Yesterday, WikiLeaks released its latest batch of pilfered CIA material, five documents describing malicious software for taking over Apple MacBooks and iPhones, and wrote in an accompanying post that “the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets,” prompting concerned readers to wonder if their iPhone or MacBook had been infected on the factory floor. In a statement, Apple says that is almost certainly not the case.
Finally, Yahoo’s possible betrayal of its users is another example of why whistleblowers and leaks to the press are so important. The US government considers this type of surveillance “legal” even though it shocks the conscience of many ordinary Americans and dozens of civil liberties groups have been attempting to have courts rule it illegal for years.
ft.com > Companies >TechnologySubscribe Sign in Home World Companies Energy Financials Health Industrials Luxury 360 Media Retail & Consumer Tech Telecoms Transport By Region Tools Markets Global Economy Lex Comment Work & Careers Life & Arts Try the new FT.comLast updated: September 23, 2016 11:59 pmYahoo faces questions over delay in data breach revelationNic Fildes and Madhumita Murgia in London, Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco Share Print Clip Commentsepa05552696 The Yahoo logo is pictured on a computer monitor in Taipei, Taiwan, 23 September 2016. According to news reports on 23 September, around 500 million Yahoo account users information had been stolen or hacked on its network in 2014. EPA/RITCHIE B. TONGO©EPAYahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer and her board are facing serious questions over the handling of the largest-ever cyber attack recorded, as customers, regulators and even its new owners search for answers on why a two-year-old data breach has only just come to light.
Important Update: Michael Best has now come out and said that it was actually he who uploaded the files in question, which he got from the somewhat infamous (i.e., hacked the Hacking Team) hacker Phineas Fisher. Through a somewhat convoluted set of circumstances, it appeared the files were associated with the Wikileaks leak when they were not — and then basically everyone just started calling each other names:
Cada cierto tiempo surgen nuevas noticias que dan cuenta de cómo hackers y whistleblowers develan información de interés público, usualmente política. Incluso en algunos países latinoamericanos se han creado plataformas que permiten hacer denuncias anónimas, siguiendo la misma tendencia. Esta actividad ha venido a suplir la falta de canales formales de acceso a la información pública, pero pueden presentar algunos problemas.
Los datos de 93.4 millones de votantes mexicanos se filtraron y publicaron en el servidor de Amazon Cloud. Se trata de identificaciones básicas, fotografías y direcciones del 75% de la población mexicana. El investigador Chris Vickery dio con la información. No estaba protegida por contraseñas, no estaba en venta y cualquiera la podía bajar. Hizo lo posible por retirarla cuanto antes. Denunció ante Amazon, alertó al Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos y previno a la Embajada de México en Estados Unidos. Le hicieron poco caso.
NEWLY DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS offer a rare insight into the secretive legal regime underpinning the British government’s controversial mass surveillance programs.The London-based group Privacy International obtained the previously confidential files as part of an ongoing legal case challenging the scope of British spies’ covert collection of huge troves of private data.
There have been two main responses to the leak of the Panama Papers.The first has been a great shrug of indifference: so what? The rich and powerful do things that only the rich and powerful can do. The second is a warm, indeed enthusiastic, welcome to this dramatic exercise in transparency: we can now see how the rich and powerful do the things that only the rich and powerful can do. The political consequences of the leak, for example in Iceland and the UK, indicate that the transparency in turn is leading to greater accountability.Are these the only valid responses? Is there any issue here about privacy and the right to confidential legal advice? Or are such concerns mere fusspottery and point-missing?
El documental de Laura Poitras cuenta los primeros momentos de la mayor filtración de espionaje de un Gobierno en la historia
La existencia de un segundo filtrador dentro de la NSA y el reencuentro de Snowden con su pareja en Moscú son las dos revelaciones del documental
La fecha de estreno en España está prevista para el 27 de marzo
Marilín Gonzalo – Madrid
La película de Laura Poitras es un documental imprescindible para entender esta nueva etapa de internet. Citizenfour es, primero, un documento histórico que recoge de primerísima mano el encuentro de Edward Snowden con los periodistas que le ayudaron a revelar al mundo el mayor espionaje masivo conocido; y después, una película inquietante, donde es la información y no la música la que nos hace darnos cuenta de que no estamos viendo ciencia ficción.
Como dice Snowden a un absorto Glenn Greenwald tras contarle cómo funciona XKeyscore, un programa de la NSA: “Esto ya está sucediendo”.
La documentalista que ayudó a Snowden presenta su documental en Europa, ‘Citizenfour’, donde muestra cómo fue la preparación de la mayor filtración de la historia
“Snowden no está cooperando o trabajando para ninguna otra agencia de inteligencia, eso es simplemente una historia creada por el Gobierno”, asegura la periodista, elegida por el propio extrabajador de la NSA para hacer pública su filtración
“Lo que Glenn y yo publicamos ahora con Snowden cuestiona directamente el liderazgo de Obama”
Silvia Font – Ámsterdam, Países Bajos
A estas alturas de la película, ¿quién no sabe quién es Edward Snowden? Su denuncia sobre los sistemas de espionaje masivo e indiscriminado utilizados por la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos (NSA) contra gobiernos, corporaciones y hasta sus propios ciudadanos ha pasado ya a la historia como la mayor filtración de un trabajador de los servicios de inteligencia jamás publicada. Y si a alguien hemos de dar gracias por ello –además de al joven informático– es a Laura Poitras, documentalista estadounidense afincada en Berlín, a quien Citizenfour eligió para hacer pública su historia “sin importar lo que le pasara a él”. Ella, arriesgando también su vida, así lo hizo.
A gang of hackers who collected and traded nude pictures of female celebrities by routinely breaking into Apple‘s iCloud system were the source of private photographs leaked online, new evidence shows.
Private photos and videos of more than 100 mostly female American and British stars were released on the internet on Monday from the 4chan website, sparking condemnation from the Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence and other actors including Kirsten Dunst, Kate Upton and Briton Jessica Brown Findlay.
Chatroom transcripts show that “OriginalGuy”, a member of the gang who has now gone on the run, boasted that the hacking of accounts belonging to Lawrence and others “is the result of several months of long and hard work” and that “several people were in on it”.
Other chatroom transcripts show that the gang had offered nude pictures of female celebrities and athletes for sale, and others offered to “rip” the iCloud backup accounts containing photos for anyone once they were given their user name and password. The iCloud backups come from the stars’ iPhones, which automatically store photos online for up to 30 days or until they are downloaded.
The revelation comes as the FBI and Apple started investigating the security breach, the most serious ever to affect the iPhone maker and a serious blow to its efforts to push new devices expected to incorporate mobile payment functions next week.
There are more than 800 million iCloud accounts globally – but the chatroom transcripts suggest there is now a growing semi-professional trade in “ripping” iCloud accounts, posing a serious problem for Apple’s security profile.
There will always be another leak, because there is always curiosity in the bodies of nude celebrity women. There is always danger in being an Other
Privacy is a privilege. It is rarely enjoyed by women or transgender men and women, queer people or people of color. When you are an Other, you are always in danger of having your body or some other intimate part of yourself exposed in one way or another. A stranger reaches out and touches a pregnant woman’s belly. A man walking down the street offers an opinion on a woman’s appearance or implores her to smile. A group of teenagers driving by as a person of color walks on a sidewalk shout racial slurs, interrupting their quiet.
For most people, privacy is little more than an illusion, one we create so we can feel less vulnerable as we move through the world, so we can believe some parts of ourselves are sacred and free from uninvited scrutiny. The further away you are from living as a white, heterosexual, middle-class man, the less privacy you enjoy – the more likely your illusions of privacy will be shattered when you least expect it.
For celebrities, privacy is utterly nonexistent. You are asked intrusive questions about your personal life. You can be photographed at any moment. Your family is investigated, photographed or harassed daily – parents, children, sometimes even siblings also losing any semblance of privacy simply because you share the same blood or name. Celebrity is, in some ways, an infection that is only marginally beneficial.
We’re not going to cry for celebrities, of course, not really. When you choose that life, you must sacrifice certain dignities for the privilege of fame, of fortune. For the most part, these intrusions or privacy are all in good fun, fodder for gossip magazines and websites – because … celebrities, they’re just like us! They go to the grocery store! They drink coffee! They wear sweatpants! Celebrities are just like us until they aren’t, until such intrusion involves the celebrity woman’s body, in intimate poses, splayed across the internet for delectation and debauchery and debate.
On Sunday, a user on 4chan made good on a promise made several days ago and leaked nude and otherwise revealing photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Lea Michele, Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst, Hope Solo and other famous young women. This leak is likely only the beginning. Because there will always be another leak, because there is an insatiable curiosity when it comes to the nude celebrity woman’s body. She puts herself in the public eye and, in turn, we are entitled to see as much of her as we so desire, or so I am sure the justification goes.
It goes without saying that there aren’t many nude photos of men being released. Men are largely free to bare their bodies as they choose without repercussion, unless, as is the case of Dave Franco with Allison Brie and Justin Verlander with Upton, the man happens to be in a picture with a young woman, collateral damage.
It’s not clear what the people who leak these photos hope to achieve beyond financial gain and a moment of notoriety. I suppose such impoverished currency is enough. The why of these questions is hardly relevant. These hackers are not revealing anything the general public does not already know. BREAKING: beneath their clothes, celebrities are naked.
iction and films, the nearest most of us knowingly get to the world of espionage, give us a series of reliable stereotypes. British spies are hard-bitten, libidinous he-men. Russian agents are thickset, low-browed and facially scarred. And defectors end up as tragic old soaks in Moscow, scanning old copies of the Times for news of the Test match.
Such a fate was anticipated for Edward Snowden by Michael Hayden, a former NSA and CIA chief, who predicted last September that the former NSA analyst would be stranded in Moscow for the rest of his days – “isolated, bored, lonely, depressed… and alcoholic”.
But the Edward Snowden who materialises in our hotel room shortly after noon on the appointed day seems none of those things. A year into his exile in Moscow, he feels less, not more, isolated. If he is depressed, he doesn’t show it. And, at the end of seven hours of conversation, he refuses a beer. “I actually don’t drink.” He smiles when repeating Hayden’s jibe. “I was like, wow, their intelligence is worse than I thought.”
Oliver Stone, who is working on a film about the man now standing in room 615 of the Golden Apple hotel on Moscow’s Malaya Dmitrovka, might struggle to make his subject live up to the canon of great movie spies. The American director has visited Snowden in Moscow, and wants to portray him as an out-and-out hero, but he is an unconventional one: quiet, disciplined, unshowy, almost academic in his speech. If Snowden has vices – and God knows they must have been looking for them – none has emerged in the 13 months since he slipped away from his life as a contracted NSA analyst in Hawaii, intent on sharing the biggest cache of top-secret material the world has ever seen.
Since arriving in Moscow, Snowden has been keeping late and solitary hours – effectively living on US time, tapping away on one of his three computers (three to be safe; he uses encrypted chat, too). If anything, he appears more connected and outgoing than he could be in his former life as an agent. Of his life now, he says, “There’s actually not that much difference. You know, I think there are guys who are just hoping to see me sad. And they’re going to continue to be disappointed.”
When the Guardian first spoke to Snowden a year ago in Hong Kong, he had been dishevelled, his hair uncombed, wearing jeans and a T-shirt. The 31-year-old who materialised last week was smartly, if anonymously, dressed in black trousers and grey jacket, his hair tidily cut. He is jockey-light – even skinnier than a year ago. And he looks pale: “Probably three steps from death,” he jokes. “I mean, I don’t eat a whole lot. I keep a weird schedule. I used to be very active, but just in the recent period I’ve had too much work to focus on.”
There was no advance warning of where we would meet: his only US television interview, with NBC’s Brian Williams in May, was conducted in an anonymous hotel room of Snowden’s choosing. This time, he prefers to come to us. On his arrival, there is a warm handshake for Guardian reporter Ewen MacAskill, whom he last saw in Hong Kong – a Sunday night after a week of intense work in a frowsty hotel room, a few hours before the video revealing his identity to the world went public. Neither man knew if they would ever meet again.
Snowden orders chicken curry from room service and, as he forks it down, is immediately into the finer points of the story that yanked him from a life of undercover anonymity to global fame. The Snowden-as-alcoholic jibe is not the only moment when he reflects wryly on his former colleagues’ patchy ability to get on top of events over the past year. There was, for instance, the incident last July when a plane carrying President Evo Morales back to Bolivia from Moscow was forced down in Vienna and searched for a stowaway Snowden. “I was like, first off, wow, their intelligence sucks, from listening to everything. But, two, are they really going to the point of just completely humiliating the president of a Latin American nation, the representative of so many people? It was just shockingly poorly thought out, and yet they did it anyway, and they keep at these sort of mistakes.” It was as if they were trying not to find him. “I almost felt like I had some sort of friend in government.”
El gobierno de Reino Unido reveló que su servicio de inteligencia, GCHQ, puede intervenir las cuentas de Google y Facebook de sus ciudadanos sin autorización legal porque dichas compañías están basadas en el exterior.
El jefe de inteligencia británico, Charles Farr, afirmó que esos servicios están clasificados como comunicaciones externas.
La política de fisgoneo fue revelada como parte de una lucha legal que viene librándose con el grupo activista Privacy Iternational (PI).
Anyone’s Google searches or use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can be monitored by the security services because such “external communications” do not require individual intercept warrants, according to the government’s most senior security official.
Charles Farr, director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, has produced the first detailed justification of the UK’s mass surveillance policy – developing a legal interpretation that critics say sidesteps the need for traditional intercept safeguards.
His 48 page document, released on Tuesday, provoked calls for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to be overhauled urgently and allegations that the government was exploiting loopholes in the legislation of which parliament was unaware.
The government defence was published in response to a case brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty International and other civil rights groups before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which deals with complaints against the intelligence services. A full hearing will take place next month.
The allegation that mass online surveillance is illegal emerged in the wake of revelations from the US whistleblower Edward Snowden about the impact of the Tempora monitoring programme operated by the UK monitoring agency GCHQ and the US National Security Agency (NSA).
Under RIPA, traditional interception of communications within the UK requires an individual warrant. Farr argues that in a technologicallly-fast moving world, where the greatest threat to national security is from “militant Islamist terrorists” operating both abroad and in the UK, identifying individual targets initially is too difficult.
He says: “Any regime that … only permitted interception in relation to specific persons or premises, would not have allowed adequate levels of intelligence information to be obtained and would not have met the undoubted requirements of intelligence for the protection of national security.”
Farr’s statement, published on Tuesday by Privacy International and other human rights organisations, is the first time the government has commented on how it exploits the UK’s legal framework to operate its mass interception programme.
Under section 8(1) of RIPA, internal communications between British residents within the UK may only be monitored pursuant to a specific warrant. These specific warrants should only be granted where there is some reason to suspect the person in question of unlawful activity. “External communications”, however, may be monitored indiscriminately under a general warrant according to section 8(4).
Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, said: “Intelligence agencies cannot be considered accountable to parliament and to the public they serve when their actions are obfuscated through secret interpretations of byzantine laws.
“Tengo la intención de pedir asilo a cualquier país que crea en la libertad de expresión y se oponga a que la privacidad global sea la víctima”, declaró el joven Edward Snowden, un ex técnico de la CIA que trabajó como consultor para la Agencia Nacional de Inteligencia (NSA) de Estados Unidos,que fue la fuente del diario The Guardian.