database, combined with other scans of that same plate on other city streets, and stored forever, it can become very revealing. Information about your location over time can show not only where you live and work, but your political and religious beliefs, your social and sexual habits, your visits to the doctor, and your associations with others. And, according to recent research reported in Nature, it?s possible to identify 95% of individuals with as few as four randomly selected geospatial datapoints (location + time), making location data the ultimate biometric identifier. To better gauge the real threat to privacy posed by ALPR, EFF and the ACLU of Southern California asked LAPD and LASD for information on their systems, including their policies on retaining and sharing information and all the license plate data each department collected over the course of a single week in 2012. After both agencies refused to release most of the records we asked for, we sued. We hope to get access to this data, both to show just how much data the agencies are collecting and how revealing it can be. ALPRs are often touted as an easy way to find stolen cars ? the system checks a scanned plate against a database of stolen or wanted cars and can instantly identify a hit, allowing officers to set up a sting to recover the car and catch the thief. But even when there?s no match in the database and no reason to think a car is stolen or involved in a crime, police keep the data. According to the LA Weekly, LAPD and LASD together already have collected more than 160 million ?data points? (license plates plus time, date, and exact location) in the greater LA area?that?s more than 20 hits for each of the more than 7 million vehicles registered in L.A. County. That?s a ton of data, but it?s not all ? law enforcement officers also have access to private databases containing hundreds of millions of plates and their coordinates collected by ?repo? men. Law enforcement agencies claim that ALPR systems are no different from an officer recording license plate, time and location information by hand. They also argue the data doesn?t warrant any privacy protections because we drive our cars around in public. However, as five justices of the Supreme Court recognized last year in US v. Jones, a case involving GPS tracking, the ease of data collection and the low cost of data storage make technological surveillance solutions such as GPS or ALPR very different from techniques used in the past. Police are open about their desire to record the movements of every car in case it might one day prove valuable. In 2008, LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck (then the agency?s chief of detectives) told GovTech Magazine that ALPRs have ?unlimited potential? as an investigative tool. ?It?s always going to be great for the black-and-white to be driving down the street and find stolen cars rolling around . . . . But the real value comes from the long-term investigative uses of being able to track vehicles?where they?ve been and what they've been doing?and tie that to crimes that have occurred or that will occur.? But amassing data on the movements of law-abiding residents poses a real threat to privacy, while the benefit to public safety is speculative, at best. In light of privacy concerns, states including Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia have limited the use of ALPRs, and New Hampshire has banned them outright. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police has issued a report recognizing that ?recording driving habits? could raise First Amendment concerns because cameras could record ?vehicles parked at addiction-counseling meetings, doctors' offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests.? But even if ALPRs are permitted, there are still common-sense limits that can allow the public safety benefits of ALPRs while preventing the wholesale tracking of every resident?s movements. Police can and should treat location information from ALPRs like other sensitive information ? they should retain it no longer than necessary to determine if it might be relevant to a crime, and should get a warrant to keep it any longer. They should limit who can access it and who they can share it with. And they should put oversight in place to ensure these limits are followed. Unfortunately, efforts to impose reasonable limits on ALPR tracking in California have failed so far. Last year, legislation that would have limited private and law enforcement retention of ALPR data to 60 days?a limit currently in effect for the California Highway Patrol ? and restricted sharing between law enforcement and private companies failed after vigorous opposition from law enforcement. In California, law enforcement agencies remain free to set their own policies on the use and retention of ALPR data, or to have no policy at all. Some have asked why we would seek public disclosure of the actual license plate data collected by the police?location-based data that we think is private. But we asked specifically for a narrow slice of data ? just a week?s worth ? to demonstrate how invasive the technology is. Having the data will allow us to see how frequently some plates have been scanned; where and when, specifically, the cops are scanning plates; and just how many plates can be collected in a large metropolitan area over the course of a single week. Actual data will reveal whether ALPRs are deployed primarily in particular areas of Los Angeles and whether some communities might therefore be much more heavily tracked than others. If this data is too private to give a week?s worth to the public to help inform us how the technology is being used, then isn?t it too private to let the police amass years? worth of data without a warrant? After the Boston Marathon bombings, many have argued that the government should take advantage of surveillance technology to collect more data rather than less. But we should not so readily give up the very freedoms that terrorists seek to destroy. We should recognize just how revealing ALPR data is and not be afraid to push our police and legislators for sensible limits to protect our basic right to privacy. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 7 14:12:46 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:12:46 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WH picks Twitter lawyer as Internet privacy officer Message-ID: White House picks Twitter lawyer as Internet privacy officer Nicole Wong, a respected Silicon Valley attorney with more than a decade of experience in copyright and privacy law, will join the Obama administration. by Declan McCullagh May 7, 2013 10:35 AM PDT http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583249-38/white-house-picks-twitter-lawyer-as-internet-privacy-officer/ President Obama has picked Nicole Wong, Twitter's legal director, to be the White House's first chief privacy officer, CNET has learned. Wong previously was a vice president and deputy general counsel at Google at its Mountain View headquarters, where she managed a team of lawyers that worked with the company's engineers to review products before they launched. The reviews included privacy, copyright, and removal requests, which earned her a nickname of "The Decider" -- as recounted in a 2008 New York Times Magazine article. A person familiar with the situation told CNET that the new position will be a senior advisor to the chief technology officer, currently Todd Park, and will focus on Internet and privacy policy. Park succeeded Aneesh Chopra, who was the first to be appointed to that job and left in January 2012. Neither Wong nor the White House immediately responded to a request for comment from CNET. Choosing a Silicon Valley lawyer who has been immersed in technology issues is a reversal of the administration's previous picks for department-level chief privacy officers. Homeland Security Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan is a Washington lawyer who previously worked for the Library of Congress. Wong joined Twitter last year after working at Google for eight years. Before that, she was a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm. She received her law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. She and her family live in Berkeley. Twitter has won applause for protecting users from police requests that are overly broad: the Electronic Frontier Foundation gave the company 3 1/2 of 4 stars in its lastest survey of tech companies, titled "Who Has Your Back?" Twitter is also part of a coalition that has been lobbying for over three years to rewrite federal privacy law to require search warrants for e-mail messages and other data stored on remote servers. Updated at 11:45 a.m. PT with additional information about the position --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 8 06:08:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 07:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hospital Billing Varies Wildly, Government Data Shows Message-ID: Hospital Billing Varies Wildly, Government Data Shows By BARRY MEIER, JO CRAVEN McGINTY and JULIE CRESWELL http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/business/hospital-billing-varies-wildly-us-data-shows.html A hospital in Livingston, N.J., charged $70,712 on average to implant a pacemaker, while a hospital in nearby Rahway, N.J., charged $101,945. In Saint Augustine, Fla., one hospital typically billed nearly $40,000 to remove a gallbladder using minimally invasive surgery, while one in Orange Park, Fla., charged $91,000. In one hospital in Dallas, the average bill for treating simple pneumonia was $14,610, while another there charged over $38,000. Data being released for the first time by the government on Wednesday shows that hospitals charge Medicare wildly differing amounts ? sometimes 10 to 20 times what Medicare typically reimburses ? for the same procedure, raising questions about how hospitals determine prices and why they differ so widely. The data for 3,300 hospitals, released by the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, shows wide variations not only regionally but among hospitals in the same area or city. < - > From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 8 06:20:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 07:20:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Air Force reportedly strips 17 officers of power to launch intercontinental nuclear missiles Message-ID: Air Force reportedly strips 17 officers of power to launch intercontinental nuclear missiles Published May 08, 2013 Associated Press http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/air-force-reportedly-strips-17-officers-power-to-launch-intercontinental/ This photo provided by the National Park Service shows the inside of the deactivated Delta Nine Launch Facility near Wall, S.D., that is now open to the public. (AP) WASHINGTON ? The Air Force stripped an unprecedented 17 officers of their authority to control ? and, if necessary, launch ? nuclear missiles after a string of unpublicized failings, including a remarkably dim review of their unit's launch skills. The group's deputy commander said it is suffering "rot" within its ranks. "We are, in fact, in a crisis right now," the commander, Lt. Col. Jay Folds, wrote in an internal email obtained by The Associated Press and confirmed by the Air Force. The tip-off to trouble was a March inspection of the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., which earned the equivalent of a "D'' grade when tested on its mastery of Minuteman III missile launch operations. In other areas, the officers tested much better, but the group's overall fitness was deemed so tenuous that senior officers at Minot decided, after probing further, that an immediate crackdown was called for. The Air Force publicly called the inspection a "success." But in April it quietly removed 17 officers at Minot from the highly sensitive duty of standing 24-hour watch over the Air Force's most powerful nuclear missiles, the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can strike targets across the globe. Inside each underground launch control capsule, two officers stand "alert" at all times, ready to launch an ICBM upon presidential order. "You will be a bench warmer for at least 60 days," Folds wrote. The 17 cases mark the Air Force's most extensive sidelining ever of launch crew members, according to Lt. Col. Angie Blair, a spokeswoman for Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the missile units as well as nuclear-capable bombers. The wing has 150 officers assigned to missile launch control duty. The trouble at Minot is the latest in a series of setbacks for the Air Force's nuclear mission, highlighted by a 2008 Pentagon advisory group report that found a "dramatic and unacceptable decline" in the Air Force's commitment to the mission, which has its origins in a Cold War standoff with the former Soviet Union. In 2008, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked the top civilian and military leaders of the Air Force after a series of blunders, including a bomber's mistaken flight across the country armed with nuclear-tipped missiles. Since then the Air Force has taken numerous steps designed to improve its nuclear performance. The email obtained by the AP describes a culture of indifference, with at least one intentional violation of missile safety rules and an apparent unwillingness among some to challenge or report those who violate rules. In response to AP inquiries, the Air Force said the lapses never put the security of the nuclear force at risk. It said the officers who lost their certification to operate ICBMs are now getting more training with the expectation that they will return to normal duty within about two months. The missiles remain on their normal war footing, officials said. Although sidelining 17 launch officers at once is unprecedented, the Air Force said stripping officers of their authority to control nuclear missiles happens to "a small number" of officers every year for a variety of reasons. In addition to the 17, possible disciplinary action is pending against one other officer at Minot who investigators found had purposefully broken a missile safety rule in an unspecified act that could have compromised the secret codes that enable the launching of missiles, which stand on high alert in underground silos in the nation's midsection. Officials said there was no compromise of missile safety or security. Folds is deputy commander of the 91st Operations Group, whose three squadrons are responsible for manning the wing's 15 Minuteman III launch control centers. Advising his troops on April 12 that they had "fallen," Folds wrote that drastic corrective action was required because "we didn't wake up" after an underwhelming inspection in March that he said amounted to a failure, even though the unit's overall performance technically was rated "satisfactory." That is two notches below the highest rating. "And now we're discovering such rot in the crew force that your behavior while on alert is accepting of" weapons safety rule violations, possible code compromises and other failings, "all in the name of not inconveniencing yourselves," Folds wrote. Folds also complained about unwarranted questioning of orders from superior officers by launch crews and failure to address superiors with the proper respect. "We are breaking you down, and we will build from the ground up," Folds added. He later wrote, "It takes real leaders to lead through a crisis and we are, in fact, in a crisis right now." He told his subordinates, "You must continue to turn over the rocks and find the rot." When the AP inquired about the Folds email, the Air Force arranged a telephone interview with one of Folds' superiors, Col. Robert Vercher, commander of the 91st Missile Wing. The wing is one of three that operate the nation's fleet of 450 Minuteman III missiles; the two others are at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., and F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo. "We are frustrated anytime we're performing less than we expect of ourselves," Vercher said, adding that he and other senior officers are implementing an aggressive and innovative plan to restore a record of high performance among launch control officers. "There was a problem," Vercher said. "And we will fix it." Vercher said Folds was expressing frustration. "That is a very passionate leader embarrassed by a performance below our expectation," Vercher said, adding that Folds was disappointed by the inspection, which was by the inspector general of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Vercher said Folds was telling his officers, in effect, "Quite frankly, you guys should all be embarrassed that in an area that's important, you passed but you were rated as very close to not passing, and that's not acceptable." The inspection area to which Vercher referred was proficiency at operating the missile launch simulator and responses to written questions about procedures. Their performance was rated "marginal," which Vercher said is the equivalent of a "D'' grade. The inspector's office told the AP that "marginal" is a passing rating, "but attention is needed from leadership to address issues before they become unsatisfactory." "Nobody is comfortable with that," Vercher said. The launch simulator is used in testing for inspection because, for obvious reasons, they can't perform an actual missile launch. Exposure of shortcomings within Vercher's unit recalls an earlier series of stunning mistakes by other elements of the nuclear force, including the August 2007 incident in which an Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., without the crew realizing it was armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. One outcome of the incident was the creation of Global Strike Command in January 2009 as a way of improving management of the nuclear enterprise. Bruce Blair, who served as an Air Force ICBM launch control officer in the 1970s and is now a research scholar at Princeton University, said the Folds email points to a broader problem within the nuclear weapons force. "The nuclear air force is suffering from a deep malaise caused by the declining relevance of their mission since the Cold War's end over 20 years ago," Blair said in an interview. "Minuteman launch crews have long been marginalized and demoralized by the fact that the Air Force's culture and fast-track careers revolve around flying planes, not sitting in underground bunkers baby-sitting nuclear-armed missiles." Blair is co-founder of Global Zero, an international group that advocates the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/air-force-reportedly-strips-17-officers-power-to-launch-intercontinental/#ixzz2ShPLNRlw --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 8 07:35:38 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 08:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. Is Weighing Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws Message-ID: U.S. Is Weighing Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: May 7, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/politics/obama-may-back-fbi-plan-to-wiretap-web-users.html WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations. The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau?s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is ?going dark? as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation. While the F.B.I.?s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department?s attention. Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom. ?I think the F.B.I.?s proposal would render Internet communications less secure and more vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves,? said Gregory T. Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology. ?It would also mean that innovators who want to avoid new and expensive mandates will take their innovations abroad and develop them there, where there aren?t the same mandates.? Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement that the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials? longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court?s permission. ?This doesn?t create any new legal surveillance authority,? he said. ?This always requires a court order. None of the ?going dark? solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.? A central element of the F.B.I.?s 2010 proposal was to expand the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act ? a 1994 law that already requires phone and network carriers to build interception capabilities into their systems ? so that it would also cover Internet-based services that allow people to converse. But the bureau has now largely moved away from that one-size-fits-all mandate. Instead, the new proposal focuses on strengthening wiretap orders issued by judges. Currently, such orders instruct recipients to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, leaving wiggle room for companies to say they tried but could not make the technology work. Under the new proposal, providers could be ordered to comply, and judges could impose fines if they did not. The shift in thinking toward the judicial fines was first reported by The Washington Post, and additional details were described to The New York Times by several officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Under the proposal, officials said, for a company to be eligible for the strictest deadlines and fines ? starting at $25,000 a day ? it must first have been put on notice that it needed surveillance capabilities, triggering a 30-day period to consult with the government on any technical problems. Such notice could be the receipt of its first wiretap order or a warning from the attorney general that it might receive a surveillance request in the future, officials said, arguing that most small start-ups would never receive either. Michael Sussman, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises communications providers, said that aspect of the plan appeared to be modeled on a British law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000. Foreign-based communications services that do business in the United States would be subject to the same procedures, and would be required to have a point of contact on domestic soil who could be served with a wiretap order, officials said. Albert Gidari Jr., who represents technology companies on law enforcement matters, criticized that proposed procedure. He argued that if the United States started imposing fines on foreign Internet firms, it would encourage other countries, some of which may be looking for political dissidents, to penalize American companies if they refused to turn over users? information. ?We?ll look a lot more like China than America after this,? Mr. Gidari said. The expanded fines would also apply to phone and network carriers, like Verizon and AT&T, which are separately subject to the 1994 wiretapping capacity law. The FBI has argued that such companies sometimes roll out system upgrades without making sure that their wiretap capabilities will keep working. The 1994 law would be expanded to cover peer-to-peer voice-over-Internet protocol, or VoIP ? calls between computers that do not connect to the regular phone network. Such services typically do not route data packets through any central hub, making them difficult to intercept. The F.B.I. has abandoned a component of its original proposal that would have required companies that facilitate the encryption of users? messages to always have a key to unscramble them if presented with a court order. Critics had charged that such a law would create back doors for hackers. The current proposal would allow services that fully encrypt messages between users to keep operating, officials said. In November 2010, Mr. Mueller toured Silicon Valley and briefed executives on the proposal as it then existed, urging them not to lobby against it, but the firms have adopted a cautious stance. In February 2011, the F.B.I.?s top lawyer at the time testified about the ?going dark? problem at a House hearing, emphasizing that there was no administration proposal yet. Still, several top lawmakers at the hearing expressed skepticism, raising fears about innovation and security. A version of this article appeared in print on May 8, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Weighing Wide Overhaul Of Surveillance. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 8 19:15:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 20:15:25 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. top lawman denies bowing to Hollywood in Megaupload case Message-ID: <2EB62588-6251-47A5-B8E8-7645D65BC810@infowarrior.org> U.S. top lawman denies bowing to Hollywood in Megaupload case Reuters ? 1 hr 34 mins ago http://news.yahoo.com/u-top-lawman-denies-bowing-hollywood-megaupload-case-223907579.html WELLINGTON (Reuters) - The United States' chief prosecutor has denied that its investigation into the Megaupload file-sharing site on charges of online piracy is an example of Washington bowing to Hollywood pressure. During a visit to New Zealand, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also said that he saw no reason why Kim Dotcom, the founder of the defunct site who lives in New Zealand, should not be extradited to the United States to face charges of facilitating massive piracy of copyrighted music and movies. "That's not true," Holder told Radio New Zealand, when asked to respond to Dotcom's claims that Hollywood moguls are pressuring Washington to target file-sharing sites, which can house pirated content uploaded and downloaded by individual users. "(The case) was brought on the basis of facts, on the basis of law, and it is consistent with the enforcement priorities that this administration has had," he said. The United States began a criminal copyright case against Dotcom in January 2012. At Washington's request, New Zealand law enforcement officers conducted a dramatic raid on his mansion outside Auckland. Attempts to have him sent to the United States for trial were delayed after a New Zealand court last year found that New Zealand used unlawful warrants in his arrest and illegally spied on him in the lead-up to the raid. An extradition hearing is scheduled for August, although it could be delayed by further appeals. Holder said he expected Dotcom to be extradited to the United States, adding that he was happy with the level of cooperation with New Zealand authorities on the case. "There are things which are working their way through the New Zealand court system, but we've had good communications, and I think at the end of the day, there will be an appropriate result," he said. Dotcom and six associates face U.S. charges that they conspired to infringe copyrights, launder money and commit racketeering and fraud. The copyright case could set a precedent for internet liability laws and, depending on its outcome, may force entertainment companies to rethink their distribution methods. Dotcom maintains that Megaupload, which housed everything from family photos to Hollywood blockbusters, was merely a storage facility for online files, and should not be held accountable if content stored on the site was obtained illegally. The U.S. Justice Department counters that Megaupload encouraged piracy by paying money to users who uploaded popular content and by deleting content that was not regularly downloaded. Holder is visiting New Zealand this week for a meeting of attorneys general from the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, and Canada. (Reporting by Naomi Tajitsu; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 06:43:20 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - unreal....With 10 patterns, U.S. military branches out on camouflage front Message-ID: With 10 patterns, U.S. military branches out on camouflage front By David A. Fahrenthold http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-military-has-10-kinds-of-camouflage-uniforms-government-duplication-at-its-finest/2013/05/08/58f2fe4e-b67c-11e2-bd07-b6e0e6152528_print.html In 2002, the U.S. military had just two kinds of camouflage uniforms. One was green, for the woods. The other was brown, for the desert. Then things got strange. Today, there is one camouflage pattern just for Marines in the desert. There is another just for Navy personnel in the desert. The Army has its own ?universal? camouflage pattern, which is designed to work anywhere. It also has another one just for Afghanistan, where the first one doesn?t work. Even the Air Force has its own unique camouflage, used in a new Airman Battle Uniform. But it has flaws. So in Afghanistan, airmen are told not to wear it in battle. In just 11 years, two kinds of camouflage have turned into 10. And a simple aspect of the U.S. government has emerged as a complicated and expensive case study in federal duplication. Duplication is one of Washington?s most expensive traditions: Multiple agencies do the same job at the same time, and taxpayers pay billions for the government to repeat itself. The habit remains stubbornly hard to break, even in an era of austerity. There are, for instance, at least 209 federal programs to improve science and math skills. There are 16 programs that teach personal finance. At the Pentagon, the story of the multiplying uniforms has provided a step-by-step illustration of how duplication blooms in government ? and why it?s usually not good. ?If you have 10 patterns, some of them are going to be good. Some of them are going to be bad. Some of them are going to be in the middle,? said Timothy O?Neill, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who studied camouflage patterns as a West Point professor. ?Who wants to have the second-best pattern?? The duplication problem grows out of three qualities that are deeply rooted in Washington. Good intentions. Little patience. And a lust for new turf. When a bureaucrat or lawmaker sees someone else doing a job poorly, those qualities stir an itch to take over the job. ?You don?t have empirical information on what?s working and what?s not working? in the profusion of new programs, said Gene Dodaro, who heads the Government Accountability Office (GAO). He hopes the country will finally decide it can?t afford this. ?The fiscal situation .?.?. will begin to force that kind of decision to be made,? he said. President Obama and congressional Republicans say they?re trying to prune back decades of redundant programs. Obama, for example, is seeking to kill or consolidate more than 100 of those science and math programs. But the problem lives on in many other places. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, has a new congressionally mandated Office of Financial Education. It costs $7.87 million a year and is authorized to employ 14 people. It is, by the GAO?s count, the 16th government program aimed at teaching the public better money management. And that shows. The new office?s Web site offers answers to common consumer questions, such as, ?How do I dispute an error on my credit report?? In that case, however, the Federal Reserve answered a similar question on its site: ?How can I correct errors found in my credit report?? The Federal Trade Commission also offers advice on ?Disputing Errors on Credit Reports.? At the Pentagon, a GAO study commissioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the military services have spent more than $12 million on designing new camouflage patterns. The cost of buying, stocking and shipping 10 different types of camouflage uniforms is believed to be millions more. Is anybody trying to fix this? ?The Department of Defense continues to look for ways to streamline processes and implement better business practices,? a Pentagon spokesman said this week. He gave no details. Uniform, but unique This, in brief, is how two camouflage patterns became 10. The Marine Corps started it. The branch spent two years and $319,000 testing patterns to replace the green and brown ones. In the end, the Marines settled on a digital design, which used small pixels to help troops blend in. There was a desert version and a woodland version ? camouflage pattern Nos. 3 and 4. The Marines did not intend to share them. ?The people who saw this uniform in a combat area would know [the wearers] were United States Marines, for whatever that might mean,? said retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, who initiated the uniform design and later became Obama?s national security adviser. After that, the Army set out to duplicate what the Marines had done, spending at least $2.63 million on its own camouflage research. The Army produced what it called a ?universal? camouflage, in shades of green, gray and tan. Pattern No. 5. It was not as universal as they said. After complaints that the pattern didn?t work in Afghanistan, the Army had to spend $2.9 million to design a camouflage specific to that country. The GAO found that the Army then spent more than $30 million to outfit troops with the new design, called Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage. Pattern No. 6. Now, the Army is working to replace that replacement, with a new camouflage-design effort that has cost at least $4.2 million so far. The branch has given up on ?universal.? ?A uniform that is specific to the desert and one that is specific to a woodland environment .?.?. outperform a single pattern, a universal camouflage pattern,? Brig. Gen. Paul A. Ostrowski, who oversees the Army?s uniform and equipment research, said in testimony before Congress last month. ?We?ve learned that.? Pattern No. 7 came from the Air Force. On the surface, that did not make a whole lot of sense: Only a subset of Air Force personnel fight on the ground, including rescuers of downed pilots and battlefield air controllers. But the branch still spent $3.1 million to come up with its own ground combat uniform. It was a ?tiger stripe? pattern, a throwback to camouflage used in the Vietnam War. But it was not well-suited to Afghanistan. ?They were not designed to hide anybody. They were designed to look cool,? said O?Neill, the West Point camouflage expert, giving his outside appraisal of the Air Force design. ?It?s what we call ?CDI Factor.? Which is, ?Chicks dig it.? ? Finally, in 2010, the Air Force ordered its personnel in Afghanistan to ditch the Airman Battle Uniform and wear Army camouflage instead. The Army pattern ?provides the higher level of protection and functionality our airmen need,? an Air Force spokeswoman said this week. Lost in the camouflage The next three camouflage patterns arrived in 2011, from another unlikely source: the Navy. ?The Marine Corps, Air Force and Army had either all shifted, or were shifting. Which meant that if we wanted to continue using [the two original patterns], the Navy was going to have to pick up the entire contract,? said Terry Scott, who was the service?s top enlisted man at the time, the master chief petty officer of the Navy. ?We knew we had to change.? He said, ?I remember saying, ?Why don?t we just use the exact same thing? ? as the Marine Corps? ?Well, the Marine Corps had embedded .?.?. their symbol in the actual uniform pattern.? It was true. The Marines had inserted tiny eagles, globes and anchors into the camouflage ? betting that no other service would go to war with another branch?s logo on its pants. It worked. The Navy spent more than $435,000 on three new designs. One was a blue-and-gray pattern, to be worn aboard ships. Pattern No. 8. Sailors worried that it would hide them at the one time they would want to be found. ?You fall in the damn water and you?re wearing water-colored camouflage. What the hell is that?? said one active-duty petty officer. He asked that his name be withheld because he was criticizing a decision by the brass. ?It?s not logical. It?s not logical at all to have water-colored uniforms.? For the desert, the Navy came up with another design, a tan pattern that resembled the Marines? desert pattern. Except theirs had a small USS Constitution embedded in the pattern. No. 9. To the Marines, the Navy pattern was still too close a copy. ?We objected to that. We just said, ?Look, there are plenty of patterns that are out there that are effective,? ? said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, recounting that complaint during a Senate hearing in 2010. The reason was not battlefield safety, it was Marine pride. ?Even though [the Navy] is not using the patented pattern, I guess that it?s so very, very close,? Amos said. ?It?s a point of pride, sir. It?s internal pride.? That seemed a good enough reason for the Senate committee: ?Well, pride and unit elan is certainly an important factor. I appreciate your response,? said then-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). The next question was about helicopters. It was also good enough for the Navy. After the Marines objected, the Navy decreed that its new desert uniform would be given only to a select few: Navy SEALs and other personnel serving with them. The rest of the Navy personnel who might serve in the desert ? more than 50,000 of them ? were issued a different camouflage pattern. This was pattern No. 10. The Pentagon?s long and expensive search for new camouflage uniforms had previously defied logic. Now it would defy camouflage itself. It ended with U.S. service members wearing green in the desert. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 14:40:55 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 15:40:55 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - New Bipartisan Bill Proposes Real Fixes to Bad Copyright Law Message-ID: <30C1ED7C-EB3C-435E-B413-D4E1F83EE39C@infowarrior.org> (Waiting for the Copyright Cartels to begin their respective tantrums by sundown tonight. --rick) May 9, 2013 | By Parker Higgins New Bipartisan Bill Proposes Real Fixes to Bad Copyright Law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/new-bipartisan-bill-proposes-real-fixes-bad-copyright-law A new bill introduced in Congress today aims to resolve the restrictions that complicate phone unlocking, and it's doing it the right way. While other proposals would apply temporary "bandaid" fixes that fail to address the underlying problems behind the restrictions, this bi-partisan proposal from Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Thomas Massie, Anna Eshoo, and Jared Polis, gets to the root of the issue. That makes this new bill, H.R. 1892, a rare exception to the sorts of bad copyright policy usually promoted in Washington, and the first one to meet the conditions we set forth in a group letter to Congress earlier this year. There we explained why the public needs a complete and permanent fix on phone unlocking, and why that has to start with re-examining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) so-called "anti-circumvention" rules laid out in section 1201. As it's currently written, section 1201 creates a blanket ban on breaking digital rights management (DRM) software?even if there's no resulting copyright infringement. Its rulemaking procedure puts the burden on the public to explain every three years why circumvention is necessary for specific lawful purposes. Even then, once an exemption for those specific purposes is granted, the tools to actually achieve these purposes remain unlawful (which makes as much sense as declaring it legal to drive while banning cars). The uncertainty around the legal status of phone unlocking is a symptom of section 1201's unintended consequences. Here are the three targeted fixes that H.R. 1892 creates to solve the problems the DMCA has created. ? It focuses the definition of "circumvention" to include only circumvention that infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright. This point may seem technical, but it's very important. If this bill were adopted, it would reduce the massive overreach of section 1201 that the triennial rulemaking process was designed to mitigate ? but which hasn't been very effective. Also important, the bill calls for Congressional review of the DMCA in general, and section 1201 in particular. This kind of review is most welcome: the DMCA's record of 15 years of unintended consequences speaks for itself, and as long as Congress takes its commitment to the public interest seriously it will have to recognize that fact. ? Next, the proposal addresses phone unlocking in particular, carving it out from the general circumvention restrictions by adding it to a list of exemptions already built into the law for certain computer programs. Unlike previous proposals, this bill would also cover the tools and services used in phone unlocking. Put simply: under this bill, unlocking a phone is not an infringement. Of course, that's consistent with a common sense understanding of what copyright law should cover. ? One final nice touch: the bill instructs the executive branch to clear up any potential conflicts that may be caused by international agreements. Once again, the clarity is welcome. Opponents of an effective phone unlocking fix have used the possibility of incompatibility with existing trade agreements to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Regardless of whether these claims are true, that sort of chatter can slow down real change and entrench laundered policies. The US Trade Representative has no business directing Congress on domestic policies, and this bill would remedy that issue. We support this new proposal, and urge more Congressmen to support this bill as a real effective fix to the phone unlocking issue and an important conversation starter about where copyright law has failed the public. If you are in the United States, please ask your representative to support this bill today. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 14:42:05 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 15:42:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The FBI has warrantless access to emails Message-ID: The FBI has warrantless access to emails http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2267121/the-fbi-has-warrantless-access-to-emails By Dave Neal Thu May 09 2013, 16:40 MEN IN SUITS at the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have got into the habit of reading email communications without bothering to get warrants first. That is the complaint made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which today warned that a loophole in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) gives the FBI carte blanche under the counter access to people's emails. The ACLU has been peeking through an FBI handbook and there it stumbled across the revelation that the FBI can look at emails as long as they are at least six months old. The handbook, which was published last year, offers this advice to men in suits in the field. "In enacting the ECPA, Congress concluded that customers may not retain a 'reasonable expectation of privacy; in information sent to network providers. . . [I]f the contents of an unopened message are kept beyond six months or stored on behalf of the customer after the e-mail has been received or opened, it should be treated the same as a business record in the hands of a third party, such as an accountant or attorney," the handbook said. "In that case, the government may subpoena the records from the third party without running afoul of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment." The ACLU is predictably unhappy about this, and it said that there is already proof that the FBI is reading emails without a warrant. The ACLU wants any vagueness out of the way, and a commitment from those involved that the system will not be abused. "These records show that federal policy around access to the contents of our electronic communications is in a state of chaos," it said in a blog post. "The FBI, the Executive Office for US Attorneys, and DOJ Criminal Division should clarify whether they believe warrants are required across the board when accessing people's email... Congress also needs to reform ECPA to make clear that a warrant is required for access to all electronic communications." ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 14:43:50 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 15:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Senator demands DOJ, FBI seek warrants to read e-mail Message-ID: Senator demands DOJ, FBI seek warrants to read e-mail by Declan McCullagh May 9, 2013 12:04 PM PDT Last month, U.S. Senator Mark Udall and a handful of other privacy-focused politicians persuaded the IRS to promise to cease warrantless searches of Americans' private correspondence. Now Udall, a Colorado Democrat, is taking aim at the Justice Department, which has claimed the right to conduct warrantless searches of Americans' e-mail, Facebook chats, and other private communications. "I am extremely concerned that the Justice Department and FBI are justifying warrantless searches of Americans' electronic communications based on a loophole in an outdated law that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled was unconstitutional," Udall said in a statement sent to CNET today. Udall's statement cites a CNET article yesterday that was the first to disclose the Justice Department and the FBI's electronic search policies. The article was based on internal government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union. The senator's statement urges Congress to move quickly to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- enacted during an era of dialup modems and the black and white Macintosh Plus -- that currently does not require search warrants for all e-mail messages. The Sixth Circuit ruled in 2010, however, that the privacy protections enshrined in the Fourth Amendment require police to obtain search warrants signed by a judge first. Neither the Justice Department nor FBI immediately responded to a request for comment from CNET. < -- > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583743-38/senator-demands-doj-fbi-seek-warrants-to-read-e-mail/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 16:18:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 17:18:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Judge OKs 'Stingray' mobile tracking Message-ID: <0E2D480B-8FC4-4C8D-8AE9-AC136B587EC0@infowarrior.org> Judge OKs FBI Tracking Tool That Tricks Cellphones With Clandestine Signal By Ryan Gallagher Posted Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 4:35 PM http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/09/stingray_imsi_catcher_judge_oks_fbi_use_of_controversial_tool_in_daniel.html Back in March, the FBI was accused of hiding information from judges when seeking authorization for a clandestine cellphone tracking device called the ?Stingray.? But now a judge has ruled that the feds? use of the surveillance tool was lawful in a case that could have wider ramifications for law enforcement spy tactics. The Stingray, sometimes described as an ?IMSI catcher,? is a transceiver used by the FBI to locate suspects. As I have reported here previously, it sends out a signal that tricks phones within a targeted area into hopping onto a fake network. Civil liberties groups have challenged the lawfulness of the Stingray?s deployment, particularly because it intentionally gathers data from innocent bystanders? phones and interferes with signals in a way that may be barred under a federal communications law. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have also appeared to show that the FBI knows its use of the device is in shaky legal territory. The technology has been used in some capacity by the feds for almost two decades, but only recently has it garnered attention, in part because of a court case in Arizona?U.S. v. Rigmaiden. The ACLU had argued that evidence gleaned from a Stingray to track down Daniel Rigmaiden, who is accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft, should be suppressed. The rights group alleged that when the FBI sought authorization to use the Stingray, it concealed information about the device. In an amicus brief, the ACLU wrote that ?[b]y failing to apprise the magistrate that it intended to use a stingray, what the device is, and how it works, it prevented the judge from exercising his constitutional function of ensuring that warrants are not overly intrusive and all aspects of the search are supported by probable cause.? But on Wednesday, Judge David Campbell dismissed the motion to suppress. Campbell concluded that the warrant was valid and that the suspect ?did not have an expectation of privacy society is willing to accept as legitimate.? Campbell wrote that the suspect could not ?credibly argue that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy? because he had allegedly rented his apartment and purchased his computer fraudulently using false identities. The judge also added that the use of the Stingray did not constitute a ?severe intrusion? and ultimately held that ?no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.? The ACLU responded with dismay, stating that it believes the ruling ?trivializes the intrusive nature of electronic searches and potentially opens the door to troubling government misuse of new technology.? Linda Lye, staff attorney at ACLU, wrote in a blog post that the group was particularly disgruntled that the judge appeared to dismiss the significance of the Stingray?s ability to scoop up data from innocent third parties, which the ACLU believes the feds do not fully disclose. Campbell?s approval of the Stingray in the Rigmaiden case, Lye wrote, sends the message that it is ?alright to withhold information from courts about new technology, which means that the law will have an even harder time catching up.? Incidentally, new FBI documents related to the Stingray were released by the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Wednesday. Four hundred pages of heavily redacted files, some marked ?secret,? join several other batches that have been released by the rights group as part of ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation. Of particular note in the latest trove are documents that show the FBI has been imposing nondisclosure agreements on its staff in order to prevent public disclosure of any information related to the spy technology. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 17:30:05 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 18:30:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - After 100, 000+ Downloads, Group With 3-D Gun Plans Goes Dark Message-ID: After 100,000+ Downloads, Group With 3-D Gun Plans Goes Dark May 09, 2013 2:16 PM http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/09/182623801/after-100-000-downloads-group-with-3-d-gun-plans-goes-dark The Liberator ? a plastic handgun made with a 3-D printer. Minutes ago, just as we were headlined "3D-Printed Gun's Blueprints Downloaded 100,000 Times In Two Days," this message of the group that has made those plans available to the world: "#DEFCAD has gone dark at the request of the Department of Defense Trade Controls. Take it up with the Secretary of State." The 3-D printed gun, , has been successfully test-fired by Texas-based . The thought of spreading the know-how to have a 3-D printer produce a firearm is unsettling to some, who worry about the technology getting into the wrong hands, but is liberating to others, who say that Americans should be able to build their own handguns that way (provided they can afford an $8,000 3-D printer). After more than 100,000 downloads of the plans, of course, going "dark" at the request of the government (suspending such downloads) would seem to be closing the virtual barn long after many, many horses have gotten out. We'll keep an eye out for what happens next. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 9 18:01:16 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 19:01:16 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - W3C proceeds with Web DRM Message-ID: W3C proceeds with Web video encryption despite opposition The Web standards group is going ahead with its Encrypted Media Extensions technology despite some opposition, arguing it's a step in the right direction. < -- > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57583619-93/w3c-proceeds-with-web-video-encryption-despite-opposition/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 10 06:41:31 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 07:41:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Windows 8: forget 100m licences 'sold', here's how many PCs are running it Message-ID: (File this in the "well, duh!" category. ---rick) Windows 8: forget 100m licences 'sold', here's how many PCs are running it Microsoft's announcement that 100m Windows 8 licences have been 'sold' disguises how many PCs are actually running it. The answer: a lot less than that suggests < -- > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/10/windows-8-actual-installed-base-58m/print --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 10 07:33:12 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 08:33:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Goldman outs Bloomberg snoops Message-ID: (Just goes to show what life within a tightly-controlled technical ecosystem can be like. ---rick) Goldman outs Bloomberg snoops By MARK DeCAMBRE Last Updated: 9:45 PM, May 9, 2013 http://m.nypost.com/p/news/business/goldman_outs_bloomberg_snoops_ed7SopzVLaO02p9foS7ncM Talk about a nanny state. Irked Goldman Sachs brass recently confronted Bloomberg LP over concerns reporters at the business news service have been using the company?s ubiquitous terminals to keep tabs on some employees of the Wall Street bank, The Post has learned. The ability to snoop on Bloomberg terminal users came to light recently when Goldman officials learned that at least one reporter at the news service had access to a wide array of information about customer usage, sources said. In one instance, a Bloomberg reporter asked a Goldman executive if a partner at the bank had recently left the firm ? noting casually that he hadn?t logged into his Bloomberg terminal in some time, sources added. Goldman later learned that Bloomberg staffers could determine not only which of its employees had logged into Bloomberg?s proprietary terminals but how many times they had used particular functions, insiders said. The matter raised serious concerns for the firm about how secure information exchanged through the terminals within the firm actually was ? and if the privacy of their business strategy had been compromised. ?You can basically see how many times someone has looked up news stories or if they used their messaging functions,? said one Goldman insider. ?It made us think, ?Well, what else does [Bloomberg] have access to?,' ? the insider said. Bloomberg terminals have become the lifeblood of Wall Street trading shops, particularly those that mine their endless reams of data in making daily trading decisions. It costs Wall Street firms about $20,000 a year to rent each terminal ? allowing the company founded by Mayor Bloomberg to ring up annual revenues of more than $6 billion. Mayor Bloomberg, who is worth about $25 billion, no longer oversees the day-to-day running of Bloomberg LP but controls the privately held company. In recent weeks, top executives from Goldman have met face-to-face with Bloomberg brass over the potentially explosive issue. Some Goldman traders are still skittish about how much of their terminal usage can be gleaned by Bloomberg ? despite assurances from the news and data service that within 24 hours of being alerted by Goldman it pulled the plug on the function that allowed its reporters to snoop. A Goldman spokesman confirmed that Bloomberg was taking steps to address the issue. No reporters have lost their jobs as a result of the snooping issues. Bloomberg reporters? ability to access the special so-called customer relationship management (CRM) information features was a holdover from that ?90s era when reporters also worked with the news organizations sales efforts. ?Limited customer relationship data has long been available to our journalists, and has never included clients? security-level data, position data, trading data or messages,? said Bloomberg spokesman Ty Trippet. ?In light of [Goldman?s] concern as well as a general heightened sensitivity to data access, we decided to disable journalist access to this customer relationship information for all clients,? he noted. The highly profitable Wall Street organization was founded in 1983 by Mayor Bloomberg, and the supplemental news unit was launched in the early 1990s. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 10 09:34:50 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:34:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform Message-ID: <25FA5E3A-D129-4D62-A9EE-32CA47D2555E@infowarrior.org> Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform ? By David Kravets ? 05.10.13 ? 6:30 AM http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/immigration-reform-dossiers The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system. Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named ?photo tool,? a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver?s license or other state-issued photo ID. Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo. This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in. ?It starts to change the relationship between the citizen and state, you do have to get permission to do things,? said Chris Calabrese, a congressional lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union. ?More fundamentally, it could be the start of keeping a record of all things.? For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don?t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance. ?The Social Security number itself, it?s pretty ubiquitous in your life,? Calabrese said. David Bier, an analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agrees with the ACLU?s fears. ?The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,? he said. ?It?s like a national ID system without the card.? For the moment, the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on the parameters of legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a border fence and legal immigration in the future. The committee is scheduled to resume debate on the package Tuesday. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 10 14:35:04 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Very OT: Potential Darwin Award Nominee Message-ID: Mom Delays Taking Gunshot-Wounded Son to Hospital to Check WebMD First http://gizmodo.com/mom-delays-taking-gunshot-wounded-son-to-hospital-to-ch-500027489 WebMd, the hypochondriac's wet dream turned digital, is notorious for convincing invalid-hopefuls that their pounding headache is actually just a tricky little combination of diabetes and cyanide poisoning. But apparently crippling neuroticism isn't the only negative side effect of our dependence on the site. At least, not for one mother who delayed taking her freshly shot 14-year-old son to the hospital for seven hours because searching WebMD for "gunshot wound" seemed like a good first step. The actual event, which was captured by the family's in-home surveillance system, took place last Tuesday night when the boy was shot in the upper thigh with a "high-caliber bullet." It was at this point that the boy's mother turned to the internet's infinite wisdom to find out what her son's fresh, bleeding puncture wound might possibly mean. Because maybe he picked a scab. After waiting seven hours, presumably to see if it this was one of those things that might clear up on its own, the woman finally brought her son to the emergency room where he, fortunately, remained in stable condition. Less fortunately for the mother, she is currently being investigated for felony charges for injury to a child by omission, while 24-year-old Pete Jesse Rodriguez has been identified as the shooter and charged appropriately. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 10 14:39:10 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:39:10 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Why is Science Behind a Paywall? Message-ID: Why is Science Behind a Paywall? Scientists? work follows a consistent pattern. They apply for grants, perform their research, and publish the results in a journal. The process is so routine it almost seems inevitable. But what if it?s not the best way to do science? Although the act of publishing seems to entail sharing your research with the world, most published papers sit behind paywalls. The journals that publish them charge thousands of dollars per subscription, putting access out of reach to all but the most minted universities. Subscription costs have risen dramatically over the past generation. According to critics of the publishers, those increases are the result of the consolidation of journals by private companies who unduly profit off their market share of scientific knowledge. When we investigated these alleged scrooges of the science world, we discovered that, for their opponents, the battle against this parasitic profiting is only one part of the scientific process that needs to be fixed. Advocates of ?open science? argue that the current model of science, developed in the 1600s, needs to change and take full advantage of the Internet to share research and collaborate in the discovery making process. When the entire scientific community can connect instantly online, they argue, there is simply no reason for research teams to work in silos and share their findings according to the publishing schedules of journals. Subscriptions limit access to scientific knowledge. And when careers are made and tenures earned by publishing in prestigious journals, then sharing datasets, collaborating with other scientists, and crowdsourcing difficult problems are all disincentivized. Following 17th century practices, open science advocates insist, limits the progress of science in the 21st. < -- > http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/50096804256/why-is-science-behind-a-paywall --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 12 09:05:41 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:05:41 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ISPs Protest Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuits to Protect Innocent Subscribers Message-ID: ISPs Protest Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuits to Protect Innocent Subscribers ? Ernesto ? May 12, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/isps-protest-mass-bittorrent-lawsuits-to-protect-innocent-subscribers-130512 Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner and Cox are appealing a district court decision ordering them to reveal the identities of 1,058 subscribers accused of pirating movies on BitTorrent. The ISPs point out that their subscribers may not be the individuals who downloaded the copyrighted files in question, and warn that the decision creates a ?great potential for coercive and unjust ?settlements?.? Last year district court Judge Beryl Howell, a former RIAA lobbyist, granted the adult movie company AF Holdings the right to obtain the personal details of more than 1000 Internet users suspected of downloading their works on BitTorrent. The verdict was a big win for the porn studio and its controversial law firm Prenda, since many other judges had previously rejected joining so many defendants in one lawsuit. Adding to the controversy, Judge Howell accused the ISPs who joined the case that they were not doing enough to stop online piracy. The ISPs were not happy with Howell?s ruling and this week Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner and Cox filed an appeal. The providers hope to reverse the earlier ruling and stop copyright trolls from targeting hundreds of defendants in a single lawsuit. The providers point out that many judges have rejected these cases, and that the copyright trolls are trying to create an environment in which they can sue many people at minimal cost. ?The district court?s authorization for Plaintiff to pursue the personal information for more than 1,000 Internet subscribers in a single lawsuit stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of recent decisions addressing the ?multi-Doe? pornographic lawsuit phenomenon,? the ISPs write. ?Through this action, Plaintiff hopes to create a ?safe haven? in the District of Columbia for pursuing the largest amount of subscribers? information, at the lowest cost.? The providers continue by pointing out that many of the targeted account holders are not the individuals who actually downloaded the infringing files. ?Due to unsecured and shared Internet connections in Internet subscribers? homes, the contact information that Plaintiff seeks is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the true identities of the ?Does? who allegedly downloaded Plaintiff?s pornography.? The movie studio appears to be well aware of this, but according to the ISPs they are not interested in finding the true pirates. Instead, they are looking for settlements of a few thousands dollars per defendant. Since the evidence in these cases has never been properly tested the ISPs fear that many of the alleged downloaders may be innocent. ?These cases present a substantial risk that the ISPs will be required to disclose innocent subscribers? information for extra-judicial processes, in cases that rarely, if ever, are tested on their merits,? the ISPs write. To make matters worse, these innocent subscribers often see settling as the best option. Hiring a lawyer is often just as expensive as paying the settlement fee, and the sexually explicit nature of the titles used in these lawsuits can be quite embarrassing. ?This creates great potential for a coercive and unjust ?settlement?,? the providers note. Finally, the ISPs mention the controversial nature of the law firm Prenda, who were recently punished in court for their ?mob-like? tactics. Among other things, Prenda?s principals relied on fictitious persons as ?clients? and submitted fake documents in support of their lawsuits. After all the dirt that has come out in recent weeks, the dubious status of Prenda alone may be enough to get the district court ruling overturned. It?s good to see that Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner and Cox are taking a stand in this case. Of course it?s in their own interests, but it also helps the hundreds of subscribers in this case and perhaps thousands more in the future. Unfortunately the copyright troll cases aren?t going away anytime soon, but by winning this case the ISPs can at least minimize the damage they cause. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 12 14:36:43 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 15:36:43 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The news media is even worse than you think Message-ID: <3828A6C5-991A-414B-94BE-DB6F2E7127CD@infowarrior.org> May 12, 2013, 7:54 a.m. EDT The news media is even worse than you think 5 corrupting influences are keeping the public from the facts By Brett Arends http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=53A39C1C-B91C-11E2-9153-002128040CF6 Anyone who feels cynical about the U.S. media has been having a good few weeks. There have been the high profile goofs ? by CNN, in its coverage of the Boston bombings, and by Howard Kurtz, the famous media ?critic,? in a blog post about gay athlete Jason Collins. The Tribune Company faces a potential takeover by the, er, colorful Koch brothers. And it all comes, with perfect timing, on the tenth anniversary of the exposure of Jayson Blair, the serial fabulist, at the New York Times. It?s become a clich? these days to say you don?t trust the media. But you know what? You?re right not to do so. The problems aren?t as bad as they appear. They are much, much worse. And, as usual, almost everyone is focused on exactly the wrong things. The problem isn?t that the occasional journalist makes a mistake on deadline. We?re human, folks. The problem isn?t big business, or corporate control. It isn?t even the Koch brothers. If you?re a liberal, you should probably want them to blow $600 million on a loss-making newspaper company. Here are the real problems. And I don?t see any solutions. 1. Speed Once upon a time, newspaper companies put out one newspaper per day. Even reporters on deadline had until 6 p.m. or even later to investigate, report, write and check their stories before filing. Writer and former CNN and NBC News anchor Campbell Brown on why gun violence in movies and videogames should rank higher among White House concerns. Photos: Getty Images Those working on features could spend weeks or even months on them. Mistakes still happened, of course, because people are human. But at least there was time for thought. Today? Nah. We want it now. We want the news as fast as Twitter, or faster ? oh, but with lots of checking too. That?s why CNN misreported an arrest in the Boston bombings when none had actually occurred. That was one reason why Kurtz blundered in a blog post about gay basketball player Jason Collins: As Kurtz later admitted, he simply hadn?t read the original Collins interview closely enough. Personally, I think the kerfuffle over these errors was massively overdone. People make mistakes. (My sympathies are usually with the journalist in these circumstances, although Kurtz is to some extent hoist with his own petard.) But there?s a more important point here ? one that affects the public, and not just the media crowd. With reporters increasingly running around like headless chickens, perpetually tweeting, blogging, doing videos and writing stories, this is going to happen more and more. It?s inevitable. You, the public, are going to end up being served a diet of rubbish. Too much media is going to turn out like too many calories. I suspect we are going to find out that a healthy news diet consists of one professionally produced newspaper a day, read during breakfast. But the high-speed electronic media is putting those papers out of business. 2. Money I?m talking about the lack thereof. A media outlet recently advertised a job for ?an experienced writer? with a ?solid? record of publishing articles in outlets such as the New York Times, National Geographic and so on. Salary? The job was unpaid. The posting was reported by Jim Romenesko, the media writer. It was not an isolated incident. A major non-profit media outlet known to me is looking for columns from top-quality writers. The pay? Fifty bucks an item. Good luck with that. A liberal media doyenne praised President Obama for demanding an increase of the minimum wage, but doesn?t pay her bloggers anything at all. The Atlantic magazine recently came under fire for asking a freelancer to write something for free. The writer, instead, published the email exchange. The Atlantic?s readers were up in arms against the magazine, but they missed the point. If those readers won?t pay the magazine for the news, how do they expect the magazine to pay the writers? As we used to say in third grade: Like, duh. Readers don?t work for free, but for some reason they think reporters should. This collapse of the economics of reporting is deeply corrupting, in ways that people are only just beginning to realize. For example, it leads inevitably to superficial reporting. If it takes three times as long to write a critical, investigative article as it does to write a piece of pap, and if reporters end up being paid per article, then writers of serious journalism will only earn a third as much as the writers of pap. Pure math. The lack of money also leads to dangerous stampedes and obsessions. Everyone jumps on the big ?trending? (yuck) story. Something that?s not hot or sexy just won?t get written. Sure, maybe it?s important. But we need the page views, you see. Sorry. 3. Access In early 2007, when the subprime crisis first blew up, some executives at big mortgage lending companies were going around telling everyone that their companies were okay. But I reported at the time that several of these executives were also quietly dumping stock in their own companies as fast as they could. Six months later one of the companies had plunged into crisis and was sold off cheaply. The CEO was interviewed on TV about the industry. Not once ? not once ? did the big-name interviewer ask him about the way he had dumped his own stock. There?s a reason the interviewer didn?t ask that question. It wasn?t her job. She wasn?t paid to break news. She was paid to get what the TV crowd calls ?the big ?get.?? In other words, she was paid to get access. Her job depends on getting the honchos to come on her show. And to get them to come on her show, she had to promise them ? implicitly ? an easy ride. A few years ago a Wall Street tycoon was so incensed by a plan to eliminate one of his tax loopholes that he invoked the memory of the Holocaust by comparison. He is still welcome on TV channels. He is still invited to give speeches at lucrative media conferences. That?s because he still has money and power, and the media cannot give up their access to him. No one who asks tough questions will ever get ?access.? And an increasingly powerless media needs access. Work out what will happen. 4. Consensus Do you want to know what kind of person makes the best reporter? I?ll tell you. A borderline sociopath. Someone smart, inquisitive, stubborn, disorganized, chaotic, and in a perpetual state of simmering rage at the failings of the world. Once upon a time you saw people like this in every newsroom in the country. They often had chaotic personal lives and they died early of cirrhosis or a heart attack. But they were tough, angry SOBs and they produced great stories. Do you want to know what kind of people get promoted and succeed in the modern news organization? Social climbers. Networkers. People who are gregarious, who ?buy in? to the dominant consensus, who go along to get along and don?t ask too many really awkward questions. They are flexible, well-organized, and happy with life. And it shows. This is why, just in the patch of financial and economic journalism, so many reporters are happy to report that U.S. corporations are in great financial shape, even though they also have surging debts, or that a ?diversified portfolio? of stocks and bonds will protect you in all circumstances, even though this is not the case, or that defense budgets are being slashed, when they aren?t, or that the U.S. economy has massively outperformed rivals such as Japan, when on key metrics it hasn?t, or that companies must pay CEOs gazillions of dollars to secure the top ?talent,? when they don?t need to do any such thing, and such pay is just plunder. All of these things are ?consensus? opinions, and conventional wisdom, which are repeated over and over again by various commentators and vested interests. Yet none of them are true. If you want to be a glad-handing politician, be a glad-handing politician. If you want to be a reporter, then be angry, ask awkward questions, and absolutely hate it when everyone agrees with you. 5. Narratives After long analysis and debate, the jury is pretty much in on the housing bubble and financial crisis. Wall Street did it. A broken system with lots and lots of bad incentives meant speculators got paid to take big, stupid gambles on real estate, mortgage brokers got paid to write crazy loans, bankers got paid to pass the paper on to clients, and ratings agencies got paid to say it was all going to be OK. There was more to it than that, but that?s a good capsule summary. But not for one section of the media. The ?right-wing? media, including some otherwise perfectly sensible people, will still pound the table in fury, turn purple in the face, and insist that the whole thing was caused by the government, Fannie Mae and Barney Frank. There?s a reason for this. It has very little to do with the facts. It has to do with the human brain. We think in terms of stories. ?Tell me a story,? says the child to her parents. She doesn?t say, ?Give me some analysis.? In his book ?Black Swan,? Nassim Taleb talks about the way human beings tend to create narratives around facts, whether the facts justify the narratives or not. Psychologist and political consultant Drew Westen?s superb book ?The Political Brain? ? a must read ? argues that if you want to succeed at spin, you must basically spin a tale. People on the right believe their alternative narrative about the crisis simply because it fits their broader narrative, the story of the Big Bad Government and the Perfect Market. People on the left are just as bad. They are just as apt to believe all stories about the wonderful, beneficent effects of government spending, about the evils of any private-sector enterprise, and about universal racism, sexism and so forth. People have a tremendous bias to think in terms of narratives. And in the new world of Infinite Media, where there are no rules, walls or restraints, all parts of the media are subject to an overwhelming incentive to pander to that bias. That is true of Fox News (owned by News Corp., the publisher of MarketWatch) and the liberal MSNBC, of The Wall Street Journal (ditto) and the New York Times. Americans are programmed to call that ?freedom.? I call it chaos. And I don?t trust it one little bit. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 12 14:57:38 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 15:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - CNN's corporate 'synergy'? Message-ID: <68DDA509-20DC-4882-A7DB-C0B31511330A@infowarrior.org> First it's two reporters, then it becomes four. As one of the comments reads, "Daily Show gold." :) --rick http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/ < - > "A four-headed interview with four people in the exact same city covering the exact same story on at least three different programs on two different networks owned by the same company. So much for corporate synergy. " < - > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 13 12:01:01 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:01:01 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - MPAA Freaks Out: Insists That Having To Consider Fair Use Before Filing A DMCA Takedown Would Be Crazy Message-ID: MPAA Freaks Out: Insists That Having To Consider Fair Use Before Filing A DMCA Takedown Would Be Crazy http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/03220823047/mpaa-freaks-out-insists-that-having-to-consider-fair-use-before-filing-dmca-takedown-would-be-crazy.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 13 14:06:54 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:06:54 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Monsanto Wins Seed Case as High Court Backs Patent Rights Message-ID: Monsanto Wins Seed Case as High Court Backs Patent Rights By Greg Stohr - May 13, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-05-13/monsanto-wins-seed-case-as-u-s-high-court-backs-patent-rights.html The U.S. Supreme Court bolstered Monsanto Co. (MON)?s ability to control the use of its genetically modified seeds, ruling that companies can block efforts to circumvent patents on self-replicating technologies. The justices unanimously upheld an $84,456 award Monsanto won in a lawsuit against Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer. Rather than buying herbicide-resistant soybean seeds from a Monsanto-authorized dealer, Bowman used harvested soybeans containing the technology to plant his crops. ?Bowman planted Monsanto?s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article,? Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The case may affect makers of live vaccines, genetically modified salmon, and bacteria strains used in medical research, potentially helping makers of those products restrict use beyond the first generation. Even so, the court said its ruling was a narrow one that didn?t resolve all issues concerning patents on self-replicating technologies. ?We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex and diverse,? Kagan wrote. ?In another case, the article?s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser?s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.? Genetic Modifications The case centered on a technology that has helped make Monsanto the world?s largest seed company, with $14.7 billion in annual revenue, as well as a prime target for opponents of genetically modified food. St. Louis-based Monsanto inserts genes into crops, letting them withstand application of the herbicide Roundup. Farmers who buy so-called Roundup Ready seeds must accept restrictions on their use, agreeing not to save the harvest for planting in a later season. Monsanto has sued 146 U.S. farmers for saving Roundup Ready soybeans since 1997, winning all 11 cases that went to trial, the company says. Today?s ruling ?reflects the court?s sensitivity to the importance of patent protection not only for agriculture companies such as Monsanto, but for the basic incentive structure the patent system provides for innovation,? the company said in a statement. Monsanto fell 72 cents to $107.40 at 1:11 p.m. in New York. Infringing Farmers Bowman?s lawyer, Mark Walters, said in an e-mail that the ruling ?makes infringers out of 95 percent of America?s soybeans farmers, dependent on the grace of a single company to avoid liability.? For Monsanto, ?this is fantastic for their business model,? said Patrice Jean, a patent lawyer with Kenyon & Kenyon in New York who has a doctorate in molecular biology. ?It solidifies what they can cover and enforce under the patent law. Who wants to have the technology patented and as soon as they sell it, that?s it?? Biotechnology companies, software makers and research universities backed Monsanto in the case. Makers of replacement auto parts and the American Antitrust Institute supported Bowman. The Obama administration largely supported Monsanto. Bowman sought to get around Monsanto?s rules from 1999 to 2007 by buying less-expensive soybeans from a grain elevator. Because the elevator accepted harvests from farmers using Monsanto seeds, the second-generation beans proved to be herbicide-resistant. The farmer says he saved $30,000 for his farm. Without Permission When Monsanto found out about the practice, the company sued Bowman. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the award against Bowman in 2011. The Supreme Court today rejected Bowman?s contention that Monsanto had ?exhausted? its patent rights by the time he bought the seed. The legal principle of patent exhaustion ?does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto?s permission,? Kagan wrote. She said the patent owner ?retains an undiminished right to prohibit others from making the thing his patent protects.? That language will help biotechnology companies protect their patented work, Jean said. ?It does give a lot of teeth to people who own patents in this area,? she said. Monsanto said before the ruling that a loss would force the seed industry to shift research away from soybeans, canola and wheat -- crops that produce exact replicas of themselves because they are self-pollinating. Grain from hybrid crops such as corn isn?t typically replanted because the offspring are less productive. Genetic traits require an average of $136 million to develop and commercialize, a process that takes 13 years, according to CropLife International, an industry group. Monsanto in 2012 reported $1.51 billion in research and development spending. The case is Bowman v. Monsanto, 11-796. To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1 at bloomberg.net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 13 15:10:09 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?utf-8?q?Bloomberg_users=E2=80=99_notes_leaked_o?= =?utf-8?q?nline?= Message-ID: <14AED3F7-007E-4ADA-9FA4-E4945944F193@infowarrior.org> Bloomberg users? notes leaked online By Daniel Sch?fer in London and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e050737c-bbe4-11e2-82df-00144feab7de.html More than ten thousand private messages sent between users of Bloomberg?s financial terminals have leaked online, undermining the company?s attempts to restore faith in its ability to keep client data confidential as it scrambles to allay clients? privacy concerns. Two long lists showing confidential Bloomberg messages between traders at dozens of the world?s largest banks and their clients have been online for several years, the Financial Times has learnt. The documents from one particular day in 2009 and also from 2010, contain messages sent in by clients so Bloomberg could extract price data for their use on bonds, credit default swaps and other financial products from traders? messages. The messages had been found, a financial markets professional said, through a simple Google search. They were taken down from the internet on Monday, after the FT enquired about them. They showed information such as unique Bloomberg user identifiers, real names and traders? email addresses as well as confidential financial price information and trading activity. ?This work was done with client consent, where emails were explicitly forwarded to us to a dedicated email account and released by the person responsible for the email so that we could conduct internal testing to improve our technology for the client,? a Bloomberg spokesman said. The apparently accidental leak threatens to unnerve Bloomberg?s clients, however, only days after the unrelated revelation that Goldman Sachs had complained that the news organisation?s journalists had been able to track when users accessed their terminals and which functions they used. On Monday, the European Central Bank and Germany?s Bundesbank joined the list of clients airing concerns, saying they had both contacted Bloomberg over the issue. The Federal Reserve, the US Treasury and JPMorgan Chase, have also raised questions since news of Goldman?s formal complaint leaked last week. European authorities? comments followed Bloomberg?s second attempt to draw a line under the reputational crisis. In a Sunday night online editorial, Matthew Winkler, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, apologised and described the fact that reporters had access to certain client information as ?inexcusable?. Bloomberg?s messaging service, which it pioneered before email was commonly used, is highly prized by banks for its security and functionality. The leaked messages were uploaded to the internet by Steve Raaen, then a Bloomberg employee, while he was working for the company on a data-mining project for clients? benefit. It is believed he intended to to upload them to a secure site. Mr Raaen, who left Bloomberg in March 2011, declined to comment. Bloomberg said use of such emails outside its system ?would have been a clear violation of our policies? and it was considering ?all potential legal? actions. Such a breach could not happen now, it added, due to new technology and ?upgraded? controls that would prevent such information leaving its system. The project on behalf of Bloomberg clients, called ?message scraping?, entailed Mr Raaen, a business manager, combing through traders? messages to get better pricing information on financial products that are traded over the counter. The messages included trade information and other confidential details from global banks including Barclays, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Nomura JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. In one message from the 25th of August 2009, a trader at a large bank passed on the information to three of his clients at institutional investors and asset management groups that he had sold $2m ING bonds at a price of $56 each: ?LIFTED 2MM INTNED 8.439 $56, 2.75MM LEFT THERE.? In another message on the same day, a trader at another bank passed on information to a broker dealer about the price a client was paying for Deutsche Telekom bonds: ?DT 6? 3/18?.?.?.?BUYER ?5M PAYING B+250 Z+130.? Mr Winkler in his editorial echoed an earlier statement from Bloomberg chief executive Dan Doctoroff, saying the company had ?never compromised the integrity of that data in our reporting?. Bloomberg News has not written about the privacy concerns, citing a policy that it does not cover its own company. Mr Winkler?s editorial followed news that Bloomberg knew in 2011 about the privacy issue, but failed to close the loophole until Goldman?s complaint in April. Additional reporting by Martin Stabe in London, Michael Steen and James Wilson in Frankfurt and Paul J Davies in Hong Kong --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 13 15:59:04 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:59:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USG obtains wide AP phone records in probe Message-ID: Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe By MARK SHERMAN ? May. 13 4:47 PM EDT http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters. In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said. The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information." Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented. In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored. Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story. The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined. Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington. Spokesmen in Machen's office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday. The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case. A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules. The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news." News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation." It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas. The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden. The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death." The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement. The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government. Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said. He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 13 17:01:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:01:25 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Thank you, Cmdr_Hadfield Message-ID: Commander Hadfield: a real-life space oddity By Tom Chivers Science Last updated: May 13th, 2013 Comment on this article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100216700/a-real-life-space-oddity/ For there he is, sitting in a tin can, far above the world. Planet Earth is blue, and there?s nothing left to do. Or not much, anyway. Commander Chris Hadfield, the Canadian astronaut, social media phenomenon and owner of the solar system?s most reassuring moustache, has come to the end of his stint in charge of the International Space Station (ISS). During his five months in orbit, he has done more than probably any astronaut since the Apollo missions to transform the image of space exploration, and he has done it all from within the poky confines of the ISS, usually considered a gigantic $150 billion white space-elephant. Shortly before midnight on Sunday, UK time, Hadfield tweeted: ?With deference to the genius of David Bowie, here?s Space Oddity, recorded on Station. A last glimpse of the world.? He included a link to a YouTube video, which was simply him, in the space station, with a guitar, singing a subtly reworded version of the classic song. He has an excellent voice, clear and tuneful, high without being shrill. Filmed in freefall, his guitar hanging in mid-air next to him as he sings ?I?m floating in a most peculiar way?, and interspersed with external shots of the station and the Earth beneath it, it has a strong claim to be the greatest pop video ever made. His farewell to the station is in keeping with his time there. During his command, Hadfield has been a prolific Twitter user, sharing extraordinary images of the Earth from space with his 800,000 followers. (?The beauty of the Bahamas is surreal,? he said of one, taken on New Year?s Day. ?Every blue that exists.?) He tweets, unmoderated, using an ordinary laptop and a somewhat creaky web connection via a relay through Houston. He is not the first astronaut to tweet: one of his predecessors as ISS commander, Col Douglas H Wheelock, and Soichi Noguchi, another ISS crewman, did so before. But Hadfield has thrown himself into the experience, making videos, answering questions, even taking part in an ?Ask Me Anything? with users of the website Reddit, which was exactly what it sounds like. (Sample answers: the scariest thing he?s seen in space is a large meteorite burning up over Australia ? ?to think of that hypersonic dumb lump of rock randomly hurtling into us sent a shiver up my back?; the ISS sees 16 sunrises and 16 sunsets every 24 hours; and if a film is made of his life, he wants to be played by ?someone with a good moustache?.) ?Who?d have thought that five months away from the planet would make you feel closer to it?? he mused, in a goodbye video filmed with the blue planet glowing in the windows of the ISS?s observation deck. ?Not because I miss it, but because seeing the planet this way and being able to share it has allowed me to get a direct reflection back, immediately, from so many people, that it makes me feel that this experience is not individual but shared.? And it seems the feeling is mutual: he has brought the ISS back into the news in a way that it hasn?t been almost since its launch. The now venerable station ? its first component was launched in 1998 and its first crew members arrived in 2000 ? has been continuously occupied for more than 12 years. For all that time, its validity as a scientific enterprise has been under question. Millions of miles away, a huge robot is crawling around the surface of Mars, taking samples; billions of miles away, Voyager is finally bursting free of the solar system, reporting for the first time from outside our little bubble of space. The ISS, a mere 250 miles above our heads, is telling us little new, according to its critics. That?s not exactly fair: last month, one of its experiments, called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, noticed a tantalising hint of what might be dark matter; before that, it performed dozens of smaller experiments, and simply having humans live in space for months at a time has produced valuable information on the effect of microgravity on our bodies. But some, such as the US physicist Robert Park, have said that this is a feeble reward for the vast expense: the ISS, he says, is the ?greatest single obstacle to the continued conquest of space?; a hundred-billion-dollar ?boondoggle?. Perhaps, though, the critics are looking at it the wrong way. Perhaps the primary mission of the space station shouldn?t be one of scientific discovery, but of inspiration. For decades, mankind?s push for space was military-led, secretive. The idea of the commander of a mission sending back videos of himself wringing out a wet cloth to show how water behaves in zero gravity, or explaining why you need to be careful making a sandwich in space (crumbs, you see), would have been unthinkable. But now space exploration is opening up. The ISS itself is a multinational operation, and dozens of countries have advanced space programmes. More excitingly, commercial enterprises are joining in: last year, the module Space X Dragon became the first privately owned spacecraft to dock with the ISS. More than a stern-faced officer-scientist or boy?s-own-adventure hero, what space exploration needs now is an advocate: someone who can remind us why we wanted to go to the universe on our doorstep in the first place. There have been eloquent spacemen and women before, of course. Neil Armstrong himself used to come over all poetic about the joys, not of space travel, but of physics and engineering: ?I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer ? born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in the steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace, and propelled by compressible flow.? But he was a comparative recluse, shy of the limelight. Hadfield, with his mischievous sense of humour, approachable demeanour and palpable awe at what he sees, has been the perfect spokesman for the cosmos. It is perhaps ironic, though, that he has created such excitement not with pictures of Saturn?s rings or distant nebulae ? which robot space explorers such as the Cassini-Huygens probe and the Hubble telescope have sent us ? but with a new perspective on our own pale blue dot. Pictures of a river in Bolivia lit up by the sunrise and glowing like a firework, or of Vesuvius, looking straight down the volcano?s caldera, have come as a reminder that our planet can compete with the wider universe for remarkable sights. Now his advocacy has come to an end. His bones and muscles weakened by five months in microgravity, he is shutting the door to the Soyuz capsule and launching himself, with three of his crew, back to Earth. The next commander will be his crew-mate Pavel Vinogradov, a Russian veteran and a highly skilled astronaut, but not, it seems, a social media fanatic. Two members of the new crew do use Twitter though, so perhaps the stream of extraordinary images and video won?t dry up entirely. It?s a shame Hadfield?s stay is over. Having a tweeting, photo-taking, guitar-playing, video-conferencing astronaut for the past five months has been a revelation: space has rarely seemed so close, or the world so astonishing ? even photographs of Humberside look remarkable from orbit. Perhaps his example will encourage others to do likewise; but in the meantime, Major Chris, you?ve really made the grade, and the papers want to know whose shirts you wear. Now it?s time to leave the capsule, if you dare. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 14 07:25:05 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:25:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Transparency and Accountability Message-ID: <6B5D90F8-82D4-41D4-BEBA-FDA65EF1AA43@infowarrior.org> Transparency and Accountability http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/transparency_an.html As part of the fallout of the Boston bombings, we're probably going to get some new laws that give the FBI additional investigative powers. As with the Patriot Act after 9/11, the debate over whether these new laws are helpful will be minimal, but the effects on civil liberties could be large. Even though most people are skeptical about sacrificing personal freedoms for security, it's hard for politicians to say no to the FBI right now, and it's politically expedient to demand that something be done. If our leaders can't say no -- and there's no reason to believe they can -- there are two concepts that need to be part of any new counterterrorism laws, and investigative laws in general: transparency and accountability. Long ago, we realized that simply trusting people and government agencies to always do the right thing doesn't work, so we need to check up on them. In a democracy, transparency and accountability are how we do that. It's how we ensure that we get both effective and cost-effective government. It's how we prevent those we trust from abusing that trust, and protect ourselves when they do. And it's especially important when security is concerned. First, we need to ensure that the stuff we're paying money for actually works and has a measureable impact. Law-enforcement organizations regularly invest in technologies that don't make us any safer. The TSA, for example, could devote an entire museum to expensive but ineffective systems: puffer machines, body scanners, FAST behavioral screening, and so on. Local police departments have been wasting lots of post-9/11 money on unnecessary high-tech weaponry and equipment. The occasional high-profile success aside, police surveillance cameras have been shown to be a largely ineffective police tool. Sometimes honest mistakes led organizations to invest in these technologies. Sometimes there's self-deception and mismanagement?and far too often lobbyists are involved. Given the enormous amount of security money post-9/11, you inevitably end up with an enormous amount of waste. Transparency and accountability are how we keep all of this in check. Second, we need to ensure that law enforcement does what we expect it to do and nothing more. Police powers are invariably abused. Mission creep is inevitable, and it results in laws designed to combat one particular type of crime being used for an ever-widening array of crimes. Transparency is the only way we have of knowing when this is going on. For example, that's how we learned that the FBI is abusing National Security Letters. Traditionally, we use the warrant process to protect ourselves from police overreach. It's not enough for the police to want to conduct a search; they also need to convince a neutral third party -- a judge -- that the search is in the public interest and will respect the rights of those searched. That's accountability, and it's the very mechanism that NSLs were exempted from. When laws are broken, accountability is how we punish those who abused their power. It's how, for example, we correct racial profiling by police departments. And it's a lack of accountability that permits the FBI to get away with massive data collection until exposed by a whistleblower or noticed by a judge. Third, transparency and accountability keep both law enforcement and politicians from lying to us. The Bush Administration lied about the extent of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The TSA lied about the ability of full-body scanners to save naked images of people. We've been lied to about the lethality of tasers, when and how the FBI eavesdrops on cell-phone calls, and about the existence of surveillance records. Without transparency, we would never know. A decade ago, the FBI was heavily lobbying Congress for a law to give it new wiretapping powers: a law known as CALEA. One of its key justifications was that existing law didn't allow it to perform speedy wiretaps during kidnapping investigations. It sounded plausible -- and who wouldn't feel sympathy for kidnapping victims? -- but when civil-liberties organizations analyzed the actual data, they found that it was just a story; there were no instances of wiretapping in kidnapping investigations. Without transparency, we would never have known that the FBI was making up stories to scare Congress. If we're going to give the government any new powers, we need to ensure that there's oversight. Sometimes this oversight is before action occurs. Warrants are a great example. Sometimes they're after action occurs: public reporting, audits by inspector generals, open hearings, notice to those affected, or some other mechanism. Too often, law enforcement tries to exempt itself from this principle by supporting laws that are specifically excused from oversight...or by establishing secret courts that just rubber-stamp government wiretapping requests. Furthermore, we need to ensure that mechanisms for accountability have teeth and are used. As we respond to the threat of terrorism, we must remember that there are other threats as well. A society without transparency and accountability is the very definition of a police state. And while a police state might have a low crime rate -- especially if you don't define police corruption and other abuses of power as crime -- and an even lower terrorism rate, it's not a society that most of us would willingly choose to live in. We already give law enforcement enormous power to intrude into our lives. We do this because we know they need this power to catch criminals, and we're all safer thereby. But because we recognize that a powerful police force is itself a danger to society, we must temper this power with transparency and accountability. This essay previously appeared on TheAtlantic.com. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 14 12:43:38 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:43:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US's 'Cyberwar' Strategy: Making The Public Less Secure In The Name Of 'Security' Message-ID: US's 'Cyberwar' Strategy: Making The Public Less Secure In The Name Of 'Security' http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/17253823048/uss-cyberwar-strategy-making-public-less-secure-name-security.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 14 14:36:26 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:36:26 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FL shortens yellow light times, camera operators rejoice Message-ID: <4A74E5A1-FCA3-4E96-A132-6604DAB7472F@infowarrior.org> http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418 Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tickets for you | wtsp.com wtsp.com 11:39 AM, May 14, 2013 TAMPA BAY, Florida -- A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida's rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines. The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs). While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations -- and the revenue they create. The 10 News investigation stemmed from a December discovery of a dangerously short yellow light in Hernando County. After the story aired, the county promised to re-time all of its intersections, and the 10 News Investigators promised to dig into yellow light timing all across Tampa Bay. Red light cameras generated more than $100 million in revenue last year in approximately 70 Florida communities, with 52.5 percent of the revenue going to the state. The rest is divided by cities, counties, and the camera companies. In 2013, the cameras are on pace to generate $120 million. "Red light cameras are a for-profit business between cities and camera companies and the state," said James Walker, executive director of the nonprofit National Motorists Association. "The (FDOT rule-change) was done, I believe, deliberately in order that more tickets would be given with yellows set deliberately too short." The National Motorists Association identifies itself as a grassroots group that's been advocating for drivers since 1982. It fought the national 55 mph speed limit and is now campaigning against red light camera technology, contending the technology primarily targets safe drivers who are victims of short yellow lights or safely roll through right turns. Proponents of the technology hang their hats on a reduction of serious accidents at RLC intersections. They also point out that every electronically generated violation is reviewed by a local police officer or sheriff's deputy before a citation is validated and sent to a driver. But questions about the fairness and constitutionality of RLCs linger, with questionable motivations of the state's yellow light reductions likely to add fuel to the fire. FDOT CHANGES THE RULES Yellow light times are calculated by a complex formula that takes into account variables such as the size of an intersection, the incline/decline of the roadway, driver reaction time, and deceleration rate. But ultimately, the proper intervals come down to a driver's approach speed. When the Florida legislature approved 2010's Mark Wandell Act, regulating red light cameras across the state, FDOT had a long-standing rule that mandated yellow light calculations factor in either the posted speed limit or 85th percentile of drivers' actual speed -- whichever was greater. The point of the law was to calculate safe stopping times for the majority of drivers on any given roadway. But in 2011, FDOT struck the "whichever is greater" language from its Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM), reducing minimum yellow light lengths and allowing communities to re-time their signals at RLC intersections. The 10 News Investigators found a number of communities shortened their already-safe intervals to the new minimums. In some cases, FDOT mandated longer yellow lights, but seemingly only at intersections that hadn't been in compliance for years. Around Greater Tampa Bay, the yellow interval reductions typically took place at RLC intersections and corridors filled with RLC cameras. FDOT's change in language may have been subtle, but the effects were quite significant. The removal of three little words meant the reduction of yellow light intervals of up to a second, meaning drastically more citations for drivers. A 10 News analysis indicates the rule change is likely costing Florida drivers millions of dollars a year. "I think it's immoral to do that," Walker said. "You're basically punishing safe drivers with deliberately improper engineering. That's not moral to me." But FDOT claims it had no financial motive to shorten yellow lights; the agency doesn't receive any direct payments from RLC fines. The state's portion of each $158 citation is split between its General Revenue Fund ($70), the Department of Health Administrative Trust Fund ($10), and Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund ($3). FDOT Traffic Operations engineer Mark Wilson said the agency was merely cleaning up language in its TEM to match federal guidelines. But 10 News found Florida's rules were already in compliance with federal guidelines, and there are no federal suggestions discouraging the use of "whichever is greater." FDOT is also ignoring numerous other federal guidelines (see below) that encourage longer yellow intervals. The 10 News Investigators showed Wilson the emails from FDOT engineers in Tampa Bay, obtained through public records requests, instructing Pasco County officials in February 2012 to reduce the yellow light intervals on U.S. 19 from the already-short 4.5 seconds to the bare minimum 4.3 seconds. Wilson said he was not aware of the instructions and the engineer, who has since retired, misunderstood the purpose of the rule change. "Those are (only) minimums. So some of the engineers said, 'Well, it's got to be that exact number.' That's not true. It has to be at least that number," Wilson said. Wilson added that original language of the Mark Wandell Act required communities to perform engineering studies before installing RLCs, in order to comply with federal recommendations and determine drivers' actual approach speeds. But the requirement never made it into the final bill, allowing communities to install RLCs without any consideration of drivers' actual speed or the time it would take them to stop safely. FLORIDA IGNORING NATIONAL STANDARDS, OPTING FOR SHORTER YELLOWS Numerous U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) documents provide guidance to municipalities on how to install and operate RLC intersections. But FDOT and Florida communities are by-and-large ignoring those recommendations when it comes to yellow light intervals. A USDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHA) report said cities should not use speed limit in the yellow interval equation because it results "in more red light violations and higher crash rates." And if drivers' average speeds cannot be calculated, it's recommended engineers use the "speed limit plus 10 mph" variable to producing more conservative, and safer, yellow intervals. Another report stresses the importance of using 85th percentile speed to calculate yellow intervals, while slide 28 on this report indicates when yellow light times are lengthened, severe crashes drop. USDOT also recommends an extra half-second of yellow time at intersections with lots of trucks or elderly drivers to allow them to react safely. And despite the fact that Greater Tampa Bay is home to five of the nation's 12 oldest counties (by median age), it's also home to some of the shortest yellow lights. "I'm not a law-breaker," said Pasco County retiree Shirley Nagle, who got a red light violation on U.S. 19 after more than five decades without a traffic citation. Nagle entered the RLC intersection about half a second too late in February, and was issued a $158 ticket, which soon became a $262 fine after she didn't pay it immediately. She told 10 News that she spent 32 years working in the New Jersey courts system and would never break the law. She was just proceeding through the intersection because she thought it was the safest option for her. "It's terrible," she said of Port Richey's RLCs and short yellow lights. "I think they're cheating the people!" Wilson told 10 News that FDOT would likely approve any city's request to add a half-second to yellow light times to allow older drivers more time to react and safely stop, but none have. Wilson also says FDOT is in the process of increasing the "Perception Reaction Time" variable in its statewide yellow light formulas from 1.0 to 1.3 seconds. That would add the 1/3 of a second to yellow light intervals statewide, to better accommodate Florida drivers. SHORTER YELLOWS: WHO'S DOING IT? FDOT's revised TEM provides bare minimum yellow light intervals for RLC intersections, based on speed limit. While the formula can fluctuate if the approach grade isn't flat, no consideration is mandated for drivers' actual approach speed: < snip > But 10 News found numerous communities using , or skirting, the minimums: < snip > FDOT's new rules didn't shorten every RLC intersection's yellow lights; many cities and counties had lights that were so far out of compliance the new minimums actually increased the intervals. Tampa and Hillsborough County both increased some intersections in recent years, but most in their jurisdictions remain at the bare minimum. St. Petersburg city councilman Charlie Gerdes has also been pushing his city to lengthen its yellow intervals, about half of which are at the state minimum, but Gerdes has had trouble getting the entire council to follow him on the issue. RED LIGHT CAMERA SAFETY Although RLC critics dispute it, 10 News found a bevy of data that suggests the technology changes drivers' behavior and reduces serious crash rates. And everywhere new RLC programs start generating revenue for cities, the elected leaders behind the program tout its safety benefits. But there are few tangible safety benefits to short yellow lights. In fact, they appear to have the opposite effects; according to the USDOT and FHA, short yellow lights raise crash rates. "A one second increase in yellow time results in 40 percent decrease in severe red light related crashes," the report said. Jim Walker said shortening a driver's window for reacting to a yellow light creates more difficult split-second decisions, which can lead to more rear end collisions too. And he contends most serious accidents aren't coming from the "innocent driver" who gets caught by a short yellow. They're caused by blatant red light runners who will run a light regardless of yellow light length. But Charles Territo, spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions (ATS), one of the country's largest red light camera operators, said there is no need to extend yellow light lengths since "innocent red light runners" don't exist. "I think that's probably an oxymoron," Territo said. "There is (no) such thing as safely running a red light." Territo said RLCs have made intersections safer for non-motorists too. Florida cities routinely top national lists for "worst cities" for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Territo contends adding length to yellow lights may have a short-term benefit, but points to research that suggests, over time, some drivers will adjust to the longer yellows and continue to run red lights. However, there is just as much data to contradict Territo's theory. "Rear-end crashes are not caused by red light cameras," Territo added. "They're caused by distracted driving." RLC REFORM STRUGGLES IN TALLAHASSEE After RLC reforms were shot down in legislative committees for a third straight year, State Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, snuck some late reforms onto a highway bill in the closing days of the 2013 session. The bill, HB 7125, awaits Governor Rick Scott's signature. Among the changes: right turn violations will be harder to issue; violators may request a hearing within 60 days (previously 30 days, and no hearing was permitted); and more legal protections were put in place for drivers looking to challenge the citation. READ: Pinellas Clerk Ken Burke's letter applauding RLC reforms READ: RLC critic opposes Brandes bill But reforms have been few and far between for RLC laws, largely because of the industry's massive lobbying presence. State disclosures indicate ATS has spent more than a million dollars lobbying in Florida alone, while its also donated more than half a million dollars to Florida politicians directly. "They're almost everywhere," Brandes said of ATS lobbyists in Tallahassee. This year, a bill by Sen. Joseph Abruzzo, D-Wellington, would have prevented municipalities from using posted speed limit in the yellow interval formula, but the legislation was gutted by Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth. Clemens is a long-time camera proponent who has accepted $1,000 in direct donations from ATS in recent years. "I agree, (longer yellow intervals) may create a safer traffic situation in the short-term, when people are not used to having longer yellows," Clemens said. "(But) as soon as they get used to the fact that those yellows last longer, more people are going to be trying to run the red lights." Clemens said he just wants the state to follow national standards. But he also admitted RLCs have allowed states to create new revenue streams without raising taxes. Territo and ATS said they have no role in issuing the tickets in Florida; a local officer or deputy must review and confirm each individual violation. But RLCs are a $120 million/year business in Florida, and shorter yellow lights threaten the revenue stream. In Georgia, a 2009 law that mandated longer yellow lights practically eradicated RLC programs across the state. Many municipalities saw violations drop by 80-90%. Similar drops were seen in Oldsmar, Florida and Milton, Florida. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I'M CAUGHT RUNNING A RED? 10 News cannot provide legal advice, but you may have grounds to appeal an automated citation for a variety of reasons. If you believe you were ticketed because of a short yellow light, you may want to: ? Go online to review your ticket and record the video with a cell phone or other recording device. ? Going frame-by-frame, detemine if the yellow light failed to last as long as mandated by the TEM chart posted above. Also note how long the light was red before you entered the intersection. ? You may be able to appeal if you can prove the yellow light was too short and you would have normally made it through a normal yellow light. ? Even if the length of the yellow light meets the minimum, you may still be able to appeal if the yellow intervals are too short for drivers' actual average approach speed. The national suggestions posted above indicate safe stopping speed should be considered when planning RLC placements and yellow light times. But ultimately, the choice to appeal is yours and as the law stands, the mere act of contesting the violation could cause your fine to surge from $158 to $264 -- even if you did nothing wrong. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 08:01:23 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:01:23 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?No_justification_for_Obama=92s_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ar_on_First_Amendment?= Message-ID: <38C82182-827D-48D0-8AE2-706DC4A36C0D@infowarrior.org> No justification for Obama?s war on First Amendment Secretly obtaining phone records is just the latest in a long line of attacks on whistleblowers and the press By Kevin Gosztola This story was originally posted on FireDogLake. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/obamas_war_on_the_first_amendment_partner/ The U.S. Justice Department?s secret seizure of phone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press is nothing less than a continuation of attacks on freedom of the press that have been ongoing under the administration of President Barack Obama. Carl Bernstein, famed investigative journalist who broke the story on the Watergate scandal with Bob Woodward, appeared on MSNBC?s ?Morning Joe? and declared this is a ?matter of policy.? It goes right up to the president and the people who surround him, the very officials who have waged an unprecedented war on whistle-blowers and leaks. He also explained, ?The object of it is to try and intimidate people who talk to reporters, especially on national security matters. National security is always the false claim of administrations trying to hide information that people ought to know.? Over 100 Journalists? Phone Communications Collected The AP reported yesterday that the Justice Department had ?secretly obtained two months of telephone records? of reporters and editors, who worked for the AP. The records ?listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. They came from ?more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.? There is no way of knowing the ?exact number of journalists,? who used the phone lines during this period, however, ?100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.? The AP only found out that records had been secretly obtained through a letter from US attorney, Ronald Machen, which the AP?s general counsel, Laura Malone, received on the afternoon of May 10. The records were possibly ?obtained from phone companies,? perhaps through the issuing of a national security letter (NSL). Officials chose not to notify AP before collecting information and claim they did not have to provide notice, citing an exemption in federal regulations. ?The government would not say why it sought the records. US officials have previously said in public testimony that the US attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot,? AP further reported. The story included details of a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. And, AP had consulted the government ahead of publishing and delayed publication out of respect for national security interests that could have been implicated. AP Executive Editor: ?None of Us Have Ever Seen Anything Like This AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll said on ?Morning Joe,? it was ?distressing that the Justice Department felt the need to seize our records and not tell us about it.? It is ?distressing to think that, without our knowledge, someone is looking at phone calls that we make in the course of daily business.? When asked about the chilling effect this could have on sources, outspoken government employees or whistle-blowers, she stated, ?I?ve been in this business more than thirty years, and our First Amendment lawyers and our lawyers inside the AP?and our CEO is also a well-known First Amendment lawyer?none of us have ever seen anything like this.? CEO Gary B. Pruitt wrote in a letter to the Justice Department, ?These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the news gathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP?s news-gathering operations, and disclose information about AP?s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.? An Inevitable Result of Bipartisan Hysteria Over Leaks Lawmakers have expressed outrage, but citizens should understand that they helped create the political climate for which the Justice Department would find it permissible to engage in this conduct. This is an inevitable result of leaks hysteria on Capitol Hill in June of last year. Recall, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Mike Rogers, Sen. John McCain, then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, Rep. Peter King and others urged the Justice Department to investigate ?leaks? on the Obama administration?s ?kill list? to reporters at the New York Times. They requested an investigation into a story written on Stuxnet and cyber-warfare against Iran by New York Times reporter David Sanger as well. An investigation into leaks on the ?kill list? was not launched, but Attorney General Eric Holder did announce investigations into the leaks of information published in stories on the CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation and cyber-warfare against Iran. ?The Justice Department did not respond to a question about whether a similar step was taken in the other major government leak investigation Mr. Holder announced last June,? according to Times reporter Charlie Savage. So, it is unknown if the Times has been subjected to a similar fishing expedition. Regardless, the Justice Department engaged in this unprecedented act because people like Feinstein declared, ?The leak really did endanger sources and methods,? and, ?The leak, I think has to be prosecuted.? A Dragnet Operation in Violation of Federal Regulations According to official Justice Department legal guidance, ?There should be reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information sought is essential to the successful investigation of that crime. The subpoena should be as narrowly drawn as possible; it should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period.? However, it is evident that the information obtained was not strictly limited to information ?essential? to investigating any crime. Pruitt argued in the letter to the Justice Department, ?The sheer volume of records obtained, most of which can have no plausible connection to any ongoing investigation, indicates, at a minimum, that this effort did not comply with 28 C.F.R. ?50.10 and should therefore never have been undertaken in the first place. The regulations require that, in all cases and without exception, a subpoena for a reporter?s telephone toll records must be ?as narrowly drawn as possible.? This plainly did not happen.? The regulation also states that news media are to be notified when it is determined ?such notification will no longer pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.? If this does not happen, there must be notification ?within 45 days of any return made pursuant to the subpoena.? So, when did the Justice Department get something in response to their request for information on the AP and how much time elapsed before they notified the AP?s general counsel? Of course, it is entirely possible the Justice Department was not adhering to the legal guidance that is public and adopted some secret interpretation of what was permissible. They may have cherry-picked rules and calibrated their actions to maintain a veneer of legality, even as a wide array of communications were sought that the Justice Department had no right to obtain. A Similar Example Where the FBI Violated the Rights of Journalists FBI agents in 2004 obtained the phone records of Washington Post staff writer Ellen Nakashima, ?who was based in Jakarta, Indonesia, at the time,? which the Post reported in 2008, after FBI director Robert Mueller apologized. ?The FBI also obtained telephone records of an Indonesian researcher in the paper?s Jakarta bureau, Natasha Tampubolon,? according to the Post. ?Records of New York Times reporters Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez, who worked in Jakarta in 2004, also were compromised, the Times confirmed yesterday.? Then, the FBI also would not disclose what had prompted the seizure of records but the Post noted reporters targeted had been ?writing articles about Islamic terrorism in Southeast Asia.? A Justice Department Inspector General?s report released in 2010 indicated this was part of a wider abuse of ?exigent letters? or the abuse of the process in which NSLs can be issued so records can be obtained. The FBI had invoked non-existent terrorism emergencies to collect 2,000 US telephone call records. With regards to the obtaining of information on Post and Times reporters, agents had initially sought information from a ?7-month time period,? the ?time period of interest for the leak investigation.? Twenty-two months of records for one Post reporter was given to the FBI by one analyst at a telecommunications company. ?Only 38 days fell within the 7-month period of interest.? Twenty-two months of records for a telephone number attached to a bureau of the Post, ?which only 20 days fell within the 7-month period of interest? were also obtained. And, for five other phone numbers, ?none of the retrieved records provided to the FBI fell within the 7-month period of interest.? In total, according to the IG report, ?Company A provided the FBI with toll billing records for 1,627 telephone calls. Of this total, only three calls (.2 percent) fell within the 7-month period of interest identified by the case agent as relevant to the investigation.? ?No grand jury subpoena was issued for these reporters? records, either before or after the records were produced. In addition, no Department personnel sought Attorney General approval for subpoenaing these reporters? records, as required by federal regulations and Department policy,? the IG found. Additionally, the ?FBI uploaded the records? into a database, where they remained for ?over 3 years, unbeknownst to the prosecutor,? Counterterrorism Division management and FBI Office of General Counsel attorneys, until IG investigators ?determined that the records had been acquired and notified the FBI General Counsel.? The records were ?subsequently purged.? A Fishing Expedition into the Source of the Stuxnet Leak On January 27 of this year, the Post reported on the FBI?s investigation into the email accounts and phone records of current and former government officials linked to journalists. They were searching for those who had been sources for Sanger?s story on the use of Stuxnet to destabilize Iran?s critical infrastructure. Prosecutors were ?pursuing ?everybody??at pretty high levels.? The Post reported, ?Several current and former officials? had been confronted with ?evidence of contact with journalists.? The FBI was believed to be using ?sophisticated software to identify names, key words and phrases embedded in emails and other communications, including text messages, which could lead them to suspects.? They were not only pursuing records of communications by officials in government but also those officials? private communications. All of which suggests that the government not only finds it can go fishing for any and all government employees? records in this case but also journalists? records as well. Conclusion There is no acceptable justification for this conduct by the government. It is a gross intrusion into the privacy of members of the press and an assault on the news gathering process itself, as it targets the freedom of speech of sources and whistle-blowers who may be talking to reporters on national security stories. Yet, it must be understood, as Bernstein said, this is a result of policy. As Justice Department whistle-blower Jesselyn Radack, who now works for the Government Accountability Project, wrote when there were calls to investigate leaks last year, the establishment media will soon be left with nothing to report but ?Executive Branch talking points when their other sources are intimidated into silence, and then Americans will be an even less-informed citizenry and less equipped to question government actions.? Few took notice of the Obama administration?s policies and how they threatened freedom of the press when leaks hysteria took hold of Washington. But, now that an entire establishment news organization is known to have been targeted by the nation?s surveillance state, perhaps, views toward the administration will rightfully sharpen. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 08:02:34 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:02:34 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: President Passerby Message-ID: Obama, the uninterested president By Dana Milbank, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-the-uninterested-president/2013/05/14/da1c982a-bcd7-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html President Passerby needs urgently to become a participant in his presidency. Late Monday came the breathtaking news of a full-frontal assault on the First Amendment by his administration: word that the Justice Department had gone on a fishing expedition through months of phone records of Associated Press reporters. And yet President Obama reacted much as he did to the equally astonishing revelation on Friday that the IRS had targeted conservative groups based on their ideology: He responded as though he were just some bloke on a bar stool, getting his information from the evening news. In the phone-snooping case, Obama didn?t even stir from his stool. Instead, he had his press secretary, former Time magazine journalist Jay Carney, go before an incensed press corps Tuesday afternoon and explain why the president will not be involving himself in his Justice Department?s trampling of press freedoms. ?Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the Associated Press,? Carney announced. The president ?found out about the news reports yesterday on the road,? he added. And now that Obama has learned about this extraordinary abuse of power, he?s not doing a thing about it. ?We are not involved at the White House in any decisions made in connection with ongoing criminal investigations,? Carney argued. Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason asked how Obama felt about ?being compared to President Nixon on this.? The press secretary laughed. ?People who make those kinds of comparisons need to check their history,? he said. Carney had a point there. Nixon was a control freak. Obama seems to be the opposite: He wants no control over the actions of his administration. As the president distances himself from the actions of ?independent? figures within his administration, he?s creating a power vacuum in which lower officials behave as though anything goes. Certainly, a president can?t know what everybody in his administration is up to ? but he can take responsibility, he can fire people and he can call a stop to foolish actions such as wholesale snooping into reporters? phone calls. At the start of Tuesday?s briefing, the AP?s Jim Kuhnhenn pointed out that in all the controversies of the moment ? the Benghazi ?talking points,? the IRS targeting and the journalists? phone records ? ?you have placed the burden of responsibility someplace else. .?.?. But it is the president?s administration.? President Passerby, however, was not joining the fray. Carney repeated Obama?s assertion that the IRS?s actions would be outrageous only ?if? they are true. Never mind that the IRS has already admitted the violations and apologized. The press secretary said repeatedly that ?we have to wait? for a formal report by the agency?s inspector general before the most powerful man in the world could take action. By contrast, Carney didn?t think it necessary to wait to assert that nobody in the White House knew about the IRS activities until ?a few weeks ago.? (They apparently didn?t tell the boss about the matter until Friday.) Tuesday night, Obama issued a statement saying he had seen the I.G. report and directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew ?to hold those responsible for these failures accountable.? The response to the deep-dive into AP phone records ? more than 20 work, home and mobile phone lines in three cities over two months ? also got the President Passerby response: ?He cannot comment specifically on an ongoing criminal investigation or actions that investigators at the Department of Justice may or may not have taken.? It didn?t matter to Carney that the Justice Department had already admitted the actions in a letter to the AP. ?But we know it happened, just as the IRS admitted what it had done,? Fox News?s Wendell Goler protested. ?Again, it would be inappropriate to comment,? said Carney, one of the 42 times he used the words ?appropriate? or ?inappropriate? in his hour-long briefing. One of the few things Carney thought it appropriate to say was that Obama thinks the press should be ?unfettered.? NPR?s Ari Shapiro asked Carney to square Obama?s belief in an unfettered press with the fact that he has prosecuted twice as many leakers as all previous administrations combined. Carney said Obama?s love of press freedom ?is backed up by his support for a media shield law.? This would be the shield law that died in Congress in 2010 because of Obama?s objections. Alexis Simendinger, from RealClearPolitics, challenged Carney to harmonize his refusal to meddle in an ?ongoing investigation? with Obama?s comments on the Trayvon Martin case last year, when a Justice Department investigation was ongoing. ?Come on,? Carney replied with scorn, repeating the excuse that ?we have no knowledge? of the phone snooping ?beyond the press reports that we?ve read.? And that?s just the problem. Twitter: @Milbank --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 08:27:39 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Teflon Decision-Making From Our Military Message-ID: <3E9FC61D-D41F-4564-96DA-927AD08E73B3@infowarrior.org> National Review Online May 13, 2013 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348119/teflon-decision-making-our-military Teflon Decision-Making From Our Military By Bing West Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine, has written seven books about ground combat. Sunday was quite a day for Benghazi and the U.S. military. At the platoon level, you are expected to admit errors in firefights in order to correct mistakes and do better the next time. We all make mistakes. But as we saw on yesterday?s talk shows, once you reach the top level, whether retired or not, you deny any possibility of error and label any question about military performance idiotic. This is not the behavior of a healthy organization, and if it persists, we are in for a nasty shock in a future crisis or conflict. On CBS, former secretary of defense Bob Gates launched an impassioned defense of the Obama administration, sneering at critics for holding a ?cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.? He staunchly defended the administration?s high-level decision-making surrounding Benghazi, citing four reasons. First, he said sending fighter jets ?ignored the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi?s arsenals. I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi.? How many aircraft has the U.S. lost in hundreds of thousands of combat flights since 2001? Zero. The former SecDef is so afraid of an unknown risk that he would not send an aircraft capable of destroying a mortar site while Americans died? This is the pinnacle of risk avoidance. Second, he said, ?To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.? Let?s do a quick review: The CIA did send in seven fighters; four special-forces soldiers in Tripoli were ordered not to pitch in; the Marines on Sigonella wanted to help; and there was nothing more to face than a mob inspired by a video (accoridng to the administration). But for the Pentagon, the risk was just too great. Message to those who were already fighting on the ground in Benghazi: You are on your own. SecDef believes it?s ?very dangerous? to go into combat. Third, Gates argued, ?We don?t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm?s way, and there just wasn?t time to do that.? Message to warfighters: Forget all those who, like Generals Mattis, Patton and Marshall, claim that in combat the ability to improvise is the mark of a true leader. The Pentagon will simply refuse to fight if we have not had the time to plan and prepare as we see fit. Fourth, Gates explained, ?my decisions would have been just as theirs were.? Sadly, I believe him. Meanwhile, over on ABC, George Will and retired general James Cartwright were excusing the military by saying ten hours was not enough time to react. The general said it takes up to ?a day or two? to arm an F-16, file flight plans, arrange for refueling, etc. Therefore the solution is to pre-stage the right kinds of forces, which requires a much larger military and a knowledge beforehand about the location and severity of the threat. By the reasoning of Will, Cartwright, and Gates, we do not have general-purpose forces; we have special-purpose forces. Do we need more forces staged around the world, or do we just need senior officers who can respond to emergencies outside their normal checklists? Appearing on CBS and NBC, retired ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, who led a review of Benghazi, said in the process he posed no questions to Secretary Clinton. ?I don?t think there was anything there that we didn?t know,? he said. ?I don?t see yet any reason why what we did at the Accountability Review Board should be reopened.? It was the review board that asserted the U.S. military could do nothing to help. The review made no mention of evacuating the embassy at Tripoli because of the risk of a terrorist attack, presumably because there wasn?t ?anything there that we didn?t know.? In fact, the congressional testimony by Mr. Hicks did include at least three new revelations. First, very senior State Department officials reprimanded Hicks for bringing up the idea of a terrorist attack, rather than a mob enraged by a video. Second, four special-forces soldiers, en route to Benghazi to help our wounded, were ordered by an officer in Stuttgart to stand down. Not only did that suggest unwillingness to take risks for beleaguered comrades, it also raised the question of misplaced authority in the chain of command during battle. What authority permits an officer thousands of miles away to override the commander on the ground? Third, Mr. Hicks testified that Secretary Clinton approved, at about 8 p.m. Washington time, the evacuation of the embassy in Tripoli due to terrorist threats. That was a dramatic, escalatory decision, and it?s unknown whether the president or the Secretary of Defense was notified. In the event, the U.S. military took no new, immediate action, even though the embassy was being evacuated, as a result of the chaos at Benghazi. That is big news. The military has justified itself by saying the battle was over by the next morning, but no human being could predict when the battle would end. Had the embassy in Tripoli been overrun, the military would not have rationalized its non-actions by saying, ?well, the battle was over.? The lack of military action reflects a failure to improvise, a basic test of leadership in battle. One question illustrates the inertia of our top generals and staffs: Had it been President Obama who was missing in Benghazi, would the military still have done nothing? Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine, has written seven books about ground combat. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 08:28:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DHS freezes accounts between Dwolla and bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox Message-ID: <9117B47A-AA03-4CA7-8D6E-6C78F72F974D@infowarrior.org> Dept. of Homeland Security freezes accounts between Dwolla and bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox By Michael Carney On May 14, 2013 In the first governmental action against bitcoins, the Department of Homeland Security served the Dwolla mobile payment service with a court order requiring it to immediately cease all account activities with the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange. Dwolla has complied with this order. The news was first reported by Betabeat citing an email that OkCupid co-founder Chris Coyne received from the Dwolla and posted to Twitter. Other users have subsequently reported receiving similar communications from the federal agency and having difficulty accessing funds transferred to Mt. Gox from Dwolla in the last 24 hours. There are certainly more questions than answers at this stage. We are prompted to wonder whether this is this the first of a series of governmental assaults on the exchanges? That?s what they?d target if they want to put the kibosh on bitcoin. Or, is this a case where DHS is investigating some individual or organization who may have used bitcoins, via Dwolla, for some potentially nefarious or terroristic reasons? Members of the PandoDaily team have spoken to sources close to the bitcoin ecosystem and have been hearing that it?s likely the former. < -- > http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/14/dept-of-homeland-security-freezes-accounts-between-dwolla-and-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 16:38:14 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 17:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. to protect private sector from secret software attacks Message-ID: <0C7C5590-E5BB-41D8-B6B5-E274BA96837B@infowarrior.org> U.S. to protect private sector from secret software attacks 2:29pm EDT By Joseph Menn http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/15/us-cyber-summit-flaws-idUSBRE94E11B20130515 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government will use classified information about software vulnerabilities for the first time to protect companies outside of the military industrial complex, top officials told Reuters this week. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that a system being developed to scan Internet traffic headed toward critical businesses would block attacks on software programs that the general population does not realize are possible. "It is a way to share information about known vulnerabilities that may not be commonly available," Napolitano said at the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit in Washington, D.C. The information would come from "a variety of sources" including intelligence agencies, she said on Tuesday. The National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies develop and acquire knowledge about software flaws in order to penetrate overseas networks. Until now, there has been no straightforward way for these agencies to share that classified data with U.S. companies outside the defense sector, even though those companies could become victims of cyber attacks. The plan is to discreetly share the data through what the government calls Enhanced Cybersecurity Services. Under a February presidential order, those services will be offered by telecommunications and defense companies to utilities, banks and other critical infrastructure companies that choose to pay for them. Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security will take the information from the NSA and other sources, and relay it to service providers with security clearances. The service providers would then use these "attack signatures" - such as Internet routing data and content associated with known adversary groups - to screen out malicious traffic. Napolitano's comments were the first disclosure that the screening would also cover attacks on software using methods known to the government that have not been disclosed to the software manufacturers or buyers. While U.S. intelligence agencies have at times warned software manufacturers, such as Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Google Inc (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), or Homeland Security officials of specific, declassified problems, the new system will be machine-to-machine and far more rapid. It reflects the realization that many espionage attacks from overseas are aimed at the private sector and that future destructive attacks may arrive the same way. (Classified attack signatures have been used to protect defense manufacturers under a Pentagon program.) House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said he was glad about the plan to share more broadly information about vulnerabilities, while maintaining control of the process to avoid tipping off rival countries or criminals. "This can't happen if you post it on a website," Rogers, a Republican and lead author of a cybersecurity information-sharing bill that has passed the House, told the Summit. "We have to find a forum in which we can share it, and 10 providers serve 80 percent of the market. We have classified relationships with a good number of them." Among those that have agreed to provide the classified security services are AT&T Inc (T.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Raytheon Co (RTN.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said this week it had also joined the program. The secret but widespread U.S. practice of buying up tools leveraging unknown or "zero-day" software flaws for spying or attacks was the subject of a Reuters Special Report last week, in which former White House cybersecurity advisors said more flaws should be disclosed for defensive reasons. Michael Daniel, the White House cybersecurity policy coordinator, told the Summit the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program was still evolving and the type of information shared would change as threats do. "We want to use the full capabilities that we have to protect as much of the critical infrastructure as we can with that program," he said. (Follow Reuters Summits on Twitter @Reuters_Summits) (Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Tiffany Wu and Leslie Gevirtz) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 16:50:35 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Wiretapping the Web Message-ID: <9A86EC0D-8E21-4C4E-93B4-A0BEC74DF7A8@infowarrior.org> May 14, 2013 Wiretapping the Web by Tim Wu http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/wiretapping-the-web.html The federal power to wiretap, a central issue during the Bush years, has made a comeback. The White House seems ready to endorse an expansion of wiretapping laws to give the federal government greater power to demand access to Web communications like Facebook chats. Meanwhile, the Associated Press just revealed that the Justice Department seized, without a warrant, two months? worth of its reporters? telephone records. Critics are, unsurprisingly, up in arms about both matters. House Republicans, recently born again as staunch civil-rights defenders, are depicting the Obama Administration as, in the words of Zeke Miller and Michael Crowley, ?a Big Brother?style tyrant in charge of a power-abusing surveillance state.? Techies, for their part, simply hate the idea of Web-tapping. Julian Sanchez, for Wired, writes, ?The Obama administration needs to dump this ill-conceived scheme on the trash heap where it belongs.? But the issue, once you get into it, is actually rather complicated. Wiretapping the Web provokes a visceral reaction for more than one reason. First and foremost, like any electronic surveillance, it?s a massive invasion of privacy by the world?s most powerful government. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, in 1928, ?As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wiretapping.? A wiretapping law can incidentally create a terrible innovation policy. ?Build your system this way? has rarely yielded good results, and never when Congress is involved. Finally, some technologists believe that a Web-tapping law will create new Internet security risks, because it would force firms to build backdoors into their systems, which malicious hackers could then exploit. Nonetheless, the F.B.I. and other law-enforcement agencies present a persuasive argument for increased powers (in particular, increased sanctions for Internet firms who do not comply with wiretap orders). While it is easy to dislike government surveillance in the abstract, the case for tapping becomes extremely strong when facing the actual investigation of a serious crime, like a murder, a planned terrorist attack, or a powerful criminal organization (think ?The Wire?). That need to gain evidence in individual cases has led us roughly to where we are (at least for criminal matters?anti-terrorism is a whole different story). Wiretapping is permitted, but usually limited to serious crimes, and only allowed when subject to appropriate protections and oversight, depending on the intrusiveness of the tap. A comprehensive set of laws and regulations governs when the F.B.I. can wiretap telephones, and they are mostly reasonable. If wiretapping is strongly justified in individual cases, then, argues the F.B.I, as communication technologies change, so, too, must those laws and regulations. Hence, as new technologies emerge, or as existing ones become harder to tap, the wiretapping power needs to be adjusted to maintain roughly the same balance. This essential concept of balance is what?s behind the F.B.I?s argument that it needs more power lest its ability to wiretap ?go dark.? But there are two essential conditions for this balance argument to make any sense. First, if it is to have more powers, the Justice Department should also agree that Web communications and stored records are generally subject to the strict standards demanded by the Fourth Amendment (as are the content of telephone calls). As it stands, the Justice Department has been evasive on this point. It has argued against the need for warrants for things like e-mail messages, and often appears to believe that a mere subpoena (a document issued by a prosecutor) should be sufficient to obtain any record stored on the Web or otherwise. The F.B.I. and Justice Department cannot credibly declare that they need to restore balance with more warrant power, and at the same time campaign against the need for warrants in the first place, and abuse their subpoena powers. If the argument for preserving a balance between security and privacy compels a stronger wiretap power, it must also means a broader statutory warrant requirement, one that covers most of what we do on the Web and covers most records. Otherwise, the balance argument works against the Justice Department. Consider the seizure of the A.P.?s calling records, which was accomplished not with a warrant but with subpoenas sent to the telephone companies. The legal fiction is that the reporters, when making phone calls, voluntary handed over their calling records to the phone companies; ergo the seizure of those records has nothing to do with the Constitution. Relying on that fiction (which, unfortunately, was created by the Supreme Court in 1979), the Justice Department broadly believes that stuff stored on the Web has also been handed over to a third party and therefore merits very limited protection. But that old legal fiction?which, in the words of Wayne LaFave, a law professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, ?makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment??grows more indefensible every day, and becomes further at odds with personal and technological reality. Courts, especially the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, are ahead of the Justice Department in their recognition that the data we all store on the Internet nowadays has become core to American privacy. What we store online is really more akin to the old home filing cabinet than the telephone. Yes, the telephone conversation may be intimate, but it at least has the feeling of an external projection: one reaches out to make calls. Records, writings, and personal correspondence are often more sensitive, whether they?re stored at home or online. We often do as much if not more on the Web than we did on the telephone?writing personal thoughts, or dealing with matters that were previously handled in person and in private, like renting videos or researching embarrassing medical problems. The expectation of privacy in one?s online records is obvious to anyone who lives in this century. The second condition needed for the F.B.I.?s balance argument to work is the limitation of highly intrusive monitoring to cases of serious crimes with clear victims. Federal law is chock-full of offenses, which make everyone a potential criminal and, in turn, at least potentially subject to tapping. This is another problem with the A.P. investigation: while leaks of classified information can be important, their investigation cannot plausibly justify the mass seizure of the calling records of a major news organization. The whole idea of balance in this area must also be put in the context of a growing ?surveillance state,? as Hendrik Hertzberg calls it. As intense as F.B.I. surveillance can be, at least the F.B.I. regards the Constitution as a serious constraint, unlike the National Security Agency, which has repeatedly spied on Americans without a warrant, reaching its maximum level of abuse during the Bush years. That doesn?t mean we should be thankful, exactly, for F.B.I. monitoring, but let?s just say things could be worse. The bottom line is that we should demand the following: no increase in the power to wiretap without a statutory recognition of a broader warrant requirement that reflects the reality of the privacy interest in stuff stored on the Web. And we must demand some proportionality: that the most intrusive methods of federal surveillance be reserved for the most serious crimes. Finally, and ideally, we?d take a harder look at what actually constitutes a federal crime, but that?s a whole different story. Tim Wu, @superwuster on Twitter, is a professor at Columbia Law School and the author of ?The Master Switch.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 15 20:00:41 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:00:41 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Shrinks, critics face off over psychiatric manual Message-ID: Shrinks, critics face off over psychiatric manual Wednesday - 5/15/2013, 8:46pm ET LINDSEY TANNER AP Medical Writer http://www.wtop.com/209/3323179/Faceoff-Has-psychiatry-gone-wild CHICAGO (AP) -- In the new psychiatric manual of mental disorders, grief soon after a loved one's death can be considered major depression. Extreme childhood temper tantrums get a fancy name. And certain "senior moments" are called "mild neurocognitive disorder." Those changes are just some of the reasons prominent critics say the American Psychiatric Association is out of control, turning common human problems into mental illnesses in a trend they say will just make the "pop-a-pill" culture worse. Says a former leader of the group: "Normal needs to be saved from powerful forces trying to convince us that we are all sick." At issue is the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, widely known as the DSM-5. The DSM has long been considered the authoritative source for diagnosing mental problems. The psychiatric association formally introduces the nearly 1,000-page revised version this weekend in San Francisco. It's the manual's first major update in nearly 20 years, and a backlash has taken shape in recent weeks: -- Two new books by mental health experts, "Saving Normal" and "The Book of Woe," say the world's most widely used psychiatric guide has lost credibility. -- A British psychologists' group is criticizing the DSM-5, calling for a "paradigm shift" away from viewing mental problems as a disease. An organization of German therapists also attacked the new guide. -- Even the head of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health complained that the book lacks scientific validity. This week, the NIMH director, Dr. Thomas Insel, tried to patch things up as he and the psychiatrists group issued a joint statement saying they have similar goals for improving the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. The manual's release comes at a time of increased scrutiny of health care costs and concern about drug company influence over doctors. Critics point to a landscape in which TV ads describe symptoms for mental disorders and promote certain drugs to treat them. "Way too much treatment is given to the normal 'worried well' who are harmed by it; far too little help is available for those who are really ill and desperately need it," Dr. Allen Frances writes in "Saving Normal." He is a retired Duke University professor who headed the psychiatry group's task force that worked on the previous handbook. He says the new version adds new diagnoses "that would turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting and bad eating habits into mental disorders." Previous revisions were also loudly criticized, but the latest one comes at a time of soaring diagnoses of illnesses listed in the manual -- including autism, attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder -- and billions of dollars spent each year on psychiatric drugs. The group's 34,000 members are psychiatrists -- medical doctors who specialize in treating mental illness. Unlike psychologists and other therapists without medical degrees, they can prescribe medication. While there has long been rivalry between the two groups, the DSM-5 revisions have stoked the tensions. The most contentious changes include: -- Diagnosing as major depression the extreme sadness, weight loss, fatigue and trouble sleeping some people experience after a loved one's death. Major depression is typically treated with antidepressants. -- Calling frequent, extreme temper tantrums "disruptive mood dysregulation disorder," a new diagnosis. The psychiatric association says the label is meant to apply to youngsters who in the past might have been misdiagnosed as having bipolar disorder. Critics say it turns normal tantrums into mental illness. -- Diagnosing mental decline that goes a bit beyond normal aging as "mild neurocognitive disorder." Affected people may find it takes more effort to pay bills or manage their medications. Critics of the term say it will stigmatize "senior moments." -- Calling excessive thoughts or feelings about pain or other discomfort "somatic symptom disorder," something that could affect the healthy as well as cancer patients. Critics say the term turns normal reactions to a disease into mental illness. -- Adding binge eating as a new category for overeating that occurs at least once a week for at least three months. It could apply to people who sometimes gulp down a pint of ice cream when they're alone and then feel guilty about it. -- Removing Asperger's syndrome as a separate diagnosis and putting it under the umbrella term "autism spectrum disorder." Dr. David Kupfer, chairman of the task force that oversaw the DSM-5, said the changes are based on solid research and will help make sure people get accurate diagnoses and treatment. Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, the psychiatry association's incoming president, said challenging the handbook's credibility "is completely unwarranted." The book establishes diagnoses "so patients can receive the best care," he said, adding that it takes into account the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. But Insel, the government mental health agency chief, wrote in a recent blog posting that the guidebook is no better than a dictionary-like list of labels and definitions. He told The Associated Press he favors a very different approach to diagnosis that is based more on biological information, similar to how doctors diagnose heart disease or problems with other organs. Yet there's scant hard evidence pinpointing what goes wrong in the brain when someone develops mental illness. Insel's agency two years ago began a research project to create a new way to diagnose mental illness, using brain imaging, genetics and other evolving scientific evidence. That project will take years. The revisions in the new guide were suggested by work groups the psychiatric association assigned to evaluate different mental illnesses and recent research advances. The association's board of trustees decided in December which recommendations to include. Advocacy groups have threatened Occupy-style protests and boycotts at this week's meeting. "The psychiatric industry, allied with Big Pharma, have massively misled the public," the Occupy Psychiatry group contends. Organizers include Alaska lawyer Jim Gottstein, who has long fought against overuse of psychiatric drugs. The new manual "will drastically expand psychiatric diagnosis, mislabel millions of people as mentally ill, and cause unnecessary treatment with medication," says the website for the Committee to Boycott the DSM-5, organized by New York social worker Jack Carney. Committee member Courtney Fitzpatrick, whose 9-year-old son died seven years ago while hospitalized for a blood vessel disease, said she has joined support groups for grieving parents "and by no means are we mentally ill because we are sad about our kids that have died." Gary Greenberg, a Connecticut psychotherapist and author of "The Book of Woe," says pharmaceutical industry influence in psychiatry has contributed to turning normal conditions into diseases so that drugs can be prescribed to treat them. Many of the 31 task force members involved in developing the revised guidebook have had financial ties to makers of psychiatric drugs, including consulting fees, research grants or stock. Group leaders dismiss that criticism and emphasize they agreed not to collect more than $10,000 in industry money in the calendar year preceding publication of the manual. ___ Online: American Psychiatric Association: http://www.psych.org Occupy Psychiatry: http://occupypsychiatry.net Committee to Boycott the DSM-5 : http://boycott5committee.com ___ AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 16 06:32:02 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:32:02 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?=93Six_Strikes=94_Anti-Piracy_Ou?= =?windows-1252?q?tfit_Loses_Company_Status=2C_Faces_Penalties?= Message-ID: ?Six Strikes? Anti-Piracy Outfit Loses Company Status, Faces Penalties ? Ernesto ? May 15, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-anti-piracy-outfit-loses-company-status-faces-penalties-130515/ The Center for Copyright Information, a partnership between the RIAA, MPAA and several major Internet providers, has had its company status revoked. The CCI, who are leading the ?six strikes? anti-piracy scheme in the US, has violated state laws and is unable to conduct any official business anywhere in the United States. In addition the outfit faces civil penalties and risks losing its name to a third-party company. During the summer of 2011 the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with five major Internet providers in the United States, announcing their ?six strikes? anti-piracy plan. The parties founded the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and few months later they started a non-profit company with the same name in Washington, D.C. After more than a year of delays the CCI finally launched its Copyright Alert System during February. But just when it appeared the group was on the right track, it met another roadblock. According to the Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), the company leading the six-strikes program has had its status revoked. This pretty much means that the company is unable to conduct any official business anywhere in the United States. The revocation means that CCI?s articles of organization are void, most likely because the company forgot to file the proper paperwork or pay its fees. ?If entity?s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,? the DCRA explains. Unfortunately for the CCI, the DCRA doesn?t have a strike based system and the company is now facing civil penalties and fines. It appears that company status was revoked last year which means that other businesses now have the option to take over the name. That would be quite an embarrassment, to say the least, and also presents an opportunity to scammers. ?When a Washington DC corporation is revoked by the DCRA, its name is reserved and protected until December 31st of the year the corporation is revoked. After December 31st, other business entities may use the corporations name,? the DCRA explains on its website. Technically the CCI could have started a new corporation under a different name but this seems unlikely. TorrentFreak was able to confirm that at least one of the participants in the Copyright Alert System paid a substantial amount of money to the revoked company last year. As with any other company, CCI will be able to have its company status reinstated after fulfilling its obligations. A source connected to the Center of Copyright Information informs TorrentFreak that the proper paperwork has been filed now. This most likely means that the DCRA will update the company?s status in the near future. Finally, it will be interesting to see if this situation holds consequences for the anti-piracy warnings that are supposedly being sent out at the moment ? the Internet seems strangely devoid of U.S. subscribers in receipt of any. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 16 06:35:27 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:35:27 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Lions And Tigers And Terrorists, Oh My! Message-ID: <77D43FAB-0329-42DF-89DB-7208F94388A1@infowarrior.org> Lions And Tigers And Terrorists, Oh My! http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1501-lions-and-tigers-and-terrorists-oh-my --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 16 07:02:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:02:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - New Yorker reveals Aaron Swartz-inspired system to protect sources Message-ID: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/390e684a-bd7d-11e2-890a-00144feab7de.html New Yorker reveals Aaron Swartz-inspired system to protect sources By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York Four decades after Deep Throat met Bob Woodward in a Washington parking garage, news organisations are scrambling to find ways to protect their confidential sources in the digital age as they push back against government attempts to identify whistleblowers. On Wednesday, the New Yorker unveiled a nine-step process for sources to send documents and messages to the Cond? Nast-owned magazine, saying the system could offer them ?a reasonable degree of anonymity?. Called Strongbox, it involves the use of multiple computers, thumb drives, encryption codes and secure networks. The launch came two days after the Associated Press news agency revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained two months? worth of reporters? office, mobile and home phone records as part of a leak inquiry. The AP has accused the DoJ of ?serious interference? with constitutionally guaranteed press freedoms, and the revelations have triggered a storm of protest from news outlets alarmed by the government?s clampdown on leaks. Six serving or former government officials have been prosecuted over leaks during President Barack Obama?s time in office, more than in any other administration. Bradley Manning, a US army private, has admitted to providing classified military and diplomatic information to WikiLeaks, the website behind the biggest such leak in US history. The timing of Strongbox?s launch was coincidental, said Nicholas Thompson, editor of newyorker.com, but he added: ?It?s an extraordinary week to launch this.? The project was started by Aaron Swartz, the internet activist who committed suicide earlier this year, and Kevin Poulsen of Wired, another of Cond? Nast?s magazines. They designed Strongbox using open source software, Mr Thompson said, to encourage developers to be able to continue strengthening its security code. Mr Thompson said the system had been designed to be complex to use, which may deter some sources, but that this was necessary to ensure security. ?It takes a lot of steps to make it really hard to hack into this. Hackers are clever people. We?ll see what happens.? Other news organisations have tried to devise similar efforts through which to communicate with confidential sources, such as SafeHouse, launched by the Wall Street Journal in 2011. Some have struggled with the technology involved, however. Users of Strongbox start by accessing a secure network, upload files using a randomly generated code name and send them in encrypted form to a server held separately from the rest of the Cond? Nast network. New Yorker editors then check the server using a laptop with a virtual private network connection, download encrypted files to a thumb drive, boot up a second laptop without an internet connection and decrypt the files over a second thumb drive. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 16 08:24:47 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 09:24:47 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Kiwis proposes GCSB control over NZ communications Message-ID: <7F76032A-51E5-4753-90A2-9BA64A4CE175@infowarrior.org> Govt proposes GCSB control over NZ communications in new TICS Bill Posted on May 8, 2013 The government has announced two new Bills for reforming the GCSB and expanding their powers. The first is the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill (PDF) and the second is the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill (PDF). This article is a summary of the major parts of the TICS Bill. The TICS Bill is a replacement for the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004. This law forced communications providers (ISPs, telcos, data networks, etc) to provide "lawful intercept" capabilities so that the Police, SIS and GCSB could access communications once they had a suitable warrant. The new bill expands and clarifies these requirements. However, the addition of the word "security" is the key to what has changed. The new bill now gives the GCSB sweeping powers of oversight and control over the design, deployment and operation of all data and telecommunications networks run by network providers in New Zealand. The stated reasons are to both protect New Zealand's infrastructure and to ensure that surveillance agencies can spy on traffic when required. As part of this, the GCSB will have the power to stop network providers from reselling overseas services that do not provide these capabilities.... < -- > http://techliberty.org.nz/govt-proposes-gcsb-control-over-nz-communications-in-new-tics-bill/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 17 07:44:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Debating the Legal Basis for the War on Terror Message-ID: Debating the Legal Basis for the War on Terror By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: May 16, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/pentagon-official-urges-congress-to-keep-statute-allowing-war-on-terror-intact.html?hp&_r=0 WASHINGTON ? A top Pentagon official said Thursday that the evolving war against Al Qaeda was likely to continue ?at least 10 to 20 years? and urged Congress not to modify the statute that provides its legal basis. ?As of right now, it suits us very well,? Michael A. Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations, said, referring to the ?authorization to use military force,? often referred to as the A.U.M.F., enacted by Congress in 2001. The statute authorized war against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and those who harbored them ? that is, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Lawmakers are considering enacting a new authorization, because the original Qaeda network has been largely decimated, while the current threat is increasingly seen as arising from terrorist groups in places like Yemen that share Al Qaeda?s ideology but have no connection to the 2001 attacks. That possibility has elicited a decidedly mixed reaction. Human rights groups that want to see the 12-year-old military conflict wind down fear that a new authorization would create an open-ended ?forever war.? Some supporters of continuing the wartime approach to terrorism indefinitely fear that the war?s legal basis is eroding and needs to be bolstered, while others worry that a new statute might contain limits that would reduce the power that the Obama administration claims it already wields under the 2001 version. And still others say that whatever the right policy may be, Congress should protect its constitutional role by explicitly authorizing the parameters of the war, rather than ceding that decision to the executive branch. In a hearing on Thursday of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Mr. Sheehan made his remarks, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, argued that the statute should be updated, citing the ?dramatically changed landscape that we have in this war on Muslim extremism and Al Qaeda and others.? He pressed the acting general counsel of the Pentagon, Robert S. Taylor, to say whether the 2001 law authorized war against Al Qaeda?s associated forces in Mali, Libya and Syria. Mr. Taylor said that as a matter of domestic law, the authorization did grant such authority if groups in those countries had affiliated themselves with the original Al Qaeda and became ?co-belligerents? in the conflict. ?So we can expect drone strikes into Syria if we find Al Qaeda there?? Mr. McCain asked. Mr. Taylor said he did not want to speculate. Under questioning by Senator Joe Donnelly, Democrat of Indiana, Mr. Sheehan said he believed that the Nusra Front, a rebel group in Syria, was a Qaeda affiliate and that the executive branch could use lethal force against it if it believed the group threatened American security. But when pressed to say whether it did pose such a threat, he declined to say. ?I don?t want to get in this setting into the decision making for how we target different organizations and groups around the world,? he said. Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, noted that the 2001 statute said nothing about ?associated forces? of Al Qaeda. He said the administration?s theory had ?essentially rewritten the Constitution here today? because it was up to Congress to declare war. ?I don?t disagree that we need to fight terrorism, but we need to do it in a constitutional way,? he said. But Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, argued that the administration?s interpretation of its wartime authority was correct, and the authorization did automatically extend the war to others that aligned themselves with Al Qaeda and ?joined the fight against us.? In 2011, Congress enacted a statute declaring that the 2001 authorization allowed the indefinite detention of members and supporters of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces, even if not linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. But a judge has blocked the statute, questioning whether mere supporters and associated forces are covered by it. The Obama administration has appealed the ruling. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 17 08:03:19 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:03:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Friday fun: Death Star Destroys Enterprise (Special Edition) Message-ID: <234B6624-555F-4AFC-B7C6-1F4444B89711@infowarrior.org> Death Star Destroys Enterprise (Special Edition) - IGN Original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v69RuwsGv_I&feature=youtu.be --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 17 18:08:02 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 19:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Concerns_Arise_on_U=2ES=2E_Effor?= =?windows-1252?q?t_to_Allow_Internet_=91Wiretaps=92?= Message-ID: <87EC1F8B-0693-41E4-8FB3-BBDEB8B05858@infowarrior.org> May 16, 2013 Concerns Arise on U.S. Effort to Allow Internet ?Wiretaps? By SOMINI SENGUPTA http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/business/concerns-arise-on-us-effort-to-allow-internet-wiretaps.html Surveillance can be a tricky affair in the Internet age. A federal law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act allows law enforcement officials to tap a traditional phone, as long as they get approval from a judge. But if communication is through voice over Internet Protocol technology ? Skype, for instance ? it?s not as simple. That conversation doesn?t pass through a central hub controlled by the service provider. It is encrypted ? to varying degrees of protection ? as it travels through the Internet, from the caller?s end to the recipient?s. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has made it clear it wants to intercept Internet audio and video chats. And that, according to a new report being released Friday by a group of technologists, could pose ?serious security risks? to ordinary Internet users, giving thieves and even foreign agents a way to listen in on Americans? conversations, undetected. The 20 computer experts and cryptographers who drafted the report say the only way that companies can meet wiretap orders is to re-engineer the way their systems are built at the endpoints, either in the software or in users? devices, in effect creating a valuable listening station for repressive governments as well as for ordinary thieves and blackmailers. ?It?s a single point in the system through which all of the content can be collected if they can manage to activate it,? said Edward W. Felten, a computer science professor at Princeton and one of the authors of the report, released by the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group in Washington. ?That?s a security vulnerability waiting to happen, as if we needed more,? he said. The report comes as federal officials say they are close to reaching consensus on the F.B.I.?s longstanding demand to be able to intercept Internet communications. Companies that say they were unable to modify their operations to comply with the new wiretap orders would be subject to a fine, according to the plan. The White House has yet to review it. Neither the F.B.I. nor White House officials have provided technical details of how the Web service providers would comply. Law enforcement officials regularly seek information from Web companies about the communications of their users, from e-mail messages to social network posts and chats. Microsoft, which owns Skype, reported receiving 4,713 requests in 2012 from law enforcement, which covered just over 15,000 Skype accounts; the company said it released only ?noncontent data, such as a Skype ID, name, e-mail account, billing information and call detail records? if an account is connected to a telephone number. Skype is a Luxembourg company, even after its acquisition by Microsoft, of Redmond, Wash. United States wiretap law does not apply to the company. Along with Mr. Felten, who served as a technologist with the Federal Trade Commission until recently, the report?s authors include the cryptographer Bruce Schneier and Phil Zimmermann, who created what has become the most widely used software to keep e-mails private. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: May 16, 2013 An earlier version of this article mistakenly said that Peter Swire, a former White House privacy lawyer who teaches at Ohio State University, was an author of the report. He was not. It also misspelled the name of another author of the report. He is Phil Zimmermann. It also incorrectly described the report?s authors. There were 20 computer experts and cryptographers, not a dozen lawyers and cryptographers. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat May 18 21:44:21 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 22:44:21 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - AP's Attempt At DRM'ing The News Shuts Down Message-ID: AP's Attempt At DRM'ing The News Shuts Down from the total-failure dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/14465423109/aps-attempt-drming-news-shuts-down.shtml Plenty of people rightly mocked the news a few years ago that the Associated Press was working on a plan to "DRM the news." The idea was to put some sort of licensing mechanism together to get news aggregators to pay to promote their news. This seemed incredibly dumb for a whole host of reasons. It added no value. Its only purpose was to limit the value for everyone in the system by putting a tollbooth where none needed to exist. When it finally launched last year to great fanfare in the newspaper world, under the name "NewsRight," we pointed out that, once again, it made no sense. Basically, the whole focus appeared to be on getting bloggers and aggregators to pay for a license they legally did not need. Since the launch... we heard absolutely nothing about NewsRight. There was a launch, with its newspaper backers claiming it was some huge moment for newspapers, and then nothing. Well, until now, when we find out that NewsRight quietly shut down. Apparently, among its many problems, many of the big name news organization that owned NewsRight wouldn't even include their own works as part of the "license" because they feared cannibalizing revenue from other sources. So, take legacy companies that are backwards looking, combine it with a licensing scheme based on no legal right, a lack of any actual added value and (finally) mix in players who are scared of cannibalizing some cash cow... and it adds up to an easy failure. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 19 13:09:04 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Yahoo to Buy Tumblr for $1.1 Billion Message-ID: <5E9157D4-D5DC-4945-81A6-833FDE849CAF@infowarrior.org> ? BUSINESS ? Updated May 19, 2013, 2:00 p.m. ET Yahoo to Buy Tumblr for $1.1 Billion http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578493130789235150.html By JOANN S. LUBLIN, AMIR EFRATI and SPENCER E. ANTE Yahoo Inc.'s YHOO -0.23% board has approved a deal to acquire blogging startup Tumblr, people familiar with the matter said Sunday. Yahoo has agreed to pay $1.1 billion in cash for the company, one of the people said. Tumblr would continue to operate largely as an independent business, the people said. It wasn't immediately clear whether Tumblr's board had also approved the deal. Spokesmen for Yahoo and Tumblr didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Yahoo's board approved the deal in a meeting by telephone on Friday, one of the people said. A deal could be announced as soon as Monday, the person said. Tumblr, founded in 2007, fast built a following by making it easy for people to post blogs and photos, follow other people on Tumblr and receive updates via a feed. The website's simple design has lowered the bar for online publishing and effectively merged blogging with social media. By acquiring Tumblr, Yahoo would instantly gain a social-media site that has become a hub of communication and blogging for millions of people, but one that generates little revenue. Tumblr Chief Executive David Karp has focused on building the company's user base for its minimalist blogging platform while leaving for later the question of earning money. It is a pattern typical for young Internet companies. Tumblr began placing ads on its service last year. Mr. Karp, who once told the Los Angeles Times that he was "pretty opposed to advertising," said in recent media reports that Tumblr generated $13 million in revenue last year. People familiar with the matter said Yahoo believes it could help Tumblr bring in more money by selling ads, boosting its own revenue in the process. Tumblr has grown quickly. In March, the blogging site had about 117 million unique users world-wide, up from about 58 million a year earlier, according to comScore Inc. SCOR +3.85% On smartphones, Tumblr had almost 12 million unique visitors, up from about four million a year earlier, comScore said. Yahoo has a bigger presence on mobile devices but it is growing much slower. In March, Yahoo claimed about 84 million unique smartphone visitors, up from around 63 million a year earlier, comScore said. Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer, who joined the company last summer after a 13-year career at Google Inc., GOOG +0.59% became interested in the blogging site a couple of months ago, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Acquisitions have long been expected to be part of Ms. Mayer's strategy, though to date she only has acquired small companies?primarily for their engineering and product-management talent. Yahoo recently pulled out of a roughly $200 million deal to buy a controlling interest in the video website Dailymotion, owned by France T?l?com SA, FTE.FR +0.23% after the French government indicated objections to the transaction, people familiar with the matter have said. Yahoo would be paying a premium for Tumblr. When Tumblr last raised money, in the fall of 2011, the $85 million venture-capital investment it received valued the New York company at $800 million. On Monday, Yahoo will also deliver an update about its Flickr photo-sharing unit, a person familiar with matter said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 19 17:15:14 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:15:14 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hollywood Studios Censor Pirate Bay Documentary Message-ID: <7C7489DE-C076-46DE-A29B-D4D177003D9B@infowarrior.org> Hollywood Studios Censor Pirate Bay Documentary ? Ernesto ? May 19, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-studios-take-down-pirate-bay-documentary-130519/ t Hollywood is trying to take down as many pirated movies as they can, but their targeting of a Creative Commons Pirate Bay documentary is something new. Viacom, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate have all asked Google to take down links pointing to the Pirate Bay documentary TPB-AFK. But is it a secret plot to silence the voices of the Pirate Bay?s founders, or just another screw up of automated DMCA takedowns? After years of anticipation, The Pirate Bay documentary TPB-AFK was finally released to the public in February. The film, created by Simon Klose, is available for no cost and has already been watched by millions of people. The public response to this free release model has been overwhelmingly positive, but it?s now meeting resistance from Hollywood, TPB?s arch rival. Over the past weeks several movie studios have been trying to suppress the availability of TPB-AFK by asking Google to remove links to the documentary from its search engine. The links are carefully hidden in standard DMCA takedown notices for popular movies and TV-shows. The silent attacks come from multiple Hollywood sources including Viacom, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate and are being sent out by multiple anti-piracy outfits. Fox, with help from six-strikes monitoring company Dtecnet, asked Google to remove a link to TPB-AFK on Mechodownload. Paramount did the same with a link on the Warez.ag forums. Viacom sent at least two takedown requests targeting links to the Pirate Bay documentary on Mrworldpremiere and Rapidmoviez. Finally, Lionsgate jumped in by asking Google to remove a copy of TPB-AFK from a popular Pirate Bay proxy. While it?s entertaining to think that these takedowns are truly targeted at TBP-AFK, the more likely explanation is that they are collateral damage. Most DMCA takedown processes are fully automated and somehow the TPB-AFK links were (mistakenly) associated with infringing titles. However, that doesn?t make it less of a problem. The whole episode shows once again that something is seriously wrong with the current implementation of the DMCA takedown system. At the moment rightsholders get to take down whatever they want, with almost no oversight and no incentive to improve the accuracy of their systems. Perhaps a six-strikes plan or some other form of ?education? is in order for copyright holders who fail to learn from their mistakes? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 19 17:17:23 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:17:23 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Drone pilot burnout triggers call for recruiting overhaul Message-ID: <722B706C-3D25-46F5-A9C3-4BF9924E26B0@infowarrior.org> Drone pilot burnout triggers call for recruiting overhaul Nidhi Subbaraman NBC News May 17, 2013 at 4:15 AM ET http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/drone-pilot-burnout-triggers-call-recruiting-overhaul-1C9910483 Driving a war drone is a stressful business. Shifts up to 12 hours long are stretches of dullness, watching and waiting, interrupted by flashes of intense activity in which pilots must make life-or-death decisions. Not their own life or death, however. Pilots may be thousands of miles away from the flying weapons system they're operating. They often head home at the end of the day, as if returning from any other office job, maybe picking up milk on the way. But while at work, their drones' onboard cameras put them in a unique position to watch people being killed and injured as a direct result of their actions. As psychologists learn more about the mental scarring warfare leaves on drone pilots ? caused by long shift hours, isolation, witnessing casualties and those Jekyll-and-Hyde days split between battlefield and home ? experts from within the U.S. Air Force are calling for a review of drone pilot selection. Brad Hoagland, an Air Force colonel and visiting researcher at the Brookings Institution, and a fighter-jet pilot and operations commander of 23 years himself, believes that drone pilots could be picked better, and that existing selection techniques are due to be updated now that the service has accumulated almost a decade of research into the psychological characteristics of drone pilots. "The thrill of taking off from a runway, flying a mission and then coming back and landing at the end of the mission ? that?s very exciting," he told NBC News. "But I think that?s a different type of person who can do that, than someone who is maybe wired to fly an unmanned system from a console 7,000 miles away. It?s a different psychological makeup requirement to execute the mission." Right stuff, wrong stuff "I think we are still trying to figure out exactly what the 'right stuff' is," Wayne Chappelle, a clinical psychologist consulting for Air Force Medical at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, told NBC News. "We have a general idea ... but I certainly think we're probably more aware of what the wrong stuff is versus the right stuff." The trouble is that spotting the known positive attributes in up-and-coming drone pilots is harder than spotting the negative attributes. To begin with, Chappelle drew up a portrait of the ideal drone pilot from the recorded testimony of 82 drone pilots and their supervisors in a 2011 report. Good drone pilots, according to Chappelle's findings, have excellent memory for pictures and sounds. They are bombarded with sounds and images from multiple screens through their long shifts, but parse that data quickly, cutting through the noise. They're multitaskers and collaborators. "These guys are very smart, very bright in a wide range of areas. They are emotionally resilient and highly stress tolerant and very motivated," Chappelle said. People who have a history of abuse or dependence on alcohol, drugs or other substances, anxiety or depression, and cognitive impairments such as learning disabilities tend to make bad drone pilots. Although the strengths of a drone pilot differ from the strengths of a manned fighter pilot, Chappelle said the psychological screening protocol for both is the same ? and hasn't changed in a decade. "We're still looking at ways to improve and expand upon the screening procedures." In his research, Hoagland has found that washout rates among undergraduate pilot trainees headed to crafts like the F-16 are traditionally about 10 to 15 percent. But drone pilot trainees exit at 30 percent (though that's down from 45 percent a few years ago). Pilots may drop out, but more often, they fail to meet some flight or academic criteria along the way, Hoagland said. And when they do graduate, they receive mental health diagnoses at a rate on par with pilots who fly in aircraft, and at much higher rates than other non-pilot Air Force personnel, according to a February 2013 report by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center. NBC News has requested to interview a pilot or pilot instructor at the Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, where drone pilots are trained, but to date the Air Force has declined the request without further explanation. Testing, testing In an upcoming report headed to the Pentagon, Hoagland will suggest some fixes for his higher-ups to consider. For one, though the Air Force has a test called the Pilot Candidate Scoring Method, not all pilot candidates ? of drones or manned craft ? are given the exam. (The Air Force Academy, for example, only recently started administering it, and only on an "experimental" basis.) "I can't believe we as an Air Force haven't standardized this," Hoagland says. Once everyone's taking the test, and baseline scores are set, those scores can be mined for indicators as to who might be better suited to fly an F-16 and who might be destined for a drone. "It's a common sense approach." Also, though it's been standard procedure to assess concentration, attention, psychomotor skills as part of the Medical Flight Screening-Neurosychiatric test in pre-screened pilots-to-be, that information is not used in the selection process. Tests do weed out the medically and psychologically unfit ? Hoagland thinks it would be an easy next step to ask: "Is this person suited for an unmanned or manned system?" The coming swarm As the Air Force's drone program grows, so does the importance of pilot selection. What started in 2004 as five drone combat patrols ? four aircraft each ? will to swell to 65 patrols by 2014. By 2010, Predators had logged more than a million combat hours, more than any other military bird. And today's population of 1,300 combat drone pilots will be joined by 500 more in the next few years. And as autonomous systems evolve, the capabilities of unmanned craft will, too. The Air Force will shift to a system with multiple vehicles flown in tandem, answering to a single pilot. These "swarm" handlers will have more complex tasks heaped on them earlier in their career. "In terms of who we need to have, I think we're on a learning curve there," Anthony Tvaryanas, a doctor of aerospace medicine and technical advisor with the 711th Human Systems Integration Directorate at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, told NBC News. "If [a pilot is] operating a swarm, what are you looking for in that person? I don't think anyone's looking into those concepts," Tvaryanas said. "As we get from a pilot in an airplane to a pilot outside the airplane to a pilot controlling 100 airplanes, I think we're approaching the limits of what [prior experience and studies] can inform us. There's a need to look back at training," he added. Nidhi Subbaraman writes about technology and science. Follow her on Facebook, TwitterandGoogle+. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 20 06:04:55 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 07:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Nutella Lawyers Hate It When Fans Love Nutella Message-ID: Nutella Lawyers Hate It When Fans Love Nutella Alex Santoso ? Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM ? 1 http://www.neatorama.com/2013/05/19/Nutella-Lawyers-Hate-That-Fans-Love-Nutella/ Sara Rosso loves Nutella. In fact, she loved it so much that seven years ago, the hazelnut chocolate spread superfan founded World Nutella Day, a celebration of all things Nutella. Over the years, the event grew from a few food bloggers posting recipes to thousands of participants Tweeting, pinning recipes on Pinterest, making songs, poems, and short films. It's not surprising, because, as you know, yummy Nutella goes with everything. Well, almost everything. There's one thing that doesn't mix well with Nutella and its fans: lawyers. Sara Rosso wrote on World Nutella Day's website: On May 25, 2013, I?ll be darkening the World Nutella Day site, nutelladay.com, and all social media presence (Facebook, Twitter), in compliance with a cease-and-desist I received from lawyers representing Ferrero, SpA (makers of Nutella). Seven years after the first World Nutella Day in 2007, I never thought the idea of dedicating a day to come together for the love of a certain hazelnut spread would be embraced by so many people! I?ve seen the event grow from a few hundred food bloggers posting recipes to thousands of people Tweeting about it, pinning recipes on Pinterest, and posting their own contributions on Facebook! There have been songs sung about it, short films created for it, poems written for it, recipes tested for it, and photos taken for it. The cease-and-desist letter was a bit of a surprise and a disappointment, as over the years I?ve had contact and positive experiences with several employees of Ferrero, SpA., and with their public relations and brand strategy consultants, and I?ve always tried to collaborate and work together in the spirit and goodwill of a fan-run celebration of a spread I (to this day) still eat. I have hope that this is not a goodbye to World Nutella Day forever, for the fans? sake, and hopefully it will live on in one form or another in the future. Nutella dissing its fans? Now that's just plain nuts: Link --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 20 11:23:51 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Telecom=92s_Big_Players_Hold_Bac?= =?windows-1252?q?k_the_Future?= Message-ID: <2E523819-22D5-4751-8D84-FB9641431BA0@infowarrior.org> Telecom?s Big Players Hold Back the Future By DAVID CARR http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, ?Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,? that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, conferences and companies ? she was at Google last week ? and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was meant to lay down track to foster competition in a new age, allowed cable companies and telecoms to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly. If you are looking for the answer to why much of the developed world has cheap, reliable connections to the Internet while America seems just one step ahead of the dial-up era, her office ? or her book ? would be a good place to find out. In a recent conversation, she explained that wired and wireless connections, building blocks of modern life, are now essentially controlled by four companies. Comcast and Time Warner have a complete lock on broadband in the markets they control, covering some 50 million American homes, while Verizon and AT&T own 64 percent of cellphone service. Don?t get her started on the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger unless you have some time on your hands. But don?t look for a jeremiad, either. A violist who plays in string quartets when she is not hammering telecom companies, Ms. Crawford is precise in her arguments and far from frantic in making them. The captains of industry who kidnapped telecoms and cable are not monsters, she says, merely shrewd capitalists who used leverage to maximize returns, no different or worse than the railroad or electricity barons of times past. ?They have acted in parallel to exclude competitors and used every lever they had to gain control over their markets. My whole book is essentially an argument to buy stock in cable companies,? she said with a laugh. Her arguments don?t end there. High-capacity fiber connections to homes and businesses are not just a social good, but a business imperative, she says, and the lack of them will cripple American efforts to compete in a global economy. Ms. Crawford said she believed that cities and states should take back control of their information infrastructure before it is too late. Already, 19 states have bent to the lobbying influence of established players and raised barriers to the public-private partnerships that would compete with legacy companies. Verizon had been building out fiber optic cable networks ? expensive to create but a dream to use ? that were part of the competition envisioned by the telecommunications act. But in 2010, the company decided that it was a capital-intensive effort that offered less return than high-margin wireless, so it stopped expanding when just 14 percent of American homes have access to their fiber optic network. Too bad, that. I have Verizon?s service, and even though it is expensive, it is fundamentally superior to Internet via cable because fiber can carry unlimited data, which means smooth downloading and streaming. In 2012, Verizon entered into a joint marketing agreement with the cable companies, blessed by the Federal Communications Commission, so the former competitors are now firm allies. ?There has been a division of, ?You take the wires, we?ll take wireless,? which means that there is very little competition and investment, and very little access to high-speed connections,? Ms. Crawford said. It is worth pointing out that the billionaire Carlos Slim Hel? controls 80 percent of the landlines in Mexico and 70 percent of the wireless market there. His recent appearance at the New York Public Library was accompanied by protests that his outsize presence was hurting consumers in Mexico. (Mr. Slim holds a minority stake in The New York Times Company.) While consumers love to complain about their cable companies and Internet service, it?s sort of like the weather ? no one does anything about it because no one can. And then there is Ms. Crawford. The New Republic recently called her ?the next Elizabeth Warren,? suggesting that, just as Ms. Warren had been to the banking sector, Ms. Crawford ?has become a dreaded figure to the industry she wants to reform.? There are signs her argument is gaining traction. In March, the Georgia House of Representatives voted down a proposal that would have prevented cities from investing in their own Internet-access networks. And she is hardly a lone gadfly shouting against the wind. When the F.C.C. chairmanship came open recently, petitions sprang up all over the Web, suggesting that President Obama select Ms. Crawford in an effort to return consumer fairness and balance to regulatory matters. Instead, the president has nominated a venture capitalist and former chief lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, Tom Wheeler. As Politico reported, Mr. Wheeler will have to divest himself of a large portfolio of industry holdings in order to take the job. Perhaps that shedding of assets will help him in his transition to an advocate for American consumers stung by hefty Internet, cable and wireless costs. Ms. Crawford says that Mr. Wheeler is smart and may well do a good job. But Mr. Wheeler may have more than disgruntled consumers to deal with. American business is increasingly stuck with the same creaky, expensive connections while competitors from South Korea, France and other countries are getting much faster speeds at much lower costs. On Friday, Ms. Crawford was fresh off a visit to Santa Monica, Calif., which is building out its own high-speed infrastructure. ?People there told me that incoming businesses care more about access to fiber than any other attribute in a building,? she said in a phone call. ?It?s very much like electricity. They want reliable service at a reliable cost.? She suggests that because broadband providers are often working inside protected monopolies, there is no incentive for expensive upgrades that would lead to a modern, wired version of America. Postmerger, Comcast has a large content business in the form of NBC, so any potential competitor realizes that it is going up against a company with control over precious cable and sports programming assets. And because telecoms and cable companies have done a great job of developing relationships in Washington ? as a business, it is more generous in terms of donations than the banking industry ? there is little pressure from politicians or regulators. Ms. Crawford, with a smile on her face, says the outlook is grim. ?We are in this position as a country because we assumed that the magic of the marketplace would provide competition and provide world-class communications,? she said. ?But history has demonstrated that left to their own devices, companies will gouge the rich, leave out the poor, cherry-pick markets and focus solely on their profits. It isn?t evil, it?s just the way things work.? E-mail: carr at nytimes.com; twitter.com/carr2n --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 20 12:43:50 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - IRS sued for seizing 60 million medical records Message-ID: <291A299B-96A9-4C47-9920-23CE797BA706@infowarrior.org> (c/o AJM) IRS sued for seizing 60 million medical records By Cheryl K. Chumley The Washington Times Friday, May 17, 2013 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/17/irs-sued-seizing-60-million-medical-records/print/ A healthcare provider has sued the Internal Revenue Service and 15 of its agents, charging they wrongfully seized 60 million medical records from 10 million Americans. The name of the provider is not yet known, United Press International said. But Courthouse News Service said the suit claims the agency violated the Fourth Amendment in 2011, when agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee ? and that led to the seizure of information on 10 million, including state judges. The search warrant did not specify that the IRS could take medical information, UPI said. And information technology officials warned the IRS about the potential to violate medical privacy laws before agents executed the warrant, the complaint said, as reported by UPI. ?Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ?rip? the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,? the complaint states, UPI reported. The suit also says IRS agents seized workers? phones and telephone data ? more violations of the warrant, UPI reported. The complaint alleges the IRS was ?invasive and unlawful? and stole access to intimate medical records that included patients? treatment plans and therapies, UPI said. The suit seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages, per violation. The records? seizure could impact up to one in 25 Americans, UPI said. ? Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 20 15:06:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:06:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - How The FBI's 'No Electronic Recording' Policy Rigs The Game Message-ID: Your Word Against Ours: How The FBI's 'No Electronic Recording' Policy Rigs The Game... And Destroys Its Credibility http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml < - > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 20 20:56:13 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 21:56:13 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama administration mistakes journalism for espionage Message-ID: <988C66DD-6870-4741-909C-5C6762413621@infowarrior.org> Obama administration mistakes journalism for espionage By Eugene Robinson http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html The Obama administration has no business rummaging through journalists? phone records, perusing their e-mails and tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from gathering news. This heavy-handed business isn?t chilling, it?s just plain cold. It also may well be unconstitutional. In my reading, the First Amendment prohibition against ?abridging the freedom .?.?. of the press? should rule out secretly obtaining two months? worth of the personal and professional phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, including calls to and from the main AP phone number at the House press gallery in the Capitol. Yet this is what the Justice Department did. The unwarranted snooping, which was revealed last week, would be troubling enough if it were an isolated incident. But it is part of a pattern that threatens to redefine investigative reporting as criminal behavior. The Post reported Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone and e-mail records for Fox News reporter James Rosen, and that the FBI even tracked his movements in and out of the main State Department building. Rosen?s only apparent transgression? Doing what reporters are supposed to do, which is to dig out the news. In both instances, prosecutors were trying to build criminal cases under the 1917 Espionage Act against federal employees suspected of leaking classified information. Before President Obama took office, the Espionage Act had been used to prosecute leakers a grand total of three times, including the 1971 case of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Obama?s Justice Department has used the act six times. And counting. Obviously, the government has a duty to protect genuine secrets. But the problem is that every administration, without exception, tends to misuse the ?top secret? stamp ? sometimes from an overabundance of caution, sometimes to keep inconvenient or embarrassing information from coming to light. That?s where journalists come in. Our job, simply, is to find out what the government doesn?t want you to know. Sometimes reporters come across information whose disclosure would genuinely put national security at risk. When officials appeal to news organizations on such grounds, editors listen. The case involving the Associated Press is a good example. The story at issue, published last May, involved details of a CIA operation in Yemen that foiled a terrorist plot to bomb an airliner. AP chief executive Gary Pruitt said on ?Face the Nation? that the news service agreed to hold the story after administration officials warned publication would threaten security. The AP published only after officials from two government entities said the threat no longer existed, according to Pruitt. Ironically, this was a story of success in the fight against terrorism. I have to wonder whether the administration?s real aim is to find out who leaked this bit of good news ? or to discourage potential leaks of not-so-rosy news in the future. The Fox News case is even worse. At issue is a 2009 story about how North Korea was expected to react to a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing the rogue nation?s nuclear tests. The Justice Department is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, then an analyst working for the State Department, for allegedly leaking to Fox News reporter Rosen a report about what North Korea was thought likely to do. Prosecutors examined Rosen?s phone records, read his e-mails and, using the electronic record left by his security badge, even tracked when he entered and left the State Department building. How did officials justify such snooping? By asserting in an FBI affidavit, according to The Post, that Rosen broke the law ?at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.? In other words, since there is no law that makes publishing this classified information illegal, the Justice Department claims that obtaining the information was a violation of the Espionage Act. Rosen has not been charged. Every investigative reporter, however, has been put on notice. If this had been the view of prior administrations, surely Bob Woodward would be a lifer in some federal prison. The cell next door might be occupied by my Post colleague Dana Priest, who disclosed the CIA?s network of secret prisons. Or by the New York Times? James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, who revealed the National Security Agency?s eavesdropping program. A federal ?shield? law protecting reporters from having to divulge their sources means nothing if it includes an exception for cases involving national security, as Obama favors. The president needs to understand that behavior commonly known as ?whistleblowing? and ?journalism? must not be construed as espionage. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 06:54:31 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 07:54:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?U=2ES=2E_Military_=91Power_Grab?= =?windows-1252?q?=92_Goes_Into_Effect?= Message-ID: <9CAE2FB6-18AD-4EB9-9B5A-52F17D822FD5@infowarrior.org> U.S. Military ?Power Grab? Goes Into Effect By Jed Morey on May 14, 2013 Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ?Civil Disturbances? http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/ The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government?s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing ?War on Drugs.? For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military. The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled ?Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies? the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries. Click here to read the new rule The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of ?civil disturbances.? According to the rule: Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances. Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, ?a wanton power grab by the military,? and says, ?It?s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.? A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, ?The authorization has been around over 100 years; it?s not a new authority. It?s been there but it hasn?t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.? Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn?t ?want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It?s one of those red lines that the military hasn?t signed up for.? Nevertheless, he says, ?every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.? One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president?s authorization is ?impossible,? it grants full presidential authority to ?Federal military commanders.? According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: ?Somebody who?s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they?ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.? As it is written, this ?commander? has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn?t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, ?wanton destruction of property,? ?adequate protection for Federal property,? ?domestic violence,? or ?conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,? as these are the circumstances that might be considered an ?emergency.? ?These phrases don?t have any legal meaning,? says Afran. ?It?s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It?s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.? Afran also expresses apprehension over the government?s authority ?to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.? ?Governments never like to give up power when they get it,? says Afran. ?They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That?s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There?s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.? The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA?passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction?made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act. Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday?s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer. The stated purpose of the updated rule is ?support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,? but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of ?civil disturbance? as one of the few ?domestic emergencies? that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil. To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee. Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, ?there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.? At the time German was referring to the military?s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority ?in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.? The ACLU?s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.) But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military?specifically the National Guard?is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest. Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling ?an unauthorized power grab.? According to Freedman, ?The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.? Yet that?s precisely what it did. This wasn?t, however, the Pentagon?s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade. D?j? vu During the Bush Administration, Congress passed the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that included language similar in scope to the current regulatory change. It specifically amended the Insurrection Act to expand the president?s ability to deploy troops domestically under certain conditions including health epidemics, natural disasters and terrorist activities, though it stopped short of including civil disturbances. But the following year this language was repealed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 via a bill authored by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who cited the ?useful friction? between the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts in limiting executive authority. According to the DoD, the repeal of this language had more to do with procedure and that it was never supposed to amend the Insurrection Act. ?When it was actually passed,? says the defense official, ?Congress elected to amend the Insurrection Act and put things in the Insurrection Act that were not insurrection, like the support for disasters and emergencies and endemic influenza. Our intent,? he says, ?was to give the president and the secretary access to the reserve components. It includes the National Guard and, rightfully so, the governors were pretty upset because they were not consulted.? Senator Leahy?s office did not have a statement as of press time, but a spokesperson said the senator had made an inquiry with the DoD in response to our questions. The defense official confirmed that he was indeed being called in to discuss the senator?s concerns in a meeting scheduled for today. But he downplayed any concern, saying, ?Congress at any time can say ?we don?t like your interpretation of that law and how you?ve interpreted it in making policy??and so they can call us to the Hill and ask us to justify why we?re doing something.? Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, ?another NDAA. It?s even worse, to be honest.? For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government?s ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a ?chilling effect? on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months. Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O?Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O?Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, ?an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another.? Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, ?another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens.? ?This is a complete erosion of the rule of law,? says O?Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. ?That anything can be made legal,? says O?Brien, ?is fundamentally antithetical to good governance.? As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, ?In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.? But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, ?The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.? This de facto nullification isn?t lost on the DoD. The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, ?Like most major police departments, if you didn?t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.? According to this official there has purposely been a ?large transfer of technology so that the military doesn?t have to get involved.? Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. ?We have transferred the technology so we don?t have to loan it,? he states. But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to ?envision that happening,? adding, ?but I?m not a Hollywood screenwriter.? Afran, for one, isn?t buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple. ?Remember, the police operate under civilian control,? he says. ?They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn?t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can?t remove the military from power.? Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O?Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention. ?This is where journalism comes in,? says Freedman. ?Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.? Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change. As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it?s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 07:02:30 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent Message-ID: Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent Senior Obama officials tell the US Senate: the 'war', in limitless form, will continue for 'at least' another decade - or two < - > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-terror-obama --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 07:10:01 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?OT=3A_Goldman_Sach=92s_Muppet_Fu?= =?windows-1252?q?nd_of_Funds?= Message-ID: <3F0B494D-A40A-4E43-9E2B-9504F289AE2E@infowarrior.org> Goldman Sach?s Muppet Fund of Funds http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/05/goldman-sachs-muppet-fund/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 08:02:01 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:02:01 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Reporters threatened with CFAA for accessing publicly available documents Message-ID: <496F96D1-C57D-4054-98B3-23CF0D012CA5@infowarrior.org> (c/o WP) Hacks labelled hackers for finding security hole Computer Fraud and Abuse Act enacted to cover incompetence http://news.techeye.net/security/hacks-labelled-hackers-for-finding-security-hole#ixzz2TvXV9z92 21 May 2013 10:09 | by Nick Farrell in Rome | Filed in Security USA Telecoms companies involved in a US government scheme to provide an affordable phone service to the poor have threatened reporters who found a security hole in their Lifeline phone system with charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Scripps News reporters discovered 170,000 Lifeline phone customer records online that contained everything needed for identity theft. They asked for an interview with the COO of TerraCom and YourTel, which are the telcos who look after Lifeline, and were threatened with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Lifeline is a government programme offering affordable phone service for low-income citizens. Last year the FCC insisted that Lifeline phone collecting more sensitive information from citizens. They are not supposed to retain copies of the sensitive information. Scripps News "Googled" the phone companies TerraCom and YourTel America to discover 170,000 files online, all of which contained sensitive information that would make identity theft a breeze for thieves. The Scripps reporters videotaped the process showing how they found the documents. Attorney Jonathon Lee, acting for both telecoms outfits, threatened the hacks with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Lee wrote a letter telling Scripps that the "intrusions and downloading" of sensitive records were associated with Scripps IP addresses. He warned that "the 'Scripps Hackers' have engaged in numerous violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by gaining unauthorised access into confidential computer files maintained for the Companies by Vcare, and by digitally transferring the information in these folders to Scripps. The rest of the letter slammed the "Scripps Hackers" for the cost of breach notifications, demanded Scripps hand over all evidence as well as the identity and intentions of the hackers, and threatening a law suit. TerraCom posted a security breach notice that states, "As far as we can tell, the vast majority of applicant data files were accessed by the Scripps Howard News Service, and we are sorry that personal data of Lifeline applicants was accessed by the News Service and possibly by other unauthorised persons." However the move appears to be a cover for the fact that both companies are in hot water with the FCC. The watchdog said that it is investigating and could fine them both up to $1.5 million for a single violation of privacy. Scripps added that the Indiana attorney general's office has launched an investigation into the release of TerraCom applicants' personal data. The Texas attorney general's office also is scrutinising the practices of TerraCom and YourTel. But what is interesting is how a corporation can use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to try and cover up security cock-ups. This case was public, and Scripps did not back down, but how many other companies have managed to cover up their computer flaws with a scary letter to the editor from m'learned friend? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 17:07:50 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 18:07:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on ....Fwd: Nutella Lawyers Hate It When Fans Love Nutella References: Message-ID: <24BEDAB4-611A-48F1-9454-2792E6E7D72D@infowarrior.org> Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated] from the raining-on-everyone's-parade dept Update: As of today, there are reports that Ferrero has been in contact with Sarah Russo and has worked out an arrangement by which Nutella Day will be reinstated with the company's blessing. The company is blaming the cease & desist on over-zealous lawyers as opposed to any public backlash. This may satisfy some people, while others will note that aggressive intellectual property laws and protection lead to this kind of collateral damage all the time. Src: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Forno > Subject: Nutella Lawyers Hate It When Fans Love Nutella > Date: May 20, 2013 7:04:55 AM EDT > To: Infowarrior List > > > Nutella Lawyers Hate It When Fans Love Nutella > > Alex Santoso ? Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM ? 1 > > http://www.neatorama.com/2013/05/19/Nutella-Lawyers-Hate-That-Fans-Love-Nutella/ > > Sara Rosso loves Nutella. In fact, she loved it so much that seven years ago, the hazelnut chocolate spread superfan founded World Nutella Day, a celebration of all things Nutella. > > Over the years, the event grew from a few food bloggers posting recipes to thousands of participants Tweeting, pinning recipes on Pinterest, making songs, poems, and short films. > > It's not surprising, because, as you know, yummy Nutella goes with everything. Well, almost everything. There's one thing that doesn't mix well with Nutella and its fans: lawyers. > > Sara Rosso wrote on World Nutella Day's website: > > On May 25, 2013, I?ll be darkening the World Nutella Day site, nutelladay.com, and all social media presence (Facebook, Twitter), in compliance with a cease-and-desist I received from lawyers representing Ferrero, SpA (makers of Nutella). > > Seven years after the first World Nutella Day in 2007, I never thought the idea of dedicating a day to come together for the love of a certain hazelnut spread would be embraced by so many people! I?ve seen the event grow from a few hundred food bloggers posting recipes to thousands of people Tweeting about it, pinning recipes on Pinterest, and posting their own contributions on Facebook! There have been songs sung about it, short films created for it, poems written for it, recipes tested for it, and photos taken for it. > > The cease-and-desist letter was a bit of a surprise and a disappointment, as over the years I?ve had contact and positive experiences with several employees of Ferrero, SpA., and with their public relations and brand strategy consultants, and I?ve always tried to collaborate and work together in the spirit and goodwill of a fan-run celebration of a spread I (to this day) still eat. > > I have hope that this is not a goodbye to World Nutella Day forever, for the fans? sake, and hopefully it will live on in one form or another in the future. > > Nutella dissing its fans? Now that's just plain nuts: Link > > --- > Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 17:13:39 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 18:13:39 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Paperkey - an OpenPGP key archiver Message-ID: <8003DC6E-A8D2-4F5C-ABB5-4C0B210CE716@infowarrior.org> Paperkey - an OpenPGP key archiver by David Shaw A reasonable way to achieve a long term backup of OpenPGP (GnuPG, PGP, etc) keys is to print them out on paper. Paper and ink have amazingly long retention qualities - far longer than the magnetic or optical means that are generally used to back up computer data. The goal with paper is not secure storage. There are countless ways to store something securely. A paper backup also isn't a replacement for the usual machine readable (tape, CD-R, DVD-R, etc) backups, but rather as an if-all-else-fails method of restoring a key. Most of the storage media in use today do not have particularly good long-term (measured in years to decades) retention of data. If and when the CD-R and/or tape cassette and/or USB key and/or hard drive the secret key is stored on becomes unusable, the paper copy can be used to restore the secret key. < - > http://www.jabberwocky.com/software/paperkey/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 18:56:31 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:56:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DOJ formally accuses journalist in leak case of committing crimes Message-ID: Obama DOJ formally accuses journalist in leak case of committing crimes Yet another serious escalation of the Obama administration's attacks on press freedoms emerges http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 21 20:44:28 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 21:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters Message-ID: <5075E9AD-7F58-4754-9346-10D3785DE9FC@infowarrior.org> In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters By Dana Milbank http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-in-ap-rosen-investigations-government-makes-criminals-of-reporters/2013/05/21/377af392-c24e-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_print.html There are various reasons you might not care about the Obama administration?s spying on journalist James Rosen and labeling him a ?co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor? in an espionage case. Liberals may not be particularly bothered because the targeted journalist works for Fox News. Conservatives may not be concerned because of their antipathy toward the news media generally. And the general public certainly doesn?t have much patience for journalists? whining. But here?s why you should care ? and why this case, along with the administration?s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush?s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job ? seeking out information the government doesn?t want made public ? deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can?t speak out, you can?t defend those rights, either. Beyond that, the administration?s actions shatter the president?s credibility and discourage allies who would otherwise defend the administration against bogus accusations such as those involving the Benghazi ?talking points.? If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions ? well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing? When Rosen and I covered the Bush White House together a decade ago, I knew him as a scrappy reporter who had a fascination with Watergate trivia. He later wrote a sympathetic biography of John Mitchell, Nixon?s disgraced attorney general. Now he?s learning just how abusive a Justice Department can be, from an administration that has launched more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. My Post colleague Ann E. Marimow, who broke the Rosen story, obtained the affidavit by FBI agent Reginald Reyes seeking access to Rosen?s private e-mails. In the affidavit, Reyes stated that ?there is probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation? of the law against national security leaks. The affidavit detailed how the FBI had monitored Rosen?s comings and goings from the State Department and tracked his various phone calls with the suspected leaker, analyst Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The administration snoops had spied on Rosen enough to know of his Watergate hobby: his Gmail address named for the Nixon aide who installed the secret taping system, and Rosen?s ?clandestine communications plan? (a modern-day version of Bob Woodward?s fabled flowerpot) in which an e-mail containing one asterisk meant Rosen should contact Kim. Rosen?s supposed crime? Reyes got his evidence from an e-mail from the reporter: ?I want to report authoritatively, and ahead of my competitors, on new initiatives or shifts in U.S. policy, events on the ground in [North Korea], what intelligence is picking up, etc. .?.?. I?d love to see some internal State Department analyses. .?.?. In short: Let?s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it, or force the administration?s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.? That is indeed compelling evidence ? of good journalism. And how did Rosen commit this crime? Kim told investigators Rosen is a ?very convincing, persistent person? who ?would tell me I was brilliant and it is possible I succumbed to flattery.? Only in this Justice Department could flattery get you a prison term. President Obama?s spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters that there must be a ?balance? between a free press and leaks that ?can endanger the lives of men and women in uniform and other Americans serving overseas.? True, but the 2009 reports that prompted the probe confirmed what was already conventional wisdom, that Kim Jong Un was likely to replace his father, Kim Jong Il, as North Korea?s leader, and that there were worries that North Korea would respond to new sanctions by launching a third nuclear test. As it happens, the intelligence was wrong, and Pyongyang didn?t launch another test at the time. Carney told the White House press corps Tuesday that Obama doesn?t think ?journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs? (perhaps he could remind the FBI of that), and the administration has renewed its support for a media shield law (a welcome but suspicious gesture, because the White House thwarted a previous attempt to pass the bill). If Obama really is ?a fierce defender of the First Amendment,? as his spokesman would have it, he will move quickly to fix this. Otherwise, Obama is establishing an ominous precedent for future leaders whose fondness for the First Amendment may not be so fierce. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 22 06:18:08 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:18:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Boohoo! RIAA Makes Drastic Employee Cuts as Revenue Plummets Message-ID: <2572C518-F684-4796-8A55-D0D2110CDD7B@infowarrior.org> RIAA Makes Drastic Employee Cuts as Revenue Plummets ? Ernesto ? May 22, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-makes-drastic-employee-cuts-as-revenue-plummets-130522/ New tax records reveal that the RIAA has made heavy employee cuts after revenue dropped to a new low. Over the past two years the major record labels have cut back their membership dues from $33.6 to $23.6 million. RIAA staff plunged from 107 to 60 workers in the same period. The IRS filing further shows that the music industry group paid $250,000 to the six strikes anti-piracy system. The RIAA has submitted its latest tax filing to the IRS, covering the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. The figures follow the trend we spotted last year and show a massive decline in revenue for the music group. In just two years overall revenue has reduced from to $34.8 to $24.8 million. For decades the RIAA has been the anti-piracy bastion of the music industry, but the new numbers show that the group?s financial power is weakening. The drop in income can be solely attributed to lower membership dues from the major music labels. Over the past two years label contributions have dropped to $23.6 million, and over a three-year period the labels cut back a total of $30 million, which is more than the RIAA?s total income today. The cutbacks are not immediately apparent from the salaries paid to the top executives. RIAA Chairman and CEO Cary Sherman, for example, earned $1.46 million compared to $1.37 million the year before. Senior Executive Vice President Mitch Glazier also saw a modest rise in income from $618,946 to $642,591. A lot of the revenue decline has translated into employee cuts. Over a two year period the number of RIAA employees has been slashed almost in half from 107 to just 60. The reduction in legal costs is even more significant, going from to $6.4 million to $1.2 million in two years. In part, this reduction was accomplished by no longer targeting individual file-sharers in copyright infringement lawsuits, which is a losing exercise for the group. Looking through other income we see that the RIAA received $196,378 in ?anti-piracy restitution,? coming from the damages awarded in lawsuits against Limewire and such. Finally, the tax filing also reveals that the RIAA paid $250,000 to the Center of Copyright Information for the ?six strikes? scheme. Together with the MPAA the RIAA coughs up half of the CCI budget, but since the fiscal year ended March 2012 it?s probably not the full year payment. Overall the filing appears to suggest that the major labels believe that the RIAA can operate with fewer funds. This is a trend that has been going on for a few years and it will be interesting to see how long it continues. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 22 06:23:06 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:23:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ethernet turns 40 years old today Message-ID: Ethernet turns 40 years old today From local area to worldwide deployment By Lawrence Latif Wed May 22 2013, 00:00 http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/analysis/2269647/ethernet-turns-40-years-old-today FOUR DECADES AGO the Ethernet protocol made its debut as a way to connect machines in close proximity, today it is the networking layer two protocol of choice for local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs) and everything in between. For many people Ethernet is merely the RJ45 jack on the back of a laptop, but its relative ubiquity and simplicity belie what Ethernet has done for the networking industry and in turn for consumers and enterprises. Ethernet has in the space of 40 years gone from a technology that many in the industry viewed as something not fit for high bandwidth, dependable communications to the default data link protocol. Ethernet for the first two decades was deployed widely in LANs, competing and winning against Token Ring networks and various other more exotic and costly technologies. What Ethernet had going for it was the relatively low cost of network interface cards (NICs) and switching equipment, as well as the fact that its adaptive data link protocol that tolerated ad hoc LAN segment configuration and device connections and disconnections made it far easier and less expensive to implement and maintain. While IBM's Token Ring technology had both the brand name and the bandwidth to match Ethernet, a standard that had been ratified by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) as 802.3, its switch gear equipment, physical wire and network engineering overhead were significantly more expensive, making Ethernet based LANs more attractive. Now Ethernet sockets and network interface circuitry can be found on most laptops and desktop motherboards, but back in the 1990s hardware vendors would sell separate network interface cards (NICs) that supported 10BASE-1, a standard that provided 10Mbit/s over twisted copper pairs. Eventually the IEEE ratified what would be commonly known as 100BASE-T, resulting in 100Mbit/s bandwidth over copper and today it is common to find 1000BASE-T, or gigabit Ethernet, supported by most NICs. Ethernet's deployment over copper is arguably what made it as successful as it is today. Even when the IEEE ratified the 802.3 standard, by which time Ethernet was 10 years old, it still used coaxial cable as the physical cable, but copper twisted pair wires - effectively the same cabling used in the telephone system - were found to work just as well, offering simplicity and once again lower cost. Now Ethernet is deployed not just over copper wires, usually labeled as universal twisted pair (UTP), but fibre optic cables. Ethernet over fibre optic cables is usually first to see bandwidth increases and offers greater range, especially when deployed in single mode. But Ethernet's biggest accomplishment is away from the LAN and in the telecoms industry that in the past used protocols such as synchronous data hierarchy (SDH) and asynchronous transfer mode (ATM). Henry Bohannon, senior director and head of Ethernet Product Management at Tata Communications told The INQUIRER that Ethernet was initially viewed as an unreliable technology but has now matured into one to which transit providers can attach service level agreements (SLAs). Bohannon said, "People associated it with a being a LAN technology so they weren't confident it was robust in the WAN. But now it has gained a lot more acceptance and people are seeing you have same types of SLA in terms of guarantees of availability, uptime, time to repair just like you have with traditional technologies so there is no difference. [...] People now have a level of confidence that [Ethernet] has been engineered as a WAN technology." Bohannon added that as enterprises already had knowledge of deploying and managing Ethernet within LAN environments, deploying Ethernet over WANs such as point-to-point links between offices or over the internet was a logical step. While firms can still pick up SDH or ATM links, it is unlikely that telecoms operators such as BT are seeing very much demand from enterprises, especially given the choice of providers in the market for internet protocol (IP) transit over Ethernet. Ethernet might be a 40 year old technology, but thanks to the IEEE's relentless push to increase bandwidth and transit providers' ability to attach reliability guarantees, it means there is a good chance that Ethernet will not only reach its half century with ease but continue to be widely deployed even 20 years or more from now. There are very few technologies in use today that can lay claim to being 40 years old and still on the cutting edge, but Ethernet can. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 22 20:42:12 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:42:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Kim Dotcom claims invention of two-factor authentication Message-ID: <5A08037A-CEDD-4199-8AF3-293298F5BE60@infowarrior.org> Kim Dotcom claims invention of two-factor authentication http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/23/kim_doctcom_two_factor_patent/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 23 07:01:27 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - UK MOD: "The Global Cyber Game" Message-ID: The Global Cyber Game: Achieving strategic resilience in the global knowledge society Report author: Hardin Tibbs Cyber Inquiry Team: Susan Ambler-Edwards, Michael J Corcoran, Hardin Tibbs This report presents a synthesis of the findings of the Defence Academy Cyber Inquiry. This programme of work, based entirely on open source material, was designed to respond to a strategic research question posed by the Ministry of Defence. The Inquiry?s overall remit was first to consider the broad question ?how should the cyber domain be conceptualized?? and in the light of that to examine the implications for security strategy generally, the issues raised for state actors in the Internet age, new power relationships, possible sources and modes of future conflict, and the steps that need to be taken to prepare for a range of plausible possibilities. This report gives an overview of the Cyber Inquiry?s big-picture conclusions. It represents a cross-section through a highly multi-dimensional field of research and, inevitably, at this level of detail cannot do justice to the depth of research by the Inquiry into the many specific areas that contribute to a full understanding. Nevertheless, the Cyber Inquiry team believes that what is presented here is a balanced strategic assessment of the emerging meaning of security in the cyber era, clarifying the new meaning of security in a world that is now pervaded by networked digital computers. It does this, in part, by proposing the idea of the Global Cyber Game and Cyber Gameboard as a framework that can be used for practical thinking about cyber strategy, and it hopes this template may be persuasive and useful enough to be widely adopted and further developed. PDF @ http://www.da.mod.uk/publications/library/technology/20130508-Cyber_report_final_U.pdf --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 23 07:04:58 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:04:58 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: British WWII Spying in U.S. Shown in Secret Files Message-ID: <112F450A-F340-49E7-8DA3-3E44068488A5@infowarrior.org> British WWII Spying in U.S. Shown in Secret Files By Robert Hutton - May 22, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-05-22/british-wwii-spying-in-u-s-shown-in-secret-files.html Britain?s World War II spying on U.S. isolationist groups and its propaganda efforts against them were revealed in secret archives published for the first time today. The declassified documents at the National Archives in London show how Winston Churchill was sent a report on a 1940 private phone call between President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and Joe Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to London, during which they discussed options ?if Europe is overrun? by Nazi Germany. The following year, British agents in the U.S. compiled a four-inch-thick dossier on America First, a group urging the U.S. to stay out of what was then a European war. It included private correspondence and mailing lists. Meanwhile, British diplomats paid for propaganda on the other side of the argument and considered secretly funding sympathetic groups. The money spent in the U.S. was nothing to the sums authorized by Churchill to be spent keeping Spain out of the war. At least $14 million was passed to a group of Spanish generals as a bribe to persuade the dictator General Francisco Franco to stay neutral, the archive files show. When U.S. officials began inquiries into Juan March, the conduit for this cash, British agents resolved the Americans should be told ?as little as possible.? The documents released today cover Britain?s intelligence work from 1903 to 1951. They also include discussion of whether to assassinate German officials working in France ahead of the D-Day invasion in 1944, a plan that was rejected. Literary Agent In the files is a memo, apparently from Jacques Chambrun, a New York literary agent offering to sell articles from prominent Britons putting their side of the argument for fighting Germany into U.S. magazines. He wrote that this would raise $30,000 a month for Britain, if he was given pieces by Churchill and King George VI -- and if he was given a fee of 10 percent. ?In many cases an article dull, weightless, seemingly pointless to read can be transformed into a vigorous and unforgettable message by the judicious cutting and substitution of words to meet the American tempo,? Chambrun wrote. While the Secret Intelligence Service and British diplomats were enthusiastic about the idea, it?s not clear what came of it. Chambrun became notorious after the war for stealing from his clients. In early 1941, a memo was sent to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, proposing the U.K. channel $10,000 to a sympathetic American businessman who wanted to lobby in favor of the Lend-Lease Bill, which Roosevelt used to send support to Britain. Eden replied, in a message coded ?most immediate, most secret,? telling officials not to hand over the money. ?I feel gravest apprehension at action taken which if it ever became known must surely have most serious repercussions,? Eden wrote. The question of whether the U.S. would enter the war was settled neither by America First nor by British propaganda, and instead by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1 at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Hertling at jhertling at bloomberg.net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 24 06:58:00 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:58:00 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USG has no idea how to wage cyberwar: Ranum Message-ID: <129FB15D-2997-4EF2-92D4-80DB20B1A46F@infowarrior.org> (Some valid points, imho. But the last 2 paras are pure Ranum .... and I agree completely. --rick) US government has no idea how to wage cyberwar: Ranum Summary: The US government's offensive approach to 'cyberwar' demonstrates that it doesn't understand that strategies and tactics used in the physical world simply don't apply to the online world, according to Tenable Security's security chief. By Michael Lee | May 24, 2013 -- 03:10 GMT (20:10 PDT) http://www.zdnet.com/us-government-has-no-idea-how-to-wage-cyberwar-ranum-7000015840/ Military strategies and tactics that may work in the physical world do not have a place in guiding "cyberwarfare", and those that attempt to use them demonstrate a key lack of understanding, according to Tenable Security's chief of security Marcus Ranum. Ranum, who spoke at AusCERT 2013 at the Gold Coast, Queensland, on Friday, highlighted several methods that strategists and tacticians use that simply do not work in the online world. The concept of castle defence, for example, is commonly used as a metaphor for firewalls, but many of the strategic reasons that castles were useful in terms of defence don't apply. Perimeter defence has long been dismissed by security experts as ineffective, he said, and the advantages of "high ground" to see attackers coming from a long way off ? tactical surprise ? simply don't apply online. "The term tactical surprise is completely meaningless in cyberwar, because you will always be surprised. Even if Anonymous says, 'I'm attacking you on Wednesday', they're probably not going to tell you, 'and it's coming from this IP address on this port, why don't you put a block in'." Manoeuvre warfare, a basic concept in many modern armies, is also equally irrelevant to the online space, Ranum said. Seen as a way to encircle adversaries, cut them off from supplies and help, and reduce their morale, Ranum said that it simply doesn't apply, because routers don't move and networks don't yet reconfigure themselves. "Are you talking about moving your routers around? That doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about reconfiguring your networks? That doesn't make any strategic sense, either. If you could actually think about some way that changing your network around would actually help, then we could maybe talk about it." And while the relevance of pre-emptive attacks in the online world have been debated before, Ranum said it is impossible to even see whether an enemy is mounting an attack. "The enemy is gathering behind this IP address and they're going to attack us, so let's knock them off," he said sarcastically. "What? This is absolutely nonsensical." The only case in which a pre-emptive strike might be actually useful is when it is known that someone is in the midst of setting up their website, and hasn't yet set up their defences, he said. However, tactics like these are the ones that the US military is using, he said, saying that it is doing the only thing it knows how: Making itself appear so powerful that no one would dare attack, which is a form of a strong offence acting as a defence. This simply doesn't work in the online space, Ranum said, because unlike the physical theatre of war, when one side loses 1,000 tanks, they have to rebuild them; online, if 1,000 IP addresses are blocked, it is trivial to circumvent or find replacements. Similarly, given that anyone could be a potential adversary on the internet, it is impossible to take pre-emptive action and get the first punch in. "If we wanted to imagine this room as a cyberwar [battlefield], I don't know which of you is about ready to attack me. I have no way of knowing. So I'm going to punch this guy in the front row because he's in the front row? Because he's within reach?", he said gesturing to an audience member. The nature of the internet also means that the traditional sense of victory ? where opponents are completely neutralised or driven away for good ? does not exist online. "What's going on with a lot of the US government pointing at China and shrieking, 'Cyberwar! Cyberwar! Cyberwar!' ... it's basically saying, 'We don't understand this problem at all. Please kick our a** some more'," he said. "The Chinese ? who, by the way, do actually read Sun Tzu, for some reason ? all I can figure is that they're probably just face palming." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 26 07:35:08 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 08:35:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: South Koreans Petition to Throw out Active X References: Message-ID: <03D5EF68-DBD2-4E5C-939A-8395D9737788@infowarrior.org> (c/o Ferg) Begin forwarded message: > "Over 6,200 South Koreans have joined a online petition calling [ko] > on the government to stop employing Active X control. A long-term > monopoly of Active X and digital certificate-based authentication > system have been accused for meddling with the user's privacy setting > and making the entire nation vulnerable to hacking attacks." > > http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/26/south-koreans-petition-to-throw-out-active-x/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 26 07:35:48 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 08:35:48 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - In defense of digital freedom Message-ID: <4448C3A9-0AD2-4642-AD88-38B94E0D2EF5@infowarrior.org> Why don't American politcians sound as coherent in making statements about "cyber" or Internet issues? ---rick In defense of digital freedom 20.05.2013 http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/bio/ Cyber everywhere It is impossible to follow the news without being confronted with ?cyber? related issues. Cybercrime, cyber police, cyber-attack, cyber war, cyber terrorism, cyber Monday, cyber punk, cyber party, cybersex and cyberspace are only a few of a long list of words that have joined our vocabulary in recent years. Everything seems to be ?cyber?. Though so far, cyber-attacks have not lead to immediate deaths or large-scale destruction, when talking about cyber security, it is important to know what it is we seek to defend: digital freedoms and our open societies. We need to defend democratic principles not only against outside attacks, but also against erosion from within. Too often freedom is compromised for alleged security or by a focus on a misperceived threat. Digital freedoms and fundamental rights need to be enforced, and not eroded in the face of vulnerabilities, attacks, and repression. In order to do so, essential and difficult questions on the implementation of the rule of law, historically place-bound by jurisdiction rooted in the nation-state, in the context of a globally connected world, need to be addressed. This is a matter for the EU as a global player, and should involve all of society. The good news is that we don?t need ?cyber democracy? to guarantee ?cyber security?. In most cases the foundations for resilience are already in our existing laws and regulations. Technologies are an essential part of our daily lives, businesses, education, cultural experiences and political engagement. As a result, resilience and defense need to be integrated and mainstreamed to strengthen both freedom and security. Today people?s digital freedoms and the open internet are under threat. This is a truly global trend, though its manifestations differ. Repression and human rights violations have a growing technological component. We not only face concrete cybercrime/threats, in many countries, governments? desire to control and repress have moved online. In other places it is rather their inaction and unbridled privatisation of the web and the essential, critical functions or use related to the internet and technologies. There is also the risk that well-intended cyber security measures have disproportionate collateral impact on our digital freedoms. To prevent fear, hype and incident-driven policies and practices, knowledge, transparency and accountability are needed. Let us not make ?cyber? into something completely different, alien or spacy. But rather, let us focus on integrating technological developments in a way that allows us to preserve core (constitutional) principles, democratic oversight, and digital freedoms as essentials in our open societies. This is not the trend at the moment. Race to the bottom Former U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta voiced the danger of a ?cyber Pearl Harbour?, I have also heard references to a cyber-Cold War. Such metaphors are used to justify on-going efforts in the Pentagon and defense ministries around the globe to tailor existing doctrines on the definition of ?acts of war? to cyber-attacks. Such rhetoric may also be used to legitimise the strongest means to respond. A NATO commissioned study, the ?Tallinn Manual? suggests dozens of very concrete applications of traditional international- and martial law online. A cyber arms race is looming. In such a spiral, the means and ends are quickly confused and perspectives are lost. Aggressors and defenders may become the same thing. Online, this is more complicated than in the offline world as questions of attribution remain largely wide open. Even a defense minded organisation like NATO has focused on defending its own infrastructure, rather than burning its fingers on deciding whether article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) also applies for cyber-attacks or acts of cyber war. Stuxnet is informally attributed to American-Israeli sources, and attacked Iran?s nuclear facilities. Retaliation is a risk that should not be underestimated. Many countries now have ?electronic armies?, acting both domestically against dissidents and as enforcers of surveillance and censorship, as well as internationally, often to advance espionage. Public-private Especially as governments rely increasingly on private actors to secure, manage and develop critical ICT infrastructures and services, incentives and responsibilities need to be carefully thought out, from a long term perspective. Though interdependent, governments and private actors each play a different role. Priorities need to be set, and clarity over ultimate responsibility needs to be transparent and unambiguous. Depending on private actors for security and critical infrastructures may well lead to more vulnerability. Companies have an important role to play in society and in ensuring security. And they are now also confronted with challenges that traditionally were dealt with by diplomats or politicians. The commotion around the ?The Innocence of Muslims? clips are a case in point. Companies also face requests by governments to delete content, block access or provide personal user data. This pressure is likely to increase. The shifting reality between state sovereignty and online ?borderlessness? can offer both challenges and opportunities: Seen from our perspective, it offers opportunities to help, for example, Iranian people access information. Seen from an Iranian government?s perspective, the availability of access to the World Wide Web, has been the incentive to build a national internet. Which serves as an intranet: highly censored and centrally monitored. Clearly, the interests of governments and companies do not always overlap. Companies are accountable to their shareholders, and seek to make profit. This can be in sharp contrast with the public interest which governments need to consider and safeguard. Security software companies may see sales increase when fears rise. Are the software systems in our cars really at risk? And what methods are used to come to the widely reported figures on threat levels coming from industry players? In the public interest, threat assessments should be evidence based when feeding into policy making. Some companies have a reputation to lose. Therefore, reporting software vulnerabilities or security breaches may not be attractive. In the public interest notification or reporting obligations make sense. To avoid headlines each time a breach is reported, we should consider allowing reporting in a confidential environment. In a globally interconnected world where privately owned critical ICT infrastructure and software used by millions, companies have the responsibility to report when our societies are at risk. Given the fact that the large majority of vulnerabilities is related to software made in the United States, reporting standards and transparency would be an improvement in US regulation. Digital arms Not all companies have a reputation to lose among consumers in our own markets. There are European and American companies selling to third country governments that may have commercial interests going directly against our own political interests. One of the most prominent examples, which need to be addressed for the sake of preserving digital freedoms as well as our strategic interest, is the export of digital arms. Mass surveillance, mass censorship, tracking and tracing systems, as well as hacking tools and vulnerabilities can be used to harm people as well as our own security in Europe. Though overregulation of the internet should never be a goal in and of itself, regulation of this dark sector is much needed to align our values and interests in a digital and hyper-connected world. There are many European examples. FinFisher software, made by UK?s Gamma Group was used in Egypt while the EU condemned human rights violations by the Mubarak regime. Its spread to 25 countries is a reminder that proliferation of digital arms is inevitable. Vupen is perhaps best labelled as an anti-security company in France that sells software vulnerabilities to governments, police forces and others who want to use them to build (malicious) software that allows infiltrating in people?s or government?s computers. It is unclear which governments are operating on this unregulated market, but it is clear that the risk of creating a Pandora?s box is huge if nothing is done to regulate this trade by adopting reporting obligations. US government has stated that American made, lawful intercept technologies, have come back as a boomerang when they were used against US interests by actors in third countries. Other companies, such as Area Spa from Italy designed a monitoring centre, and had people on the ground in Syria helping the Assad government succeed in anti-democratic or even criminal behaviour by helping the crackdown against peaceful dissidents and demonstrators. These companies may well be complicit in grave human rights violations. A criminal case against a French company for exactly this business behaviour is now under consideration of a Paris court and could set an important precedent for others. Can we hold companies and their executives accountable for complicity in human rights violations and creating security threats by knowingly selling digital arms to repressive regimes? European and American companies are among the top sellers of technologies that are used for mass surveillance, monitoring and censoring of people from Iran to Syria, from China to Bahrain. If governments are condemning human rights abuses on a political level while permitting companies to sell repressive technologies to the same regimes, this hurts our credibility and stores up all manner of problems for the future. We need to bring proper scrutiny and international agreement to stop this digital arms trade. That discussion should not only be dealt with in relation to human rights, but also to ensure our strategic interests are not undermined. Draft legislation by the Dutch Minister of Justice, allowing the police to ?hack back?, and to develop tools to that end, seems not to have been assessed from an international perspective. Context To understand how technologies could impact people, assessing varying contexts is increasingly important. Legal and technical concepts do not necessarily apply equally in a different context: how legitimate is it to sell technologies designed for lawful interception, to countries where the rule of law does not exist? Technological standards do not exist in a vacuum and yet they are almost impossible to contain in one place. EU and US regulations for instance require so-called back doors in telecom infrastructures in order to allow for law enforcement authorities to access information and communications, (ideally) subject to prior approval by an independent court, if necessary to solve crimes. Imagine how these technological abilities play out in countries like Iran or Syria. How lawful can interception be without the rule of law? Assessments of potential damage to human rights and cyber security should be done in the R&D phase. We must work according to human rights and security by design principles to ensure public and strategic interests. Credibility In the discussions about ?cyber?, governments risk losing credibility, either by inadequately protecting the public, or by overreaching in offensive actions. To avoid a slippery slope, clear distinctions between various crimes and threats are needed. Economic damage as a result of criminal activity should render a different response than a state-led attack posing national security threats. Yet, at the moment, at least in the public debate, the distinction between various cyber threats is very unclear. Uncertainly can make people feel vulnerable, while it is internet users and citizens that need to be informed and empowered. We need to build resilient and educated societies instead of installing fear. States also need to prioritise in their partnerships, and look for consistency of actions by different government departments. Recently, the United States chose to sign a bilateral agreement with Russia on combatting Intellectual Property Rights infringements. The agreed cooperation seems in direct contradiction with objectives of the State Department in the field of internet freedom. In Russia, a newly adopted law gives the state the authority to use Deep Packet Inspections in internet traffic. Extraterritorial impact The implications of the use of technologies in a specific country will be more and more difficult to confine to the territory of that same country. The extraterritorial impact of laws, related to the World Wide Web, will become increasingly sensitive in the next years. With the growing availability of cloud services, liability and security questions are complex. The Patriot Act, a far reaching and controversial American law adopted after 9/11, would apply to all data in the cloud. There are new, equally controversial proposals on the table constantly, in many places in the world. For economic reasons, IPR enforcement is pushed across borders, and the configuration of the web and the terms of service of popular online platforms, facilitate global reach for American prosecutors. Can an ?internet public? find ways to hold new power brokers to account? The fights against the Stop Online Piracy Act, the Protect Intellectual Property Act and against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement suggest global constituents can successfully rally online. In The Netherlands the parliament pushed to enshrine net neutrality in law, and I am hopeful this will become European law as well. In the anticipated US-EU free trade agreement, standard setting and cooperation in the field of the digital economy and cyber security will certainly come up again and cause controversy. Governance in a borderless world In a globally connected world, traditional borders of land and jurisdiction have lost their exclusive ability to govern and structure international relations. There is a growing tension between our legal and political structures. While borders play a role of little importance online, our mandates as politicians and lawmakers are enshrined in law and legitimised by democratic elections, creating jurisdictions still inextricably connected to the nation state. Confederations, international organisations or political unions, with their respective bodies of laws and regulations are established by treaties or international agreements. Their founding was a political act. The global borderless digital sphere lacks such foundations and evolves day by day, organically and sometimes in confrontation. Governments, legal experts and politicians are only at the beginning of the process of redefining their position in relation to the territorially based laws and the borderless internet that is mostly in private hands. In their response a tendency to re-territorialize can be observed. States pass national laws bringing the internet under their control, or push for international agreements that re-instate top down control. The EU needs to play a strong role in internet governance fora, where arguments of increasing cyber security are used to nationalise the internet, hurting its open character, as well as the rights and freedoms of people using it. The EU needs to be aware of its own dependence on others, both private actors and private actors coming from 3rd countries. Outsourcing of security, police and law enforcement responsibilities to private companies worryingly bypasses democratic oversight, judicial oversight and protection as well other checks and balances, constitutionally available to citizens and businesses. Proportionate measures Instead of looking for a silver bullet we need to work on a case-by-case basis in a constantly dynamic environment, by analysing as it were snapshots or X-rays of aspects of our ICT ecology or global cyberspace. That way the various layers and actors can be identified. Cyber threat assessments and proportionate responses should be assessed in a wider geopolitical context. Breaches of SSL certificates for example require a different set of actors and solutions than massive DDoS-attacks or addressing the market for zero day exploits or the risks to consumer data in the online cloud. Scenario studies should help us to identify threats and to train adequate responses. A raster of threats, indexed by importance or their possible impact should be drawn and matched with flexible clusters of companies, scientists and officials to timely ensure maximum security, freedom and effectiveness in our responses. Chains of command as well as accountability need to be clear. If the range of ballistic missiles or the number of fighter jets traditionally where the standards to measure a country?s power or strength it is the sophistication and distribution of its ICT security policies and the effectiveness of intrusion detection mechanisms that from now on will determine a country?s resilience, security and defense capabilities. While the image of a ?cyber Pearl Harbour? successfully created a sense of urgency it wrongly pulled cyber security policies into military headquarters. Instead of choosing a narrow defense angle, it takes politicians, watchdogs, researchers, activists, citizens and regulators to make sure that security and digital freedoms are properly included in the development and trade of new technologies, to protect citizens and consumers. The strength of an open society is tested especially when it comes under (perceived) threat. Given the nature and multiplicity of actors in the cyber-ecosystem a comprehensive and civil approach is necessary. We need an integrated and mainstreamed strategy. Cyber security belongs in parliaments and homes rather than exclusively in military headquarters or specialised units. Lawmakers should engage in cross-border dialogues to assess the impact of increased divergence between territorial jurisdiction and online services, behaviour and accountability. They should do so with their roots in democratic principles in mind, without those, what is there to defend? The EU, as a community of values, and as a trading block, should have the ambition to lead in pushing for trust, security and digital freedoms. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 26 07:51:09 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 08:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WaPo: The Unaccountable President Message-ID: <20A77F07-1622-408B-B5CE-FB4966C42EF5@infowarrior.org> Washington Post May 26, 2013 Obama, The Unaccountable President http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/leonard-downie-obamas-war-on-leaks-undermines-investigative-journalism/2013/05/23/4fe4ac2e-c19b-11e2-bfdb-3886a561c1ff_story.html The Post's Leonard Downie Jr. says the administration's war on leaks hurts investigative journalism For the past five years, beginning with his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama has promised that his government would be the most open and transparent in American history. Recently, while stating that he makes "no apologies" for his Justice Department's investigations into suspected leaks of classified information, the president added that "a free press, free expression and the open flow of information helps hold me accountable, helps hold our government accountable and helps our democracy function." Then, in his National Defense University speech Thursday, Obama said he was "troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable." But the Obama administration's steadily escalating war on leaks, the most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration, has disregarded the First Amendment and intimidated a growing number of government sources of information - most of which would not be classified - that is vital for journalists to hold leaders accountable. The White House has tightened its control over officials' contacts with the news media, and federal agencies have increasingly denied Freedom of Information Act requests on the grounds of national security or protection of internal deliberations. The secret and far-reaching subpoena and seizure of two months of records for 20 Associated Press phone lines and switchboards - used by more than 100 AP reporters in three news bureaus and the House of Representatives - is especially chilling for journalists and their sources. The effort was reportedly part of a Justice Department and federal grand jury investigation of an AP story from May 7, 2012, revealing the CIA's success in penetrating a Yemen-based al-Qaeda group that had developed an "underwear bomb" to detonate aboard U.S.-bound aircraft. At the request of the White House and the CIA, the AP held the story for five days to protect an ongoing intelligence operation. The AP's discussions with government officials were similar to many I participated in with several administrations during my years as executive editor of The Washington Post, when I was weighing how to publish significant stories about national security without causing unnecessary harm. After the AP story appeared, Obama administration officials spoke freely about the operation. But when Republicans accused the administration of leaking classified information to boost the president's counterterrorism resume in an election year, the Justice Department began its wide-ranging investigation to find the story's unnamed sources - including secretly subpoenaing and seizing the AP's call logs earlier this year. Only after Justice finally notified the news agency of the seizure this month and the controversy exploded did Attorney General Eric Holder say that the AP story resulted from "a very, very serious leak" that "put the American people at risk." But the administration has not explained how. Such investigations are not unusual, especially in national security cases, but they have proliferated in the Obama administration. Six government officials have been prosecuted since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act for unauthorized disclosures of classified information, twice as many as in all previous U.S. administrations combined. One case involved a classic whistleblower: a senior executive of the National Security Agency who had told the Baltimore Sun about expensive government waste on digital data-gathering technology. In another, investigators seized the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, searched his personal e-mails, tracked his visits to the State Department and traced the timing of his phone conversations with Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser. Kim was charged in 2010 as the suspected source of a Fox News report about North Korean nuclear weapon testing. Perhaps most disturbing, documents related to the secret search warrant for Rosen's phone and e-mail records cited him as a co-conspirator in the espionage case. This appeared to journalists to put Rosen in unprecedented jeopardy for doing his job. Although the president said in his speech Thursday that "journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs," he was nevertheless adamant about pursuing government officials who he said "break the law," presumably by discussing national security matters and other classified information with reporters, even if that scares off officials from becoming whistle-blowers or even having any contact with reporters. In addition to these investigations and others believed to be underway, countless government officials have been subjected to accusatory interviews and lie-detector tests to ferret out leakers. And contacts with journalists have been routinely monitored. Not surprisingly, reporters tell me that more and more administration officials are afraid to talk to them. Decades-old Justice Department guidelines restrict federal subpoenas for reporters or their phone records, saying they should be used only as a last resort in an investigation. Justice officials have contended that this was the case with the Associated Press leak. But while claiming that it first conducted hundreds of interviews and reviewed tens of thousands of documents, Justice has not explained why it needed to undertake what appears to be a menacing and unjustified fishing expedition. The Justice guidelines require that "the subpoena should be as narrowly drawn as possible," that the targeted news organization "shall be given reasonable and timely notice" to negotiate the subpoena with Justice or to fight it in court, and that "the approach in every case must be to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice." Only half a dozen AP journalists reported, wrote and edited the May 7, 2012, story, but "thousands upon thousands of news-gathering calls" by more than 100 AP journalists using newsroom, home and mobile phones are included in the records seized by Justice investigators, AP President Gary B. Pruitt said in an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation." In a letter of protest to Holder, Pruitt said that "these records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." Without any official justification, such an indiscriminate intrusion into one of the most important American news organizations appears to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate journalists and their sources - or at least indicates a willingness to tolerate such intimidation as collateral damage of an investigation. "I really don't know what their motive is," Pruitt said on "Face the Nation." But, he added, "I know what the message being sent is: If you talk to the press, we're going to go after you." By secretly serving the subpoena directly on phone companies without notifying the AP, the Justice Department avoided negotiations with the news agency or a court challenge over its scope. This is permitted as an exception to the Justice guidelines if prior notification and negotiations would "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation." But there has been no explanation of what threat might have been posed in this case, when the preservation of the records by the phone companies was never in question and the news leak under investigation had occurred long before. I can remember only one similar incident during my 17 years as executive editor of The Post. In 2008, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller formally apologized to me and the executive editor of the New York Times for the secret seizure four years earlier of the phone records of our foreign correspondents working in Jakarta, Indonesia - because the Justice guidelines had been violated and no subpoena had been issued. But I recall a number of instances in which other federal investigative requests were successfully negotiated in ways that fully protected our news-gathering independence in accordance with the guidelines. In Thursday's speech, Obama said he has raised the impact of federal leaks investigations on accountability journalism with Holder. The president said the attorney general "agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he'll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review." The president also called on Congress to revive and pass a federal "shield law" - similar to those in 40 states and the District - that would increase defenses, including judicial appeals, for journalists who face legal attempts to force them to reveal confidential sources and reporting contacts. It is unclear whether the legislation, which stalled in the last Congress after negotiations with the news media, would have prevented the Justice Department's sneak attack against the AP. Nevertheless, its passage would provide significant new protection for accountability journalism and government whistleblowing. White House support of the legislation had been lukewarm, so the timing and ardor of Obama's new embrace remains suspect, depending on the administration's future actions. I can only speculate about the politics at play here. If 2012 had not been a presidential election year, would Republicans have characterized news reports and Obama administration announcements about successful counterterrorism operations as "leaks" endangering national security? Would the administration have decided that it was necessary to react by aggressively investigating leaks for which there is not yet public evidence that national security was seriously compromised? If not for the 2014 congressional elections, would Republicans now be hypocritically condemning the Justice Department's seizure of phone records in the AP case? Hardly anything seems immune from constitutionally dangerous politicking in a polarized Washington. But that's no excuse for playing games with the First Amendment and the right and responsibility of the news media to keep Americans informed about what their government is doing in their name and for their protection. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush administration increased government secrecy in a variety of ways that Obama, as candidate and president, vowed to reverse. Soon after taking office, Obama and Holder issued memos and directives instructing government agencies to be more responsive to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and to make more government information public through Web sites and social media. On the plus side, more government information is now available online, much of it "big data" collected and generated by federal agencies. Some of it is potentially useful for consumers and businesses, such as student loan and grant information, resources for seniors, ways to do business with the government, federal jobs, volunteer opportunities, diet and medical information, assistance for farming and solar energy development, and much more. Some of the data about government spending and regulations also are useful for the news media and accountability reporting. But there's not nearly enough of what journalists and citizens need to hold the government truly accountable - whether information on national security, government surveillance and immigration policies, or specifics about stimulus spending and officials' travel and other perks. After some initial improvement by the Obama administration in fulfilling FOIA requests, delays and denials are growing again, according to journalists and studies by news organizations. An AP analysis published in March found that "more often than it ever has, [the Obama administration] cited legal exceptions to censor or withhold the material" and "frequently cited the need to protect national security and internal deliberations." Some of the administration's new open-information policies also contain broad and vague exceptions that could be used to hide records crucial to accountability reporting about such subjects as health-care payments, government subsidies, workplace accidents or detentions of terrorism suspects. Every administration I remember has tried to control its message and manage contacts with the media. As a senior editor for more than a quarter-century, I frequently received complaints from administrations of both parties about coverage they considered unfavorable, along with occasional and mostly empty threats to cut off access. Journalists who covered the George W. Bush administration said they encountered arrogant attitudes toward the press but were usually able to engage knowledgeable officials in productive dialogue. But reporters covering the Obama administration say more and more officials will no longer talk at all and refer them to uncommunicative or even hostile and bullying press aides. "The White House doesn't want anyone leaking," said one senior Washington correspondent who, like others, described a tight, difficult-to-penetrate inner circle that controls the administration's decisions and micromanages its message. "There are few windows on decision-making and governing philosophy. There is a perception that Obama himself has little regard for the news media." Continuing what worked so successfully during two presidential election campaigns, Obama and his administration have instead engaged citizens directly through social media, friendly bloggers, radio and video. It amounts to the White House reporting on itself, presenting an appearance of greater openness while avoiding penetrating questions from journalists who have the knowledge and experience to do meaningful accountability reporting. The administration's media manipulation extends even to photography: Professional photojournalists are banned from many White House events and presidential activities; only approved images of Obama taken by a White House photographer are supplied to the news media. Most Americans may not care much about the Obama administration's openness to the news media or the potential damage to the First Amendment and government accountability resulting from its aggressive war on leaks. But as the administration copes with second-term governing challenges, real national security threats and darkening clouds of scandal, its credibility will become increasingly important to the president's legacy. It is not too late for Obama's actions to match his rhetoric. Leonard Downie Jr. is a vice president at large of The Washington Post, where he served as executive editor from 1991 to 2008. He is the Weil family professor of journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University and a board member of the nonprofit group Investigative Reporters and Editors. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 26 08:11:03 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?utf-8?q?US_Close_To_OK=E2=80=99ing_Cyber_Attack?= =?utf-8?q?_Rules?= Message-ID: <000FD1AA-9448-4C80-8A35-6195A91B8455@infowarrior.org> Defense News May 27, 2013 US Close To OK?ing Cyber Attack Rules By ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS http://pdfpages.gannettgov.com/prepress/fpo_pdfs/DFN_DOM_FPO.pdf WASHINGTON ? After three years of grueling internal debate, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is poised to approve new rules empowering commanders to counter direct cyberattacks with offensive efforts of their own ? without White House approval. Once signed, the new cyber rules contained in the US military?s new standing rules of engagement (SROE) ? the classified legal document that outlines when, how and with what tools America will respond to an attack ? will mark a far more aggressive tack than envisioned when the process started in 2010, or even much more recently. To date, any cyber action requires the approval of the National Security Council (NSC). A defense spokesman said that much of the focus on cyber has revolved around defensive action, and that pre-emptive offensive ac?tion would still require presidential approval. Sources said the new rules are vital to address a rapidly developing domain that should be integrated into normal military rules, but still remains largely closed to outside observers by heavy layers of classification. Because the SROE is classified, conversations about its composition and details of deliberations are all considered very sensitive, and sources who participated declined to be named. The new rules were supposed to have been implemented in late 2010, but were delayed as top government lawyers debated how aggressively the US should re?spond to cyberattacks, and what tools commanders could use, according to current and former White House, defense and intelligence officials. Now complete, the rules are undergoing a final ?internal bureaucratic process,? a defense of?ficial said. Lawyers from the Joint Staff and US Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) gathered in Washington to try to update the Defense Department?s standing rules of engagement in late 2010, with two major policy areas remaining as subjects of debate: rules regarding deployed ships and rules about cyberwarfare. The cyber discussion resulted in a draft cyber policy that was gerrymandered, larded with legalese, and had become almost unintelligible because of the many hands from multiple agencies involved in its writing. An interagency process had been started because cyber concerns confront a variety of agencies, the intelligence community and DoD as well as State, Homeland Security and other departments, with each expressing views on how the domain would be treated. That effort aimed to update rules crafted in 2005 that did not address broader questions regarding cyber, but were in need of updates as cyber threats escalated. Recent reports from the security company Mandiant and from DoD indicate the Chinese cyberattacks began to increase in 2006. With the SROE process having stalled, three lawyers attending the conference decided to start over, redrafting the language on cyber over a lunch break during the conference. Huddled around a table they created what they thought was a simple, clean approach that could gain broad support. They presented it to the other attendees, and the new version was passed up the chain of command for review by senior officers. Not long afterward, that draft was rejected by a deputy of Gen. Keith Alexander, head of CYBERCOM and director of the National Security Agency, because it fell short of where ?the SecDef wanted it to go,? said a former defense official. The problem was that the document didn?t allow for a sufficiently assertive response, the official added. In its efforts to achieve balance, the draft didn?t accommodate the strong stance the administration, and specifically CYBERCOM, wanted to take. So the rules were drafted again, designed to be ?forward leaning,? permitting a stronger response. Once again they were rejected. Nearly three years later the rules still haven?t been signed. Defense officials said they expect the newest version to be formalized shortly, but there is always the possibility that further policy concerns will stall the process. While several sources pointed to the desire by some, especially Alexander, to take a more assertive stance, not everyone agrees that the delay was caused by internal dissent. A senior defense official said the process was slowed by the administration?s need to develop larger cyber policies to make sure the military rules fit the larger whole. ?As we were developing our standing rules of engagement and going through that interagency process we were recognizing that there?s a natural progression, a natural sequencing of making sure that the presidential policy was finalized and signed out, then making sure that the doctrine and other procedures are in place, and finally the next logical step is the standing rules of engagement,? the senior defense official said. According to the former defense official with knowledge of earlier drafts, the version on the verge of completion is ?way far? from previous versions, authorizing far more assertive action than had been previously considered. Use of cyber weapons will still be the domain of US Cyber Command, with geographic combatant commanders requesting action through locally stationed cyber support elements. But the debate about the rules of engagement, what authorities they should permit and who should have them, stems from a larger issue about normalizing cyberwarfare that was complicated by the concentration of cyber authority within the NSC, a concentration that is the byproduct of an inter-agency dispute dating to the Iraq war. What the US does as it begins to normalize cyber will have a big effect on how cyber is treated globally, said Jason Healey, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative of the Atlantic Council. ?Without a doubt what we do gets copied,? he said. ?The fact that we?re including this in rules of engagement and pushing this down to lower levels, [means that] then the military of another country will try to convince its leaders to do the same thing.? Concentration of Power In 2003, with the launch of the war in Iraq, cyber capabilities weren?t very advanced compared to some of the elegant tools at the military?s disposal today. But that doesn?t mean that various intelligence and defense agencies weren?t interested in using them. When the squabbling over who would be in charge of cyber began, President George W. Bush signed a classified presidential directive in 2004 requiring that all cyber decisions be funneled through the NSC. That prevented any single agency from laying claim. But it didn?t end the disagreements. ?It became an issue with cabinet and deputy cabinet level officials in there hacking it out,? said a former senior intelligence official, describing debates in the White House Situation Room. In every instance where cyber was involved, the NSC had to be involved. That helped settle some of the disputes between agencies by limiting any independent application of cyber capabilities, but was useful neither for expediting any cyber action nor for integrating cyber into larger military capabilities. Several sources said that this has slowed the integration of cyber into broader military tactics, possibly giving rivals without the same hesitation, like China, a chance to become more adept at military cyber. Some decisions by the NSC on the use of cyber were easier than others. In an individual theater of combat, such as Afghanistan, their use was more easily authorized if the effects were limited to the region. If anything resembling a cyberattack or intrusion came from the area, a response was also likely authorized. But when it came to more complicated issues, like international intrusions, the standards got hazy. Because every decision had to be run through the West Wing, potential political blowback limited the use of cyber tools, the former senior intelligence official said. ?If they can?t be used without a discussion in the West Wing, the president?s got no place to run if something goes wrong when he uses them,? he said. Those decisions included what to do if the US confronted a cyberattack. The rules of engagement review proceeded in 2005 with limited cyber concerns integrated into the final version. Not until 2010 did the larger debate pick up steam. The rejection of the drafts developed at the end of 2010 by CYBERCOM officials was part of a larger push to increase the authority vested in Alexander, the former senior intelligence official said. ?When we had these dialogues with the Fort Meade population, it was often the rest of the intelligence community cautioning the Fort Meade guys not to be so aggressive,? he said. NSA and CYBERCOM are at Fort Meade in Maryland. Several sources cited these interests as slowing the process, and causing several compromises to be rejected. Not everyone agrees that the process has been slowed by dissent or efforts to increase authority by any one group. The senior defense official who described the delays as being the result of larger policy development pointed to the difficulty in crafting a new policy in a new area of warfare. ?It was much less about a turf war than it was about us wanting to make sure that the department?s role was right in defending it, and that the level to which the authority was delegated was appropriate and something with which the secretary and the chairman and the White House was comfortable,? he said. ?If this is the first time ever that we?re talking about SROEs that are outside of DoD networks, it should be expected that it?s a very complicated thing. There?s no precedent, there?s no clear understanding on some of the issues.? A defense spokesman who was asked about Alexander?s role in eliminating earlier versions of the cyber language noted that there were multiple officials involved in the development process. ?The standing rules of engagement are a product of many minds, of which Gen. Alexander is one,? a statement from the spokesman read. ?He has worked tirelessly with senior department leadership to develop appropriate SROEs that for the first time will define the legal framework for how the United States would respond if attacked by, through or with the cyber domain.? To be sure, even when an SROE document is signed, it will not grant the authority to wage cyberwar to low level military personnel. Even the cyber capabilities that might be employed to respond to an attack will require orders from senior officials. But the document is a move that begins to standardize cyber, folding some areas into more typical military rules and hashing out concerns about how cyber should be treated. The use of cyber is more a question of political influence in the West Wing, a process that favors those like Alexander who have access to decision-makers. If cyber capabilities become more readily accepted, their implementation could become more democratic, based more on need than on politics. More importantly, by authorizing immediate action against cyberattacks, the SROE will greatly cut down on the reaction time. By eliminating the often laborious process of NSC deliberations, an attack will likely be countered sooner and potentially result in less damage. ?If you have time to run it through the NSC you don?t really need a standing requirement,? a former defense official said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun May 26 16:36:47 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 17:36:47 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Plans for American Al Jazeera Channel Shifting Focus to U.S. News Message-ID: May 26, 2013 Plans for American Al Jazeera Channel Shifting Focus to U.S. News By BRIAN STELTER http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/business/media/american-al-jazeera-channel-shifs-focus-to-us-news.html While it has a foreign name, the forthcoming Al Jazeera cable channel in the United States wants to be American through and through. When Al Jazeera?s owners in Qatar acquired Al Gore?s Current TV in January, they said that Current would be replaced by Al Jazeera America, an international news channel with 60 percent new programming from the United States. The remaining 40 percent, they said, would come from Al Jazeera English, their existing English-language news channel in Doha, Qatar, that is already available in much of the rest of the world. That plan is no more. Now Al Jazeera America is aiming to have virtually all of its programming originate from the United States, according to staff members and others associated with the channel who were interviewed in recent weeks. It will look inward, covering domestic affairs more often than foreign affairs. It will, in other words, operate much like CNN (though the employees say they won?t be as sensational) and Fox News (though they say they won?t be opinion-driven). The programming strategy, more ambitious than previously understood, is partly a bid to gain acceptance and give Americans a reason to tune in. It may help explain why Al Jazeera America?s start date has been delayed once already, to August from July, and why some employees predict it will be delayed again. Al Jazeera also has yet to hire a president or a slate of vice presidents to run the channel on a day-to-day basis, which has spurred uncomfortable questions about whether earlier controversies involving the pan-Arab news giant are creating difficulties for the new channel. The Arabic-language Al Jazeera was condemned by the American government a decade ago for broadcasting videotapes from Osama bin Laden and other materials deemed to be terrorist propaganda. Others have criticized the Arabic and English channels for being a mouthpiece for Qatar, though the channel?s representatives insist that is not the case. Other questions about bias persist; as recently as last week, the Al Jazeera Web site was accused of publishing an anti-Semitic article by a guest columnist. But some Al Jazeera America staff members are already rehearsing with mock newscasts. Others are fanning out to report news stories from parts of the country rarely visited by camera crews. Still others are setting up new studios in New York, where the channel will have a home inside the New Yorker Hotel, and in Washington, where it will take over space previously occupied by ABC at the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue. New employees are being added to the rolls every weekday from places like CNN, ?Frontline? and Time magazine. ?We expect to have approximately 800 employees when we launch,? said Ehab Al Shihabi, the Al Jazeera executive in charge of international operations, including the American channel. He declined to comment on the delays, but said the channel would start ?later this summer.? Since January, he and his colleagues? overarching message to lawmakers, mayors, cable operators, and potential viewers has been that Al Jazeera is coming to America to supply old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground news coverage to a country that doesn?t have enough of it. A series of announcements about new hires like Ed Pound, an experienced investigative reporter, and new bureaus in cities like Detroit have bolstered that message. Public relations and marketing firms retained by Al Jazeera, like Qorvis Communications and Siegel & Gale, have worked to limit opposition to the channel and increase support for its arrival. Al Jazeera representatives seem aware that they are confronting an enormous marketing challenge. But they benefit from the public perception that they have boundlessly deep pockets, thanks to the oil and gas wealth of Qatar. Al Jazeera America has been portrayed by some as a giant stimulus project for American journalism at a time when other news organizations are suffering cutbacks. ?This is the first big journalism hiring binge that anyone?s been on for a long time,? said the business reporter and anchor Ali Velshi when he left CNN in April for a prime time spot on Al Jazeera America. Al Jazeera tried and failed for years to get cable operators to carry Al Jazeera English ? a button-down challenger to BBC and CNN International ? in the United States. Acquiring Current TV gave it another way into the country and many expected Al Jazeera America to be a glorified simulcast of its existing English-language channel, one that would give Americans more access to an international perspective on the news. But cable operators objected to that idea, saying in essence that they had repeatedly chosen not to carry the existing channel, so Al Jazeera couldn?t sneak it onto their cable lineups through Current, according to several Al Jazeera America employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in an effort to speak freely about internal matters. (They call the channel ?Ajam? ? pronounced like A-Rod ? for the way it?s abbreviated.) Another calculation was purely competitive: to compel people to change the channel from CNN or MSNBC, ?you can?t just plug in someone else?s international news,? one staff member said. ?The filter has to be international news that has an impact on American lives,? said another. This realization drove Al Jazeera executives to rethink the programming mix for the new channel. They set out to hire more Americans than originally planned. Mr. Al Shihabi declined to describe the specific reasons for the changes, but he said Al Jazeera America ?will be an American news channel that broadcasts news of interest and importance to its American audience.? ?The precise split will vary from day to day depending only on what is newsworthy and important,? he said. ?We expect most days will primarily be domestic news. But Al Jazeera?s 70 bureaus around the world will mean that we will have an unparalleled ability to report on important global stories that Americans are not seeing elsewhere. We will do that when it is warranted.? The American channel?s daily schedule will consist mainly of live newscasts, with some talk shows and taped documentaries as well, according to an internal presentation reviewed by The New York Times. Three Al Jazeera English programs that are based in Washington, ?The Stream,? ?Inside Story Americas? and ?Fault Lines,? are on the tentative schedule. Its flagship nighttime show is to be titled ?Main Street Journal,? according to the presentation, though that is still subject to change. Mr. Al Shihabi said it would be a ?five-night-a-week prime-time newsmagazine that will present the day?s news in Al Jazeera?s typical unbiased, objective, long-form style,? including ?stories that are not covered elsewhere.? The channel has hired Kim Bondy, a former executive producer for CNN, to run the new show, but it has yet to hire an anchor for it. In fact, the only anchor identified by Al Jazeera so far is Mr. Velshi. The news organization has multiple recruiting firms lining up anchors, correspondents and executives, though, and Mr. Al Shihabi said ?discussions are well under way for all senior positions.? For the president position, Al Jazeera wants a journalist who is also a ?statesman,? several employees said, owing to the political realities of the job. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 27 16:10:21 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:10:21 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama's trade reps and the MPAA are killing a copyright treaty that gives rights to disabled people Message-ID: Obama's trade reps and the MPAA are killing a copyright treaty that gives rights to disabled people Cory Doctorow at 5:50 pm Sun, May 26, 2013 Jim Fruchterman, founder of the NGO Benetech, writes in frustration from the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, where the US Trade Representative is scuttling a treaty that will help blind people and people with other disabilities access copyrighted works, largely by making the (actually rather good) US laws the standard around the world. Rather than promoting the US approach -- which allows for the creation of works in accessible formats without permission -- the US Trade Rep and his friends from the MPAA are advocating for a treaty that is far more restrictive than US law, ensuring that the US itself could never sign it. In the process, they're killing a badly needed project to help people with disabilities around the world help each other to access creative works in formats that are adapted for their use. < -- > http://boingboing.net/2013/05/26/obamas-trade-reps-and-the-mp.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 27 16:10:26 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:10:26 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Anti-Piracy Commission Asks Congress for Ransomware and Spy Tools Message-ID: <844E2777-27CB-44B1-AAD9-E37CEF377AD2@infowarrior.org> Anti-Piracy Commission Asks Congress for Ransomware and Spy Tools ? Ernesto ? May 27, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-commission-asks-congress-for-ransomware-and-spy-tools-130527/ The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property has submitted a detailed report to Congress, asking for drastic anti-piracy measures to protect the U.S. economy. The report cites hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, and suggests a wide variety of measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including excessive Internet monitoring and Government-sanctioned ransomware. A few days ago the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property (IP Commission) released their anti-piracy recommendations to the U.S. Government. In a 89-page report, with a strong focus on China, the commission describes how this ?theft? impacts the U.S. economy, and suggests what can be done to fight it. The IP Commission starts with describing the scope of the problem, which they believe amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. ?The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia?over $300 billion. The exact figure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope,? the report reads. Because of online piracy and other forms of IP-theft, the commission believes that the U.S. economy is currently missing out on million of jobs. In addition, they note that the threat to innovation significantly degrades quality of life for Americans. The report distinguishes many different forms of IP-theft. However, throughout the report casual online piracy, counterfeiting, hacking and economic espionage are often lumped together when it comes to the recommendations. For example, one of the suggestion to combat piracy in the ?cyber? arena is to allow for elaborate forms of ransomware, targeting people who open files without permission. ?Software can be written that will allow only authorized users to open files containing valuable information. If an unauthorized person accesses the information, a range of actions might then occur.? ?For example, the file could be rendered inaccessible and the unauthorized user?s computer could be locked down, with instructions on how to contact law enforcement to get the password needed to unlock the account,? the commission writes. The description above is reminiscent of the more draconian DRM solutions we?ve seen in the past, but the report goes further. The commission also recommends the Government to authorize aggressive cyber actions against ?cyber IP thieves.? This includes the peculiar suggestion to make it possible for copyright holders to access computers of alleged offenders to ?retrieve? the stolen files. ?Without damaging the intruder?s own network, companies that experience cyber theft ought to be able to retrieve their electronic files or prevent the exploitation of their stolen information.? The commission notes that it?s currently not permitted under U.S. law to break into computers of suspected IP-thieves. However, if the law was amended to make such defensive actions legal, the damage being done now could be greatly reduced. ?As discussed in the cyber recommendations above, if counterattacks against hackers were legal, there are many techniques that companies could employ that would cause severe damage to the capability of those conducting IP theft.? ?These attacks would raise the cost to IP thieves of their actions, potentially deterring them from undertaking theses activities in the first place,? the report reads. The above are just a few highlights of the complete set of recommendations. In summary, it is safe to say that the IP Commission calls for unprecedented powers to stop all sorts of IP-crimes. Without playing down the seriousness of criminal hacks and economic espionage, the current recommendations are very worrisome to say the least. In many instances the report fails to distinguish theft of corporate trade secrets from more casual piracy such as downloading a TV-show from The Pirate Bay, with all its unintended consequences. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 27 16:10:33 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner Message-ID: <9BC63BE5-2F2E-43BF-BA5E-4AC79D32BB08@infowarrior.org> Anxiety May 25, 2013, 1:00 pm http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/showdown-at-the-airport-body-scanner/?hp Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner By NATHANIEL RICH I have never walked through an airport body scanner ? or, as I think of it, ?the cancer machine.? In the years since these radiation chambers began appearing in airports across the United States, I have developed a variety of tricks to avoid submitting myself to them. At checkpoints that use a combination of cancer machines and traditional metal detectors, it is just a matter of choosing the right queue. Often, however, a single line feeds into both machines, making the Transportation Security Administration officer responsible for directing passengers to one or the other. Since the officer gives priority to the cancer machine, relatively few passengers end up walking through the metal detector. Confronted with this situation, I create delays, futzing with my shoes or laptop, until the line has bottlenecked at the cancer machine. At that point I walk confidently ? or as confidently as one can possibly walk without wearing shoes ? to the metal detector, at which point the officer usually waves me through. Sometimes, however, there is no escape. In these cases I look directly into the eyes of the officer and explain that I refuse to go through ?that machine,? or ?that radiation machine,? or ?that hateful cancer machine.? The official term for this is ?opting out,? a phrase that suggests a reluctance to honor a simple, reasonable request. The suggestion is that the unwilling passenger is the unreasonable one. But I don?t think the United States government?s insistence on using these machines is reasonable. And if you think I?m crazy, then I have one thing to say to you: You?re crazy. There have been various civilian protests against the X-ray machines, but most of them were inspired by concerns over privacy; the scanners, after all, showed agents what we look like naked. In response, the Department of Homeland Security announced several months ago that it had terminated its contract with the X-ray scanners? manufacturer ? a company that actually calls itself Rapiscan (pronounced, I originally assumed, with a long ?a?) ? because it did not meet a deadline to deliver a less revealing technology. The Rapiscan machines have recently been replaced with scanners made by another company, which produce less graphic images. They also employ millimeter waves, which produce a significantly lower amount of radiation than X-rays. But those lower doses may be temporary. In October the T.S.A. signed a contract, potentially worth $245 million, with a third company that supplies a variety of ?X-ray detection solutions.? It shouldn?t be too long before their machines begin appearing in airports. The T.S.A. assures us that neither the X-ray scanners nor the millimeter wave machines pose a heath risk. But frankly I?d prefer to avoid being irradiated, even a little bit. T.S.A. officers seem to take it personally when I opt out. They sigh, they roll their eyes, they snort derisively. I always have the impression that, at some point in their training, they have been told that passengers who opt out are foolish and selfish, because that is how I tend to be treated ? with disgust. After my refusal, the officer yells, ?Male assist!? But nobody ever seems to hear him. I am ordered to stand to one side and wait, sometimes for as long as 10 minutes, for a second officer to appear. This person usually has been standing within five feet of me the entire time, eyeing me with irritation. Sometimes the frisker is even the original officer himself. Once, running late, I expressed concern to an officer that I might miss my flight. It was my own fault, he replied, adding that, in the future, if I plan on opting out, I should arrive at the airport three hours early. When the frisking officer finally appears, he rolls on a pair of latex gloves (a particularly ominous gesture, that) and leads me to a designated frisking area, which is in full sight of those passing through the security gate. I am offered the option of enduring my rubdown in private. I always refuse: Civil disobedience is worth nothing if it?s not done in public. The frisk is needlessly, superfluously sensual. The officer runs his hands slowly over every inch of my clothed body. (Another trick: whenever I go to an airport, I make sure to wear a sleeveless undershirt and, if possible, shorts, so as to reduce the extent of the frisk.) The officer slides his hands over my chest and my back, then up the inseam of each leg ? all the way ? and back down. Recently, at Atlanta?s Hartsfield-Jackson airport, a particularly truculent officer repeated this part of the frisk twice, with unusual vigor. ?Two times?? I asked. ?Really?? ?That?s how we do in Atlanta,? said the agent. Never once has a frisker made eye contact with me while rubbing his hands over my body. Often officers make a point of questioning my decision to opt out. I have several responses ready for them. I speak loudly so that other passengers in security can hear me. I note that there is a correlation between radiation absorption over a lifetime and cancer rate. Even if the machines release an extremely low amount of radiation, significantly lower than the cosmic radiation one absorbs during the course of any flight, why not avoid it if possible? I tell them that an investigative report in 2011 by ProPublica and PBS NewsHour concluded that the X-ray scanners, then still in use, could cause cancer in 6 to 100 United States airline passengers every year, and that the European Union banned those machines because of health concerns. ?Come on,? said one officer at New Orleans?s Louis Armstrong airport, ?You?re going to take directions from the Europeans?? I point out that the manufacturers of body scanning machines have spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to ensure their deployment. Finally, for good measure, I ask my frisker whether he has heard about the ?cancer cluster? at Boston?s Logan airport. Security workers there have argued that their cancers were caused by standing close to the X-ray baggage scanners. T.S.A. officers do not like to hear about the Logan cancer cluster. There are studies that show a correlation between extremely low-level, non-ionizing forms of radiation and cancer, just as there are many studies showing the opposite. Many scientists will insist that the low levels of radiation absorbed in airport security checks have no deleterious effect. That?s wonderful ? I?m happy to concede that my fears are most likely baseless. But as long as there is any question of risk, no matter how small, I will continue to avoid the machines. Airplane travel is disquieting, as is dealing with peevish federal officers, as is life. Even the slightest gesture of assertiveness can create the pleasing illusion that you control your fate. Besides, I?ve come to treasure this particular anxiety. It has hardened into something stronger: it has become a habit, a question of principle, a ritual. As I watch fellow passengers walk into the machines, posing with their arms raised over their heads like prison inmates submitting to a strip search, I feel proud of my small act of protest. Then I spread my legs and await my public groping. Nathaniel Rich is the author, most recently, of the novel ?Odds Against Tomorrow.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon May 27 16:10:38 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:10:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - I guess piracy is to blame. Message-ID: $317M Record-Breaking Memorial Weekend! #1 ?Fast & Furious 6? $317M Global For Franchise Biggest; ?Hangover III? $82.2M; ?Epic? $86.6M By NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief | Monday May 27, 2013 @ 8:43am MONDAY 8:40 AM, 11TH UPDATE (WRITETHRU COMING): Huge grosses continue for the Top 6 movies and still add up to the biggest Memorial Day weekend and the biggest 4-day holiday ever. That?s $317M total moviegoing, easily beating 2011?s all-time Memorial Weekend record of $276.7M. Universal?s Fast & Furious 6 opened to an incredible ride around the globe where it is the #1 film by far. THe worldwide cume is $317M. The four-day global cume is $300 million from all 60 territories and set new records for the franchise and the studio. It?s also Universal?s highest domestic and international opening weekend of all time even without 3D or domestic IMAX. (Its overseas-only IMAX launch generated $2+M on 59 screens.) Fast 6 took in $120 million for the four-day Memorial Weekend in North America as the 2nd biggest domestic and international opening of 2013 (behind Disney?s Iron Man 3) and the 4th highest opening for Memorial Weekend in North America. Even with no superheroes, the actioner?s racially and ethnically diverse cast attracted a broad demographic, with 32% Latinos and 49% women and 43% under age 25/57% age 25 plus. Fuller wrap-up later today. For now, here are the latest domestic box office numbers with international cumes and worldwide totals as of Monday: < - > http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/crowded-memorial-weekend-kick-off-hangover-iii-opens-to-hot-3-1m-late-shows/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 07:00:32 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:00:32 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Hollywood_Studios_Want_Google_to?= =?windows-1252?q?_Censor_Dotcom=92s_Mega?= Message-ID: <6A30729D-4C5B-4293-B9C8-42B1AE895132@infowarrior.org> Hollywood Studios Want Google to Censor Dotcom?s Mega ? Ernesto ? May 28, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-studios-want-google-to-censor-dotcoms-mega-130528/ Two major Hollywood studios have asked Google to remove the homepage of Kim Dotcom?s Mega from its search results. Warner Bros. and NBC Universal claim that their copyrighted content is hosted on the URL and want it taken down. Dotcom is disappointed by the news and points out that constant takedown abuse is restricting access to legitimate files. ?This is in line with the unreasonable content industry behavior we have experienced for years,? he says in a response. Every week copyright holders send millions of DMCA takedown notices to Google, hoping to make pirated movies and music harder to find. Unfortunately not all of these requests are correct. Because of the high number of often automated notices and the fact that copyright holders don?t check the validity of all requests, this results in questionable takedowns. One site that has been the target of this kind of takedown abuse is Kim Dotcom?s file-storage service Mega. In recent weeks Hollywood studios Warner Bros. and NBC Universal both asked Google to de-list Mega?s homepage from its search index. These are odd requests as Mega?s homepage doesn?t link to any files at all. According to a takedown request by NBC Universal, however, Google is led to believe that Mega?s homepage is linking to an infringing copy of its film Mama. Warner Bros. on the other hand claim in a DMCA notice that Mega is making a pirated copy of Gangster Squad available to the public. NBC Universal takedown request Kim Dotcom is not happy with the censorship attempt and points out that this is not the first time he has fallen victim to this kind of abuse. ?The Warner Bros. and NBC Universal requests to Google are censoring our entire homepage. This is in line with the unreasonable content industry behavior we have experienced for years,? Dotcom tells TorrentFreak. ?You will recall the illegal takedown of the Megaupload song by Universal Music and the attempts to censor our Mega radio ads. The shutdown of the entire Megaupload site remains the ultimate illegal takedown by the content industry.? In this case, Google caught the error and refused to remove the Mega homepage, making it still available in its search results today. However, these kind of mistakes are certainly not an isolated incident. Dotcom points out that when Megaupload was still around one in five DMCA requests were bogus, often the result of automated processes. ?During the Megaupload days over 20% of all takedown notices were bogus. We analysed big samples of notices and most were automated keyword based takedowns that affected a lot of legitimate files. The abuse of the takedown system is so severe that no service provider can rely on takedown notices for a fair repeat infringer policy.? Dotcom believes that instead of teaming up with Hollywood and protecting the interests of the copyright lobby, the White House should understand that the entertainment industries? misuse of the DMCA has damaging consequences. ?The constant abuse of takedown rules and the ignorance of DMCA obligations by the content industry are based on the confidence that the current U.S. administration is protecting this kind of behavior. The political contract prosecution of Megaupload is the best example,? Dotcom tells us. ?The White House doesn?t appreciate that the DMCA was the biggest contributor to a thriving Internet economy in the U.S,? he adds. The ?mistakes? by Warner Bros and NBC Universal show that wrongful takedown requests can seriously impede the availability of perfectly legal content. With millions of notices coming in each week Google can?t possibly correct all errors, as we?ve shown many times in the past. Dotcom agrees, and points out that the copyright extremists are the problem, not the service providers like Mega. ?From my experience the only people who are acting like criminal lunatics are the copyright extremists who think that the DMCA doesn?t matter. Their agenda is war against innovation. The kind that forces the content industry to adjust an outdated business model.? ?History repeats itself and Innovation always wins,? Dotcom concludes. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 07:05:56 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Politics of Security in a Democracy Message-ID: May 28, 2013 The Politics of Security in a Democracy http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/the_politics_of_3.html Terrorism causes fear, and we overreact to that fear. Our brains aren't very good at probability and risk analysis. We tend to exaggerate spectacular, strange and rare events, and downplay ordinary, familiar and common ones. We think rare risks are more common than they are, and we fear them more than probability indicates we should. Our leaders are just as prone to this overreaction as we are. But aside from basic psychology, there are other reasons that it's smart politics to exaggerate terrorist threats, and security threats in general. The first is that we respond to a strong leader. Bill Clinton famously said: "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right." He's right. The second is that doing something -- anything -- is good politics. A politician wants to be seen as taking charge, demanding answers, fixing things. It just doesn't look as good to sit back and claim that there's nothing to do. The logic is along the lines of: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." The third is that the "fear preacher" wins, regardless of the outcome. Imagine two politicians today. One of them preaches fear and draconian security measures. The other is someone like me, who tells people that terrorism is a negligible risk, that risk is part of life, and that while some security is necessary, we should mostly just refuse to be terrorized and get on with our lives. Fast-forward 10 years. If I'm right and there have been no more terrorist attacks, the fear preacher takes credit for keeping us safe. But if a terrorist attack has occurred, my government career is over. Even if the incidence of terrorism is as ridiculously low as it is today, there's no benefit for a politician to take my side of that gamble. The fourth and final reason is money. Every new security technology, from surveillance cameras to high-tech fusion centers to airport full-body scanners, has a for-profit corporation lobbying for its purchase and use. Given the three other reasons above, it's easy -- and probably profitable -- for a politician to make them happy and say yes. For any given politician, the implications of these four reasons are straightforward. Overestimating the threat is better than underestimating it. Doing something about the threat is better than doing nothing. Doing something that is explicitly reactive is better than being proactive. (If you're proactive and you're wrong, you've wasted money. If you're proactive and you're right but no longer in power, whoever is in power is going to get the credit for what you did.) Visible is better than invisible. Creating something new is better than fixing something old. Those last two maxims are why it's better for a politician to fund a terrorist fusion center than to pay for more Arabic translators for the National Security Agency. No one's going to see the additional appropriation in the NSA's secret budget. On the other hand, a high-tech computerized fusion center is going to make front page news, even if it doesn't actually do anything useful. This leads to another phenomenon about security and government. Once a security system is in place, it can be very hard to dislodge it. Imagine a politician who objects to some aspect of airport security: the liquid ban, the shoe removal, something. If he pushes to relax security, he gets the blame if something bad happens as a result. No one wants to roll back a police power and have the lack of that power cause a well-publicized death, even if it's a one-in-a-billion fluke. We're seeing this force at work in the bloated terrorist no-fly and watch lists; agents have lots of incentive to put someone on the list, but absolutely no incentive to take anyone off. We're also seeing this in the Transportation Security Administration's attempt to reverse the ban on small blades on airplanes. Twice it tried to make the change, and twice fearful politicians prevented it from going through with it. Lots of unneeded and ineffective security measures are perpetrated by a government bureaucracy that is primarily concerned about the security of its members' careers. They know the voters are more likely to punish them more if they fail to secure against a repetition of the last attack, and less if they fail to anticipate the next one. What can we do? Well, the first step toward solving a problem is recognizing that you have one. These are not iron-clad rules; they're tendencies. If we can keep these tendencies and their causes in mind, we're more likely to end up with sensible security measures that are commensurate with the threat, instead of a lot of security theater and draconian police powers that are not. Our leaders' job is to resist these tendencies. Our job is to support politicians who do resist. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 07:08:18 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:08:18 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US Commission report: implant malware to stop IP theft worldwide Message-ID: US Commission report: implant malware to stop IP theft worldwide updated 04:54 pm EDT, Mon May 27, 2013 http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/05/27/us.government.sponsored.report.claims.china.biggest.offender/ The US Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property has released a report, calling for the use of malware and root kits to enforce US corporate-owned copyrights and media. As proposed, the report calls for the infringing file to be "rendered inaccessible and the unauthorized user?s computer could be locked down, with instructions on how to contact law enforcement to get the password needed to unlock the account." The commission includes former director of National Intelligence and US Pacific Command Commander in Chief Dennis C Blair, former Ambassador to China Jon M. Huntsman Jr., former chairman of Intel Craig R. Barrett, ex-Washington state senator Slade Gorton, former Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III, among others. As intended, the Commission's goals in writing the report was to "document and assess the causes, scale, and other major dimensions of international intellectual property theft as they affect the United States, document and assess the role of China in international intellectual property theft, and propose appropriate U.S. policy responses that would mitigate ongoing and future damage and obtain greater enforcement of intellectual property rights by China and other infringers." The report claims that the scale of the theft amounts to over $300 billion annually, but does confess that true amount is impossible to quantify. The Commission agrees with the US Cyber Command commander General Keith Alexander, calling the ongoing theft of intellectual property "the greatest transfer of wealth in history." While the draconian measures suggested to stop infringers are universal, and not specifically aimed at one country, China is considered to be "between 50 percent and 80 percent of the problem," calling the country's growth strategy the acquisition of science and technology "in part by legal means -- imports, foreign domestic investment, licensing, and joint ventures -- but also by means that are illegal." The report addressing trademark violations in China recalls a well-publicized incident in Kunming China, where an Apple store had opened: "The new store came complete with the large distinct wooden tables, sleek interior design, large colorful advertisements, and helpful staff members wearing the blue shirts donned by Apple store employees worldwide. Everything was seemingly in place, except for one major problem -- this was not actually an Apple store. The store in Kunming had appropriated Apple?s trademarks and trade dress -- even convincing its own employees that they were working for Apple itself -- in order to sell Apple products and provide Apple-branded services, all without the company?s permission." While claiming difficulty in doing so, the report does address direct losses to the US entertainment industry. It claims that music piracy causes a loss of $12.5 billion annually, with movie piracy running $20.5 billion. The report is calling for the White House to take action by establishing the secretary of commerce as the federal authority to draft laws and legislation involved the "protection of intellectual property, enforcement of implementation actions, and policy development." According to the report, the US International Trade Commission will need to be more nimble, and react faster to complaints than the current two to three years to complaint completion. Perhaps most concerning, the commission is aware that US law would have to be dramatically revised. It calls for a "more permissive environment for active network defense that allows companies not only to stabilize a situation but to take further steps, including actively retrieving stolen information, altering it within the intruder?s networks, or even destroying the information within an unauthorized network. Additional measures go further, including photographing the hacker using his own system?s camera, implanting malware in the hacker?s network, or even physically disabling or destroying the hacker?s own computer or network." Read more: http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/05/27/us.government.sponsored.report.claims.china.biggest.offender/#ixzz2UaXrvqKF --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 07:27:48 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:27:48 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama and the 1917 Espionage Act Message-ID: <8FC4F4A6-9C39-48EC-8241-56A6C37310A5@infowarrior.org> http://nationalreview.com/article/349372/obama-and-1917-espionage-act May 27, 2013 12:00 AM Obama and the 1917 Espionage Act The president uses the overly broad and little-used WWI-era law to go after reporters. By Michael Barone There is one problem with the entirely justified if self-interested media squawking about the Justice Department?s snooping into the phone records of multiple Associated Press reporters and Fox News?s James Rosen. The problem is that what the AP reporters and Rosen did arguably violates the letter of the law. The search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Section 793(d) says that a person lawfully in possession of information that the government has classified as secret who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime. That might cover Rosen?s source. Section 793(g) is a conspiracy count that says that anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime. That would be the reporter. It sounds as though this law criminalizes a lot of journalism. You might wonder how such a law ever got passed and why, for the last 90 years, it has very seldom produced prosecutions and investigations of journalists. The answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, passed two months after the United States entered World War I. In his 1998 book Secrecy, the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells the story of how it came into being. Congress was responding to incidents of German espionage before the declaration of war. In July 1916, German agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in New York Harbor. The explosion was loud enough to be heard in Connecticut and Maryland. The Espionage Act was passed with bipartisan support in a Democratic Congress and strongly supported by President Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat. Wilson wanted even more. ?Authority to exercise censorship over the press,? he wrote a senator, ?is absolutely necessary.? He got that authority in May 1918 when Congress passed the Sedition Act, criminalizing, among other things, ?abusive language? about the government. Wilson?s Justice Department successfully prosecuted Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate who received 900,000 votes for president in 1912, for making statements opposing the war. The Wilson administration barred Socialist newspapers from the mails, jailed a filmmaker for making a movie about the Revolutionary War (don?t rile our British allies), and prosecuted a minister who claimed Jesus was a pacifist. German-language books were removed from libraries, German-language newspapers were forced out of business, and one state banned speaking German outdoors. It was an ugly period in our history. It?s also a reminder that big-government liberals can be as much inclined to suppress civil liberties as small-government conservatives can ? or more so. Fortunately, things changed after Wilson left office. A Republican Congress allowed the Sedition Act to expire in 1921. Debs received 915,000 votes for president in 1920 while in Atlanta federal prison, but President Warren Harding, a former journalist and a Republican, commuted Debs?s sentence to time served, effective Christmas day 1921, and invited him to the White House. The Espionage Act of 1917 remained on the books and was amended to cover news media. But it was used sparingly. Franklin Roosevelt, who served in the Wilson administration, didn?t use it in World War II. When his attorney general urged him to prosecute the Chicago Tribune for a story three days before Pearl Harbor that detailed military plans for a possible world war, he brushed the recommendation aside. That despite the fact that New Deal Democrats were as paranoid about the Republican and isolationist Tribune as conservatives have been in recent times about the New York Times. Roosevelt did order the internment of West Coast Japanese Americans in 1942. But an act apologizing for that and providing restitution was passed with bipartisan majorities and signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988. Presidents and attorneys general of both parties have been reluctant to use the Espionage Act when secret information has been leaked to the press because they have recognized that it is overbroad. They have understood, as Moynihan argues in Secrecy, that government classifies far too many things as secrets, even as it has often failed to protect information that truly needs to stay secret. Barack Obama and his Justice Department seem to be of a different mind. They have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media ? twice as many as all their predecessors combined. ?Gradually, over time,? Moynihan writes, ?American government became careful about liberties.? Now, suddenly, it seems to be moving in the other direction. ? Michael Barone, senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. ? 2013 The Washington Examiner --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 07:30:04 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:30:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Pentagon Project Makes Cyberwar as Easy as Angry Birds Message-ID: This Pentagon Project Makes Cyberwar as Easy as Angry Birds ? By Noah Shachtman ? 05.28.13 ? 6:30 AM The target computer is picked. The order to strike has been given. All it takes is a finger swipe and a few taps of the touchscreen, and the cyberattack is prepped to begin. For the last year, the Pentagon?s top technologists have been working on a program that will make cyberwarfare relatively easy. It?s called Plan X. And if this demo looks like a videogame or sci-fi movie or a sleek Silicon Valley production, that?s no accident. It was built by the designers behind some of Apple?s most famous computers ? with assistance from the illustrators who helped bring Transformers to the silver screen. Today, destructive cyberattacks ? ones that cause servers to fry, radars to go dark, or centrifuges to spin out of control ? have been assembled by relatively small teams of hackers. They?re ordered at the highest levels of government. They take months to plan. Their effects can be uncertain, despite all the preparation. (Insiders believe, for example, that the biggest network intrusion in the Pentagon?s history may have been an accidental infection, not a deliberate hack.) With Plan X, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking to change all that. It wants munitions made of 1s and 0s to be as simple to launch as ones made of metal and explosives. It wants cyberattack stratagems to be as predictable as any war plan can be. It wants to move past the artisanal era of hacking, and turn cyberwarfare into an industrial effort. Across the U.S. government, there are all kinds of projects to develop America?s network offense. None are quite like this. ?Plan X is a program that is specifically working towards building the technology infrastructure that would allow cyber offense to move from the world we?re in today ? where it?s a fine, handcrafted capability that requires exquisite authorities to do anything? to a future where cyber is a capability like other weapons,? Darpa director Arati Prabhakar told reporters last month. ?A military operator can design and deploy a cyber effect, know what it?s going to accomplish? and take an appropriate level of action.? But you can?t expect the average officer to be able to understand the logical topology of a global network-of-networks. You can?t expect him to know whether its better to hook a rootkit into a machine?s kernel or its firmware. If cyberwar is going to be routine, Darpa believes, the digital battlefield has to be as easy to navigate as an iPhone. The attacks have to be as easy to launch as an Angry Bird. ?Say you?re playing World of Warcraft, and you?ve got this type of sword, +5 or whatever. You don?t necessarily know what spells were used to create that sword, right? You just know it has these attributes and it helps you in this way. It?s the same type of concept. You don?t need the technical details,? says Dan Roelker, the cybersecurity specialist who helped develop some of the world?s most widely-used intrusion detection software, came up with the idea for Plan X, and joined Darpa to make it happen. < -- > http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/pentagon-cyberwar-angry-birds/all/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 08:13:05 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DC folks: Why avoiding NY Ave is a great idea Message-ID: <6A53300F-E9B6-458C-8BE4-92BABB20143F@infowarrior.org> Three golden miles net D.C. $28 million By Ashley Halsey III, There are seasons when New York Avenue seems pocked with potholes, but for the District it is paved with gold. It likely is one of the most lucrative streets in the world when it comes to collecting a hidden toll in traffic tickets, its gantlet of speed and red-light cameras taking in an average of $30,570 a day and a total of more than $28 million since the start of fiscal 2011. While some drivers bristle at use of the cameras ? including many who travel New York Avenue from the Maryland suburbs ? an overwhelming number of District residents surveyed are pleased with the citywide deployment of them. The nine New York Avenue cameras, spread over about three miles between the Washington Times building and Third Street NW, generated 93,313 tickets and almost $11.8 million last year. Five target red-light violators; four go after speeders. < - > http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/three-golden-miles-net-dc-28-million/2013/05/27/47db9828-b357-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_print.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 08:16:44 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Singapore to regulate Yahoo!, other online news sites Message-ID: <7E488582-FDA3-4E5C-BE97-EECF1BE2738A@infowarrior.org> Singapore to regulate Yahoo!, other online news sites By Kevin Lim | Reuters ? 51 mins ago http://news.yahoo.com/singapore-regulate-yahoo-other-online-news-sites-122124182.html By Kevin Lim SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Websites that regularly report on Singapore including Yahoo! News will have to get a license from June 1, putting them on par with newspapers and television new outlets, in a move seen by some as a bid to rein in free-wheeling Internet news. "Online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license," Singapore's Media Development Authority (MDA) said in a statement. "This will place them on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms which are already individually licensed," the media regulator said. Prosperous and orderly Singapore, a regional base for many multinationals and fund managers, is one of the world's most wired-up cities with most people having broadband access. It has long maintained strict controls on the media, saying that was necessary to maintain stability in a small, multi-racial country and that media must be held accountable for what they publish. Lobby group Reporters Without Borders, in its latest report, ranked Singapore 149th globally in terms of press freedom, down 14 places from 2012 and below many of its neighbors. In 2011, the city-state's tiny opposition made big gains against the long-ruling People's Action Party in parliamentary elections, partly by using the Internet to reach voters. A survey by the Straits Times newspaper shortly before the vote found 36.3 percent of people between the ages of 21 and 34 cited the Internet as their top source of domestic political news compared with 35.3 percent who preferred newspapers. "WILL FIND A WAY" The MDA identified sg.news.yahoo.com, a service run by Internet giant Yahoo! Inc, as among 10 sites that would be affected by the new requirement, based on criteria such as having 50,000 unique visitors from Singapore a month over a period of two months. Yahoo! declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. "We are not in a position to respond until we receive the actual license conditions for review," the head of its Singapore news service, Alan Soon, said. Of the remaining nine sites, seven are run by Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, whose publications tend to maintain a pro-government stance. The other two are operated by state-owned broadcaster Mediacorp. Conditions for the sites that require individual licenses, which have to be reviewed annually, include a performance bond of S$50,000 ($39,700) and a requirement that objectionable content be removed within 24 hours when directed by the MDA. The MDA said the new regulation did not apply to blogs, though adding: "If they take on the nature of news sites, we will take a closer look and evaluate them accordingly". The regulation drew criticism from some Internet users who saw it as an attempt to stifle online news not affiliated with the government. On state-owned Channel NewsAsia's Facebook page, a person named Jeremy Tan likened the development to what goes on in China or North Korea. "You can try to shut us up. We will find a way around it," another internet user, Sushikin Ky, said on the Facebook page. ($1 = 1.2609 Singapore dollars) (Editing by Robert Birsel) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 14:39:31 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Report: Holder Went Judge Shopping To Obtain Fox News Subpoena Message-ID: <8423265C-2AA8-41AE-A2DD-BF34B7F33FE0@infowarrior.org> Report: Holder Went Judge Shopping To Obtain Fox News Subpoena by Larry O'Connor 28 May 2013, 9:11 AM PDT http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/28/Holder-Went-Court-Hopping-Until-Finally-Getting-His-Fox-News-Subpoena The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, a bulldog on the DOJ/Fox News secret subpoena story, reports that the effort by the Justice Department to obtain the controversial court order was arduous, contentious and unsuccessful until finally a third judge acquiesced. The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: ?The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,? Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration?s argument. Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen?s request to overturn the order of the two judges. < - > The revelation that two courts denied the secret subpoena before Lamberth finally agreed will damage the narrative that there was nothing extraordinary or out-of-bounds about Holder's attempt to delve into the private communications of Rosen and his employer. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue May 28 21:16:30 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - A Commencement Speech for Graduating 2013 CS Majors Message-ID: <33AC9A63-6735-4866-BABD-33647EA47865@infowarrior.org> A Commencement Speech for Graduating 2013 CS Majors Passion isn't just for romance novels. by James Turner | May 28, 2013 http://programming.oreilly.com/2013/05/a-commencement-speech-for-graduating-2013-cs-majors.html Graduates, parents, guests, members of the faculty of <%= college.collegeName %>. I am honored today to have the opportunity to speak with you, as you move out of the cloistered environment of higher education, and into ?the real world.? Except for those of you moving on to postgraduate degrees, of course. You will get to enjoy a life uncluttered by 401Ks and team building exercises for a few more blessed years. But, for the rest of you, today marks your first step into a journey that will last the rest of your life, unless you?re able to cash in on your equity in some startup, in which case I?m sure you?ll be hearing from the <%= college.collegeName %> alumni office before the check settles from your brokerage. In my 35 years of experience in the software field, I?ve met a lot of developers, young and old. And the one thing that separated the truly successful ones from the crowd is passion. Now passion is an overused and abused term these days. Too often people take it to mean a passion for being successful, for achieving a personal goal in their life. When I talk about passion, I mean love. I?ve been in love with computers since I was 14 years old, and I?d be playing with them even if I didn?t get paid for it. If software engineering is merely a means to an end, you?re not going to be happy in the long term working in this field, because much of it is God-awful boring unless you have a passion for it. Being passionate about software is critical to being successful, because the field is a constantly moving target. What will net you $130K today will be done by junior programmers in five years, and unless you?re constantly adding new tools to your belt, you?re going to find yourself priced out of the market. Many of the best projects I?ve ever worked on came to me because I had already gained the skill-set on my own. Play around with new technologies, contribute to open source projects, and you may find yourself with an opportunity to apply those skills on the job, and get them into your resume. You are rarely going to get an opportunity to have your current employer pay for you to learn things, so learn them on your own and be in a position to leverage the skills when a new project comes along. But if you have a passion for technology, you?ll already be doing it, and enjoying it without needing me to tell you to. That?s why passionate people have a leg up. People in their 20s tend to jump into small, fledgeling companies, and that?s one of the best things you can do. A junior developer at Fidelity or Akamai is going to work on one thing for long periods of time, while at a start-up you?ll get a chance to jump all over the place, learning many different aspects of the field. But don?t fall into the trap of trading long hours and happiness for the gold ring of equity. You are never going to be in better shape, less constrained by responsibilities, or have more energy than you will right now. Burning 80-hour weeks grinding code is a terrible waste of that gift. Most companies crash and burn, and that equity they gave you will be just toilet paper. It won?t pay for the time you sacrificed eating take-out pizza in front of a glowing tube rather than enjoying the best years of your life. If you?re passionate, you?ll do the job you?re required to do, and more, but don?t let your employer abuse your enthusiasm. One of my tenets of life has always been that ?a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.? There will be times in your life when you have to step in and fix genuine, unforeseen emergencies, and burn the midnight oil. But if you?re being asked to do it regularly, just because your company didn?t allocate enough resources to see the job through, you?re being played for a patsy. Consider the benefits of loyalty to your employer. More than just about any other industry, software suffers from a nomadic workforce, where spending five years at a single company is rare. Remember that in a good work environment, you make friends as well as money, and as much as you may say you will, you never keep in touch with them when you move on. But don?t be afraid to jump ship if you are truly unhappy where you are, either. Pick the right technologies to learn. It?s easy to be seduced by the flavor of the month, and spend time learning something that will never gain significant traction. That isn?t to say that you shouldn?t learn something new if you?re genuinely interested in it, but don?t follow the herd just because everyone is talking about language X or framework Y. In fact, I?ve never been hurt, career-wise, by waiting a year or two to learn a technology, because that?s when a truly useful item starts to show up in job positions. Realize that there is more than one path to the same solution. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes, and just because you find operating system Foo to be the most abysmal thing ever created doesn?t give you the right to call for Jihad against people who choose to use it. The Mac vs PC vs Linux wars have been needlessly bloody because of this kind of intolerance. After all, when you go down to <%= college.localHangout %>, you don?t decide that someone is your enemy for life because they like anchovies on their pizza. At the same time, diversity for the sake of diversity benefits no one. Developers build off each other?s work, especially in the open source space, and every time you split the community with a new language or operating system or framework, the likelihood that you can reuse another developer?s work goes down. Finally, remember that most of the time in your career, you will not be developing software for your own benefit. Whether it?s internally used code, or an end-user application, the quality and innovation of the work you do can directly affect the happiness of other people. Truly pioneering development can change the world. Flickr did it, by giving the world a single photo album to share. Linux did it, by creating a solid, flexible, performant operating system that you could throw into a $9.99 product, because you didn?t need to license it. Try to find at least one opportunity in your career to move the ball a little, rather than just doing what?s already been done. It doesn?t have to be a touchdown; even a few yards can make a difference. Right, <%= college.footballCoach %>? So, class of 2013, go out and do great things. I?m sure you will, just as every graduating class has, from the ones that gave us Alan Turing and John McCarthy to the ones that gave us Linus Torvalds and Tim Berners-Lee, and beyond. You know, the passionate ones. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 29 08:02:31 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cyberwar, cyberespionage and media manipulation Message-ID: Cyberwar, cyberespionage and media manipulation Posted by George Smith on 05/28/2013 :: Permalink If you've been following along it's no secret the US government and the national security industry have been waging an increasingly concerted campaign to increase cyber-defense spending. The lynchpin of the strategy is the relentless argument that Chinese hackers, under the guidance of its government and military, are into all American corporate business, military networks and the nation's infrastructure. Because of this catastrophe looms. Another ploy in this orchestrated theatrical production arrived today in the guise of the Defense Science Board report, Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat. The report is here. However, it is not the same report the Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima publicized in a big story on alleged deep Chinese cyberespionage directed against the US military and its arms manufacturers. "Designs for many of the nation's most sensitive advanced weapons systems have been compromised by Chinese hackers, according to a report prepared for the Pentagon and to officials from government and the defense industry," writes Nakashima for the Post. The Post's report never makes clear if classified information was taken. And it informs that internal US government discussion of some of the incidents with China is now over a year old. What does seem to be secret, but in a selective way, is the Defense Science Board report. The Post reporter delivers the information on Chinese cyber-espionage, writing that it comes from a "confidential" section of the report not included in the copy made generally available to the public. One of the definitions for "confidential" in Merriam-Webster is "private, secret." The public version of the DSB report contains only three instances of the word "China" and only one of "Chinese." "Espionage" appears only four times in the report's 146 .pdf pages. What does this mean? < -- > http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/130528904-cyberwar-cyberespionage-and-me.htm --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed May 29 17:17:11 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:17:11 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama to Pick Former Bush Official to Lead F.B.I. Message-ID: May 29, 2013 Obama to Pick Former Bush Official to Lead F.B.I. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/obama-to-pick-james-b-comey-to-lead-fbi.html By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT WASHINGTON ? President Obama plans to nominate James B. Comey, a hedge fund executive and a former senior Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, to replace Robert S. Mueller III as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to a person with knowledge of the selection. Mr. Comey, 52, was chosen for the position over the other finalist for the job, Lisa O. Monaco, who has served as the White House?s top counterterrorism adviser since January. By choosing Mr. Comey, a Republican, Mr. Obama made a strong statement about bipartisanship at a time when he faces renewed criticism from Republicans in Congress and has had difficulty confirming some important nominees. Some Democrats had feared that if the president nominated Ms. Monaco ? who oversaw national security issues at the Justice Department during the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, last September ? Republicans would use the confirmation process as a forum for criticism of the administration?s handling of the attack. As deputy attorney general in the Bush administration, Mr. Comey was a critical player in 2004 in the dramatic hospital room episode in which the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Mr. Bush?s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., tried to persuade Attorney General John Ashcroft ? who was ill and disoriented ? to reauthorize a warrantless eavesdropping program. Mr. Comey, who was serving as the acting attorney general and had been tipped off that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were trying to go around him, rushed to Mr. Aschroft?s hospital room to thwart them. With Mr. Comey in the room, Mr. Ashcroft refused to reauthorize the program. After the episode, Mr. Bush agreed to make changes in the program, and Mr. Comey was widely praised for putting the law over politics. The Obama administration had initially hoped to announce the nomination several weeks ago, but delayed it after the Boston Marathon bombings. Senior F.B.I. officials believed that if a candidate had not been nominated by the end of May, there may not have been enough time to confirm the candidate before the departure of Mr. Mueller, 68. He is mandated by law to leave his post by Sept. 4. The bombings, which marked the worst attacks on United States soil since Sept. 11, 2001, have raised questions about Mr. Mueller?s legacy and the bureau?s counterterrorism efforts. While the F.B.I. has been praised for helping to catch one of the suspected bombers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Congressional Republicans have raised questions about whether the bureau missed a chance to avert the attack. In 2011, it closed a file it had opened on the other suspected bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. who was killed in a shootout with police that ended with his being run over by a vehicle driven by his escaping brother. Mr. Comey will inherit a bureau that is far different than the one Mr. Mueller took over a week before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the aftermath, Mr. Mueller undertook the task of remaking the bureau into an intelligence and counterterrorism agency from one that had concentrated on white-collar crime and drugs. The number of agents has grown from 11,500 to roughly 14,000 under Mr. Mueller and the bureau has drastically invested in its facilities and capabilities, improving its computer systems, forensics analysis and intelligence sharing. In the year to come, Mr. Comey, who most recently served as the general counsel for the large Connecticut hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, will be confronted by the bureau?s budgetary shortfalls created by across-the-board budget cuts. He will also be forced to expand his knowledge of cybersecurity, which Mr. Mueller made one of the bureau?s chief priorities after counterterrorism. Mr. Comey graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1985, then had a meteoric rise at the Justice Department, culminating in his service as the department?s second-ranking official from 2003 to 2005. His first job was as an assistant United States attorney in Manhattan trying criminal cases. He worked briefly in private practice and went on to oversee the United States attorney?s office in Richmond, Va., where he made a name for himself as he pioneered Project Exile, a program that effectively cut the high homicide rate in the city by shifting firearm prosecutions from state court to federal court, where there were stiffer sentences. While working in Richmond, Mr. Ashcroft asked Mr. Comey in 2001 to take over the government?s floundering investigation of the 1996 terrorist bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American service members. The F.B.I. director at the time, Louis J. Freeh, had urged Mr. Ashcroft to take the case away from federal prosecutors in Washington who had been investigating for five years but had not brought charges. With a legal deadline looming over them, Mr. Comey and a colleague feverishly moved forward with the case and within three months indicted 14 men. Mr. Comey?s work on that case caught the attention of the White House, which two months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, nominated him to become the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the highest profile jobs in the Department of Justice. In that position, Mr. Comey oversaw the prosecutions of Martha Stewart, WorldCom executives and international drug dealers. In the 2004 hospital room episode, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were trying to get Mr. Ashcroft to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the eavesdropping program. Mr. Comey, who was the acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had to have emergency gall bladder surgery, had refused to reauthorize it. According to testimony Mr. Comey provided to Congress in 2007, Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed when Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card approached and refused to approve the program. ?I was angry,? Mr. Comey said in his testiomony. ?I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper.? Mr. Mueller had been required to leave his job in 2011 because of a 10-year term limit that was imposed by Congress in 1976. That measure had been implemented in an effort to prevent directors from amassing the power J. Edgar Hoover had during his nearly 40-year tenure leading the bureau. But in 2011, Mr. Obama asked Mr. Mueller to remain in his post. His administration had considered candidates like Raymond W. Kelly, New York City?s police commissioner; Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago; Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for national security; and Mr. Comey. But administration officials did not think they were good fits and they wanted to keep Mr. Mueller on because the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency were getting new leaders. The president asked the Senate to extend Mr. Mueller?s tenure by two years, and the measure was unanimously approved in July 2011. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 30 08:10:56 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:10:56 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Media revolt on DOJ 'news' meeting conditions Message-ID: Holder runs into roadblocks on off-the-record meetings on leaks CNN Senior Producer Carol Cratty Updated at 7:21 a.m. ET on Thursday 5/30 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/holder-runs-into-roadblocks-on-off-the-record-meetings-on-leaks/ Washington (CNN) - Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to sit down with media representatives to discuss guidelines for handling investigations into leaks to the news media have run into trouble. The Associated Press issued a statement Wednesday objecting to plans for the meetings to be off the record. "If it is not on the record, AP will not attend and instead will offer our views on how the regulations should be updated in an open letter," said Erin Madigan White, the AP's media relations manager. The New York Times is taking the same position. "It isn't appropriate for us to attend an off-the-record meeting with the attorney general," executive editor Jill Abramson said in a statement. Like the New York Times and the Associated Press, CNN will decline the invitation for an off-the-record meeting. A CNN spokesperson says if the meeting with the attorney general is on the record, CNN would plan to participate. The Huffington Post's Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim, also said he will not attend unless the meeting is on the record. "A conversation specifically about the freedom of the press should be an open one. We have a responsibility not to betray that," Grim told CNN. But Politico posted an item on its website saying editor-in-chief John Harris plans to attend one of the meetings with Holder. "As editor-in-chief, I routinely have off-the-record conversations with people who have questions or grievances about our coverage or our newsgathering practices," Harris said in the Politico item. "I feel anyone - whether an official or ordinary reader - should be able to have an unguarded conversation with someone in a position of accountability for a news organization when there is good reason." A Justice Department official said Wednesday the sessions would be off the record to encourage a full exchange of ideas. President Barack Obama directed the attorney general to review guidelines for investigations involving leaks to the media and said Holder would be meeting with journalists to get their views. This comes in the wake of disclosures that the government obtained AP phone records after the news organization reported classified details of a thwarted 2012 plot in Yemen to try to blow up a plane with a bomb. The government also obtained e-mails and phone records for a Fox journalist who allegedly received a classified report on North Korea from a former State Department contractor. A Justice Department official said Holder would hold his first meetings with the media on Thursday and Friday. The official said the attorney general has a "longstanding belief that protecting and defending the First Amendment is essential to our democracy." The official said the sessions would include print, television, radio, wire services and online media. ?Jesse Solomon, Jim Acosta and Kevin Bohn contributed to this report. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 30 08:11:05 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:11:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Universal Music Tells Gangnam Parody Mayors: Pay $42, 000 By Tomorrow, Or Else Message-ID: Universal Music Tells Gangnam Parody Mayors: Pay $42,000 By Tomorrow, Or Else ? Andy ? May 30, 2013 Four mayors in Denmark now know what it?s like to become a target of an international recording label out for blood over copyright. The controversy stems from the publication of a YouTube video featuring the officials dancing to Gangnam Style. Universal Music, the company holding the copyright to the original track, have warned the mayors that unless they pay $42,000 by tomorrow, a copyright infringement battle will follow. < - > http://torrentfreak.com/universal-music-tells-gangnam-parody-mayors-pay-42000-by-tomorrow-or-else-130530/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 30 13:39:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:39:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA: There's Been No Innovation Stifling Here! Message-ID: RIAA: There's Been No Innovation Stifling Here! http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130525/03394223212/riaa-theres-been-no-innovation-stifling-here.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu May 30 18:50:18 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:50:18 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?utf-8?q?China_to_conduct_=E2=80=98digital_techn?= =?utf-8?q?ology=E2=80=99_military_exercise?= Message-ID: <28C9ED55-12B6-4285-9E4C-488FBBA5F090@infowarrior.org> China to conduct ?digital technology? military exercise next month: report Reuters and AFP, BEIJING and SYDNEY / Thu, May 30, 2013 - Page 1, Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/05/30/2003563519 China will conduct its first ?digital technology? military exercise next month, state media said yesterday, amid growing concern in Washington and elsewhere about Chinese hacking attacks. A report by the official Xinhua news agency said the exercise, in northern China?s remote Inner Mongolia region, will ?test new types of combat forces, including units using digital technology amid efforts to adjust to informationalized war.? ?It will be the first time a People?s Liberation Army exercise has focused on combat forces including digitalized units, special operations forces, army aviation and electronic counter forces,? the brief English-language report added. Meanwhile, the security chief of controversial Chinese telecom giant Huawei (??) said that using the Internet to spy and steal sensitive data is standard practice by all countries. The comments published yesterday follow allegations that Chinese hackers gained access to secret designs for a slew of sophisticated US weapons programs, and stole the blueprints for Australia?s new intelligence agency headquarters. John Suffolk, a former chief information officer with the British government and now head of security operations at Huawei, said he was not surprised by claims of international hacking. ?Governments have always done that,? he told the Australian Financial Review, adding that the ?harsh reality is every government around the world has a similar strap-line for their security agencies.? ?Some people say that spying is the second-oldest profession, where people have tried to get information off us for somebody else, so I don?t think anyone is surprised that any government around the world is trying to find out what other governments around the world are doing,? Suffolk said. Huawei has been at the center of cyberespionage concerns itself, with the US Congress last year raising fears that its ties with Beijing meant telecom equipment supplied by the company could be used for spying. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 07:53:19 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:53:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google will make critical security exploits public after seven days Message-ID: <269E5A18-2070-452A-A690-94FDD620E0D4@infowarrior.org> (c/o AP) Despite opposition, Google will make critical security exploits public after seven days By Jeff Blagdon on May 30, 2013 04:42 am http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/30/4379004/google-to-make-critical-zero-day-exploits-public-after-7-days Google?s security researchers are well known for uncovering vulnerabilities in other people's products. Standard operating procedure is to give the affected company sixty days before publishing the problem, keeping things under wraps until a fix can be shipped out. But when it comes to critical vulnerabilities that are actively being exploited, Google wants its researchers to cut that down to just a week. A post on its Online Security Blog explains the reasoning behind the seven-day guideline: "each day an actively exploited vulnerability remains undisclosed to the public and unpatched, more computers will be compromised." The change in policy comes two weeks after Google engineer Tavis Ormandy disclosed a publicly unknown vulnerability ("zero day") in Windows 7 and Windows 8. Ormandy made the announcement just five days after informing Microsoft of the bug, bemoaning the company?s security team as "difficult to work with." And while Google finds vulnerabilities in various companies' products, Redmond is a frequent target. In Microsoft's huge "Patch Tuesday" bugfix in February, Google researchers uncovered more than half of the reported flaws. The company says it's holding itself to the same standard So is Google in the right? The company argues that speedy disclosure is important for a bug that's actively being exploited, and that even if it?s not enough time for the affected vendor to patch its software, it should be long enough to tell users about workarounds that mitigate the problem. Others disagree, arguing that the benefits are outweighed by the likelihood that publicizing vulnerabilities puts hacking tools in the hands of malicious users. Google is still recommending the normal 60 days for vulnerabilities that are non-critical or aren?t being actively exploited, and the company says it?s holding itself to the same standard, but we doubt everyone is going to take too kindly to the revamped schedule. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 07:58:08 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:58:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Megaupload wins access to data seized in police raid Message-ID: 31 May 2013 Last updated at 05:47 ET http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22716718 Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has won access to evidence seized during raids on the file storage service. The decision to grant access was made by the New Zealand high court which said warrants used to grab the material were illegal. The ruling is a victory for Mr Dotcom who said his defence was harmed because police could see evidence he could not. Computers, hard drives and documents were grabbed in January 2012 during raids co-ordinated by US authorities. They accused Megaupload of making massive profits from digital piracy by helping people share movies and music illegally. The raids, led by the FBI, forced Megaupload to close. Mr Dotcom has denied the charges saying Megaupload was just a storage service that should not be held responsible for what its users did with it. He has fought a long-running legal battle over the case in New Zealand where he lives and has scored several victories. In September 2012 he won an apology from New Zealand's prime minister over the handling of the case. The latest decision requires New Zealand police to comb through the evidence scooped up in the raid and return any data files considered "irrelevant" to the case. Clones of this information created by investigators must be destroyed. In addition, copies of any information considered "relevant" to the ongoing case must also be handed over to Mr Dotcom's legal team. Lawyers working for Mr Dotcom have long requested access to the information as they prepare for an extradition hearing scheduled for August. US authorities want Mr Dotcom to face charges in the US over alleged copyright theft. This hearing may be delayed because of questions over whether the evidence being given by the US as justification for extradition was acquired illegally. A year after the Megaupload shut down, Mr Dotcom, formerly Kim Schmidt, started a separate online file-storage service called Mega. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 08:27:16 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:27:16 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Hacking_the_Drone_War=B9s_Secret?= =?windows-1252?q?_History?= Message-ID: Danger Room (Wired.com) May 30, 2013 Hacking the Drone War?s Secret History BY DAVID AXE http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/drone-api/ In 2008 U.S. troops in Iraq discovered that Shi?ite insurgents had figured out how to tap and record video feeds from overhead American drones. Now you too can hack Washington?s globe-spanning fleet of silent, deadly armed robots ? although legally, and only in an historical sense. Josh Begley, a 28-year-old NYU grad student, has just created an application programming interface ? basically, a collection of building blocks for software development ? that allows anyone with basic coding skills to organize, analyze and visualize drone-strike data from Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia dating back to 2002. Based on information collected by the U.K. Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the API can be used to create interactive Websites (similar to this) that add depth, context and even a little humanity to the sterile news reports of the latest Unmanned Aerial Vehicle strike in some far-away conflict zone. Begley tells Danger Room he?s trying to bridge the ?empathy gap? between Western audiences and drone-attack victims. ?To Americans like me, what may have previously been blank spots on the map all of a sudden have complex stories, voices of their own. From 30,000 feet it might just be cars and buildings. But there are people in them. People who live under the drones we fly.? Begley has already experimented with a few interfaces using his API. One, he says, ?assembles every covert drone attack on a Website, hides them behind numbered blank tiles, and lets you filter through the various years and countries where these attacks happened.? ?Another interface is more practical,? he adds. ?It?s just a simple search function ? for researchers and legal scholars who want to look for a specific drone attack, or more easily go to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and read the corresponding articles they?ve assembled.? The drone API, which is actually Begley?s master?s thesis, is not his first foray into capturing robot-attack data. His @dronestream Twitter feed, which documents all reported UAV attacks. Last year Begley created an iPhone app that tracks drone strikes, but Apple rejected it. Other developers have jumped on the bandwagon, too. London-based artist James Bridle runs a Tumblr blog that matches overhead satellite imagery to reports of drone attacks. The public release of Begley?s API, which took five months to complete, is timed to coincide with the White House-promoted National Day of Civic Hacking on June 1. Hacking Day aims to ?liberate government data for coders and entrepreneurs.? The ACLU, for one, is commemorating the event with an API linked to the group?s vast database of documents related to U.S.-sanctioned torture of terror suspects. ?I?m actually not sure what people will learn,? Begley says of his own drone-strike API. ?I just feel like I?ve been iterating on this data set for a little while and there are probably a bunch of more talented developers and designers who could find stuff in the data that I?m not seeing.? With Pres. Barack Obama?s recent promise to rein in robotic attacks, the time is ripe to begin making sense of 12 years of drone warfare that has claimed thousands of lives. Begley?s API makes that vital self-reflection a whole lot easier. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 13:50:19 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 'Classified Enemy' in Manning Case Confounds Scholars Message-ID: <6A0153F8-EED7-434F-B6C2-84A92C3FE2FF@infowarrior.org> Thursday, May 30, 2013Last Update: 8:31 AM PT 'Classified Enemy' in Manning Case Confounds Scholars By ADAM KLASFELD http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/30/58068.htm (CN) - The "classified enemy" designation attached to one of the three entities that WikiLeaker Bradley Manning is accused of aiding has perplexed and divided professors of military law. Manning, a 25-year-old former intelligence specialist, has been incarcerated for more than three years in connection with the largest intelligence disclosure in U.S. history. He recently admitted that he leaked hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, incident reports from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Guantanamo detainee profiles, and, most famously, footage of a Baghdad airstrike. In a statement he prepared in prison, Manning said that he exposed what he believed to be low-sensitivity files to promote a global dialogue about how the United States conducts war and diplomacy. Prosecutors accuse him of "aiding the enemy," and three in particular: al-Qaida, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and a "classified enemy" referred to by a Bates number, which is a form of legal document identification. Three professors of military law - Yale Law School's Eugene Fidell, Duke University School of Law's Scott Silliman and Texas Tech University School of Law's Richard Rosen - told Courthouse News they had never heard of a case involving a "classified enemy." After being informed that the phrase stumped the professors, a military spokeswoman insisted that the confusion stemmed from a misunderstanding, because "who the enemy 'is' is not classified." "What 'is' classified is that our government has confirmed that this enemy is in receipt of certain compromised classified information, and that the means and methods of collection that the government has employed to make that determination are classified," the spokeswoman said in an email. Illustrating the concept with an historical example, she cited the controversial thesis of British Royal Air Force Group Capt. F.W. Winterbotham's book 'The Ultra Secret." "It has been alleged that Churchill refused to warn Coventry of an impending Nazi blitz attack because he did not want to tip the Germans about the UK's signal intelligence (Ultra), which could decipher German codes using Enigma," the spokeswoman said. She added that both parties agreed on the shorthand "classified enemy" to describe the identity of the enemy allegedly aided and the "full set of information covered in those classified pages of discovery." Adding more ingredients to the stew, the military judge presiding over Manning's case, Col. Denise Lind, wrote in her Nov. 26 "draft instructions" that she will decide who qualifies as an "enemy." According to that document, an enemy can include both "organized opposing forces in a time of war," and any "hostile body," such as a "rebellious mob or band of renegades." Referring to this language, the military's spokeswoman added: "Thus the court will consider whether the 'enemy' element is met based on the evidence provided, including, for example, if a State Department designation is presented, but that might just be persuasive, not conclusive." The military's elaborated explanation appeared to satisfy Silliman, the Duke professor. "It does not raise constitutional questions, and dealing with classified issues such as this is commonplace in military trials and in trials in our federal district courts," Silliman said. "All this is to say that I think it's a non-issue." Constitutional questions aside, Silliman acknowledged that the facts of the case that led to the "classified enemy" moniker were sui generis. "I have not heard of any similar cases," he said. Eugene Fidell, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, was far more ambivalent about the military's rationale. "Well, I guess [the spokeswoman] has somewhat clarified matters, but it still seems mighty strange," Fidell said in an email. "I cannot think of a prior case in which this precise issue has come up." Rosen, the Texas Tech professor, said the military's explanation did "not change my original thoughts." "With respect to whether the case is unprecedented, I have never seen one like it; however, that does not mean that there have not been others like it," Rosen said. In an earlier email, he explained: "Nearly all modern aiding the enemy cases deal with misconduct by American prisoners of war - the most famous being Robert Garwood, who assisted the North Vietnamese in their dealings with other POWs, including serving as an informer. He disappeared in Vietnam for 14 years [and], when he ultimately returned to the United States, was court-martialed for his offenses." The court-martial ended in Garwood's dishonorable discharge from the Marines, reduction to the rank of private and forfeiture of all back pay. There has not been an "aiding the enemy" charge for a leak to the press since the Civil War-era case of Pvt. Henry Vanderwater, who was punished with three months of hard labor for giving an Alexandria, Va., newspaper a command roster of Union soldiers, according to an Associated Press article. Manning, by contrast, faces life imprisonment without parole if convicted on his aiding the enemy charge. He has admitted to 10 lesser counts of 22 against him, in a revised form that would reduce his sentencing exposure to two decades. Prosecutors have accepted only one of his guilty pleas, and will try to convict him on all counts. That trial, which is expected to last more than two months, opens Monday. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 13:50:21 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:50:21 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - IP Commission: Cut Off WHO Funding If It Doesn't Make IP Protection Priority One Message-ID: <61F69A14-EC9B-4746-8632-1015568A5F99@infowarrior.org> IP Commission: Cut Off WHO Funding If It Doesn't Make IP Protection Priority One from the if-you-haven't-got-your-health-IP,-you-haven't-got-anyt dept The IP Commission Report on the "theft" of American IP is the gift that keeps on taking. We've already discussed the commission's suggestion that infringers' computers be loaded up with spyware and malware and the apparent "fact" that China has singlehandendly destroyed every IP-reliant industry in America. Hidden towards the bottom of the report is (yet another) terrible proposal, guided by the heavy hand of self-interest. It plainly spells out the commission's priorities: American IP above all else, even the health and well-being of other nations. Recommend to Congress and the administration that U.S. funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) program budget in whole or in part be withheld until (1) the WHO?s process of certifying national regulatory agencies includes attestation that IP protection is an essential part of the regulatory evaluation process, and (2) the WHO refrains from prequalifying any product until the regulating agency of jurisdiction demonstrates and certifies that it does not violate IP rights... The U.S. government has leverage at the WHO chiefly because of its financial support, which consists of annual ?means tested? contributions to the WHO?s program budget and ?voluntary? contributions whose total value is about $350 million. This support from the United States can be a carrot or a stick to influence the WHO?s actions. So, if the WHO puts health ahead of American IP holders, the US should just cut off its contributions to the organization, and indirectly, the countries it assists. One would think that the "regulatory evaluation process" would be primarily concerned with ensuring new drugs and medical technology do more good than harm, healthwise. The possibility of IP infringement probably doesn't even cross the radar of the WHO. That job belongs to other agencies. But the commission ties IP enforcement and worldwide health together, forcing one to rely on the other by linking US monetary contributions to protection of American IP. The WHO would now be required to make sure rights holders aren't being cut out of a market before attempting to solve larger problems -- like halting an outbreak before it becomes an epidemic. < -- > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130526/19422123216/ip-commission-cut-off-who-funding-if-it-doesnt-make-ip-protection-priority-one.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 15:22:56 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:22:56 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - CFP: CyberMaryland 2013 Presentations Message-ID: <9A2963F3-C3AB-421F-AB77-39EECA4AEA6E@infowarrior.org> CyberMaryland 2013 Baltimore Convention Center October 8-9 2013 Submission deadline: June 21, 2013 PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT CAREFULLY PRIOR TO SUBMITTING YOUR ABSTRACTS ONLINE. GENERAL INFORMATION We are now accepting speaking proposals for CyberMaryland 2013. Speaker abstracts will be evaluated by the conference committee. Sessions based upon subject matter expertise, technological developments and best practices are encouraged. Most sessions will accommodate 45 minute presentations. We are very interested in government and industry speakers sharing their expertise and solutions in the Information Security field. Suggested topics for CyberMaryland 2013 include: ? Transfer of Knowledge and Technology from Government to Commercial Markets ? Licensing and Technology from Academia to Commercial Markets ? NIST Cyber Security Center of Excellence ? NICE Framework ? Understanding Cyber Legislation - Current Bills ? Malware in the Cloud ? How hackers and scammers are getting your personal data (& how they use it) ? SANS 20 Controls ? Threat Research & Feeds ? Cybersecurity Trends & Futures ? Trusted Computers, Microsoft, Big Data Analytics ? How secure is your on-line video chat? Securing your online video chat. ? Disruptive Technologies of the Future ? Privacy vs. Protection ? Security's Last Frontier: Situational Intelligence & Real World Execution & Enforcement ? The Top 10 Technologies You Need to Know ? Cloud Security Alliance National Cybersecurity: Past, Present & Future ? Joint strategy for securing cyberspace ? Leveraging Processes developed by US Government for Private Sector Security ? Securing mobile devices ? Mobile workforce security ? Developing Cyber Security Personnel ? Online Banking Security ? Incident Management for Small Business Networks ? Managing your cloud security - risks you need to understand and deal with. ? Worms in the Apple - iOS security vulnerabilities ? Insuring the Cyber Threat & the Risks of Doing Nothing All abstracts for Speakers must be submitted online by June 21, 2013. Instant confirmation e-mail will be delivered upon successful submission. Acceptance notification from the Review Committee will be sent out once the agenda has been finalized. TITLE: The topic should be relevant to the conference theme and current concerns of the topic. Maximum length of the title is 12 words. CONTENT DESCRIPTION: The description must clearly align with the content of the abstract in final, publishable format, free of errors. The online submission system automatically limits content description to a maximum of 300 words. Presentations must fulfill a time slot of 45 minutes of presenting, with or without Q&A. Guidelines: http://www.fbcinc.com/e/cybermdconference/guidelines.aspx Submissions Page: http://www.fbcinc.com/e/cybermdconference/submissions.aspx CyberMaryland 2013 Conference / MDC3 2013 Main Page http://www.fbcinc.com/e/cybermdconference/default.aspx --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri May 31 21:23:04 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 22:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ding dong, NMCI's gone Message-ID: Marine Corps prepares to cut cord on NMCI Friday - 5/31/2013, 6:14am ET Jared Serbu http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=851&sid=3342421 Saturday is a big day in information technology for the Marine Corps: the service officially will transition from the privately-run Navy-Marine Corps Intranet that's been the backbone of its IT capability for the last dozen years and take control of its own network operations. The transition is a part of the years-long, gradual wind-down of NMCI, which, for now, remains the federal government's largest outsourced IT program and the second largest computer network in the world ? second only to the public Internet. The Navy and Marine Corps are taking slightly separate paths in the post-NMCI world under a new construct called the Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN). Navy officials announced this week they expect to award a long-delayed contract to operate their network under NGEN by June 30. The Marines' portion of the network, however, will be government-owned and government-operated. "The first of June will be a milestone date in the history of the Marine Corps," said Robert Scott Jack, the Marine Corps' deputy chief information officer. "We will once again have our hands on the stick, flying the network. We will take over the operation and defense of the Marine Corps Enterprise Network in total." No noticeable changes expected Officials say neither Navy nor Marine Corps users should notice any changes right away though. The services have spent the past several years buying back the physical and intellectual property that make up NMCI from HP, the company that inherited the contract when it bought EDS, which had owned and operated the network for more than 12 years. Officials say the new contract structure will give them more control and flexibility to modernize the network over time, but for the short term, it'll still look a lot like NMCI. "I hope we never see June 1 recorded in the history of the Marine Corps. The measure of merit will be that you wake up on Saturday and there ain't nothing different," Jack said during AFCEA Northern Virginia's annual Navy IT day Wednesday, in Vienna, Va. "The network is alive, it's operational, it's meeting its mission requirements and you proceed on as if nothing had happened." Once the Marine Corps take legal control of the network infrastructure, one of their first tasks will be to consolidate it with four other networks that were never brought under the NMCI umbrella, said Kevin Nally, the Marine Corps' CIO. Those existing stovepipes include the networks used by the Marine Corps Reserve, the service's recruiting command and its training and education command. "We need to collapse these to save money," he said. "My brilliant engineers have mapped out, down to the switches, every piece of the Marine Corps Enterprise Network. They put the as-is on the top of a chart, and it took up three-quarters of my conference room, and the to-be was on the bottom. When you just look at that from a non-technical perspective, you just go, 'Wow, there's a lot less IT on the bottom than at the top.' To me, that means less labor and less IT that I have to buy." The model for the JIE Nally said the legwork to unify those networks will start next month. And with that detailed roadmap in hand, he said he's been arguing forcefully to U.S. Cyber Command and to the DoD chief information officer that the Marines' forthcoming enterprise network should form the basis for the Defense Department's much broader effort to unify its networks under a common, standards-based architecture: the Joint Information Environment. And from Nally's perspective, DoD hasn't made much progress so far. "We've all been working that effort for two years, and we're still at the stage of PowerPoint slides," he said. "There's nothing in 2014 or 2015 that budgets anything for this effort." While JIE is not specifically budgeted, Nally said he's made the case to higher- ups in the joint environment that DoD's current cost estimate to implement the interoperable environment in Europe, its first testbed, is ill-defined and overly expensive at $6 billion, and doesn't even include several expensive cost drivers. After seeing the Marine Corps' plan for its own network unification, he said he concluded it should serve as the foundation for DoD's overall approach. "I was thinking this was a strategic win for us. When my folks briefed me on a Friday afternoon, I said I wanted to brief DoD CIO Teri Takai and [U.S. Cyber Command Commander] Keith Alexander right away. I said, 'This is the frickin' JIE. It's right here,'" he said. "We briefed her for like an hour and a half, and she said, 'That's it.' General Alexander said, 'That's it.' I've given them all of the thick technical documents that say this is how you transition a network and this is how you unify a network. We're working really hard right now with the Defense Information Systems Agency right now to say this is how you move this thing forward." At the same time, the Marines are offloading some of the work they currently pay DISA to do, finding the defense IT agency's rates to be higher than they'd like. Nally said the Marine Corps is moving nine of its programs out of DISA's computing centers and into its own cloud computing environment, Marine Corps Enterprise Information Technology Services (MCEITS). That data center is housed in Kansas City, Mo., and the Marines recently committed to lawmakers that it will stay there through at least 2017. The Marines also are declining to move to DISA's service for enterprise email, saying they can continue to handle email themselves for almost half of what DISA charges. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.