Last month, both WhatsApp and Viber made end-to-end encryption the default for their mass amount of users. Unlike WhatsApp, Viber is not a US based company, so it will not be subject to US laws. More than anything, Viber is the first example of the futility of legislation encryption.
Fifteen months ago Viber began working on its end-to-end encryption for information being passed from person to person, regardless of platform. This is huge step for privacy and security, because even the admins of the company are unable to see the data being passed between users. Obviously, Viber's users won't have the total encryption until the next update, and even then not every user will actually upgrade their application, but it is a step in the right direction.
Viber's bold move emerged just after Apple's security fight with the FBI and the tech world has begun adopting encryption at a faster rate than ever before. A large factor that has encouraged these encryption trends is the sheer popularity of messaging applications in our day to day lives. Shimlov says, "It's not necessarily a marketing feature, we did it because it's a standard we need to meet. Users share a lot private data between them, and we want to make sure it's secure."
More and more resources and political power are being tossed at encryption right now and any legislation could have crippling repercussions for companies like Apple, but nothing for Viber. Ultimately, Viber's adoption of end-to-end encryption proves that secure encryption on a large scale is possible, and legislation is not.
http://www.wired.com/2016/04/viber-encrytpion/
How is this related to Ed Snowden?
Snowden fled the US after leaking media details on the US government monitoring internet and phone records on a global scale. To be more specific, Snowden leaked information on the US hacking Chinese networks, bugging EU offices, monitoring the phones of world leaders, spying on Latin America, and collecting and storing SMS messages across the globe. Just three years after the media leak from Snowden, companies like Viber and WhatsApp are taking steps in making sure their user are secure from any external threat.
Opinion:
These notions really leave a bad taste in your mouth about how "trustworthy" the US government really is. In the article mentioned above, WhatsApp and Viber, two widely popular messaging apps, have begun the new trend in protecting their users from government monitoring. This directly relates to Snowden's whistleblowing scandal because as technology becomes more immersed in our daily lives and society is more aware of how powerful the government truly is, users need a guarantee that their private data is protected.
My question is how long will it take for more tech companies, foreign and domestic, to adopt the end-to-end encryption, which ensures enhanced security of their users private information?
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Tech Musing #3 FBI discloses iOS security flaw, but not the one used to crack the San Bernardino iPhone
When Apple refused to hack the iPhone 5c of the San Bernardino
mass Shooter, the FBI decided to ask someone else. This third-party hacker was
able to successfully get what the FBI wanted, which did not make Apple very
happy. Now Apple wants to know how this third-party hacker accomplished it. It
was no surprise that the FBI won’t tell Apple how it was accomplished. They did
decide to share another security flaw that was found, but Apple had already
found and addressed this problem. This flaw only relates to older iPhones and
Macs that are not using the newest versions of iOS and OS X.
The FBI says that they can’t share how the phone was hacked
because they apparently don’t know how it was done. So they decided to share
the flaw of the older software to show people that they do share
vulnerabilities with tech companies so that those flaws can’t be exploited.
My view on this situation is that the FBI does know how the phone
was hacked and just don’t want to share the vulnerability in case they have
another situation like this. This phone was a key piece of evidence in the
case, that is why they wanted it open so badly. They would not have handed it
over to someone without being informed exactly how it would be done. They probably
also had someone watching over the process so that no data was deleted,
destroyed, or altered.
If they really have no idea how it was done why wouldn’t
they let Apple know who the third-party was so they can discuss how it was done
with them. Apple not knowing how it was done leaves all users vulnerable, this
would include Apple users it the FBI.
What can be learned from this is that users need to always
stay up-to-date with software updates. The vulnerability in the older software
was found but not fixed. If you are using an older version of the software, you
still have a vulnerable phone.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Tech Musing 3: Thoughts On Edward Snowden and Privacy
Edward Snowden is a former employee of the National
Security Agency contractor. He is known for whistleblowing. His disclosure revealed numerous global surveillance program from NSA. According to Snowden, the United States
government has secretly monitors not only people in other countries but also U.S. citizens. The government is capable of accessing
people’s phone records and can crack people’s email passwords in order to monitor information.
On February 26, an Chinese student was denied to reentry to the U.S. due to an incriminating message on her mobile phone. The US customs found a message in the student's WeChat app, a popular instant messaging platform, in which she told one of her friends "I don't really want to go to school, I just need a temporary [student] identity." The U.S. customs officials found the evidence from mobile phone to prove their suspicion of immigrant intent and deported the student immediately.
However, some information might not mentioned in the report. I read some different information from news and social media in China. The deported student claimed that she was pretty sure that evidence of immigrant intent had been deleted long ago from her cell phone, so she had no idea how customs find the message. The conversation that customs found happened more than half a year ago and is in Chinese. Even if the evidence was still in the phone, how customs knew where to find it among so much conversation records of six months, let alone how customs officials can translate Chinese message. So this early ready evidence may indicates that global surveillance program is much more than terrorism and homeland security.
In my opinion, government does need to take some actions to protect its own people, but privacy also needs to be respected. It is hard to find a balance and I am not happy to be monitored.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/971526.shtml
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Thoughts on Snowden and Related Article
After watching the compelling documentary, “Citizen Four” I learned many things about the NSA and government surveillance that was made prevalent from Edward Snowden’s claims against the NSA. He was a contracted employee hired by the NSA which gave him a level of clearance that over saw all the privacy operations at the NSA. In 2013, after seeing too much corruption and lies, Snowden reveled essential documentation of the NSA to the press. He gave the press the right to release what they thought the public should see. After this “act of treason” Snowden fled the country and continues to be an international felon on the run.
There are two aspects to the debate on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor and I would concur that both sides have truths to them. The documentation from the NSA was the truth and since we see government officials denying such actions of surveillance and breach of privacy, this adds strengths toward Snowden’s points. Being able to trust your government is a crucial factor to society and Snowden revealed a flaw toward this trust. On the other side of the spectrum we see Snowden as a traitor who leaked government information to non-US allies making him seam as if he was a terrorist. The government should be able to monitor its citizens in a way to keep them safe, but without knowing the truth of how much they abuse this power, can we as a society understand the the truth? Both arguments have truth, but I believe Snowden brought awareness to the people about the truth behind the power of technology and how much power the government has with this type of technology. This will increase awareness of Internet privacy and will help the people better understand the surveillance the government has on its citizens. The average person like myself would not be worried that the government can view content, but the whole thought of that level of surveillance creeps me out.
After reading a current article on a tech blog about what Snowden is up to currently, he is getting praised for promoting freedom of speech. This movement is a very interesting topic with all of the press covering government regulation and Internet privacy. Currently the Norwegian chapter of writer’s rights organization PEN International is suing its own government so that Snowden can receive the prestigious Ossietzky Prize in person and not be extradited to the United States. Technically since he is an international criminal the government can’t comply with this arrangement, and will fight the lawsuit. I am interested to see if Snowden will be able to receive this award in person or if it will have to be over video chat like he did with the Bjørnson prize in 2015.
Article: http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/21/norwegian-pen-chapter-sues-its-country-to-ensure-snowden-can-receive-ossietzky-award-in-person/
There are two aspects to the debate on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor and I would concur that both sides have truths to them. The documentation from the NSA was the truth and since we see government officials denying such actions of surveillance and breach of privacy, this adds strengths toward Snowden’s points. Being able to trust your government is a crucial factor to society and Snowden revealed a flaw toward this trust. On the other side of the spectrum we see Snowden as a traitor who leaked government information to non-US allies making him seam as if he was a terrorist. The government should be able to monitor its citizens in a way to keep them safe, but without knowing the truth of how much they abuse this power, can we as a society understand the the truth? Both arguments have truth, but I believe Snowden brought awareness to the people about the truth behind the power of technology and how much power the government has with this type of technology. This will increase awareness of Internet privacy and will help the people better understand the surveillance the government has on its citizens. The average person like myself would not be worried that the government can view content, but the whole thought of that level of surveillance creeps me out.
After reading a current article on a tech blog about what Snowden is up to currently, he is getting praised for promoting freedom of speech. This movement is a very interesting topic with all of the press covering government regulation and Internet privacy. Currently the Norwegian chapter of writer’s rights organization PEN International is suing its own government so that Snowden can receive the prestigious Ossietzky Prize in person and not be extradited to the United States. Technically since he is an international criminal the government can’t comply with this arrangement, and will fight the lawsuit. I am interested to see if Snowden will be able to receive this award in person or if it will have to be over video chat like he did with the Bjørnson prize in 2015.
Article: http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/21/norwegian-pen-chapter-sues-its-country-to-ensure-snowden-can-receive-ossietzky-award-in-person/
Tech Musing #3 : Thoughts of Government Surveillance and Edward Snowden.
As an international students, I don’t know how American’s feel about what Edward Snowden has done and the U.S. surveillance program. He did what he think he should do, but I don’t really agree with him. Maybe many people think Snowden is a hero, but people don’t really know the government is monitoring them? I don’t think so. When he actually reveal it, it might help some people know more details about what government is doing, but I have to say what he did also led to crisis of confidence between U.S. government and citizen. In addition, it resulted in the worsen relationship with other countries because the surveillance program is not only about U.S. citizens.
I have to say that I was not surprised to know that the U.S. government is monitoring people’s lives and I think governments of other countries are doing the same thing. People care about their privacy, and so do I. There are a lot of things that people may hide from others, just like I don’t want strangers on Facebook to see my posts and photos. On the one hand, I believe the reason that most people hide information from others is that they know the importance of information security, and they know that people with ability may use their information to do illegal things. On the other hand, I understand that the one of the purposes of surveillance program is to discover suspicious communication and information to protect people from terrorist and other dangerous people. People want privacy and protection, but it's hard to have it both ways.
The following link is a ted talk video. It is not new, but it provided some information about how the surveillance program works as well as some example of others' countries.
Government Surveillance - This is Just the Begining
I have to say that I was not surprised to know that the U.S. government is monitoring people’s lives and I think governments of other countries are doing the same thing. People care about their privacy, and so do I. There are a lot of things that people may hide from others, just like I don’t want strangers on Facebook to see my posts and photos. On the one hand, I believe the reason that most people hide information from others is that they know the importance of information security, and they know that people with ability may use their information to do illegal things. On the other hand, I understand that the one of the purposes of surveillance program is to discover suspicious communication and information to protect people from terrorist and other dangerous people. People want privacy and protection, but it's hard to have it both ways.
The following link is a ted talk video. It is not new, but it provided some information about how the surveillance program works as well as some example of others' countries.
Government Surveillance - This is Just the Begining
Friday, April 22, 2016
Tech Musing 3: Thoughts On Edward Snowden and Privacy
Edward Snowden was a government contractor leaked 10,000 classified U.S. documents to the world. A mass surveillance program from the National Security Administration gathers information on citizens via phone tracking and tapping undersea Internet cables. I think when people act against the NSA surveillance in another way is hurting the country. It has been three years since then, Snowden is still an important part at fields of personal privacy, public security, and online right.
According to a recent interview with Snowden, he said there have been a lot of changes that have happened over these three years, and not just on the Internet. It has changed our culture, laws, the way our courts decide issues and the way people consider what the Internet, their communication security means to them. I believe even if people do not use the internet, do not have smart phones, laptop or phone lines, most of their personal information is still going to be handled by tax authorities, health providers or hospitals; So it is not just people’s smart phones that was being monitored carries too much of personal privacy, actually all of this information is always routed over the Internet. As I also understand people are not happy that police and the government then have the authority to search through your entire life through your phone and internet. So one of the most measurable changes in the past three years is to guarantee personal privacy rights through encryption and it is pretty effective. The FBI failed to crack an Apple device recently was a good example of that.
I think because of the context of terrorism threat that was heavily promoted by two successive administrations after all the bad things happened in the 9/11 era, there was an idea made the government have to go to the dark side to be able to confront the threat posed by bad guys. I think this method is what we have to adopt under most cases.
http://www.popsci.com/edward-snowden-internet-is-broken
According to a recent interview with Snowden, he said there have been a lot of changes that have happened over these three years, and not just on the Internet. It has changed our culture, laws, the way our courts decide issues and the way people consider what the Internet, their communication security means to them. I believe even if people do not use the internet, do not have smart phones, laptop or phone lines, most of their personal information is still going to be handled by tax authorities, health providers or hospitals; So it is not just people’s smart phones that was being monitored carries too much of personal privacy, actually all of this information is always routed over the Internet. As I also understand people are not happy that police and the government then have the authority to search through your entire life through your phone and internet. So one of the most measurable changes in the past three years is to guarantee personal privacy rights through encryption and it is pretty effective. The FBI failed to crack an Apple device recently was a good example of that.
I think because of the context of terrorism threat that was heavily promoted by two successive administrations after all the bad things happened in the 9/11 era, there was an idea made the government have to go to the dark side to be able to confront the threat posed by bad guys. I think this method is what we have to adopt under most cases.
http://www.popsci.com/edward-snowden-internet-is-broken
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Tech Musing 3: The whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations
Edward Snowden is the individual responsible for the biggest leaks in US political history. He was an employee of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden is responsible for handing over information from NSA, which is one of the world’s most secretive organizations. He believes that his disclosure of what the US government is doing in installing massive surveillance machine is something the public should know and discuss, and he is not apologetic or ashamed about that. Snowden made his declarations while in Hong Kong, which is a city that promotes freedom of political speech. However, he is scared that the Chinese government might whisk him away for questioning, or the US could catch up with him, which is why he moved to Russia.
Regardless, he still does not regret what he did as he believes the US government is doing more harm than good to the world and its people. He also believes that every document he leaked is in the public interest and people should concentrate on that other than him. The information that Edward Snowden gave is critical to the United States citizens because massive surveillance programs damage the US economy as it shakes consumer confidence, which leads to US trade partners distancing themselves from companies that have a probability of being compromised by the NSA. Therefore, NSA surveillance leads to some companies losing their competitive edge, yet they are mainstream economic drivers. The US citizens need to work against this.
Lastly, I hold the opinion that Edward Snowden did what he see as the right thing for the US citizens to be aware of and act upon, and it is high time they act against NSA surveillance as it is hurting the economy. NSA surveillance is very crucial to the American economy in order to shape the future of this nation in terms of privacy, business, and communication.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
Regardless, he still does not regret what he did as he believes the US government is doing more harm than good to the world and its people. He also believes that every document he leaked is in the public interest and people should concentrate on that other than him. The information that Edward Snowden gave is critical to the United States citizens because massive surveillance programs damage the US economy as it shakes consumer confidence, which leads to US trade partners distancing themselves from companies that have a probability of being compromised by the NSA. Therefore, NSA surveillance leads to some companies losing their competitive edge, yet they are mainstream economic drivers. The US citizens need to work against this.
Lastly, I hold the opinion that Edward Snowden did what he see as the right thing for the US citizens to be aware of and act upon, and it is high time they act against NSA surveillance as it is hurting the economy. NSA surveillance is very crucial to the American economy in order to shape the future of this nation in terms of privacy, business, and communication.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Tech Musing 3: Microsoft sues U.S. government over data requests
The argument about government surveillance has raged on
since Edward Snowden infamously leaked sensitive NSA documents back in 2013. Regardless
of any one’s personal opinion about whether he is a criminal or hero, he has
raised important questions about government control and what our privacy means
to us. Only now have big businesses decided to step in and make their voices
heard.
Early this week Microsoft filed a lawsuit against the U.S government
for forcing “gag orders” upon their company. These gag orders forced Microsoft
to hand over any information they had to the NSA if ordered to, and forcing
them to keep it quiet under penalty of law. They argue that the government’s
actions have violated the 4th amendment right by illegal seizing and
searching emails and other documents, which both businesses and U.S. Citizens
have the right to contest. Furthermore, they argue that the company’s first amendment
right of free speech is also being violated by not letting Microsoft tell their
customers if the government is looking through their emails. Microsoft argued
that “People do not give up their rights when they move their private
information from physical storage to the cloud” (reuters).
This is big step towards limiting government power, and to a
further extent the over-reaching arms of the ironically named Patriot Act.
People spoke out against the NSA when the Snowden released classified documents
that enclosed the abhorrent amount of power the NSA had, but many were quick to
dismiss Snowden for the way in which he did it. This was a great first step,
but having large companies like Microsoft and Apple (back door access for Iphones
incident) file multimillion dollar lawsuits against the government has really
sent out a message. Their voices are much louder than your average Joe, and
this can’t be seen as anything other than step in the right direction.
As you may have already guessed, I am not a fan of this new
era of government spying. The dismissive mentality of “I don’t have anything to
hide” is a dangerous one, and people just don’t know how much they have to
lose. If someone higher up in the government is not a fan of what I am doing,
then they can dig through everything in your past to discredit you, and make
you look foolish. This is a better known as the “chilling effect”, which means
that you are inhibited from practicing your legal rights due to the threat of
legal action. With words as vague as “terrorist” being thrown around , it’s
extremely easy to falsify a story about someone based something as simple as a
link you looked at on Reddit once. It’s a way for the government to fuel politicians
that they want while “leaking” information such as this to the public the
discredit anyone they don’t agree with. It’s extremely dangerous to have the
power, and that’s why I am excited the companies like Microsoft are finally
standing up for what is right, and making our voices heard.
Tech Musing 3: Government surveilance does not result in increased public safety.
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/
The article above states the fact that the NSA has not thwarted a single act of terror in its lifetime. This article was published late in 2015. According to the John Oliver show, the NSA has stepped it up though, and managed to catch one transfer of a small amount of money intended for Al-Qaeda.
Of all the debates about whether the acts of the NSA are moral or constitutionally justified, I think that this fact right here should make the decision for many that the Patriot act should not be renewed this June. The Patriot Act was passed soon after 9/11 in hopes of preventing a tragedy like that from occurring again in the future. 15 years later, and after a significant expansion to the patriot act and the federal government’s capabilities, we are no safer than we were before the bill was passed. In fact, I would even argue that we are less safe after the passing of the Patriot Act. With the Federal Government now storing sensitive information, another access point is created for attackers trying to steal it.
While watching John Oliver’s segment I became increasingly frustrated as he played down his interview with Snowden. Snowden has permanently altered the path of his life for what he thinks is the benefit of informing his fellow citizens, and giving them the opportunity to protect their own freedom. Of course, this is a comedian’s way, and when the interview concluded, I understand another potential motive of Oliver that has nothing to do with being funny. As the segment showed, many Americans are uninformed when it comes this issue. Some are familiar with his name, and a general idea of what he did, but the majority we saw were misguided. I think that the problem is that our media fails to connect with all Americans. In pushing his “junk pic” analogy, I think Oliver enables more people to understand what is actually occurring, and what Snowden has risked his life to share with people.
Also, in all the interviews I’ve watched with Snowden, I thought he was very articulate and poised. I also believe that there were no anterior motives for his actions. He seems genuine that he acted in the best interest of all US citizens. I am grateful for what he has done, and all he has risked.
On an entirely different note, just wanted to say that I love Frontline! Aside from its obvious slant, it does a great job of getting to the bottom of pressing issues and informing us all. I wish more people would watch Frontline, then maybe people wouldn’t seem so uninformed in street corner interviews like in the John Oliver segment. NOVA is great too J!
The article above states the fact that the NSA has not thwarted a single act of terror in its lifetime. This article was published late in 2015. According to the John Oliver show, the NSA has stepped it up though, and managed to catch one transfer of a small amount of money intended for Al-Qaeda.
Of all the debates about whether the acts of the NSA are moral or constitutionally justified, I think that this fact right here should make the decision for many that the Patriot act should not be renewed this June. The Patriot Act was passed soon after 9/11 in hopes of preventing a tragedy like that from occurring again in the future. 15 years later, and after a significant expansion to the patriot act and the federal government’s capabilities, we are no safer than we were before the bill was passed. In fact, I would even argue that we are less safe after the passing of the Patriot Act. With the Federal Government now storing sensitive information, another access point is created for attackers trying to steal it.
While watching John Oliver’s segment I became increasingly frustrated as he played down his interview with Snowden. Snowden has permanently altered the path of his life for what he thinks is the benefit of informing his fellow citizens, and giving them the opportunity to protect their own freedom. Of course, this is a comedian’s way, and when the interview concluded, I understand another potential motive of Oliver that has nothing to do with being funny. As the segment showed, many Americans are uninformed when it comes this issue. Some are familiar with his name, and a general idea of what he did, but the majority we saw were misguided. I think that the problem is that our media fails to connect with all Americans. In pushing his “junk pic” analogy, I think Oliver enables more people to understand what is actually occurring, and what Snowden has risked his life to share with people.
Also, in all the interviews I’ve watched with Snowden, I thought he was very articulate and poised. I also believe that there were no anterior motives for his actions. He seems genuine that he acted in the best interest of all US citizens. I am grateful for what he has done, and all he has risked.
On an entirely different note, just wanted to say that I love Frontline! Aside from its obvious slant, it does a great job of getting to the bottom of pressing issues and informing us all. I wish more people would watch Frontline, then maybe people wouldn’t seem so uninformed in street corner interviews like in the John Oliver segment. NOVA is great too J!
Tech Musing 3: John Oliver's Picture Argument
I chose to focus my interests on John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden. Although slightly inappropriate, but certainly attention catching, his analogy of sharing private pictures (i.e. pictures of your privates) was interesting enough. John Oliver's main point was that the US people are uninformed, do not care to be informed, or are misinformed. Interviewing people in Times Square about who Edward Snowden is and what he did illustrates this notion. Snowden wanted the people of the United States to know what the government was doing, so they can then take steps to either change or make an informed decision to let the government continue to have surveillance. However, Oliver was able to point out, sometimes pretty harshly, to Snowden that 'people don't care'. Snowden had a way of describing something that is very complicated in an almost more complicated manner. I think that Oliver's use of the "junk" circulation allowed for his viewers, and for Snowden himself, to understand the impact of Section 215 on the everyday lives of the American people in a more relatable way. I do not mean to say that everyone can empathize with the man who admittedly stated that he sent a risque picture to a girl not too long ago, however, they are called private parts for a reason. People are able to understand that fear and worry of private pictures getting out and relate that back to other personal information they do not want to be shared.
While this analogy caught my attention and raised eyebrows on the streets of New York, I don't believe it had the correct conclusion. Oliver asked Snowden if the American people should be worried about their pictures being seen by the government and change their ways. Snowden's reply surprised me. He said that people should not change their ways because it affects their values. He stated that people should continue to sending the pictures they want to send, and that the reform has to come from within the government. I understand that he is essentially relating this to all of our information, not just private pictures, however I think it is a two way street. Strictly relating to the photo analogy, if you do not want your pictures out there, do not put them there. If you cannot accept the risk or the idea that someone other than the intended recipient will see your photos, do not send them. Now, in the bigger picture, I do think that Americans have the right to privacy but in order for that to occur everyone needs to put in the effort. That is the beauty in a democracy. If everyone can stay informed and put the effort towards the change, change will occur. Whether it be in your favor or not, it is still progress. As Oliver said, this is a tough situation to negotiate; you can't have the rodent and the falcon. There has to be a middle ground, however it take informed people who are willing to search in order to find it.
Source: John Oliver's Youtube post on the blog
While this analogy caught my attention and raised eyebrows on the streets of New York, I don't believe it had the correct conclusion. Oliver asked Snowden if the American people should be worried about their pictures being seen by the government and change their ways. Snowden's reply surprised me. He said that people should not change their ways because it affects their values. He stated that people should continue to sending the pictures they want to send, and that the reform has to come from within the government. I understand that he is essentially relating this to all of our information, not just private pictures, however I think it is a two way street. Strictly relating to the photo analogy, if you do not want your pictures out there, do not put them there. If you cannot accept the risk or the idea that someone other than the intended recipient will see your photos, do not send them. Now, in the bigger picture, I do think that Americans have the right to privacy but in order for that to occur everyone needs to put in the effort. That is the beauty in a democracy. If everyone can stay informed and put the effort towards the change, change will occur. Whether it be in your favor or not, it is still progress. As Oliver said, this is a tough situation to negotiate; you can't have the rodent and the falcon. There has to be a middle ground, however it take informed people who are willing to search in order to find it.
Source: John Oliver's Youtube post on the blog
Tech Musing # 3: Thoughts on Edward Snowden and Privacy
Edward Snowden is a former National Security Agency contractor known for whistleblowing, or releasing to the public a form of government corruption. According to Snowden, the United States government has kept secret the extent to which it monitors not only people from other countries but also its own people. The government is capable of accessing people’s phone records and can crack people’s email passwords in order to check their emails. Snowden, when he learned this information, felt that it was an invasion of privacy and decided to reveal this secret to the American people. His actions made him a traitor to the United States and he was forced to seek asylum.
Privacy is a very sacred thing, and every individual’s should be respected. If the government encroaches upon an individual’s privacy, it has violated its citizens’ trust. With free speech and freedom of the press, an individual has access to many resources through which they can find data. If the government monitors what its citizens are searching for, it is violating the fundamental social contract that it has with the American people. In a perfect society, privacy and government power would be balanced and the government would be able to use the information it gains to create a safer environment for the American people. In reality, there are no boundaries to what the government can monitor and look at, something not brought to light until Snowden.
In the article “Privacy can't depend on corporations standing up to the government”, Snowden talks of how free software's transparency and openness are cornerstones to preserving user privacy in the connected age. He believes that private data these days only stays private at the sufferance of the major tech companies that administer devices and services. Given the increasing centrality of smartphones and social networks and the myriad of other digital communication methods to modern life, simply trusting that those tech companies will protect their users' privacy is insufficient.
In my opinion, while privacy is an important thing that must be respected, the government does need to do something in order to protect its people. Both sides need to find a balance so that citizens do not feel their privacy is being invaded and the government can do its best to protect its citizens and create a safer country.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3046135/security/edward-snowden-privacy-cant-depend-on-corporations-standing-up-to-the-government.html
Privacy is a very sacred thing, and every individual’s should be respected. If the government encroaches upon an individual’s privacy, it has violated its citizens’ trust. With free speech and freedom of the press, an individual has access to many resources through which they can find data. If the government monitors what its citizens are searching for, it is violating the fundamental social contract that it has with the American people. In a perfect society, privacy and government power would be balanced and the government would be able to use the information it gains to create a safer environment for the American people. In reality, there are no boundaries to what the government can monitor and look at, something not brought to light until Snowden.
In the article “Privacy can't depend on corporations standing up to the government”, Snowden talks of how free software's transparency and openness are cornerstones to preserving user privacy in the connected age. He believes that private data these days only stays private at the sufferance of the major tech companies that administer devices and services. Given the increasing centrality of smartphones and social networks and the myriad of other digital communication methods to modern life, simply trusting that those tech companies will protect their users' privacy is insufficient.
In my opinion, while privacy is an important thing that must be respected, the government does need to do something in order to protect its people. Both sides need to find a balance so that citizens do not feel their privacy is being invaded and the government can do its best to protect its citizens and create a safer country.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3046135/security/edward-snowden-privacy-cant-depend-on-corporations-standing-up-to-the-government.html
Tech Musing #3 Chomsky Principle #5
After reading through Chomsky’s 10 principles I was able to
see just how important his explanation of the principles were. Personally I
found his 5th principle, of attacking solidarity, to be most
intriguing. Chomsky believes that the only way people will go after issues like social
security and public education is by taking away the idea of caring about others
out of people’s heads. Understanding just how hard it is to expect change or
want change when people are so emotionally attached. It is hard to go after issues like public education and social security since it affects so many families, but in
the end for things to get better as a whole a change needs to be made.
I also found an article about a debt free college
option that reminded me of how Chomsky discussed how college was basically free
in the 1950s yet it's impossible today. In
Chomsky’s 5th principle he discusses how with the G.I. Bill and
other public funding the U.S. was able to make college basically free, and yet
now that we are much wealthier than in the 1950’s we have serious experts who
say its impossible to make college free. Purdue University is trying to take a
new approach to let students be debt-free. The program is for juniors and
seniors who can apply for an income-share agreement that makes the student
promise a share of future earnings in exchange for cash. However, unlike most
loan situations students currently face if a graduate earns nothing they pay
nothing, and all contracts last no longer than nine years. The biggest concerns
for this new debt free option is creating competition with the government, and
only having poor performing students go after this option.
Chomsky’s principles make a lot of good points, and seeing
the current changes in the country I think we can benefit from these principles a little bit. The program Purdue University is starting is in no way
attacking solidarity like Chomsky wants but I do think it is a step in the
right direction. Taking the control out of the parent’s hands and into the student’s
shifts the responsibility of the debt after college with a program like this and can hopefully move towards making changes with issues like social security and public
education. All of Chomsky’s principles are thought provoking we as a society just need to take the
time to try and make a change for the better even if it isn't easy.
Sources:
TM 3 US of Secrets
The Frontline video started out about Edward Snowden. Given my background in IT & IS security, there are a vast number of trusts, privileges, procedures, and laws he violated in doing what he did, and he should be tried for each of them. I'm curious as to how he gained the type of access he had to within the systems he did because it's a gross violation of not only his non-disclosure agreements, but being familiar with the formalities in place for that type of access, he would have had to receive even greater access to individual programs within whatever he was looking at. So whistle-blowing aside, he had violated security accesses, received and transported classified data, disclosed classified information in unsecured means to people who were not cleared to receive it, and I'm sure I could list off other violations. Regardless of the content of the leaks, my professional side finds him extremely in the wrong for everything he did.
This may be the geek in me, but I think William Binney was a genius. I understand how many people feel that their internet privacy was "violated" by the government's actions, but you have to give him credit for designing a system of this magnitude and including an ability to encrypt private information within the system. That being said, I have no problem at all that this system existed in the state that Binney had designed it.
The issue degraded when the executive staff and counsel removed the bystander encryption that would have still upheld the 4th amendment rights of the US population. Privacy is not something to be expected outside of encrypted channels. Everything on the internet is accessible to someone else in some way or another, which is one reason why I do not trust cloud computing as a business platform.
The volume of industrial espionage and terrorism planning conducted online against the US from within its borders is a constant occurrence. A program like this, done the way it should have, legally, would have benefited the US intelligence community and national security in ways no other country is capable of.
This may be the geek in me, but I think William Binney was a genius. I understand how many people feel that their internet privacy was "violated" by the government's actions, but you have to give him credit for designing a system of this magnitude and including an ability to encrypt private information within the system. That being said, I have no problem at all that this system existed in the state that Binney had designed it.
The issue degraded when the executive staff and counsel removed the bystander encryption that would have still upheld the 4th amendment rights of the US population. Privacy is not something to be expected outside of encrypted channels. Everything on the internet is accessible to someone else in some way or another, which is one reason why I do not trust cloud computing as a business platform.
The volume of industrial espionage and terrorism planning conducted online against the US from within its borders is a constant occurrence. A program like this, done the way it should have, legally, would have benefited the US intelligence community and national security in ways no other country is capable of.
A Reflection of the Conversation on Privacy
Beside the limited, biased material I have read and heard from the major news sources, I've never had a quality conversation with another individual discussing the actions of Edward Snowden largely due either party not knowing enough to draw an real conclusions. I watched the Conversation on Privacy over the live stream posted on the Web and was pretty surprised by how broad a concept privacy is. The following blog discusses some of the material that I took away from the discussion. This post is not intended to fully recap the discussion only to bring up the topics that I found most interesting.
Nuala O'Connor brought up a very interesting point when she said that the word "privacy" was not outlined in the U.S. Constitution. She started questioning what is privacy. Is it a contractual bond between the people and its' government? Is it an inherent right of the individual? Glenn Greenwald had the best response to Nuala in my opinion. Greenwald stated that even though the word privacy isn't written down in the Constitution, the concept of what privacy is defined conceptually in the Constitution. What Glenn is referring to is a section of the Constitution that states the illegality of a public entity entering and searching an individuals home without proper justification and consent from the judicial branch. The next assumption is that individual's activity on their personal device is an extension of themselves. The Center for Democracy and Technology defines this assumption as the Digital Self. I think Greenwald's argument for why privacy exists even though it isn't directly defined in the Constitution is reasonable and I agree with the CDT's Digital Self, that a individual's data generated from their use of technology is an extension of their privacy just as any activity performed within a home is private.
A few other interesting topics that were presented during the Conversation on Privacy are the development and contention between Self-Creation and the Domination of State. Noam Chomsky brought up this point early in the presentation. He points out that the Internet was developed in a Pentagon sponsored lab at MIT, so it was largely developed in the State sector and has been commercializing over the past 25 years. So what is the Internet? The government created it and undoubtedly released it to the public with some motive in mind (economic, power hungry, who knows, I certainly don't). I'm not quite sure what the answer to that might be because it is many things to many different people, just like how Edward Snowden said that privacy in a modern context is always different between individuals. My opinion on the conflict between Self-Creation and the Domination of State is that at this point in time Self-Creation is fairly dependent upon the Domination of State. For example, without the government developing the Internet who knows when such a technology would have entered the private market. So is it all a game for Big Brother, in which we, the individuals, are provided the illusion of self-creation and development, definitely not. How dependent is the State on its' people? In my opinion not a whole lot. How dependent are the people upon the State? More so than the State is upon us. These are a few questions I found myself asking while watching the video of the discussion.
At the end of the discussion Noam Chomsky is asked about his view of the actions taken by Snowden and journalists like Greenwald and MacAskill. Chomsky responded in an exuberant manner; he stated how happy and proud he was of these individuals and their contribution to society. I have to agree with him. I don't believe that Snowden did anything to hurt the people of the U.S., since Snowden and Greenwald spoke to the U.S. Gov't about every document they planned on releasing! The only group Snowden hurt and scared was the Gov't. From my view point it is very interesting that an individual is a major enemy to the State, but far from an enemy of the people. Hope you've enjoyed my rant!
https://web.sbs.arizona.edu/privacy
Nuala O'Connor brought up a very interesting point when she said that the word "privacy" was not outlined in the U.S. Constitution. She started questioning what is privacy. Is it a contractual bond between the people and its' government? Is it an inherent right of the individual? Glenn Greenwald had the best response to Nuala in my opinion. Greenwald stated that even though the word privacy isn't written down in the Constitution, the concept of what privacy is defined conceptually in the Constitution. What Glenn is referring to is a section of the Constitution that states the illegality of a public entity entering and searching an individuals home without proper justification and consent from the judicial branch. The next assumption is that individual's activity on their personal device is an extension of themselves. The Center for Democracy and Technology defines this assumption as the Digital Self. I think Greenwald's argument for why privacy exists even though it isn't directly defined in the Constitution is reasonable and I agree with the CDT's Digital Self, that a individual's data generated from their use of technology is an extension of their privacy just as any activity performed within a home is private.
A few other interesting topics that were presented during the Conversation on Privacy are the development and contention between Self-Creation and the Domination of State. Noam Chomsky brought up this point early in the presentation. He points out that the Internet was developed in a Pentagon sponsored lab at MIT, so it was largely developed in the State sector and has been commercializing over the past 25 years. So what is the Internet? The government created it and undoubtedly released it to the public with some motive in mind (economic, power hungry, who knows, I certainly don't). I'm not quite sure what the answer to that might be because it is many things to many different people, just like how Edward Snowden said that privacy in a modern context is always different between individuals. My opinion on the conflict between Self-Creation and the Domination of State is that at this point in time Self-Creation is fairly dependent upon the Domination of State. For example, without the government developing the Internet who knows when such a technology would have entered the private market. So is it all a game for Big Brother, in which we, the individuals, are provided the illusion of self-creation and development, definitely not. How dependent is the State on its' people? In my opinion not a whole lot. How dependent are the people upon the State? More so than the State is upon us. These are a few questions I found myself asking while watching the video of the discussion.
At the end of the discussion Noam Chomsky is asked about his view of the actions taken by Snowden and journalists like Greenwald and MacAskill. Chomsky responded in an exuberant manner; he stated how happy and proud he was of these individuals and their contribution to society. I have to agree with him. I don't believe that Snowden did anything to hurt the people of the U.S., since Snowden and Greenwald spoke to the U.S. Gov't about every document they planned on releasing! The only group Snowden hurt and scared was the Gov't. From my view point it is very interesting that an individual is a major enemy to the State, but far from an enemy of the people. Hope you've enjoyed my rant!
https://web.sbs.arizona.edu/privacy
Tech musing 3 - You, Me, the Government, and the Not So Friendly Neighborhood Hacker. - My thoughts after Snowden and the craze to protect our personal data.
While thinking about Snowden and the growing concern for data privacy by the citizens of the United States, I couldn't help but remember an advertisement I came across while watching youtube one day. The advertisement, that I have linked below, is a 20+ minute video created by Norton, an antivirus and software security company titled "The Most Dangerous Town On The Internet" and subtitled Where Cybercrime Goes to Hide. This got me thinking about the extent that some people, or governments, may go to protect their data.
Note: This video regarding BulletProof hosting that my tech musing is about, is the second video in the series that Norton has made, for further watching if you are interested, both videos can be found via the Norton website here:
Part 1: http://us.norton.com/mostdangeroustown/index.html#!/en-US/movie
Part 2: http://us.norton.com/mostdangeroustown2 (This is the video about BulletProof hosting)
The video is all about BulletProof Hosting. In other words, hosting data in locations that are essentially bulletproof on the physical level. Some locations that are visited in the video are Cyberbunker, a nuclear bunker in the south of Holland, or the Principality of Sealand, an abandoned WW2 gun platform, which considers itself a sovereign country.
A lot of the other posts I've read by my classmates for this tech musing have revolved around the general theme of civilians and the security of their personal data. This made the other side of the coin very clear to me, the question of not how can I protect my data, but how does the government protect their data, and is there anything that I can learn from that to better protect myself, or even what concerns do I have about the ways that they protect their data.
It is certainly not a lie that the dark web is a thing that exists and it is by no means a safe place to be. Although no official claims were made by any of the data hosting locations visited in the Norton video, it was clearly suggested that some of the clients of a service like CyberBunker could include those who are involved with the dark web for illegal activities as well as even governments. Bullet proof hosting is most likely extremely expensive but both governments and companies may be using it.
One quote particularly worried me about what kinds of data the government might have and what is being done with it. "It seems Cyber Bunker had evolved from a place where scammers and hackers go to hide, to where Governments and corporations do the same." If it is as was said in the John Oliver video included in the prompt for the assignment that governments may very well have records of what was said on phone calls or that raunchy picture sent to a lover, does the US government have that data, and are they using a service like Cyber Bunker to store and hide that data? No doubt exists that this is a worrisome thought that a government like our own may be legally storing stolen data from it's own citizens.
Bahnhof is another such bullet proof hosting company out there. This one in particular hosted WikiLeaks at the height of its prominence. As we all should know, Ed Snowden is not the WikiLeaks guy, but Snowden could have used a service like Bahnhof to store the information that he stole from the government. Bullet proof hosting services often try to look at themselves like a bank or post office, but the difference is a post office or bank would have to respond to complaints that a danger was in the building. It is of my opinion that bullet proof hosting shouldn't really be necessary and largely is a pointless step to take unless you are trying very very hard to keep data out of the hands of James Bond. Nonetheless, bullet proof hosting services are a safe haven for many people with malicious intent. Hosting in a place like the Principality of Sealand would allow a hacker or scammer to essentially hand pick what laws they want and don't want to apply to them. I wish I could say that there will just be an easy way that the United Nations could eliminate all of these services, but the problem is that even if we wished to stop bullet proof hosting services from hosting dangerous material, it would be like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Turning down a customer because they are going to or are hosting dangerous data will just cause them to go to the next service in line. Acting like a post office or a bank is just bad for business. If one service goes down, two more will rise up to take its place and make major amounts of money on the opportunity. In the world of bullet proof hosting, Hail Hydra.
Note: This video regarding BulletProof hosting that my tech musing is about, is the second video in the series that Norton has made, for further watching if you are interested, both videos can be found via the Norton website here:
Part 1: http://us.norton.com/mostdangeroustown/index.html#!/en-US/movie
Part 2: http://us.norton.com/mostdangeroustown2 (This is the video about BulletProof hosting)
The video is all about BulletProof Hosting. In other words, hosting data in locations that are essentially bulletproof on the physical level. Some locations that are visited in the video are Cyberbunker, a nuclear bunker in the south of Holland, or the Principality of Sealand, an abandoned WW2 gun platform, which considers itself a sovereign country.
A lot of the other posts I've read by my classmates for this tech musing have revolved around the general theme of civilians and the security of their personal data. This made the other side of the coin very clear to me, the question of not how can I protect my data, but how does the government protect their data, and is there anything that I can learn from that to better protect myself, or even what concerns do I have about the ways that they protect their data.
It is certainly not a lie that the dark web is a thing that exists and it is by no means a safe place to be. Although no official claims were made by any of the data hosting locations visited in the Norton video, it was clearly suggested that some of the clients of a service like CyberBunker could include those who are involved with the dark web for illegal activities as well as even governments. Bullet proof hosting is most likely extremely expensive but both governments and companies may be using it.
One quote particularly worried me about what kinds of data the government might have and what is being done with it. "It seems Cyber Bunker had evolved from a place where scammers and hackers go to hide, to where Governments and corporations do the same." If it is as was said in the John Oliver video included in the prompt for the assignment that governments may very well have records of what was said on phone calls or that raunchy picture sent to a lover, does the US government have that data, and are they using a service like Cyber Bunker to store and hide that data? No doubt exists that this is a worrisome thought that a government like our own may be legally storing stolen data from it's own citizens.
Bahnhof is another such bullet proof hosting company out there. This one in particular hosted WikiLeaks at the height of its prominence. As we all should know, Ed Snowden is not the WikiLeaks guy, but Snowden could have used a service like Bahnhof to store the information that he stole from the government. Bullet proof hosting services often try to look at themselves like a bank or post office, but the difference is a post office or bank would have to respond to complaints that a danger was in the building. It is of my opinion that bullet proof hosting shouldn't really be necessary and largely is a pointless step to take unless you are trying very very hard to keep data out of the hands of James Bond. Nonetheless, bullet proof hosting services are a safe haven for many people with malicious intent. Hosting in a place like the Principality of Sealand would allow a hacker or scammer to essentially hand pick what laws they want and don't want to apply to them. I wish I could say that there will just be an easy way that the United Nations could eliminate all of these services, but the problem is that even if we wished to stop bullet proof hosting services from hosting dangerous material, it would be like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Turning down a customer because they are going to or are hosting dangerous data will just cause them to go to the next service in line. Acting like a post office or a bank is just bad for business. If one service goes down, two more will rise up to take its place and make major amounts of money on the opportunity. In the world of bullet proof hosting, Hail Hydra.
Tech Musing #3- My view from NSA surveillance survey
From a personal standpoint, I care more about how public react to the issue of government surveillance. After watching all the 5 videos on class blog, including the interview between John Oliver’s and Edward Snowden, I thought that the number of people who pay attention to this issue is decreasing because there are no clear evidences to show this action would affect normal people’s life. Meanwhile, government announced that surveillance programs are for national defense proposes and that statement gained more supporters especially after multiple terrorist acuities happened around the country.
According to the article that I found on PewReserach Center, 54% of Americans disapprove of the NSA surveillance while 42% approve of the program. Furthermore, people also say anti-terrorism policies have not gone far enough to adequately protect them.
Nonetheless, most Americans still hold strong view about the importance of privacy in their everyday lives. As 73% of adults say that being in control of who can get information about them is “very important” and 93% say “important”. From these numbers, we see that when it comes to more self-interested questions, people will choose the options that favor to themselves. When government trying to keep terrorists away by using special methods, Edward Snowden actually put public and government in an embarrassing position mainly because our society dose not have the capacity to handle situation like this.
The takeaway for me as a MIS student is that government performs mass data analysis through collecting privacy information such as email and phone calls from data centers. In the future, there could be a safer, faster and easier way to analysis these data without storing privacy information but analyzes it through computer or other form of technologies not human.
Link: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/
According to the article that I found on PewReserach Center, 54% of Americans disapprove of the NSA surveillance while 42% approve of the program. Furthermore, people also say anti-terrorism policies have not gone far enough to adequately protect them.
Nonetheless, most Americans still hold strong view about the importance of privacy in their everyday lives. As 73% of adults say that being in control of who can get information about them is “very important” and 93% say “important”. From these numbers, we see that when it comes to more self-interested questions, people will choose the options that favor to themselves. When government trying to keep terrorists away by using special methods, Edward Snowden actually put public and government in an embarrassing position mainly because our society dose not have the capacity to handle situation like this.
The takeaway for me as a MIS student is that government performs mass data analysis through collecting privacy information such as email and phone calls from data centers. In the future, there could be a safer, faster and easier way to analysis these data without storing privacy information but analyzes it through computer or other form of technologies not human.
Link: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)