'The data being collected by the NSA, FBI and DHS is being converted to technological weapons against the American public. This surveillance will undoubtedly be used as criminal evidence for trial.
The inception of the NSA-GCHQ ECHELON system with the immensely profitable Surveillance Industrial Complex has become a technologically advanced interception system, as journalist Nicky Hager predicted in 1996.
ECHELON was designed to extract massive amounts of data indiscriminately. A covert system of interception facilities was built to spy on the world’s satellites, international telecommunication, and radio communications. ECHELON was the link between all these and provided the US government with high-tech surveillance capabilities for its time.'
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Arizona Law Passes House 25 Years In Prison If You Offend Anyone Online
Arizona Rep. Ted Vogt recently addressed Arizona Bill 2549 that passed the House Thursday and is now awaiting the governors approval.
This Bill, now set for approval is very dangerous to almost anyone who uses an electronic devise. In fact, so dangerous it could land you in prison for 25 years for essentially hurting someones feelings on the internet.
Not to mention government paid troll hackers are advancing on all fronts as innocent people, truthers, patriots, or people such as the likes of Ron Paul supporters could easily be set up and/or targeted by nefarious people, organizations, or even Big Brother.
In a recent article from CNN, Rep. Ted Vogt shills for the establishment in a failed attempt to trick the general public;
“I think they’re absolutely mistaken,” Arizona Rep. Ted Vogt said of bloggers and civil liberties groups that said the bill would censor the Internet. “They clearly haven’t read the bill. This law targets a course of conduct where an individual is harassing, threatening or annoying a specific (person).”
Here’s the paragraph in the bill that got everyone riled up:
“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received.”
Observers said that language was overly broad and could be applied to censor the comments sections of websites and other public digital forums.
Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be “unwanted or unsolicited.” Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.
The bill will not apply to online comment sections or semi-public forums such as Facebook walls, Vogt said.
“With Facebook, you’ve got control over who your friends are,” he said. “So if somebody is threatening you and you never de-friend them then you’re not controlling it. You’re inviting people to comment freely on your Facebook page. You can de-friend them and you can end the problem there.”
Comments sections are the same, he said, since websites don’t have to invite people to comment and can take down those sections if they are worried about threats.
Some will argue that the Bill is great and we should be happy that our loving government will regulate cyber bullies on the internet like they regulate bullies at elementary school playgrounds across the nation.
So what will justify harassment?
The Bill currently reads;
“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received.”
Well that pretty much covers it, if you so much as annoy or offend someone on the internet you can do prison time.
Lot’s of people are annoying to me, some actually reside in Arizona. How will this affect them if I complain that they annoy me? Will they get prison time?
The above is an example of just how ridiculous and ultimately dangerous this Bill actually is. It also makes one wonder how far this will actually go.
For example;
Can the media even report or offer opinion anymore? Articles appearing on the internet by every major media publication and outfit imaginable contain opinion or what someone could deem offensive.
Will this limit our freedom of press if someone in the limelight claims they were annoyed?
Will Jan Brewer sign the bill?
This Bill, now set for approval is very dangerous to almost anyone who uses an electronic devise. In fact, so dangerous it could land you in prison for 25 years for essentially hurting someones feelings on the internet.
Not to mention government paid troll hackers are advancing on all fronts as innocent people, truthers, patriots, or people such as the likes of Ron Paul supporters could easily be set up and/or targeted by nefarious people, organizations, or even Big Brother.
In a recent article from CNN, Rep. Ted Vogt shills for the establishment in a failed attempt to trick the general public;
“I think they’re absolutely mistaken,” Arizona Rep. Ted Vogt said of bloggers and civil liberties groups that said the bill would censor the Internet. “They clearly haven’t read the bill. This law targets a course of conduct where an individual is harassing, threatening or annoying a specific (person).”
Here’s the paragraph in the bill that got everyone riled up:
“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received.”
Observers said that language was overly broad and could be applied to censor the comments sections of websites and other public digital forums.
Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be “unwanted or unsolicited.” Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.
The bill will not apply to online comment sections or semi-public forums such as Facebook walls, Vogt said.
“With Facebook, you’ve got control over who your friends are,” he said. “So if somebody is threatening you and you never de-friend them then you’re not controlling it. You’re inviting people to comment freely on your Facebook page. You can de-friend them and you can end the problem there.”
Comments sections are the same, he said, since websites don’t have to invite people to comment and can take down those sections if they are worried about threats.
Some will argue that the Bill is great and we should be happy that our loving government will regulate cyber bullies on the internet like they regulate bullies at elementary school playgrounds across the nation.
So what will justify harassment?
The Bill currently reads;
“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received.”
Well that pretty much covers it, if you so much as annoy or offend someone on the internet you can do prison time.
Lot’s of people are annoying to me, some actually reside in Arizona. How will this affect them if I complain that they annoy me? Will they get prison time?
The above is an example of just how ridiculous and ultimately dangerous this Bill actually is. It also makes one wonder how far this will actually go.
For example;
Can the media even report or offer opinion anymore? Articles appearing on the internet by every major media publication and outfit imaginable contain opinion or what someone could deem offensive.
Will this limit our freedom of press if someone in the limelight claims they were annoyed?
Will Jan Brewer sign the bill?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Jail For Possessing Web Security Software?
As new waves of cybersecurity legislation are expected to put into law over the next few years the EU Parliament gave us a taste of what lies on the road ahead.
By an overwhelming majority the parliament passed yesterday which will make it a criminal offense to possess or distribute a wide variety of software.
The software being outlawed has many legitimate purposes such as security and vulnerability testing by IT experts researchers in the academic fields but is used by hackers with malicious intent to attack computer systems.
Under the new draft legislation possessing or distributing such software will now carry a minimum two year jail term.
The legislation also outlaws spoofing IP addresses, which allows users to hide the source location of traffic being sent over the internet, with a proposed penalty of up to 3 years in prison.
The legislation also proposes jail sentences for anyone launching cyber attacks against any website, database or network and would similarly will apply to anyone illegally accessing, interfering with and intercepting data.
Jail terms for more serious offenses with aggravating circumstances, such as botnet attacks or ones that causes significant service disruption, financial costs or loss of financial data, will carry a minimum jail term of 5 years.
There will also be stiffer penalties offenses for more serious offenses, although the details of those violations and their specific penalties are still being hammered out.
MEPs also propose tougher penalties for attacks committed by a criminal organization or attacks that target critical infrastructure such as the IT systems of power plants or transport networks.
The legislation also say that no jail sentences sanctions SHOULD apply to minor cases such as when the damage caused by the offense is insignificant, but the use of the term SHOULD means that law enforcement officials will be at liberty to choose whether or not to ask for jail for any offense, no matter how insignificant.
The new legislation also allows companies caught engaged in corporate sponsored hacking to be sued for their activities.
Corporations will be liable for offenses committed for their benefit by for employees no matter if the corporation deliberately gave instructions conduct the attack or whether occurred under a lack of supervision.
While that may seem innocent at first because corporations should be liable for their employee’s activities it will also force corporation to monitor their employees online activity in order to make sure such incidents do no occur.
The proposed draft legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority of 50 votes yes votes to just one no vote with three members not voting.
The law will merge laws in individual nations across Europe and allow all offenders to be prosecuted under the criminal misuse act.
The proposed legislation also introduces Europol as a center for coordinating intelligence information and protocols to follow between the law enforcement agencies in the individual EU nations .
The EU is hoping to have the legislation finalized and passed into law by summer of this year.
From the EU parliament press release.
Cyber attacks on IT systems would become a criminal offence punishable by at least two years in prison throughout the EU under a draft law backed by the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday. Possessing or distributing hacking software and tools would also be an offence, and companies would be liable for cyber attacks committed for their benefit.
The proposal, which would update existing EU legislation on cyber attacks, was approved with by 50 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.
“We are dealing here with serious criminal attacks, some of which are even conducted by criminal organisations. The financial damage caused for companies, private users and the public side amounts to several billions each year” said rapporteur Monika Hohlmeier (EPP, DE). “No car manufacturer may send a car without a seatbelt into the streets. And if this happens, the company will be held liable for any damage. These rules must also apply in the virtual world” she added.
The proposal would establish harmonised penal sanctions against perpetrators of cyber attacks against an information system – for instance a network, database or website. Illegal access, interference or interception of data should be treated as a criminal offence, MEPs say.
The maximum penalty to be imposed by Member States for these offences would be at least two years’ imprisonment, and at least five years where there are aggravating circumstances such as the use of a tool specifically designed to for large-scale (e.g. “botnet”) attacks, or attacks cause considerable damage (e.g. by disrupting system service), financial costs or loss of financial data.
IP spoofing
Using another person’s electronic identity (e.g. by “spoofing” their IP address), to commit an attack, and causing prejudice to the rightful identity owner would also be an aggravating circumstance – for which MEPs say Member States must set a maximum penalty of at least three years.
MEPs also propose tougher penalties if the attack is committed by a criminal organisation and/or if it targets critical infrastructure such as the IT systems of power plants or transport networks.
However, no criminal sanctions should apply to “minor cases”, i.e. when the damage caused by the offence is insignificant.
Cyber-attack tools
The proposal also targets tools used to commit offences: the production or sale of devices such as computer programs designed for cyber-attacks, or which find a computer password by which an information system can be accessed, would constitute criminal offences.
Liability of legal persons
Legal persons would be liable for offences committed for their benefit (e.g. a company would be liable for hiring a hacker to get access to a competitor’s database), whether deliberately or through a lack of supervision. They would also face penalties such as exclusion for entitlement to public benefits or judicial winding-up.
To resist cross-border cyber-attacks, Member States need to ensure that their networks of national contact points are available round the clock, and can respond to urgent requests within a maximum of eight hours, says the text.
Background
Large-scale cyber-attacks took place in Estonia in 2007 and Lithuania in 2008. In March 2009, public and private sector IT systems in more than 103 countries were attacked using a “zombie” network of compromised, infected computers.
Next steps
The Rapporteur aims for a political agreement between Parliament and Council on this Directive by the summer.
By an overwhelming majority the parliament passed yesterday which will make it a criminal offense to possess or distribute a wide variety of software.
The software being outlawed has many legitimate purposes such as security and vulnerability testing by IT experts researchers in the academic fields but is used by hackers with malicious intent to attack computer systems.
Under the new draft legislation possessing or distributing such software will now carry a minimum two year jail term.
The legislation also outlaws spoofing IP addresses, which allows users to hide the source location of traffic being sent over the internet, with a proposed penalty of up to 3 years in prison.
The legislation also proposes jail sentences for anyone launching cyber attacks against any website, database or network and would similarly will apply to anyone illegally accessing, interfering with and intercepting data.
Jail terms for more serious offenses with aggravating circumstances, such as botnet attacks or ones that causes significant service disruption, financial costs or loss of financial data, will carry a minimum jail term of 5 years.
There will also be stiffer penalties offenses for more serious offenses, although the details of those violations and their specific penalties are still being hammered out.
MEPs also propose tougher penalties for attacks committed by a criminal organization or attacks that target critical infrastructure such as the IT systems of power plants or transport networks.
The legislation also say that no jail sentences sanctions SHOULD apply to minor cases such as when the damage caused by the offense is insignificant, but the use of the term SHOULD means that law enforcement officials will be at liberty to choose whether or not to ask for jail for any offense, no matter how insignificant.
The new legislation also allows companies caught engaged in corporate sponsored hacking to be sued for their activities.
Corporations will be liable for offenses committed for their benefit by for employees no matter if the corporation deliberately gave instructions conduct the attack or whether occurred under a lack of supervision.
While that may seem innocent at first because corporations should be liable for their employee’s activities it will also force corporation to monitor their employees online activity in order to make sure such incidents do no occur.
The proposed draft legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority of 50 votes yes votes to just one no vote with three members not voting.
The law will merge laws in individual nations across Europe and allow all offenders to be prosecuted under the criminal misuse act.
The proposed legislation also introduces Europol as a center for coordinating intelligence information and protocols to follow between the law enforcement agencies in the individual EU nations .
The EU is hoping to have the legislation finalized and passed into law by summer of this year.
From the EU parliament press release.
Cyber attacks on IT systems would become a criminal offence punishable by at least two years in prison throughout the EU under a draft law backed by the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday. Possessing or distributing hacking software and tools would also be an offence, and companies would be liable for cyber attacks committed for their benefit.
The proposal, which would update existing EU legislation on cyber attacks, was approved with by 50 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.
“We are dealing here with serious criminal attacks, some of which are even conducted by criminal organisations. The financial damage caused for companies, private users and the public side amounts to several billions each year” said rapporteur Monika Hohlmeier (EPP, DE). “No car manufacturer may send a car without a seatbelt into the streets. And if this happens, the company will be held liable for any damage. These rules must also apply in the virtual world” she added.
The proposal would establish harmonised penal sanctions against perpetrators of cyber attacks against an information system – for instance a network, database or website. Illegal access, interference or interception of data should be treated as a criminal offence, MEPs say.
The maximum penalty to be imposed by Member States for these offences would be at least two years’ imprisonment, and at least five years where there are aggravating circumstances such as the use of a tool specifically designed to for large-scale (e.g. “botnet”) attacks, or attacks cause considerable damage (e.g. by disrupting system service), financial costs or loss of financial data.
IP spoofing
Using another person’s electronic identity (e.g. by “spoofing” their IP address), to commit an attack, and causing prejudice to the rightful identity owner would also be an aggravating circumstance – for which MEPs say Member States must set a maximum penalty of at least three years.
MEPs also propose tougher penalties if the attack is committed by a criminal organisation and/or if it targets critical infrastructure such as the IT systems of power plants or transport networks.
However, no criminal sanctions should apply to “minor cases”, i.e. when the damage caused by the offence is insignificant.
Cyber-attack tools
The proposal also targets tools used to commit offences: the production or sale of devices such as computer programs designed for cyber-attacks, or which find a computer password by which an information system can be accessed, would constitute criminal offences.
Liability of legal persons
Legal persons would be liable for offences committed for their benefit (e.g. a company would be liable for hiring a hacker to get access to a competitor’s database), whether deliberately or through a lack of supervision. They would also face penalties such as exclusion for entitlement to public benefits or judicial winding-up.
To resist cross-border cyber-attacks, Member States need to ensure that their networks of national contact points are available round the clock, and can respond to urgent requests within a maximum of eight hours, says the text.
Background
Large-scale cyber-attacks took place in Estonia in 2007 and Lithuania in 2008. In March 2009, public and private sector IT systems in more than 103 countries were attacked using a “zombie” network of compromised, infected computers.
Next steps
The Rapporteur aims for a political agreement between Parliament and Council on this Directive by the summer.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
10 Reasons Why The Internet Will Never Be Private Again
The Internet is rapidly being transformed into a Big Brother control grid where privacy rights are being systematically strangled to death. The control freaks that run things have become absolutely obsessed with watching, tracking, monitoring and recording virtually everything that you do on the Internet. One thing that you can count on is that nothing you do on the Internet will ever be private again. In fact, if you are obsessed with privacy then the last place you want to be is on the Internet. Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far Internet surveillance has advanced in the past few years. At this point, it would be hard to imagine any place less private than the Internet. Do not ever put anything on the Internet that you would not want the authorities or your employer to hold you accountable for. Basically, the Internet is creating a permanent dossier on each one of us, and we contribute to this process by freely posting gigantic volumes of information about ourselves on social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. The Internet is the greatest tool for mass communication that the world has perhaps ever seen, and it gives average citizens the ability to communicate with each other like never before, but there is also a downside to using the Internet. Everything that we do on the Internet is being watched, monitored and recorded and there is no longer any such thing as Internet privacy. If you think that you still have any privacy on the Internet, then you are either ignorant of what is going on or you are being delusional.
The following are 10 reasons why nothing you do on the Internet will ever be private again....
#1 The Federal Government Can Now Retain Your Internet Activity For Five Years - Even If You Have No Links To Terrorism
In the past, the National Counterterrorism Center could only retain information about you for 180 days if you did not have any links to terrorism.
Well, that has now completely changed.
Attorney General Eric Holder has signed new guidelines which will now allow the National Counterterrorism Center to hold on to your private information (including your Internet activity) for five years.
But an extra four and a half extra years is no big deal, right?
#2 Potential Employers Are Demanding To See Your Internet Activity
In the past, potential employers would pull up the social media profiles of job candidates in order to get a better idea of who they might be hiring.
But now, many potential employers are actually demanding the passwords to the Facebook accounts of job applicants.
The following comes from a recent CBS News report....
The bad news is that employers are increasingly asking job seekers for their Facebook and other social-media passwords as part of the process of vetting them.
While it's unclear how widespread that practice is, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it is happening with increasing frequency, as CBS MoneyWatch's Suzanne Lucas details. You can, of course, refuse to give a job interviewer your passwords. But expect your employment application to hit the round file, or the trash, if you don't cooperate.
#3 Law Enforcement Is Watching You
Do you remember the father that posted that "Facebook Parenting for the troubled teen" video that went wildly viral all over the Internet earlier this year?
That video was watched more than 31 million times, but it also resulted in both the police and Child Protective Services officials visiting his home.
So be careful what you post on YouTube. If you post something that they don't like, law enforcement personnel may come knocking on your door.
#4 Government Agencies Are Watching You
The FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military and the Federal Reserve have all announced plans to systematically monitor social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter.
These agencies have lists of "keywords" that they use to search for posts that they want to look at.
For example, the words "attack", "exercise" and "epidemic" are just three of the keywords that the Department of Homeland Security is known to use.
So keep that in mind the next time you post something on Facebook or Twitter.
The following is from a recent Salon article....
In 2010, the DHS National Operations Center established a Media Monitoring Capability (MMC). According to an internal agency document, MMC is tasked with “leveraging news stories, media reports and postings on social media sites… for operationally relevant data, information, analysis, and imagery.” The definition of operationally relevant data includes “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities,” “partisan or agenda-driven sites,” and a final category ambiguously labeled “research/studies, etc.”
#5 Barack Obama Is Watching You
The Obama campaign has launched "truth teams" which will be scouring the Internet for any rumors that are "not true" about Barack Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign.
So if you post something on the Internet about Barack Obama that the Obama campaign does not consider to be truthful, there is a good chance that a "truth team" will be examining what you have written.
#6 They Are Monitoring And Recording All Talk Radio (Including Internet Talk Radio)
As I have written about previously, the FBI has hired a company in Virginia to systematically record talk radio programs (including Internet talk radio programs) all over the United States. The goal of this effort is to collect "potential evidence", whatever that means. The following comes from an article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....
If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.
#7 Foreign Governments Are Watching You
It isn't just the U.S. government that is watching you on the Internet. The truth is that governments all over the world could be monitoring your Internet activity and you may never even know it.
In fact, the level of Internet surveillance in some countries is arguably even greater than it is in the United States.
For example, a new bill that has been introduced in Canada would give government authorities unprecedented power to monitor the Internet activities of Canadians....
The so-called “lawful access” legislation, tabled in the House of Commons Tuesday, will require Internet service providers and cellphone companies to hand over basic customer information — including name, address, phone number, email address, and ISP addresses — to authorities when requested, without the need for a warrant.
Dubbed “online spying” by critics, the bill is also expected to require ISPs and phone companies to install equipment for real-time surveillance and create new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.
The UK government is going even farther than that. A recent UK government report calls for ISPs to remove "extremist material" from the Internet. The following is an excerpt from that report....
The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit does limited but valuable work in challenging internet service providers to remove violent extremist material where it contravenes the law. We suggest that the Government work with internet service providers in the UK to develop a Code of Conduct committing them to removing violent extremist material, as defined for the purposes of section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006. Many relevant websites are hosted abroad: the Government should also therefore strive towards greater international cooperation to tackle this issue.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is taking things even farther than that. He recently stated that anyone in France that is caught regularly visiting websites "preaching hatred" will be prosecuted.
So what constitutes "extremist material" and what constitutes "preaching hatred"?
Unfortunately, almost every government on earth has different definitions for those things.
#8 We Are All Being Encouraged To Spy On One Another On The Internet
For the U.S. government, it isn't enough just to have bureaucrats and spooks spying on you. Now they want us to spy on one another.
The Department of Homeland Security has been heavily promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. The idea is that if you see something "suspicious" that you should report it to the authorities.
Unfortunately, the definition of "suspicious activity" has expanded so dramatically in recent years that it could include just about anything.
The paranoia among our leaders has gotten completely out of control. For example, a while back U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman requested that Google install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers could easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.
Thankfully nothing like that has been implemented yet, but that is the direction that we are heading as a nation.
#9 Your ISP Is Watching You
Most Americans have not even heard about this yet, but the truth is that starting later on this year your ISP will be spying on you to make sure that you are not downloading any copyrighted material.
SOPA and PIPA may have failed for now, but the Obama administration has brokered a deal between the entertainment industry and the major Internet providers that is absolutely unprecedented. This deal will go into effect on July 12th. The following is from a recent Raw Story article....
If you download potentially copyrighted software, videos or music, your Internet service provider (ISP) has been watching, and they’re coming for you.
Specifically, they’re coming for you on Thursday, July 12.
That’s the date when the nation’s largest ISPs will all voluntarily implement a new anti-piracy plan that will engage network operators in the largest digital spying scheme in history, and see some users’ bandwidth completely cut off until they sign an agreement saying they will not download copyrighted materials.
Word of the start date has been largely kept secret since ISPs announced their plans last June. The deal was brokered by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and coordinated by the Obama Administration.
So be careful what you download on the Internet.
Your ISP will be watching.
#10 The NSA Is Watching Everyone And Everything
It is safe to assume that any digital communication that you ever make will be intercepted and monitored by the NSA.
Of course this has been an open secret for years, but now the NSA is taking things to a whole new level.
The NSA has been constructing the largest spy center in the history of the world out in the Utah desert. The following is how a recent Wired article described this new facility....
Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”
So please do not assume that anything you do on the Internet will ever be private again.
The online world has now become a world where there is absolutely no privacy.
Some are responding to this new reality by running away from the Internet, but I think that is the wrong approach.
The Internet has broken the monopoly that the elite had on mass communication. It has given average people the ability to communicate with one another like never before. A YouTube video or a blog post that you put up today could be seen by tens of millions of people. Information is power, and the Internet has put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of the general population.
Yes, there will be people watching every single thing you do on the Internet. So it is important to be very careful.
But the Internet also gives us an opportunity to impact the world that is unlike anything previous generations have ever had. Something that you post on the Internet today could end up completely changing a life on the other side of the globe tomorrow. Those in power have begun to recognize how powerful the Internet is, and so they have begun to crack down on it.
It is also important to keep in mind that the Internet allows us to watch them as well. The Internet is an incredible tool for exposing evil and corruption, and over the past decade we have seen many instances when average people on the Internet have broken major news stories that the mainstream media would not dare touch initially.
In the final analysis, the ability to wake people up and to literally change the world outweighs the risks of being watched. If the world eventually descends into deep tyranny, you aren't going to have anywhere to hide even if you are not on the Internet.
Don't be afraid to stand up for the truth. It is better to do what is right and to be persecuted for it than to stand aside and do nothing.
The Internet is an awesome tool. It can be used for great good or for great evil.
If we sit on our hands, we will accomplish nothing.
But if we try, we might just end up changing the world.
The following are 10 reasons why nothing you do on the Internet will ever be private again....
#1 The Federal Government Can Now Retain Your Internet Activity For Five Years - Even If You Have No Links To Terrorism
In the past, the National Counterterrorism Center could only retain information about you for 180 days if you did not have any links to terrorism.
Well, that has now completely changed.
Attorney General Eric Holder has signed new guidelines which will now allow the National Counterterrorism Center to hold on to your private information (including your Internet activity) for five years.
But an extra four and a half extra years is no big deal, right?
#2 Potential Employers Are Demanding To See Your Internet Activity
In the past, potential employers would pull up the social media profiles of job candidates in order to get a better idea of who they might be hiring.
But now, many potential employers are actually demanding the passwords to the Facebook accounts of job applicants.
The following comes from a recent CBS News report....
The bad news is that employers are increasingly asking job seekers for their Facebook and other social-media passwords as part of the process of vetting them.
While it's unclear how widespread that practice is, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it is happening with increasing frequency, as CBS MoneyWatch's Suzanne Lucas details. You can, of course, refuse to give a job interviewer your passwords. But expect your employment application to hit the round file, or the trash, if you don't cooperate.
#3 Law Enforcement Is Watching You
Do you remember the father that posted that "Facebook Parenting for the troubled teen" video that went wildly viral all over the Internet earlier this year?
That video was watched more than 31 million times, but it also resulted in both the police and Child Protective Services officials visiting his home.
So be careful what you post on YouTube. If you post something that they don't like, law enforcement personnel may come knocking on your door.
#4 Government Agencies Are Watching You
The FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military and the Federal Reserve have all announced plans to systematically monitor social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter.
These agencies have lists of "keywords" that they use to search for posts that they want to look at.
For example, the words "attack", "exercise" and "epidemic" are just three of the keywords that the Department of Homeland Security is known to use.
So keep that in mind the next time you post something on Facebook or Twitter.
The following is from a recent Salon article....
In 2010, the DHS National Operations Center established a Media Monitoring Capability (MMC). According to an internal agency document, MMC is tasked with “leveraging news stories, media reports and postings on social media sites… for operationally relevant data, information, analysis, and imagery.” The definition of operationally relevant data includes “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities,” “partisan or agenda-driven sites,” and a final category ambiguously labeled “research/studies, etc.”
#5 Barack Obama Is Watching You
The Obama campaign has launched "truth teams" which will be scouring the Internet for any rumors that are "not true" about Barack Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign.
So if you post something on the Internet about Barack Obama that the Obama campaign does not consider to be truthful, there is a good chance that a "truth team" will be examining what you have written.
#6 They Are Monitoring And Recording All Talk Radio (Including Internet Talk Radio)
As I have written about previously, the FBI has hired a company in Virginia to systematically record talk radio programs (including Internet talk radio programs) all over the United States. The goal of this effort is to collect "potential evidence", whatever that means. The following comes from an article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....
If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.
#7 Foreign Governments Are Watching You
It isn't just the U.S. government that is watching you on the Internet. The truth is that governments all over the world could be monitoring your Internet activity and you may never even know it.
In fact, the level of Internet surveillance in some countries is arguably even greater than it is in the United States.
For example, a new bill that has been introduced in Canada would give government authorities unprecedented power to monitor the Internet activities of Canadians....
The so-called “lawful access” legislation, tabled in the House of Commons Tuesday, will require Internet service providers and cellphone companies to hand over basic customer information — including name, address, phone number, email address, and ISP addresses — to authorities when requested, without the need for a warrant.
Dubbed “online spying” by critics, the bill is also expected to require ISPs and phone companies to install equipment for real-time surveillance and create new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.
The UK government is going even farther than that. A recent UK government report calls for ISPs to remove "extremist material" from the Internet. The following is an excerpt from that report....
The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit does limited but valuable work in challenging internet service providers to remove violent extremist material where it contravenes the law. We suggest that the Government work with internet service providers in the UK to develop a Code of Conduct committing them to removing violent extremist material, as defined for the purposes of section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006. Many relevant websites are hosted abroad: the Government should also therefore strive towards greater international cooperation to tackle this issue.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is taking things even farther than that. He recently stated that anyone in France that is caught regularly visiting websites "preaching hatred" will be prosecuted.
So what constitutes "extremist material" and what constitutes "preaching hatred"?
Unfortunately, almost every government on earth has different definitions for those things.
#8 We Are All Being Encouraged To Spy On One Another On The Internet
For the U.S. government, it isn't enough just to have bureaucrats and spooks spying on you. Now they want us to spy on one another.
The Department of Homeland Security has been heavily promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. The idea is that if you see something "suspicious" that you should report it to the authorities.
Unfortunately, the definition of "suspicious activity" has expanded so dramatically in recent years that it could include just about anything.
The paranoia among our leaders has gotten completely out of control. For example, a while back U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman requested that Google install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers could easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.
Thankfully nothing like that has been implemented yet, but that is the direction that we are heading as a nation.
#9 Your ISP Is Watching You
Most Americans have not even heard about this yet, but the truth is that starting later on this year your ISP will be spying on you to make sure that you are not downloading any copyrighted material.
SOPA and PIPA may have failed for now, but the Obama administration has brokered a deal between the entertainment industry and the major Internet providers that is absolutely unprecedented. This deal will go into effect on July 12th. The following is from a recent Raw Story article....
If you download potentially copyrighted software, videos or music, your Internet service provider (ISP) has been watching, and they’re coming for you.
Specifically, they’re coming for you on Thursday, July 12.
That’s the date when the nation’s largest ISPs will all voluntarily implement a new anti-piracy plan that will engage network operators in the largest digital spying scheme in history, and see some users’ bandwidth completely cut off until they sign an agreement saying they will not download copyrighted materials.
Word of the start date has been largely kept secret since ISPs announced their plans last June. The deal was brokered by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and coordinated by the Obama Administration.
So be careful what you download on the Internet.
Your ISP will be watching.
#10 The NSA Is Watching Everyone And Everything
It is safe to assume that any digital communication that you ever make will be intercepted and monitored by the NSA.
Of course this has been an open secret for years, but now the NSA is taking things to a whole new level.
The NSA has been constructing the largest spy center in the history of the world out in the Utah desert. The following is how a recent Wired article described this new facility....
Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”
So please do not assume that anything you do on the Internet will ever be private again.
The online world has now become a world where there is absolutely no privacy.
Some are responding to this new reality by running away from the Internet, but I think that is the wrong approach.
The Internet has broken the monopoly that the elite had on mass communication. It has given average people the ability to communicate with one another like never before. A YouTube video or a blog post that you put up today could be seen by tens of millions of people. Information is power, and the Internet has put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of the general population.
Yes, there will be people watching every single thing you do on the Internet. So it is important to be very careful.
But the Internet also gives us an opportunity to impact the world that is unlike anything previous generations have ever had. Something that you post on the Internet today could end up completely changing a life on the other side of the globe tomorrow. Those in power have begun to recognize how powerful the Internet is, and so they have begun to crack down on it.
It is also important to keep in mind that the Internet allows us to watch them as well. The Internet is an incredible tool for exposing evil and corruption, and over the past decade we have seen many instances when average people on the Internet have broken major news stories that the mainstream media would not dare touch initially.
In the final analysis, the ability to wake people up and to literally change the world outweighs the risks of being watched. If the world eventually descends into deep tyranny, you aren't going to have anywhere to hide even if you are not on the Internet.
Don't be afraid to stand up for the truth. It is better to do what is right and to be persecuted for it than to stand aside and do nothing.
The Internet is an awesome tool. It can be used for great good or for great evil.
If we sit on our hands, we will accomplish nothing.
But if we try, we might just end up changing the world.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Facebook Is World's Most Appalling Spy Machine
A report published by the London Sunday Times has revealed that Facebook has been accessing and reading the personal text messages of users of their social networking app.
Unfortunately the report itself is locked behind a pay wall, but the report has been partially summarized by Fox News (let’s just hope it’s more accurate than most of their reporting).
Facebook has reportedly even admitted reading the text messages, claiming that they were accessing data without the knowledge of users as part of a trial in an effort to launch their own messaging service.'
Unfortunately the report itself is locked behind a pay wall, but the report has been partially summarized by Fox News (let’s just hope it’s more accurate than most of their reporting).
Facebook has reportedly even admitted reading the text messages, claiming that they were accessing data without the knowledge of users as part of a trial in an effort to launch their own messaging service.'
Friday, January 27, 2012
Facebook Timeline MANDATORY To Reveal All Of Your Past
Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.
The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.
From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.
As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.
Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'
'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.
'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'
Timeline has been criticised for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.
The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.
'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.
'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'
The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.
From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.
As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.
Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'
'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.
'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'
Timeline has been criticised for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.
The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.
'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.
'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'
Obama Signs Treaty Far Worse Than SOPA
Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.
The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.
Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.
A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.
The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.
“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.
The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.
Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.
A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.
The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.
“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
New Privacy Google & You Tube Effective March 1
Check the video and imagine what all of this data collection will be about.
Many people who have moved away from Google and are now using
Goodsearch
Bing
or some of the others. Vote with your finger clicks.
Many people who have moved away from Google and are now using
Goodsearch
Bing
or some of the others. Vote with your finger clicks.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
SOPA Threatens Freedom Of Health Speech
'Identifying threats to health freedom and freedom of health speech often requires connecting the dots between seemingly unrelated verbiage in one piece of legislation and a trade agreement, for instance, or reading between the lines to identify the full intent or scope of a provision or phrase added to an unrelated bill.
And this is the case with the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA), which contains language that could one day target websites that sell, promote, or otherwise talk about the benefits of dietary supplements.
Section 105 of SOPA, entitled Immunity for Taking Voluntary Action Against Sites that Endanger Public Health, provisions that service providers, network providers, advertising services, search engines, domain name registry services, and other parties that handle internet content will be immune from prosecution should they decide to arbitrarily pull sites that "endanger the public health."'
And this is the case with the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA), which contains language that could one day target websites that sell, promote, or otherwise talk about the benefits of dietary supplements.
Section 105 of SOPA, entitled Immunity for Taking Voluntary Action Against Sites that Endanger Public Health, provisions that service providers, network providers, advertising services, search engines, domain name registry services, and other parties that handle internet content will be immune from prosecution should they decide to arbitrarily pull sites that "endanger the public health."'
How To Protect Internet Privacy
The U.S. Government is one of the leading threats to Internet freedom.
In 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized more than 100 domains, often without any basis in law.
Some politicians--most notably Joseph Lieberman--have called for an Internet Kill Switch whereby the executive branch of the United States Government would be given the "legal authority" to "kill" or terminate some or all of the Internet for any reason.
More recently, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a draconian measure supported by much of Hollywood, threatens to subvert what little freedom remains on the Internet.
However, legislation targeting Internet freedom must be construed in a broader context: since September 11th, 2001, the Patriot Act has essentially sundered the rights and freedoms afforded by the United States Constitution. And, in many ways, it has given birth to the National Security State.
In light of the various threats to Internet privacy, it is necessary to protect yourself not only from governments, but multinational corporations, internet service providers, universities, employers, and criminal networks.
ENCRYPTED INTERNET
Every connection to the Internet has an Internet Protocol (IP) address issued by an Internet service provider (ISP). The IP address may not only reveal who the internet service provider is, but more importantly, the approximate city, state, and country of a particular user.
In addition, every search made and every website visited (in particular, online banking, email logins, et al) record a person's IP address and saves it indefinitely.
It is this number that uniquely identifies every user on the Internet. And since the ISP has a record of the subscriber (name, tax identification number, home address, et al) , every connection is traceable--traceable, that it is, unless the data is first encrypted by a proxy or a VPN service before passing through the internet service provider, making the data unreadable to the ISP.
In addition to encrypting data, proxies and VPNs can hide a person's IP address and replace it with a different IP.
Although many services on the Internet promise privacy and anonymity, few deliver on such a promise. All web based proxies, such as yourcheat.com, anonymouse.com, and shadowsurf.com, for example, are ineffective and consequently must be avoided.
Web based proxies do not encrypt an Internet connection and simply cannot handle third party plugins such as JavaScript, Flash, Java, et al. More importantly, many web based proxies are in fact run by criminal networks, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies.
Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), unlike proxies, encrypt the whole Internet; however, like proxies, VPNs can be good or bad, depending on the service provider. A VPN connection typically encrypts data from a person's computer through the ISP to a VPN server.
How to choose a VPN:
• Always read the privacy policy of a VPN provider. Avoid services that keep data logs.
• Understand that all VPN services, regardless of the privacy policy, offer private--not anonymous--connections. VPNs are not anonymous because all data passed from users' connections are visible to the VPN provider; ultimately, VPNs require a certain amount of trust on the user's end.
• Avoid Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP) services. PPTPs are considered less secure than OpenVPN services.
• OpenVPN is open source VPN technology that encrypts Internet connections with high grade encryption. www.vpn4all.com and www.cyberghostvpn.com are a few popular VPN services.
Proxy Services:
• Only use network proxies that are open source programs.
• Onion Proxy services (such as Tor) are the most anonymous Internet connections but also are among the slowest.
• Proxies have limitations on the ports they can anonymize. In order to anonymize all ports, proxies require third party software known as Socksifiers.
EMAIL
Email messages resemble a post card--there is nothing preventing anyone from reading it in transit. Here are some precautions you can take:
• Always encrypt sensitive emails with either PGP or S/MIME standards.
• Avoid popular email services offered by www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, and www.hotmail.com. Those services are neither private nor anonymous.
• Be cautious of certain email services claiming to be private (i.e. www.safe-mail.com) but are in reality intelligence honeypots.
• Always read the privacy policy of email services. It is almost always preferable to use an email service outside of local jurisdiction. www.vekja.net; www.cryptoheaven.com; and www.lavabit.com are popular choices.
• To avoid spam, preserve privacy, and protect against potentially dangerous email, always use a disposable email service for forum logins, online coupons, and other online activities. www.mailinator.com and www.dispostable.com are good choices. However, please remember that most throwaway email services are not intended for sensitive data, since anyone may be able to read the contents of the email.
ONLINE PURCHASES
• It is always preferable to use a prepaid gift card (American Express, Visa, et al) for anonymous online purchases than a debit or credit card.
• It is preferable to use an alias when purchasing online products.
---
In 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized more than 100 domains, often without any basis in law.
Some politicians--most notably Joseph Lieberman--have called for an Internet Kill Switch whereby the executive branch of the United States Government would be given the "legal authority" to "kill" or terminate some or all of the Internet for any reason.
More recently, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a draconian measure supported by much of Hollywood, threatens to subvert what little freedom remains on the Internet.
However, legislation targeting Internet freedom must be construed in a broader context: since September 11th, 2001, the Patriot Act has essentially sundered the rights and freedoms afforded by the United States Constitution. And, in many ways, it has given birth to the National Security State.
In light of the various threats to Internet privacy, it is necessary to protect yourself not only from governments, but multinational corporations, internet service providers, universities, employers, and criminal networks.
ENCRYPTED INTERNET
Every connection to the Internet has an Internet Protocol (IP) address issued by an Internet service provider (ISP). The IP address may not only reveal who the internet service provider is, but more importantly, the approximate city, state, and country of a particular user.
In addition, every search made and every website visited (in particular, online banking, email logins, et al) record a person's IP address and saves it indefinitely.
It is this number that uniquely identifies every user on the Internet. And since the ISP has a record of the subscriber (name, tax identification number, home address, et al) , every connection is traceable--traceable, that it is, unless the data is first encrypted by a proxy or a VPN service before passing through the internet service provider, making the data unreadable to the ISP.
In addition to encrypting data, proxies and VPNs can hide a person's IP address and replace it with a different IP.
Although many services on the Internet promise privacy and anonymity, few deliver on such a promise. All web based proxies, such as yourcheat.com, anonymouse.com, and shadowsurf.com, for example, are ineffective and consequently must be avoided.
Web based proxies do not encrypt an Internet connection and simply cannot handle third party plugins such as JavaScript, Flash, Java, et al. More importantly, many web based proxies are in fact run by criminal networks, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies.
Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), unlike proxies, encrypt the whole Internet; however, like proxies, VPNs can be good or bad, depending on the service provider. A VPN connection typically encrypts data from a person's computer through the ISP to a VPN server.
How to choose a VPN:
• Always read the privacy policy of a VPN provider. Avoid services that keep data logs.
• Understand that all VPN services, regardless of the privacy policy, offer private--not anonymous--connections. VPNs are not anonymous because all data passed from users' connections are visible to the VPN provider; ultimately, VPNs require a certain amount of trust on the user's end.
• Avoid Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP) services. PPTPs are considered less secure than OpenVPN services.
• OpenVPN is open source VPN technology that encrypts Internet connections with high grade encryption. www.vpn4all.com and www.cyberghostvpn.com are a few popular VPN services.
Proxy Services:
• Only use network proxies that are open source programs.
• Onion Proxy services (such as Tor) are the most anonymous Internet connections but also are among the slowest.
• Proxies have limitations on the ports they can anonymize. In order to anonymize all ports, proxies require third party software known as Socksifiers.
Email messages resemble a post card--there is nothing preventing anyone from reading it in transit. Here are some precautions you can take:
• Always encrypt sensitive emails with either PGP or S/MIME standards.
• Avoid popular email services offered by www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, and www.hotmail.com. Those services are neither private nor anonymous.
• Be cautious of certain email services claiming to be private (i.e. www.safe-mail.com) but are in reality intelligence honeypots.
• Always read the privacy policy of email services. It is almost always preferable to use an email service outside of local jurisdiction. www.vekja.net; www.cryptoheaven.com; and www.lavabit.com are popular choices.
• To avoid spam, preserve privacy, and protect against potentially dangerous email, always use a disposable email service for forum logins, online coupons, and other online activities. www.mailinator.com and www.dispostable.com are good choices. However, please remember that most throwaway email services are not intended for sensitive data, since anyone may be able to read the contents of the email.
ONLINE PURCHASES
• It is always preferable to use a prepaid gift card (American Express, Visa, et al) for anonymous online purchases than a debit or credit card.
• It is preferable to use an alias when purchasing online products.
---
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Obama To Create Internet ID
President Obama is putting plans in motion to give the Commerce Department authority to create an Internet ID for all Americans, a White House official told CNET.com.
White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt told the website it is "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet.
The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace is currently being drafted by the Obama administration and will be released by the president in a few months.
"We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said at an event Friday at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, according to CNET.com.
Locke added that the Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project.
The move has raised eyebrows about privacy issues.
"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology told the website. "If I tried to, I wouldn't be trusted."
Schmidt stresses that anonymity will remain on the Internet, saying there's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge."
White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt told the website it is "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet.
The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace is currently being drafted by the Obama administration and will be released by the president in a few months.
"We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said at an event Friday at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, according to CNET.com.
Locke added that the Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project.
The move has raised eyebrows about privacy issues.
"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology told the website. "If I tried to, I wouldn't be trusted."
Schmidt stresses that anonymity will remain on the Internet, saying there's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge."
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
German Hackers Creating Private Communications For Uncensored Internet
'There’s more than one way to stick it to The Man. There’s civil disobedience, subversive propaganda, political art, outright violent revolt--each possessing its own degree of difficulty and consequence. In a decidedly 21st-century twist, team of German hackers bent on fighting the powers that be has chosen a rather ambitious means of taking the power back: building a hacker-owned and -operated space program, complete with a constellation of communications satellites beaming uncensored Internet to users on the ground.
The Hackerspace Global Grid was borne out of a call to action at the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin, where hackers of all stripes gather to mull the issues of the day as they relate to their craft. Hacker activist Nick Farr--motivated by legislation like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S.--called on the community to contribute to a project that would remove the power of censorship from governments and corporations by creating an uncensored Internet in the free frontier of space.'
The Hackerspace Global Grid was borne out of a call to action at the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin, where hackers of all stripes gather to mull the issues of the day as they relate to their craft. Hacker activist Nick Farr--motivated by legislation like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S.--called on the community to contribute to a project that would remove the power of censorship from governments and corporations by creating an uncensored Internet in the free frontier of space.'
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Faking Facebook Name A Felony>
Imagine that President Obama could order the arrest of anyone who broke a promise on the Internet. So you could be jailed for lying about your age or weight on an Internet dating site. Or you could be sent to federal prison if your boss told you to work but you used the company's computer to check sports scores online. Imagine that Eric Holder's Justice Department urged Congress to raise penalties for violations, making them felonies allowing three years in jail for each broken promise. Fanciful, right?
Think again. Congress is now poised to grant the Obama administration's wishes in the name of "cybersecurity."
The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.
The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed "authorized access." Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include "terms of use" violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.
Think again. Congress is now poised to grant the Obama administration's wishes in the name of "cybersecurity."
The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.
The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed "authorized access." Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include "terms of use" violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Cyber Warfare 'And Hacktivists
In recent years, a new form of activism has cropped up on the Internet. With their numerous 'leaks' and 'ops', groups like WikiLeaks and its 'hacktivism' off-shoot known as 'Anonymous', have achieved major mainstream media exposure. With V for Vendetta's character 'V' as inspiration, youths the world over are rallying behind the idea that "something is terribly wrong with this country" and are letting everyone know via anonymous protests, online hacktivism against groups and organizations they see as part of the problem, or the support of the revolutions taking place in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere.
The rise of Internet hacktivism comes with a price however...
The rise of Internet hacktivism comes with a price however...
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
GOOGLE Aims To Own Your Online ID
Google+ is primarily an “identity service”
It was the former Google CEO’s remarks about the rationale for this policy that were most interesting: He didn’t just say—as Vic Gundotra, the Google executive in charge of the new social network has—that having real names maintains a certain tone of behavior that is preferable to anonymous forums (an argument that online-community pioneer Derek Powazek has also made). According to Carvin, Schmidt said the reason Google needs users with real names is that the company sees Google+ as the core of an identity platform it is building that can be used for other things:
He (Eric) replied by saying that G+ was built primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information.
As Union Square Ventures partner Fred Wilson noted in a blog post in response to Schmidt’s comments, this is an admission by the company that it wants to be an identity gatekeeper. Others have made similar observations since the launch of Google+.
Programmer and online veteran Dave Winer, for example, said—when the real-name policy first started to become a hot-button issue—that Google’s purpose was clearly to “provide identity in a commerce-ready way. And to give them information about what you do on the Internet, without obfuscation of pseudonyms.” In his blog post, Fred Wilson said:
It begs the question of whom Google built this service for? You or them. And the answer to why you need to use your real name in the service is because they need you to.
But the real-name issue has more to do with Google’s other business: namely, advertising. Users who are anonymous or pseudonymous are arguably a lot less valuable to advertisers than those who choose to attach their real identitie—including their age, gender, location, and further demographic details—to their accounts.
It was the former Google CEO’s remarks about the rationale for this policy that were most interesting: He didn’t just say—as Vic Gundotra, the Google executive in charge of the new social network has—that having real names maintains a certain tone of behavior that is preferable to anonymous forums (an argument that online-community pioneer Derek Powazek has also made). According to Carvin, Schmidt said the reason Google needs users with real names is that the company sees Google+ as the core of an identity platform it is building that can be used for other things:
He (Eric) replied by saying that G+ was built primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information.
As Union Square Ventures partner Fred Wilson noted in a blog post in response to Schmidt’s comments, this is an admission by the company that it wants to be an identity gatekeeper. Others have made similar observations since the launch of Google+.
Programmer and online veteran Dave Winer, for example, said—when the real-name policy first started to become a hot-button issue—that Google’s purpose was clearly to “provide identity in a commerce-ready way. And to give them information about what you do on the Internet, without obfuscation of pseudonyms.” In his blog post, Fred Wilson said:
It begs the question of whom Google built this service for? You or them. And the answer to why you need to use your real name in the service is because they need you to.
But the real-name issue has more to do with Google’s other business: namely, advertising. Users who are anonymous or pseudonymous are arguably a lot less valuable to advertisers than those who choose to attach their real identitie—including their age, gender, location, and further demographic details—to their accounts.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
#Anonymous Threatens Congress
Hackers from the group Anonymous released a video on the Web this week in which the collective calls out Congress for a controversial new bill that could put Internet users in prison for streaming videos online.
Should S.978 be put on the books, streaming copyrighted material on the Web could land a person in jail for up to five years in addition to costing thousands of dollars in fines. The video released from Anonymous specifically challenges how the law would punish video game users for sharing their own game play on the Web, which the hackers say is a form of censorship and a denial of the free flow of information.
Anonymous also notes that even providing a link to copyrighted content could cause users to wind up with legal woes and says that the legislation is a “tyrannical scheme” courtesy of Congress. The bill was introduced to the Senate in May of this year but has not made it to the voting room floor yet. The official description for S. 978 reads that the bill is being brought before lawmakers “To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.”
Should S.978 be put on the books, streaming copyrighted material on the Web could land a person in jail for up to five years in addition to costing thousands of dollars in fines. The video released from Anonymous specifically challenges how the law would punish video game users for sharing their own game play on the Web, which the hackers say is a form of censorship and a denial of the free flow of information.
Anonymous also notes that even providing a link to copyrighted content could cause users to wind up with legal woes and says that the legislation is a “tyrannical scheme” courtesy of Congress. The bill was introduced to the Senate in May of this year but has not made it to the voting room floor yet. The official description for S. 978 reads that the bill is being brought before lawmakers “To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)