Monthly Archives: March 2015

Shailene Woodley calls Edward Snowden a ‘hero’ | Fox News

Posted on by

Shailene Woodley had only kind words for the man who inspired her on-screen love interest in the upcoming Oliver Stone drama about Edward Snowden.

The "Insurgent" star is set to play the National Security Agency whistleblower's girlfriend Lindsay Mills and said he should be celebrated for his work.

"I define a hero as somebody, who against the judgement of other people, if they believe something will positively impact the world and they chose to do it and honor their integrity. That's what I sort of consider a hero, no matter how big or small a feat they create," Woodley told E! News. "And in that light, absolutely I think Edward Snowden is a hero."

Woodley hasn't met Snowden but said she would like to. He has been living in Moscow seeking asylum since 2013 and is facing espionage charges in the United States for leaking classified information to the press.

"You are the epitome of the word selfless," Woodley said of Snowden. "You did something knowing you wouldn't be able to come home, knowing that your country would have very mixed feelings and yet your integrity on what you believe was right or wrong or should be public knowledge was more important to you than almost your own comfortability and the life that you had lived for so long. So I would like say thank you to him."

Joseph Gordon-Levitt will star as Snowden and the rest of the cast includes Nicolas Cage, Zachary Quinto and Scott Eastwood.

WATCH: Break Time: Conrad Hilton faces the consequences

See the original post:
Shailene Woodley calls Edward Snowden a 'hero' | Fox News

Civil liberties groups file lawsuit against NSA

Posted on by

The suit, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, was filed on Tuesday in a Maryland District Court "challenges the suspicion less seizure and searching of internet traffic" by the NSA on U.S. soil, according to court documents.

READ: Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight?

The plaintiffs argue that to do their jobs they must be able to exchange information in confidence, free-from, warrantless government search which undermines the named organizations' ability to communicate with clients, victims of human rights abuses, government officials and other civil society groups.

The plaintiffs also contend NSA spying violates the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as Article III of the Constitution, because the surveillance orders are "in the absence of any case or controversy."

The ACLU's concern is the government's interpretation of the updated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance law, which in 2011 allowed the government to collect 250 million Internet communications under the FISA Amendment Acts. And In 2013, the director of National Intelligence reported the surveillance of almost 90,000 individuals or groups relied on a single court order.

The government contends that "upstream" surveillance is covered by the 2008 surveillance law and the practice includes installing devices, with the assistance of companies such as Verizon and AT&T, onto the network of cables, switches and routers that Internet traffic flows through, known as it's "backbone."

The ACLU further details the NSA's surveillance program by intercepting massive amounts of communication in transit that are then searched alongside thousands of keywords associated with targets of intelligence analysts.

In addition to having weak limitations and numerous exceptions on who they can surveil, the program's pool of potential targets can encompass completely innocent individuals as the only requisite is that the person is likely to communicate "foreign intelligence information, which can include journalists, professors, attorneys or aid workers.

The "upstream" surveillance differs from another spying program carried out by the NSA called "PRISM," where information is obtained directly from U.S. companies providing communications services. "Upstream" allows the government to connect surveillance devices at Internet access points, which are controlled by telecommunications providers.

The rest is here:
Civil liberties groups file lawsuit against NSA

Influencers: Stronger encryption on consumer devices won’t hurt national security (+video)

Posted on by

Three-quarters of Passcode's Influencers disagree with FBI Director James Comey, insisting stronger encryption on consumer devices would not hinder law enforcement and intelligence agencies so much that it would harm national security.

"Its crucial that users demand the highest level of security to both protect our personal privacy and mitigate the potential harm that can result from theft of personal data. Unquestionably, encrypting the content of smartphones makes it more difficult to access that information; thats the point," said Nuala O'Connor, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "However, there are still many legal channels police can pursue to access encrypted data."

Mr. Comey and intelligence officials have criticized companies such as Google and Apple for strengthening encryption on consumer devices because they say it will stymie law enforcement as they track criminals and terrorists. While the 73 percent of Influencers largely acknowledged that encryption will occasionally pose some obstacles to law enforcement, they insisted they were not severe enough to justify built-in government access to data.

"Evidence that this is a serious problem demanding a policy response is laughably weak," said Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez.

"We live in a Golden Age of Surveillance. Never in human history have police had such easy access to such vast quantities of data about people. They'll still be able to use subpoenas or court orders (and the threat of contempt penalties or even obstruction charges) to compel people to decrypt data; they can still surreptitiously attempt to get people's passphrases through physical surveillance," Mr. Sanchez continued. "It is flat out insane to suggest that we should undermine the security of a technology used by hundreds of millions of people for legitimate purposes because of the minuscule fraction of cases where crypto will be the make-or-break factor in a legitimate investigation."

Security pros also had objections, taking issue with intelligence officials' assertions that it would be technologically feasible to provide government access to encrypted data through a secure channel without compromising users' security.

"Much greater harms to national security would result from the government deliberately weakening encryption protocols (again) as the FREAK vulnerability demonstrated this past week," said Chris Finan, chief executive officer of Manifold Security. "DC policymakers shouldn't seek a middle-ground solution on this issue, because it simply doesn't exist when it comes to cryptography.

Get Monitor cybersecurity news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox.

"The only answer is to support the strongest possible encryption protocols, while also enabling law enforcement professionals with the resources needed to conduct classic police work," Mr. Finan continued."The FBI director should realize that the days of relying on backdoor technology shortcuts are over. Encryption is as empowering a technology as gunpowder or firearms, policymakers need to appreciate the irreversibility of this paradigm shift and adapt. Quite simply, governments no longer enjoy a monopoly on technologies like cryptographic protocols or offensive cyberwarfare exploits. There are no tech magic bullets to address these policy challenges."

The Passcode Influencers Poll brings together a diverse group of more than 80 security and privacy experts from across government, the private sector, academia, and the privacy community. To preserve the candor of their responses, Influencers have the choice to keep their comments anonymous, or voice their opinions on the record.

See more here:
Influencers: Stronger encryption on consumer devices won't hurt national security (+video)